Started By
Message
locked post

Dispersant will only hide true amount of oil....

Posted on 5/14/10 at 10:26 am
Posted by 10Percenter
Member since Feb 2009
1925 posts
Posted on 5/14/10 at 10:26 am
Spending Millions on this crap, sinking oil deeper and who knows how this will affect the underwater ecosystem, wouldnt we rather have access to it on top the water anyway????
Posted by bayoudude
Member since Dec 2007
25835 posts
Posted on 5/14/10 at 10:28 am to
That is one question I would like an answer to as well. The oil is still out there just not on the surface. Seems like it would be a bigger problem suspended in the water column than just on the surface.
Posted by Placebeaux
Bobby Fischer Fan Club President
Member since Jun 2008
51852 posts
Posted on 5/14/10 at 10:30 am to
the only way to get it out the ecosystem is to recover it and that can only be done at the surface. The use of soap will create a much larger long term problem.
Posted by 10Percenter
Member since Feb 2009
1925 posts
Posted on 5/14/10 at 10:33 am to
im getting so sick of this crap
Posted by DvlsAdvocat
Your Mom's House, AL
Member since Jul 2007
24491 posts
Posted on 5/14/10 at 10:41 am to
IMHO, dispersant's only benefit is PR related, breaking up the oil to hide the real impact of the spill. As long as there are no black waves breaking on the beaches in Gulf Shores and Panama City, the sleepy average person won't be aware of just how significant the spill was...
Posted by tgrgrd00
Kenner, LA
Member since Jun 2004
10919 posts
Posted on 5/14/10 at 11:12 am to
quote:

IMHO, dispersant's only benefit is PR related, breaking up the oil to hide the real impact of the spill.


This

Posted by supatigah
CEO of the Keith Hernandez Fan Club
Member since Mar 2004
89738 posts
Posted on 5/14/10 at 11:31 am to
quote:

IMHO, dispersant's only benefit is PR related, breaking up the oil to hide the real impact of the spill. As long as there are no black waves breaking on the beaches in Gulf Shores and Panama City, the sleepy average person won't be aware of just how significant the spill was...



no

the oil is pooled on the surface and concentrated in a relatively small area

if a non-toxic dispersant is used the oil molecules are not pooled any more they are SPREAD OUT (dispersed) amongst the water molecules. when they are less concentrated in one area then the sun and water born bacteria can digest the oil much more efficiently

dilution is the solution for pollution
Posted by genuineLSUtiger
Nashville
Member since Sep 2005
76907 posts
Posted on 5/14/10 at 11:36 am to
In reality, the spill would be cleansed naturally by the ocean itself in open water. I understand the pressure to protect the coast and wetlands from the spill but I'm sure there are millions of natural vents on the ocean floor that spew oil directly into the underwater ecosystem. It may temporarily disrupt the local environment but long-term the oceans have the natural ability to cleanse the spill. The vast majority of the Exxon Valdez spill was cleansed naturally by the ocean and surrounding environment. Mops and rags cleaning up the oil at that time had little substantial effect and I suspect the same will be true here even though this dwarfs the Exxon spill in Alaska.
Posted by Decatur
Member since Mar 2007
31530 posts
Posted on 5/14/10 at 11:39 am to
quote:

if a non-toxic dispersant is used


does not compute
Posted by supatigah
CEO of the Keith Hernandez Fan Club
Member since Mar 2004
89738 posts
Posted on 5/14/10 at 11:40 am to
quote:

does not compute

Posted by Decatur
Member since Mar 2007
31530 posts
Posted on 5/14/10 at 11:53 am to
find me a non-toxic dispersant then maybe it will compute
Posted by wilceaux
Austin, TX
Member since Apr 2004
12971 posts
Posted on 5/14/10 at 11:56 am to
quote:

It may temporarily disrupt the local environment but long-term the oceans have the natural ability to cleanse the spill.


Yeah, well, long-term is the key here.
Posted by supatigah
CEO of the Keith Hernandez Fan Club
Member since Mar 2004
89738 posts
Posted on 5/14/10 at 12:21 pm to
non-toxic dispersants are mainly water soluble surfactants that penetrate the surface area of the spill and cause them to disperse/emulsify into the water phase. once the oil molecules are dispersed into the water phase they become food for micro-organisms. non-toxic dispersants are used primarily in spill response and soil remediation but they can be cut with water and sprayed on an oil spill on a water surface


here is a common one in the industry:
LINK

HazClean™ ESR (Emergency Spill Response & Soil Remediation)

HazClean ESR is the new technologically advanced, environmentally safe, completely biodegradable product developed as a spill response agent for incidental hydrocarbon spills and to aid in natural biological soil remediation.

HazKlean ESR rapidly bonds itself to hydrocarbon particles quickly surpressing the hydrocarbon vapors to reduce the threat of fire or explosion.
HazKlean ESR stimulates the indigenous soil bacteria’s capabilities to attack the hydrocarbon particles without adding excessive amounts of chemicals or bacteria foreign to the soil
Posted by TigerBandTuba
Member since Sep 2006
2556 posts
Posted on 5/14/10 at 12:56 pm to
using dispersants is not like sinking your beer can in the river.

check out this link to learn what dispersants actually do

LINK
Posted by Volvagia
Fort Worth
Member since Mar 2006
52885 posts
Posted on 5/14/10 at 1:47 pm to
The solution to piluution is dilution.....
Posted by supatigah
CEO of the Keith Hernandez Fan Club
Member since Mar 2004
89738 posts
Posted on 5/14/10 at 2:41 pm to
Dude I am in the chemical business

some of the info in that link is extremely outdated

there have been significant advances in surfactant and cosolvent technologies in the past 5 years

the problem with water based surfactant technologies is they are very effective but expensive

the nalco corexit product is cheap but it is
also toxic. The corexit chemistry is roughly equivalent to the chemical used in the dry cleaning process
Posted by Decatur
Member since Mar 2007
31530 posts
Posted on 5/14/10 at 2:49 pm to
quote:

the nalco corexit product


It's my understanding that's what they have been using

Would be nice to know if they are using something safer
Posted by 10Percenter
Member since Feb 2009
1925 posts
Posted on 5/14/10 at 2:50 pm to
well i guess we have no choice but to wait and see what will happen with this untested(on this scale) crap. i still like the hay idea.
Posted by supatigah
CEO of the Keith Hernandez Fan Club
Member since Mar 2004
89738 posts
Posted on 5/14/10 at 4:05 pm to
Nalco reported they had 150,000 gallons of available corexit inventory when this started and they have alledgedly depleted their inventory
Posted by WNCTiger
Member since Aug 2006
2883 posts
Posted on 5/15/10 at 7:12 am to
Latest Satellite Imagery-Writeup

Hi-res version -- direct link

Pic is too large to post here.

The visible slick looks to be about 100 miles long and about 30-60 miles wide based on the pic linked above and its legend/scale.

first pageprev pagePage 1 of 2Next pagelast page

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