Dispersing Decisions

Dispersing oil seems like a bad idea to me. I would much rather have a coagulating and concentrating compound, even for shop use, so that spilled oil can be treated, then rolled up like jelly and trashed or recycled. Seems cleaner than smearing oil everywhere to make it go away by that other way.

Well what exactly is the problem statement? And the desired outcome? Fuzzy questions lead to fuzzy premises lead to fuzzy thinking.

Lets talk about is "smaller always better?"

And, rather than chat about opinions, lets just do some math.

I'm going to approach this as a toxicology problem- toxicity follows dosage. Low dosage = less deleterious effects than high dosage. OKAY?

If the given is that 100% of the oil released cannot be captured, then what is the best way to minimize its impact? Hypothesis= Minimize its concentration.

Given 148,000,000 gallons released (estimated for mid july) that is (560,240,944 liters) of oil released and difficult (impossible?) to collect and recover at the time...

Dispersed in a volume of 2,434,000 cubic kilometers minimizes the dosage impact of the crude oil itself. This dosage is about 230 liters per cubic kilometer or 61 gallons (about a barrel and a half) per cubic kilometer. Since a cubic kilometer is about 2.64 17 X 10^11 gallons we are talking about 2 parts per ten billion. (2.3091X10^10)

Volume is ^3 'd! This is the geometric / volumetric reality.

Not applying dispersant would allow the oil to create a film on the surface (million parts per million or 100% oil, and so the dosage at the surface would be much higher as two of the dimensions Length times Width could not exceed the 600,000 square miles of gulf surface area. 148,000,000 gallons / 600,000 sq miles would be 246 gallons per square mile.

I'm likin' the parts per ten billion approach already.

Finally, that non-dispersed oil would ultimately end up on a shoreline, Of which there are approximately 16,000 miles of US shoreline alone.

148,000,000/16,000 miles of shoreline= 9250 gallons per mile of shoreline.

9250 gallons / 5280 ft / mile = 1.75 gallons per foot.

Now, if i had to collect oil, once released, clearly the odds are better at the shoreline- 1.75 gal/foot.

If I know I have no way in H3ll of getting the oil back in the box, then parts per ten billion sounds like the least impact to me, especially if over time friendly plankton might actually repurpose the stuff.

What about that dispersant? (Assuming only the Corexit that was mentioned, and not the Seabrat #4 nor the Nokomis, Mare Clean, or Neos AB3000 that neither BP nor the coast guard had bulk quantities of) BP's inventory of 246,380 gallons of corexit, in 6.43 quintillion gallons of the gulf is equal to 3.8 X10^13th

or 3 parts in --lets see billion = exponent 9, ten billion = exponent 10, hundred billion = exponent 11, thousand billion, = exponent 12, tenthousand billion = exponent 13;

3 parts per tenthousand billion. That, to my mind is one very dry martini.

Now before you all pile on, Yes I know that the entire gulf volume isn't well mixed, not all oil gets dispersed etc. etc, etc, etc..

And Yes I know that uncontained oil is not considered neighborly nor good housekeeping.

I also would have done a better job of containment, earlier in this scenario.

But the real question was why use dispersants, (remember neither BP nor EPA had done any flippin research, (protect the environment my a$$). So the answer lies in the arithmetic and geometric reality that i have back of the envelope calculated here.

Bad effects follows dosage/concentration; sixth grade arithmetic helps us understand that the realities of geometry in the Gulf made these decision no brainers.

Disperse to try to get oil to levels of parts per ten billion. Minimizing the 100 percent 1.75 gallons per foot onshore.

Should the drilling industry underwrite research on dispersants? Should the epa actually protect the environment?

Uhh, Yes. Why do we need to ask?

Milo"Thanks to Uncle Bruce and Mrs Greene for helping me with my times tables back in the day"

hi Milo

I'm sure that the BP response team used dispersant because they believed it was the best thing to do - probably following the same logic you outlined above.

I don't think it would be a stretch to say that, until the last decade or two (depending on where you live), engineers have recommended dumping all sorts of effluent into lakes, rivers or the ocean on exactly the same sort of reasoning - not meaning harm.

May I ask, why stop at the volume of the Gulf of Mexico when you make your parts per billion calculations? After all, the Gulf is connected to the Atlantic: a vastly larger body of water into which small particles of oil can be dispersed to support your argument even better.

On the other hand, viewed as a toxicological problem, it might be possible to calculate the area and volume in which the dissolved oil (as opposed to the floating oil) is an immediate toxicology hazard. I quote from the remediation industry: (page 5 of this pdf, which I am assuming to be accurate.)

"While floating and emulsified oils are serious environmental hazards, the dissolved hydrocarbons, especially the volatile aromatics can be toxic to plant and animal life. Research has shown that contamination levels as low as 40 to 50 parts per billion of certain hydrocarbons can be harmful or hazardous. Selenium is often found associated with oil production water, and is considered hazardous to 5 parts per billion."

Using a dispersant to reduce particle size will presumably result in higher levels of dissolved hydrocarbons, and I hypothesize that in the immediate area and for some distance from the spill and dispersant application, the level of dissolved hydrocarbons may be as high or higher than the toxicity value given above of 40 to 50 ppb.

The back of my envelope here has no data available, so no math, just a doodle of the images I saw on TV of many dead sea turtles washed ashore without a glob of oily mess on them. Not dirty, just dead. 1+1= dissolved hydrocarbons > 40 ppb.

The idea that dispersant protects the shoreline is also, I think, a mistake. Again I'll refer to another industry presentation on remediation of oil in groundwater. The importance of droplet size is outlined with Stokes' law on page 6 and 7; the limitations of skimmer technology vs filters for small particle size is shown page 10 and 11.

The implication for the present case seems to be that, while booms (skimmers) are effective at gathering large particles or slicks, they are ineffective for collecting small particles and dissolved hydrocarbons, which do not rise to the surface (per Stoke's law).

In fact, with more dispersant effects reducing particle size, while there is less oil to collect with the boom, there may be a greater risk of toxicity to shore life as well as marine, if the dispersant and its byproducts also wash in with the slicks. There should be monitoring for the dissolved hydrocarbon toxins at the shore as well as on the spill site, so we will know next time what's happening.

To return to the original question, is dispersant the best strategy, I think not. It's worth talking this through, because this is not the last oil spill (the eight ball told me) and the clearest thing about strategy is.. best prepared in full knowledge in advance.

In the absence of booms for containment for over 50 days, The dispersant seemed the way to go. It couldn't have interfered with boom containment when POTUS refused the offer.

I am all for doing something to reduce the consequences.

To do nothing vs doing something, well, that was what the EPA did.

I grew up in the mahoning valley, and that river was a thermal sewer for industry. Neither my dad, nor his dad, could ever remember it freezing. I have over 36 Years in the steel and manufacturing industry.

I understand pollution.

I also understand triage.

I worked as an undergraduate for an "environmental scientist."I can assure you there was agenda, not intellectual honesty in that camp.

Lets look at what we can agree on:

I think we both say shame on BP for poor management.Poor execution. Failure to have proven contingency planning. ETc.

I think we both say shame on BP, Industry, EPA and Coast Guard for not having done much science on how to contain, how to remediate.

And I say In the absence of data, You can bet I will do whatever I can to try to make the situation better. AT least that might generate some data points for the guys with the boot on the neck and nothing else to contribute.

This whole episode just pointed out the illusion of the govt bureaucracies, With their national out door days instead of ACTUALLY PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENT.

Mission but no real ability to do anything except fine, grandstand, and well, What did they do That actually helped?

Verbalize their concerns about toxicity of the one thing that was actually working to minimize the problem?

PR events for their preferred constituencies and Penalty assessing is all they do. I get every EPA and OSHA press release that is issued. I know what they are talking about, to whom, and when.

EPA enforcement s strictly creating another stream of income for the feds.

Environment is no safer through their failure to act, and their bullying.

There is more than enough blame to go around between BP, contractors, and look the other way bureaucrats who didn't do the science.

Why blame the one thing that actually ameliorated part of the problem? Why Demonize the rescuer technology?

BTW, I worked for a few short months for a state EPA on a federal program. After seeing how that worked I hightailed it back to industry where I could actually solve problems, not just write reports. I'm proud of and can list my emissions reductions achievements. These guys can brag about fines.

I'll be in Washington DC talking to these folks on a different issue next week. I'll let you know how that goes. (And I'll be using data. Their data. Just the facts.)

Milo

Speak of the devil: in tonights email: PA Press Office press@epa.gov 202-564-6794 * * *FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE* July 21, 2010 * * *Top Obama Administration Officials to Hold America's Great Outdoors" "Initiative Listening Session in Minneapolis*

* * *WASHINGTON *- On August 4, top Obama Administration officials* *will hold a listening session in Minneapolis on President Obama's America's Great Outdoors Initiative to hear the public's ideas for building a 21st century conservation and recreation agenda and reconnecting Americans with the outdoors. The listening session will be held at the University of Minnesota's Ted Mann Concert Hall. Additional details on the session will be released in the coming days.

Town hall as "environmental protection." Campaigning on EPA budget.

Milo

I think when we focus too much on blame and shame, we lose the objectivity to get to the real point: as you say, doing something to reduce the consequences.

When mistakes are made or catastrophes happen, we have to look forward and learn something from it, or we won't do better the next time around. I certainly hope that the government is funding the necessary data collection. I wonder why there isn't more data available already from past events like Exxon Valdez.

After what I read and learned this evening, I think Robertgrist's suggestion to use a coagulant instead of a dispersant is a very good idea.

Google turned up this 1996 patent, intended for that purpose. Wonder if it works...

HEy. Just got back from my trip.

Saw a news article in the paper that the Oil clean up crews were stymied because they can't find any oil to clean up.

Here is link from ABC news.

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/bp-oil-spill-crude-mother-nature-breaks-slick/story?id=11254252

It cites both "mother nature" and Dispersants as ameliorating the oil situation.

I'll look for that Coagulant patent...

Milo

hey Milo. Thanks for the link.

One thing for sure, my hopes are for the best, and I hope the good news is just that.

I'm still curious about the dynamics of the process used, and I hope we do find out what really has happened to the oil. The explanations in the article are to some extent speculation, since the remainder of the slick hasn't been found with booms, and no data on dissolved residues was provided.

In the meantime, though it is great news that the well itself has been capped effectively. Everything can move towards recovery at this point.

Cheers.

Yes!

Milo