Corexit 9500

http://cleancaribbean.org/docs/9500A%20Product%20Sheet_01_06.pdf

Hello, netmaker. Quite a mess we have here, eh?

I read through the datasheet from Guest #1, and could not find a 'Joe 6-pack' explanation. It does provide information to drill down and find more. So, I found the datasheet sort of useful.

Interesting comment near the end of the info:

"COREXIT 9500 is on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) National Contingency Plan (NCP) Product Schedule. This listing does not mean that EPA approves, recommends, licenses, certifies or authorizes the use of COREXIT 9500 on an oil discharge."

Is this product, unapproved for use in the USA, being used?

It is essentially a detergent that is both soluble in water and oil. It breaks the surface tension of the oil so that it no longer clumps together and allows it to spread out in water. Not at all unlike dishwashing detergent acts when you pour some in the sink after you've washed the pan you fried your boudin in.

Bottom line it is soap. It is fancy soap, but it is soap none the less.

so it allows the oil to spread out and be more invisible (but not alter)... out of sight, out of mind. Is that the plan?

Eh, yes and no. oil is troublesome for two reasons. Toxicity, and the fact that it clumps up and prevents water contact by lowering the surface energy. so animals that need water contact get covered with gunk that prevents water contact. by breaking down the surface tension, then it helps with that issue. it also allows water borne bacteria to start breaking the oil down. it also helps wave action to break up the oil slick allowing the water to absorb oxygen from the air.

oil eating bacteria are all over in the environment anyway, but the population is kept in check by competition with regular bacteria, but once they come in contact with oil, the balance of power changes and oil eating bacteria begin to out compete other bacteria, by making the oil more accessible to them we help give those bacteria a boost.

So it spreads it out then.

My question is then what happens to the oil that is now spread out?

Does it want to sink or does it still float?

Or does it cause any chemical raction within the oil itself.

There will be a lot of it around . Does it break down eventually?

it evaporates.

With increased surface area it evaporates faster than if clumped up. I suspect that the "corexit 500" does some breaking down of long chain carbon bonds, but since the stuff is proprietary we may never know.

oil also oxidizes better when spread out, and sunlight also helps to break it down too.

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/05/13/13greenwire-less-toxic-dispersants-lose-out-in-bp-oil-spil-81183.html

This is my concern.

Regarding the NYTIMES article:

Wow. That's all I can say... Wow!

Scandalous! Unconscionable!

Is this simple profiteering, believing their transactions to be non-transparent? Is this abysmally poor judgement, on a truly international scale?

Wow.

ps: Thanks for that netmaker. Good find.

sounds to me like they were:

A) going with a product that they had experience with and understood

B) going with a product that was available in the quantities they needed immediately.

I really don't see the scandal here.

Hello, Rorschach.

Well, to give it another chance, I went back and read the entire article again, and then again.

Your comment "A) going with a product that they had experience with and understood" I tend to agree with, and I will go along with you there. I do not believe that is a valid reason to have continued using it, nor to continue using it.

I sort of intended to cut and paste a few bits from the article here to support my original comments. However, there is no need to paste the entire article here. The entire article simply reinforces my perception.

It should probably be said, this is a newspaper article, and (like the internet) "if they print it, it must be true". In my position I am placing a lot of trust in the NY Times. I do find a number of sources with similar information... on the internet (ugh).

I find the comments from BP officials simply face-saving and self-serving.

I stand by my comments. The criminal insensibility displayed is scandalous.

Ah, well, there is where we disagree, I put very little stock in what the NYT publishes, not even the facts are usually correct. They are experts at spinning stories to fit their preferred narrative, or ignoring them completely if it does not.

I freely admit I am occasionally overdosed with gullibility pills. More than once I have had to spend some time with my hat in my hand after relying on some unsubstantiated information from some 'unnamed but reliable source'.

I will also admit, in this case, I hope the information from the NYT is slanted. I would much rather that the article be untrue, that those are not really the circumstances. The BP guys would not be the scandalous rascals I have painted them to be.