BP To EPA: Fuck Off

[phantom power]

This is all going to work out so well.

BP has told the Environmental Protection Agency that it cannot find a safe, effective and available dispersant to use instead of Corexit, and will continue to use that chemical application to help break up the growing spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

BP was responding to an EPA directive Thursday that gave BP 24 hours to identify a less toxic alternative to Corexit -- and 72 hours to start using it -- or provide the Coast Guard and EPA with a "detailed description of the alternative dispersants investigated, and the reason they believe those products did not meet the required standards.

http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/05/bp_is_sticking_with_its_disper.html

From reports on the ground it's sounding like BP is just claiming as their own territory anywhere the oil goes. It's like their invading army.

http://www.eschatonblog.com/2010/05/bp-to-epafuck-off.html

[AndyA]

1. Use of that toxic chemical is all for PR anyway.

Olbermann had it on his show last night. Disbursing the oil does NOTHING to aid in cleaning it up, in fact, it makes it MORE DIFFICULT to clean up, plus it adds a TOXIC chemical to the mix. Should that be ANOTHER TOXIC CHEMICAL to the mix?

BP is doing this so cameras can't photograph oil on the shoreline, which is beginning to show up anyway.

BP needs to be put out of business for this. The executives must be forced to sell their homes, give up everything, and work to clean up the mess their company--under their direction--has made.

When the accident happened, they were having a PARTY on the rig to celebrate their safety record! And while the party was underway, before the explosion, they were by-passing safety procedures to speed things up and save some money!

[John Q. Citizen]

2. Won't happen. The whole point of a corporation is limited liability.

The executives will be fine, no matter what happens, short of widespread revolution. In that case they might have to worry.

[BrklynLiberal]

3. What a crock!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BP and Corexit mfrs are one and the same....

[BrklynLiberal]

4. BP Had Alternative Less Toxic Dispersant to Corexit Sitting on Shore Since Early This Month

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/bp-had-alternative-less-toxic-dispersant-c

[BrklynLiberal]

5. Toxic Oil Dispersant Used in Gulf Despite Better Alternative Read More http://www.wired.com/wiredsc

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/05/gulf-dispersants/


Called Dispersit, it’s manufactured by the U.S. Polychemical Corporation and has been approved for use by the Environmental Protection Agency.Both Corexit and Dispersit were tested by the EPA, and according to those results, Corexit was 54.7 percent effective at breaking down crude oil from the Gulf, and Dispersit was 100 percent effective.

Not only did Corexit do a worse job of dispersing oil, but it was three times as lethal to silverfish – used as a benchmark organism in toxicity testing — and more than twice as lethal to shrimp, another benchmark organism and an important part of Gulf fisheries.

As for why Corexit is being used instead of Dispersit, authorities haven’t yet said. According to the Protect the Ocean blog, U.S. Polychemical executive Bruce Gebhardt said the government had used Corexit before, and was sticking with what it already knows. Corexit makes up most dispersant stockpiles in the United States for this reason, though dispersant manufacture can be easily ramped up.

In a 1999 letter, the U.S. Coast Guard told U.S. Polychemical that “product information from planning mode evaluations remain on file to facilitate rapid review in the context of a spill.” In that same year, the EPA added Dispersit to the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, which determines what will be considered for use in an oil spill.

Read More http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/05/gulf-dispersants/#ixzz0og2C4ZzY

[BrklynLiberal]

6. Corexit: BP Using Dispersants In Gulf Banned In U.K. For Being More Toxic And Less Effective

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/18/corexit-bp-using-dispersa_n_580799.html

[BrklynLiberal]

7. Gulf Oil Spill: BP Trying To Hide Millions of Gallons of Toxic Oil?

http://www.protecttheocean.com/gulf-oil-spill-bp/

BP Embraces Exxon’s Toxic Dispersant, Ignores Safer Alternative

It has been confirmed that the dispersal agent being used by BP and the government is Corexit 9500, a solvent originally developed by Exxon and now manufactured by Nalco Holding Company of Naperville, IL. /NALCO and BP have MANY Board Memebers in common/ Their stock took a sharp jump, up more than 18% at its highest point of the day today, after it was announced that their product is the one being used in the Gulf. Nalco’s CEO, Erik Frywald, expressed their commitment to “helping the people and environment of the Gulf Coast recover as rapidly as possible.” It may be that the best way to help would be to remove their product from the fray. Take a look at some of the facts about Corexit 9500:

A report written by Anita George-Ares and James R. Clark for Exxon Biomedical Sciences, Inc. entitled “Acute Aquatic Toxicity of Three Corexit Products: An Overview” states that “Corexit 9500, Corexit 9527, and Corexit 9580 have moderate toxicity to early life stages of fish, crustaceans and mollusks (LC50 or EC50 – 1.6 to 100 ppm*). It goes on to say that decreasing water temperatures in lab tests showed decreased toxicity, a lowered uptake of the dispersant. Unfortunately, we’re going to be seeing an increase in temperatures, not a decrease. Amongst the other caveats is that the study is species-specific, that other animals may be more severely affected, silver-sided fish amongst them.

Oil is toxic at 11 ppm while Corexit 9500 is toxic at only 2.61 ppm; Corexit 9500 is four times as toxic as the oil itself. Sure, a lot less of it is being introduced, but that’s still a flawed logical perspective, because it’s not a “lesser of two evils” scenario. BOTH are going into the ocean water.

The lesser of two evils seems to be a product called Dispersit, manufactured by Polychem, a division of U.S. Polychemical Corporation. In comparison, water-based Dispersit is toxic at 7.9-8.2 ppm; Dispersit holds about one third of the toxicity that Corexit 9500 presents. Dispersit is a much less harmful water-based product which is both EPA approved and the U.S. Coast Guard’s NCP list. So why isn’t it being used?

We spoke with Bruce Gebhardt at Polychem Marine Products, asked him if Dispersit was being used in the Gulf Oil Spill situation. “Very little,” he replied. When asked why, the impression was that the government had used Corexit 9500 in the past, and was going with what they know — no matter how dangerous that might prove to be.

Dispersit has a demonstrated effectiveness of 100% on the lighter South Louisiana crude, and 40% on Pruhoe Bay’s heavier crude. Exxon’s Corexit 9500 is just 55% effective on SL and 55% effective on PB. On an average, Dispersit is 70% effective, and may prove 100% effective, while 9500 is an average of 50% effective, with a maximum effective use of just 55%. Corexit 9500 is a harsh petroleum-based solvent which is dangerous to people and sea life. Dispersit’s human health effect is “slight to none.” Whether or not a dispersal agent is a wise move, the question remaining unanswered is: Why is Corexit 9500 is being used at all, when the water-based Dispersit is available, markedly more effective and less toxic? Follow the money.

Dispersal of the oil does not eliminate it, nor does it decrease the toxicity of the oil. It just breaks it up into small particles, where it becomes less visible. It’s still there, spewing toxicity at an even greater rate (due to higher surface area.) But now it’s pretty much impossible to skim or trap or vacuum or even soak up at the shoreline, because most of it will never make it to the shoreline. Instead, that toxic crude oil AND the dispersant will be spread all over the ocean’s waters. This is why introducing such a product into the crude oil as it comes out from the pipe is a very bad idea for the ocean.

It may not be pretty, but if the oil makes it to the shore, it can be soaked up, cleaned up. To “disperse” it means it will NEVER be cleaned up. It will just stay out there, polluting and poisoning the ocean, her inhabitants, and all the food we take from it. It’s unwise to be using Corexit 9500 at all, but introducing it to the oil as it leaves the broken pipe is approaching madness. Mr. Gebhardt agrees that the oil should be contained, and what has been leaked should be allowed to come to shore where it can be removed from the ocean by less toxic means.

BP’s use of Corexit 9500 on the oil before it rises to the surface seems to be font color = red]a deliberate attempt to mask the poison, to cover up that it continues to flow out from the ocean’s floor, while making it impossible to recover. In short, BP and Exxon want to spread the toxic oil throughout the oceans of the world, pollute everywhere, rather than allow it to be seen coming to shore where BP would have to pay for its containment and clean-up. It’s our job to keep them from getting away with sweeping this ugly mess under the surface.

http://www.protecttheocean.com/gulf-oil-spill-bp/

[chill_wind]

8. It's all just part of doing business in the (giant vampire squid) family.

Have many seen this factoid? (Gold Sacks)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8387437

[pscot]

9. BP is frantic to hide the scale

of the disaster. The dispersant doesn't eliminate the oil, but it does make it less visible.