Started By
Message

re: Can anyone tell me the name of the dispersant being used?

Posted on 5/3/10 at 10:45 pm to
Posted by BatonRougeRugby
Baton Rouge
Member since Jun 2009
169 posts
Posted on 5/3/10 at 10:45 pm to
No doubt it is the lesser of 2 evil in regards to keeping the oil from coating things (i.e. marsh, birds). They have recommendations for application to minimize the negative consequences, LINK but the risk is still there.

Posted by Decatur
Member since Mar 2007
32762 posts
Posted on 5/3/10 at 10:52 pm to


I really do not like this picture from your link

You would think the oil on the surface could be eventually removed after some effort. After the dispersant is used, the oil/water mixture looks completely mixed...maybe even permanent.
Posted by BatonRougeRugby
Baton Rouge
Member since Jun 2009
169 posts
Posted on 5/3/10 at 10:53 pm to
The additional benefit of the dispersant (besides removing it from the surface) is that by breaking it up into smaller particles there is more surface area for bacteria to consume/remove the oil. But you are still left with the potential toxicity of the product.
Posted by Tiger in Tejas
Where y''at?
Member since Mar 2005
461 posts
Posted on 5/3/10 at 10:56 pm to
Dispersants will no doubt significantly reduce the amount of time for mother nature to take care of the oil. The oil (carbon-based) will naturally break down in the environment. The dispersants break the oil up into tiny droplets or particles which increases the surface area with which natural forces can break it down into carbon and hydrogen. There is evidence that proves the benefits of dispersants. Scientific evidence to the contrary is inconclusive at best. I promise you, MMS, USCG, BP, and TransOcean all want the same thing as you and I....clean this up as quickly and with as little environmental impact as possible.
Posted by MoreOrLes
Member since Nov 2008
19472 posts
Posted on 5/3/10 at 11:51 pm to
LINK

Well this does not sound good.

Nor this comment....course he is selling something


quote:

We at US polychemical hae a patented oil dispersant that is on third the toxicity of the Corexit product currently being used. Corexit has beed the 800 pound gorilla in the room for years keeping the enviormentally friendly products such as ours out of the stockpiles.
This post was edited on 5/3/10 at 11:54 pm
Posted by YatTigah
Lakeview, New Orleans, LA
Member since May 2010
517 posts
Posted on 5/4/10 at 12:23 am to
i think we're kind of at a point where we have to accept that either the coast or the gulf itself is going to be contaminated for a fairly long period of time.

the thing we have to decide is whether it is more to our advantage to protect the marsh or the water. IMO, mother nature can take care of the dispersed oil although it may take some time. if this oil coats the marsh there's no way to get it out.
Posted by MoreOrLes
Member since Nov 2008
19472 posts
Posted on 5/4/10 at 12:26 am to
I agree with you but did not want to hear it.

This just flat out sucks. I will miss fishing in Venice.
Posted by YatTigah
Lakeview, New Orleans, LA
Member since May 2010
517 posts
Posted on 5/4/10 at 12:32 am to
i think this cofferdam is a big deal. if this works i think you'll find that this disaster will have been much less damaging than first feared. that doesn't mean it still won't be a terrible disaster.
Posted by GEAUX DJ!
Plaquemine
Member since Jan 2005
1972 posts
Posted on 5/4/10 at 8:20 am to
I work for a chemical company in St. Charles parish and I know they were inquiring about buying out whole inventory of chemical for the oil spill. Not sure if they went through with it or not since I've been off of work for 3 days. I'll find out tonight.
Posted by BROffshoreTigerFan
Edmond, OK
Member since Oct 2007
10004 posts
Posted on 5/4/10 at 8:24 am to
quote:

buying out whole inventory of chemical for the oil spill.


I read that BP has purchased 1/3 of the worlds total supply of dispersant for this.
Posted by Placebeaux
Bobby Fischer Fan Club President
Member since Jun 2008
51852 posts
Posted on 5/4/10 at 8:31 am to
quote:

Can anyone tell me the name of the dispersant being used?


SOAP.
Posted by Decatur
Member since Mar 2007
32762 posts
Posted on 5/4/10 at 10:39 am to
Major topic on WWL this morning
Posted by Sid in Lakeshore
Member since Oct 2008
41956 posts
Posted on 5/4/10 at 2:27 pm to
quote:

SOAP.

DAWN dish sopa to be more specific.

BTW: this is a media driven world and event. Not using dispersants is not a possibility. Unfortunately, out of sight is out of mind for most people. Not the ones questioning in this thread, but most others out there.
Posted by Decatur
Member since Mar 2007
32762 posts
Posted on 5/5/10 at 11:14 pm to
quote:

As the Deepwater Horizon oil spill spreads, BP and the U.S. Coast Guard have conducted tests with Corexit 9500, a chemical designed to break oil slicks into globules that are more quickly consumed by bacteria or sink into the water column before hitting shore.

The decision has been a controversial one. A few scientists think dispersants are mostly useful as public relations strategy, as they make the oil slick invisible, even though oil particles continue to do damage. Others consider Corexit the lesser of two evils: It’s known to be highly toxic, adding to the harm caused by oil, but at least it will concentrate damage at sea, sparing sensitive and highly productive coastal areas. Better to sacrifice the deep sea than the shorelines.

But even as these arguments continue, with 230,000 gallons of Corexit on tap and more commissioned by BP, a superior alternative could be left on the shelf.

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.

Relief agencies were not immediately available for comment about Dispersit. In a Tuesday press conference, Charlie Henry, the scientific support coordinator for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, said the potential effects of Corexit’s use in the Gulf are unknown. “Those analyses are going on, but right now there’s no consensus,” he said. “And we’re just really getting started. You can imagine it’s something we’ve never thought about.


LINK


Posted by LSUDad
Still on the move
Member since May 2004
62558 posts
Posted on 5/5/10 at 11:26 pm to
quote:

DAWN dish sopa to be more specific.


Ever see what Dawn does to a sheen?

Ok folks, try this test. Put a little water in your kitchen sink(about two inches), on top of this pour a little cooking oil(Not much, just enough to make a few droplets). Then put a drop of liquid soap (Dawn or other) in the water.

Tell me what you see happen......
Posted by lashinala
End of 565
Member since Jan 2006
5753 posts
Posted on 5/6/10 at 7:15 am to
Dad, did you tell them NOT to drink the sink water?
Now you are a party to this problem also.....got a lawyer?
Posted by LSUDad
Still on the move
Member since May 2004
62558 posts
Posted on 5/6/10 at 9:44 am to
quote:

got a lawyer?


More than one.....
Posted by Volvagia
Fort Worth
Member since Mar 2006
53474 posts
Posted on 5/6/10 at 10:01 am to
quote:



You would think the oil on the surface could be eventually removed after some effort. After the dispersant is used, the oil/water mixture looks completely mixed...maybe even permanent.


The solution to pollution is dilution.

A lot of the oil is concentrated in a .5 mm layer. What you think will happen if you let the mile of water below it get in on that action?
first pageprev pagePage 2 of 2Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram