Oil Spill Update

By Russell Chianelli

As discussed here earlier this year, the Macondo Gulf of Mexico oil spill was not the disaster that was predicted. Now that the relief well has been drilled and the spill is contained, we can look back at the event. For example, the use of dispersants was fully justified as the following news story describes: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100907/ap_on_sc/us_sci_gulf_spill_where_s_the_oil

“Government scientists studying the BP disaster are reporting the best possible outcome: Microbes are consuming the oil in the Gulf without depleting the oxygen in the water and creating “dead zones” where fish cannot survive. Outside scientists said this so far vindicates the difficult and much-debated decision by BP and the government to use massive amounts of chemical dispersants deep underwater to break up the oil before it reached the surface”. ……… Has it hit the sweet spot? Yes. Was it by design? Partly, said Steve Murawski, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration senior scientist who headed the federal team of researchers.” ¹

“The use of dispersants has been a source of fierce debate because it involves an environmental trade-off: protecting the shoreline from oil at the risk of causing unknown problems in the deep. While dispersants make it easier for bacteria to degrade the oil, they tend to hide oil below the surface. There have also been concerns about the chemicals’ toxicity and the long-term effects on marine life.^”1

In May, the federal government convened about 50 scientists for advice on whether to continue using the dispersants. Though the researchers were divided before the meeting, they unanimously recommended continuing with the chemicals, said University of California Davis oil spill scientist Ron Tjeerdema. “The best of two options, neither of which were great, was to continue dispersing,” Tjeerdema said.¹

Further, Dr. Larry McKinney, director of a Gulf of Mexico research center at Texas A&M University in Corpus Christi, said the new federal data showed that it was a “nearly perfect” outcome. “They hit it on the head, which is good,” said McKinney, who was one of the original scientists reporting on the Ixtoc 1979 oil spill. He reported that the Ixtoc spill, which was probably larger than the Macondo spill, had little impact on the beaches and seafood industry because of the widespread use of dispersants by Pemex, Mexico’s government-owned oil company.¹

A recent C&EN article² reported the same results of beaches and seafood quickly coming “back to normal.” These reports are reminiscent of comments made after the Ixtoc oil spill, “where did the oil go?” Similar comments are being made today. “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”³

1. S. Borenstein. Microbes are eating BP oil without using up oxygen. Associated Press. (2010)
2. C. Hogue, Restricting Dioxide in Dirt. Chem. Eng. News, 88, 22 (2010).
3. G. Santayana, Reason in Common Sense, The Life of Reason, Vol. 1 (1905).
4. Download JAG_Oxygen_Report (FINAL 090410)

For more background and discussion on the science of oil spills and cleanup, see two interviews from KDKA News Radio 1020 (Pittsburgh, PA) from June 8, 2010: KDKA_060810_DrRussChianelli.mp3 Interview by KDKA host Mike Pintek of Russell Chianelli (University of Texas El Paso), "Natural Organisms Fight Oil Spill." KDKA_060810_DrRitaColwell.mp3 Interview by KDKA host Robert Mangino of Rita Colwell (University of Maryland and Johns Hopkins University) commenting on the earlier interview with Russ Chianelli.

KDKA_060810_DrRitaColwell 32 Minutes

KDKA_060810_DrRussChianelli 16 Minutes

 

Comments

[Prof P.Pramanik, Chemistry , Indian Institute of Technology , Kharagpur 721302 INDIA]

Bio compatible dispersant is the safe moles for the problem particularly phosphate based dispersant . We have developed such cheap material from fatt-based chemicals.