Oil Spill, REACTION, concerns, ideas, help needed, tell us here, Deep Horizon Blowout

[Unimog Bob]

Many of us keep hoping that this potentially catastrophic event may be averted through ongoing efforts to stop the release, containment and collection efforts, through favorable weather to avoid spreading of the plume. Time and to a degree preparation will tell how things work out.

Despite that, we are concerned, worried about what will come about, why this happened, how well efforts are proceeding to deal with it and what will follow. What is on your mind, tell us here. We're all in this together.

Continued from:
http://fksa.org/showthread.php?t=9609
__________________
FKA, Inc.

transcribed by:
Rick Iossi


I just went fishing tonight out at East Beach. The water quality was impeccable, sea life was everywhere, and I caught tons of trout, flounder, etc. It was impressive to see all the life out there and the health of the bay. The variety and quantity of life I witnessed in less than 2 hours could not have been dreamed of when I was a young boy.
I have been in St. Pete for 40 years and seen the water quality and sea life gradually make an unbelievable come back from the days just following dredging to create finger canals and its associated harm. Not to mention the dumping of various pollutants into Tampa Bay that has been brought under control.
It's hard for me to fully express my gratitude toward the recovery I have seen. Anyone that's been here for 20 or more years or more has witnessed this recovery.

It is unbelievable to me that 40 years of progress may be wiped away (from all of us and nature) in the coming weeks from the shortsightedness and greed of one of, if not the, WEALTHIEST company on the planet. It makes me sick that they don't spend more time/money/effort protecting all our resources in their pursuit of oil (with redundancy in fail safes).

Yet, their CEO says he is "proud of their recent performance" True prick and no bigger loser imo, than a man capable of saying such crap in the face of a tremendous tragedy. That's what most CEOs do though; rape while pretending to cradle.

[Danimal8199]

Originally Posted by Unimog Bob

rape while pretending to cradle.

Very well put

[conchxpress]

What really gets me is that BP is a British corporation, and Transoceanic Ltd, the company that owns the rigs, is a Swiss corporation. The oil that is harvested from near our shores is not earmarked for the US, it is put on the international oil market, for our companies to bid on just like everyone else in the world. But it is OUR country and OUR ecology that pays the biggest price. If you're going to possibly endanger our shores and natural resources, at least give us a good deal on the oil. The Gulf of Mexico should be off limits to other countries except those whose shores are affected. We should extend our territorial waters.

So, Obama, and Florida politicians, still want to push for drilling off the coast of Florida?

[Unimog Bob]

It sucks for sure. The more you know, the more mad you get.

[ricki]

Looks like all big oil isn't quite the same when it comes to safety. BP per the following NY
Times article comes up particularly short.

"For BP, a History of Spills and Safety Lapses
By JAD MOUAWAD Published: May 8, 2010

After BP’s Texas City, Tex., refinery blew up in 2005, killing 15 workers, the company vowed to address the safety shortfalls that caused the blast.

The next year, when a badly maintained oil pipeline ruptured and spilled 200,000 gallons of crude oil over Alaska’s North Slope, the oil giant once again promised to clean up its act.

In 2007, when Tony Hayward took over as chief executive, BP settled a series of criminal charges, including some related to Texas City, and agreed to pay $370 million in fines. “Our operations failed to meet our own standards and the requirements of the law,” the company said then, pledging to improve its “risk management.”

Despite those repeated promises to reform, BP continues to lag other oil companies when it comes to safety, according to federal officials and industry analysts. Many problems still afflict its operations in Texas and Alaska, they say. Regulators are investigating a whistle-blower’s allegations of safety violations at the Atlantis, one of BP’s newest offshore drilling platforms in the Gulf of Mexico.

Now BP is in the spotlight because of the April 20 explosion of the Deepwater Horizon, which killed 11 people and continues to spew oil into the ocean. It is too early to say what caused the explosion. Other companies were also involved, including Transocean, which owned and operated the drilling rig, and Halliburton, which had worked on the well a day before the explosion.

BP, based in London, has repeatedly asserted that Transocean was solely responsible for the accident.

However, lawmakers plan to question BP executives about their overall commitment to safety at Congressional hearings this week on the Gulf incident.

“It is a corporate problem,” said Representative Bart Stupak, Democrat of Michigan, who has been particularly critical of BP’s operations in Alaska and will lead the House committee hearing, on Wednesday. “Their mentality is to get in the foxhole and batten down the hatch. It just seems there is this pattern.”

The oil industry is inherently more dangerous than many other industries, and oil companies, including BP, strive to reduce accidents and improve safety.

But BP, the nation’s biggest oil and gas producer, has a worse health, environment and safety record than many other major oil companies, according to Yulia Reuter, the head of the energy research team at RiskMetrics, a consulting group that assigns scores to companies based on their performance in various categories, including safety.

The industry standard for safety, analysts say, is set by Exxon Mobil, which displays an obsessive attention to detail, monitors the smallest spill and imposes scripted procedures on managers.

Before drilling a well, for example, it runs elaborate computer models to test beforehand what the drillers might encounter. The company trains contractors to recognize risky behavior and asks employees for suggestions on how to improve safety. It says it has cut time lost to safety incidents by 12 percent each year since 2000.

Analysts credit that focus, in part, to the aftermath of the 1989 Exxon Valdez grounding, which spilled 11 million gallons of crude oil into Prince William Sound in Alaska.

“Whatever you think of them, Exxon is now the safest oil company there is,” said Amy Myers Jaffe, an energy expert at Rice University.

In an interview last week, Mr. Hayward, BP’s chief executive, conceded that the company had problems when he took over three years ago. But he said he had instituted broad changes to improve safety, including setting up a common management system with precise safety rules and training for all facilities."

"Yet some government officials say that they are troubled by the continuation of hazardous practices at BP’s refineries and Alaskan oil operations despite warnings from regulators.

For example, last year the Occupational Safety and Health Administration found more than 700 violations at the Texas City refinery — many concerning faulty valves, which are critical for safety given the high temperatures and pressures. The agency fined BP a record $87.4 million, which was more than four times the previous record fine, also to BP, for the 2005 explosion.

Another refinery, in Toledo, Ohio, was fined $3 million two months ago for “willful” safety violations, including the use of valves similar to those that contributed to the Texas City blast.

“BP has systemic safety and health problems,” said Jordan Barab, the assistant secretary of labor for OSHA. “They need to take their intentions and apply them much more effectively on the ground, where the hazards actually lie.”"

Continued at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/09/bu...&sq=oil&st=cse

[ricki]

"BP knew of problems hours before blast

By Steve Hargreaves, Senior writerMay 12, 2010: 2:35 PM ET

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- BP knew of problems with an offshore well hours before it exploded last month, spilling millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, a House committee chairman said Wednesday.

Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., said the oil company told the Energy and Commerce subcommittee on oversight privately that the well failed a key pressure test just hours before it exploded on April 20.

The test indicated pressure was building up in the well, which could indicate oil or gas was seeping in and could lead to an explosion, said Waxman.

"Yet it appears the companies did not suspend operations, and now 11 workers are dead and the Gulf faces an environmental catastrophe," he said, asking why work wasn't stopped on the well."

Continued at:
http://money.cnn.com/2010/05/12/news...dex.htm?hpt=T1

[firstcoastkite]

Thanks for the updates Rick. I have been following the news closely on this one, as it has potential impacts all the way up the coast to St. Augustine eventually. Sure, noone wants to eat fish contaminated with oil, but I am sure we do not want to be kiteboarding in it either!

It is amazing to me that the federal government has not taken control of this situation already and plugged the well? BP has virtually no interest in capping the well and stopping the leak, and has repeatedly tried to capture the oil so they can profit from it instead of doing the right thing. The relief wells are just another way of guaranteeing that they can capture the oil from this huge reserve. I saw a report that they could make $500 billion off this one well if they can capture all of the oil.

So everything they have tried so far has been unsuccessful, and there is no guarantee that the relief wells will work either? They won't be completed until mid-August anyway. By then the Macando gusher will make the Exxon Valdez disaster fade into the background. If it continues unchecked they say it will flow for 7 years.

I have a degree in Environmental Science with a M.S. in Chemical Oceanography, and studied hydrocarbon (oil) breakdown in marine sediments in Tampa Bay. There are naturally occuring bacteria in the marine environment that eat oil, and will break down the lighter components of the crude over time. I have even read about biologically engineered bugs that can be introduced into spills with added nutrients to enhance bacterial degradation, but first you have to stop the flow of oil. You can't continue to clean up a spill that keeps on coming?

Learning about the environment is a depressing endeavor, because you realize that SO many things we do destroy the natural environment around us. From septic tanks draining through porous sand directly into estuaries, to drainage canals pumping fertilizers and pesticides direction into our intracoastal waterways from our finely manicured lawns, these are things that are under our control. BP is the one that created this problem in the first place, and now we are depending on them to fix it for us? Yes, they are the ones that have the expertise to work on the well, but who is calling the shots? I smell a rat, and it is a BIG one.

[Unimog Bob]

You and I have fairly similar backgrounds Eddie (both have M.S. in marine related science). I agree, the more I learned about the environment, the more depressing it became (all that man does to it). The most depressing aspect for me was how little the Fed. gov't truly cared about properly managing the environment/resources (worked with gov't for several years). I found it was all a dog and pony show.

I also agree, there is zero incentive for BP to want to cap this thing. Most reading this can't relate to even saying that, but most reading this have a conscience. The higher ups at BP have zero, absolutely none. Their only concern is the almighty dollar.

Lastly, as you mentioned, there are micro-organisms in the environment that are capable of breaking down the hydrocarbon chains in oil. The real key (imo) to their success is their ability to sequester oxygen and nutrients to speed up their metabolic processes. So, bioremediation may be more successful with proper use of correctly mixed fertilizers and the tilling of the affected soil.

Why is it that bioremediation hasn't been mentioned once in the news, by BP or the gov't?, and an approach to take advantage of these "bugs" not being discussed? I find this almost unbelievable.

I have read some ideas revolving around burning the affected affect marshes though, wtf (?).

One final gripe. Do people (at least the media) NOT get how incredibly important marshes are? My main area of study/research was salt marshes/grass flats.
I may have a bias (I think it's more just being informed), but marshes are crucial to the health of the oceans and it's fisheries. It's obvious to me that the fisheries in the Gulf are reliant on healthy marshes. It's impossible to have a healthy fishery with "sick" marshes.
I really don't think the media (or Obama) has a friggin' clue in this regard.
When showing the marshes, the birds (oh no... not birds again ) get all the attention. And it's sad, but let's focus on the environment as a whole, not just the birds. It's not a success if we save every single pelican, and don't save the marshes.

Also, the media truly seem more upset about the white, sandy beaches of Pensacola being stained than what has already happened in LA.
Don't get me wrong, I don't want to see anywhere hit/affected. But if given the choice, I would prefer to see a sandy beach hit than estuaries surrounding the Mississippi... no brainer due to environmental importance of marshes.
Yet, no one seems overly concerned (?) for Louisiana's marshes. Is it b/c some people have a bias toward the south, the accents used, etc?
If not, wtf. I am totally lost on this one, b/c I view that region as the heart of the Gulf's fishery and that heart is being broken. It's truly a catastrophe.

[ricki]

You are welcome. So much depends on what quantities and in what state petroleum moves into the Straits of Florida. Prevailing easterly winds in the warmer months suggests a lot of shoreward transport once it makes it over here.

Oil is a powerful food source for some microbes. You can test sands above water and perhaps find modest concentrations of certain soil microbes. Spill some oil on it and shortly you'll have an explosion of naturally occurring microbes gobbling the stuff up like no tomorrow. They will continue to ingest and breakdown the petroleum until; 1) It is all gone. 2) Waste products from the microbes impair their viability. In the later case they poop or respire themselves to death, more or less.

Here's the rub and a potentially serious one. The deeper reaches of the ocean usually aren't oxygen rich nor are there typically water transport mechanisms over large areas to rapidly exchange oxygen depleted water with that with higher concentrations. So, dump a ton of oil into the deeps, you will likely get the normal population explosion of microbes including anaerobes. So, in addition to oxygen depletion you will also evolve hydrogen sulphide (particularly toxic to marine life) and more methane. I recall something about long term pollution in the Black Sea creating a major oxygen depleted (read "dead") zone in the water column at depth. Hope to God it doesn't happen but could something like this be in the works in the Gulf?

Worked with and around bioremediation for almost 25 years. Some of it works extremely well and almost automatically. Just supply enough nutrients, oil, oxygen, and avenues for waste passage and petroleum contamination depletion can be amazing. Some bioremediation over the years has amounted to so much "snake oil," high on promises low on practical delivery in some settings. Land farming is the most effective done on the surface for contaminated soil. In situ remediation of groundwater the least effective at least in South Florida using injected microbes and nutrients. On the other hand, over excavation of saturated petroleum impacted soils, UV degradation, mixing, even active aeration of the standing water in the excavation can be very effective in reducing groundwater contaminant concentrations.

Parallels in benthic bioremediation in the open ocean, you've got me. Again part of it happens automatically but to what ultimate end is more concerning. As far as wetlands, it may be more doable but also complex. Wholesale mortality in mangroves and other wetland components seems unavoidable with excessive exposure to oil. In the case of tar balls, depends how hardened, weathered they are and how they break up and physically interact with the prop roots (adhere to and smother them or ?). A major die off of estuarine vegetation followed by fauna depletions with lingering oil soil and sediment impact doesn't leave much to regenerate, near term anyway. There are also surrogates or breakdown daughter compounds that could provide problems too.

[Unimog Bob]

Any clue as to why bioremediation is not being mentioned at this point? It's a fairly ubiquitous approach.
I read about this stuff (and most news) on a daily basis and haven't heard even a peep about bioremediation. I actually haven't seen much of anything done.
I suspect that it is because to successfully discuss bioremediation as an approach, you would first have to acknowledge/disclose the amount of marshland affected by the leak. My suspicion is that BP is all about practicing damage control at this point, as opposed to focusing on solutions.

Regardless of BP taking the lead (because supposedly the Feds have been in charge since day one anyway ) any clue as to why the gov't hasn't mobilized more individuals into this region under the direction of the Army Corps of Engineers for preventative and/or remediation efforts?
Just curious as to what your take is on the response (or lack thereof), Rick.

This is one of the largest ecological disasters of our time, right?