Update on BP's top kill efforts, now largest spill in US History

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: As expected, BP abandons Top Kill approach: kinda. . .

The post above by KGW regarding the dispersant Corexit is important. The many broken links, double spacing and other formatting details make it unfortunately difficult to read. A more readable version of this (perhaps where KGW got it from, apparently via email, given one of the broken links above) can be found on Alexander Higgins Blog at The Amount Of Neurotoxin Pesticide Corexit Sprayed By BP Tops 1 Million Gallons.

This Corexit may be one of the more tragic elements of this event.

[KGW]

Re: As expected, BP abandons Top Kill approach: kinda. . .

Subject: Amount Of Neurotoxin Pesticide Corexit Sprayed By BP Tops 1

Million Gallons-Threat To Workers And The Public-EPA MIA

Reply-To: cnsrvncy@cascadeaccess.com



Think food chain. Think exposure levels. Think of the

interconnecting web of life struggling to survive the assault. Think of

generations malformed by its poisonous absorption. Think of the

corporate chain of responsibility for fouling the nest. Think of a

better way to live:

Amount Of Neurotoxin Pesticide Corexit Sprayed By BP Tops 1 Million

Gallons-Threat To Workers And The Public-EPA MIA

http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/201...nt-neurotoxin-

pesticide-corexit-sprayed-bp-tops-1-million-gallons/
The Amount Of Neurotoxin Pesticide Corexit Sprayed By BP Tops 1

Million Gallons

BP’s latest oil spill response update for June 4th says the total

amount of the dispersant used in the Gulf of Mexico more than 1,021,000

gallons.





But what most people don’t know is that the active ingredient of the

toxic chemical dispersant, which is up to 60% by volume, being sprayed by

BP to fight the Gulf oil spill is a neurotoxin pesticide that is

acutely toxic to both human and aquatic life, causes cancer, causes

damage to internal organs such as the liver and kidneys simply by

absorbing it through the skin and may cause reproductive side effects.





In fact the neurotoxin pesticide that is lethal to 50% of life in

concentrations as little as 2.6 parts per million has been banned for use

in the UK since 1998 because it failed the UK “Rocky shore test”which

assures that the dispersant does not cause a “significant deleterious

ecological change” – or to put that in layman’s terms it can kill off the

entire food chain.





Corexit has also earned the highest EPA warning label for toxicity

which means the effects of the toxic chemicals to the eye are corrosive

resulting in irreversible destruction of ocular tissue and other tissue

with corneal involvement along with an burning that can persist for more

than 21 days and effects to human skin are corrosive resulting in tissue

destruction into the dermis and/or scarring.





Corexit was widely used after the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill and

according to a literature review performed by the group the Alaska

Community Action on Toxics was later linked with widespread long lasting

health impacts in people including respiratory, nervous system, liver,

kidney and blood disorders.





The “Human Health Hazards” are said to be “Chronic” for Corexit

EC9527A according to the EPA.

So What Are These Dispersants Made Of That Makes Them Such a Powerful

Neurotoxin Pesticide?

The main ingredients of Corexit is 2-Butoxyethanol which can make up

to 60% of the dispersant and is known to be toxic to blood, kidneys,

liver, and the central nervous system (CNS).





2-Butoxyethanol is also known to cause cancer, birth defects and has

been found to cause genetic mutations and is a delayed chronic health

hazard as well as an environmental hazardous material

Corexit also contains Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Mercury, and

Cyanide.





How effective is Corexit in dispersing Gulf crude?





Corexit 9500 is only 54.7% effective and Corexit 9527A is 63.4%

effective in dispersing the crude oil found off the shores of South

Louisiana.





BP has sprayed both Corexit 9500 and Corexit 9527 into the Gulf of

Mexico to disperse the oil
both of which have been banned in the UK since 1998 for failure to

pass the Rocky Shores Test.





By BP’s own admission Corexit has the potential for bioaccumulation

meaning it has the potential to accumulate in the tissues of organism

beginning with the first organism in a food chain.





Why allow the use of these toxic dispersants?





Well the EPA has ordered BP to stop using the dispersants but BP has

refused

Instead BP replied with its justification for using Corexit which the

EPA responded to saying BP’s response “lacked sufficient analysis and

focused more defending your initial decision” .





In general, the EPA justifies the use of dispersants because they are

less toxic than oil and the cause less of an environment impact that oil

along the coastline calling dispersants an environmental trade off which

is the lesser of two evils.





However the choice of using Corexit contradicts both of those

justifications.





Corexit is lethal in as little as 2.6 parts per million where oil is

lethal in 11 parts per million meaning that Corexit is over 4 times more

toxic than oil.





Furthermore scientific studies show that oil dispersed with Corexit

is 11 times more lethal than oil alone.

In fact the study referenced showed that crude oil was lethal at 4250

parts per million to killifish but combination of oil mixed with Corexit

was lethal in as little as 317.7 ppm.





“Dispersed oils were more toxic than crude oils,” noted the report.





The other justification of lessening the environmental impact along

the shoreline doesn’t hold up either as the reason Corexit was banned in

the UK is because it was in fact shown to have a “significant deleterious

ecological change” on the shoreline.





The fact Corexit is 4 times as toxic as oil and up to 11 times as

toxic when combined with oil it literally makes no sense to allow the use

of such a toxic chemical that can “delete” the ecological systems along

the Gulf coast.





A report in the journal Environmental Toxicology a decade ago

concluded that lethality levels in “dispersed oil combinations were

significantly more toxic to these organisms than .. crude oil.” Another

study, this time of snails and amphipods reached exactly the same

conclusion.





What are the long term effects of Corexit?





The EPA has stated over and over that the long term effects of the

use of Corexit are unknown yet there is plenty of data documenting the

long term effects on humans (see below).





Further making the EPA claims questionable is EPA’s Deepwater horizon

response sites site clearly states that between 1 million and 2.5 million

gallons of the neurotoxin pesticide Corexit was used in the 1979 ixtoc

oil spill which makes it unfathomable that the EPA doesn’t know what the

long term effects are of a chemical that has been widely used, and

eventually banned in certain countries, over a period of 30 years.





To the contrary of the EPA’s statement scientific studies widely

state Corexit 9527 has been tested extensively in the laboratory and used

on oil spills since 1978 and a considerable number of toxicity reports

exist concerning a wide variety of species.





So why does the Federal Government continue to tell us the the long

term effects of the dispersant usage are unknown?





Why does the Federal Government continue to pretend like they know so

little about the dispersant BP is being used?





What are the chemical components of the dispersants COREXIT 9500 and

COREXIT 9527?





While the main ingredient which makes up to 60% of Corexit is reason

enough to cause concern.





If you dig any more dirt on these let me know.





The components of COREXIT 9500 and 9527 are:

CAS Registry Number


Chemical Name

57-55-6


1,2-Propanediol

111-76-2


2-butoxy-Ethanol

577-11-7


Butanedioic acid, 2-sulfo-, 1,4-bis(2-ethylhexyl) ester, sodium salt

(1:1)

1338-43-8


Sorbitan, mono-(9Z)-9-octadecenoate

9005-65-6


Sorbitan, mono-(9Z)-9-octadecenoate, poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl) derivs.

9005-70-3


Sorbitan, tri-(9Z)-9-octadecenoate, poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl) derivs

29911-28-2


2-Propanol, 1-(2-butoxy-1-methylethoxy)-

64742-47-8


Distillates (petroleum), hydrotreated light





The have also been found to contain Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium,

Mercury, and Cyanide among other heavy metals






What are the Chronic Health effects of Corexit?





Here are some of the highlights from the MSDS for the active

ingredient (2-butoxyethanol) – of Corexit (up to 60% by volume)

* Severe over-exposure can result in death.
* MUTAGENIC EFFECTS: Mutagenic for bacteria and/or yeast.
* The substance may be toxic to blood, kidneys, liver, central

nervous system (CNS).
* Repeated or prolonged exposure to the substance can produce

target organs damage.
* Repeated exposure to highly (this) toxic material may produce

general deterioration of health by an accumulation in one or many human

organs.
* Hazardous in case of skin contact (permeator), of ingestion, of

inhalation.
* May cause adverse reproductive effects (maternal and paternal

fertility, fetoxicity)
* May cause birth defects (teratogenic)
* May cause cancer (tumorigenic)
* Penetrates intact skin easily and can cause systemic effects

and central nervous system depression
* Inhalation: May cause irritation of the respiratory tract. May

affect behavior (analgesia), behavior/central nervous system (headache,

drowsiness, dizzness, stuttering, coma, weakness, ataxia, slurred speech,

loss of coordination and judgement, personality changes, analgesia,

blurred vision, tremor, excitement, somnolence), sense organs, the

gastrointestinal tract (nausea, vomiting), metabolism (metabolic

acidosis), respiration (dyspnea), urinary system (kidneys – hematuria,

albuminuria, polyuria, oliguria, renal failure), liver (liver damage).
* Exposure to high vapor concentration may also cause corneal or

lens opacity of the eyes.
* Ingestion: Causes gastrointestinal tract irritation with

nausea, vomiting, diarrhea. May affect behavior/central
nervous system (see inhalation), respiration (dyspnea),

metabolism, cardiovascular system.
* Chronic Potential Health Effects: Inhalation and Ingestion:

Prolonged or repeated inhalation or ingestion may affect the liver, blood

(changes in red blood cell count, pigmented or nucleated red blood cells,

microcytosis with or without anemia, erythropenia, reticulocytosis,

granulocytosis, leukocytosis), urinary system (kidneys -hematuria),

metabolism (weight loss), endocrine system (spleen, thymus, pancreas).

Prolonged or repeated inhalation of high concentrations may also cause

lung hemmorrhage, congestion, bronchopneumonia.
* Classified in Canada as CLASS D-1A: Material causing immediate

and serious toxic effects (VERY TOXIC).
* Classified in Canada as CLASS D-2B: Material causing other

toxic effects (TOXIC)

What does the EPA say about the human health effects expected as a

result of using the dispersants?





The EPA warning about human health affects says

People working with dispersants are strongly advised to use a

half face filter mask or an air-supplied breathing apparatus to protect

their noses, throats, and lungs, and they should wear nitrile or PVC

gloves, coveralls, boots, and chemical splash goggles to keep dispersants

off skin and out of their eyes. CDC provides more information on reducing

occupational exposures while working with dispersants during the Gulf Oil

Spill Response.

* Material Data Safety Sheet for Corexit 9500A (PDF) (11pp.,

88 K, About PDF)
* Material Data Safety Sheet for Corexit 9527A (PDF) (11 pp.,

132 K, About PDF)

Hasn’t BP switched over to a new less toxic version of Corexit

BP does claim that since it now using the more environmentally

friendly version of Corexit it can not be verified whether or not the

newer version contains 2-butoxyethanol or not.

BP and the manufacturer to date have refused to release a list of all

of the chemicals contained in Corexit 9500 claiming that the ingredients

are proprietary.





It is quite possible that 2-butoxyethanol or an even more hazardous

substance is contained in Corexit 9500.

Corexit 9500, like Corexit 9527, also contains Propylene Glycol a

substance generally recognized as safe for human consumption.





However, Propylene Glycol depletes oxygen from water 5 times greater

than raw sewage and the massive amounts used in the BP Gulf oil spill

could help contribute to dead zones in the Gulf where aquatic life can

not survive.





What about the effects of Corexit on the oil spill clean up workers

During the Exxon Valdez another version of Corexit was used to clean

up the oil.

CNN reports that the average life expectancy of workers who cleaned

up the Exxon Valdez is 51 years old and most of those workers are now

dead.





Watch this CNN video on how the dispersants are affecting the cleanup

workers which claims that BP is putting its public image over the safety

of those cleaning up the oil spill.

References:

* Deepwater Horizon Response Current Operations page
retrieved 06/05/2010

fromhttp://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/go/doctype/2931/53339/
* COREXIT 9527A Manufacturer MSDS retrieved 07/08/2010

fromhttp://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/posted/2931/Corexit_EC9527A_M

SDS.539295.pdf
* COREXIT 9500 Manufacturer MSDS retrieved 07/08/2010

fromhttp://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/posted/2931/Corexit_EC9500A_M

SDS.539287.pdf
* COREXIT 9500 EPA MSDS Product Data
retrieved 06/05/2010

fromhttp://www.epa.gov/emergencies/content/ncp/products/corex950.htm
* COREXIT 9527A EPA MSDS Product Data
retrieved 06/05/2010

fromhttp://www.epa.gov/emergencies/content/ncp/products/corex952.htm
* UK Dispersant Testing Guidelines
retrieved 06/05/2010 from

http://www.cefas.co.uk/publications/techrep/tech102.pdf
* Act For Climate Justice*
retrieved 06/05/2010 from

http://www.actforclimatejustice.org/...oxicity-tests-

on-bp%E2%80%99s-dispersant/
*Information from this source verified using other resources

above.
* The BP Spill, litigation, and health dangers from Pesticides
retrieved 06/05/2010

fromhttp://www.archive.org/details/TheBpSpillLitigationAndHealthDangersFr

omPesticides –Audio file of the radio broadcast 27 MB MP3

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: As expected, BP abandons Top Kill approach

When I listen to what Mike Williams says (not some articles paraphrasing of him) on 60 Minutes, at YouTube: 60 MINUTES -- THE BLOWOUT or also at 60 Minutes - BP disaster - Deepwater Horizon survivor Mike Williams, he sounds like a credible witness to me. He was the Deepwater Horizon's Chief Electronics Technician and probably the last guy to get off the rig alive.

This 60 Minutes show, from last month, seems worth looking at.

[Slimprofits]

Re: As expected, BP abandons Top Kill approach

"WASHINGTON—BP PLC has concluded that its "top-kill" attempt last week to seal its broken well in the Gulf of
Mexico may have failed due to a malfunctioning disk inside the well about 1,000 feet below the ocean floor.

The disk, part of the subsea safety infrastructure, may have ruptured during the surge of oil and gas up the well on April 20 that led to the explosion aboard the Deepwater Horizon rig, BP officials said. The rig sank two days later, triggering a leak that has since become the worst in U.S. history.

The broken disk may have prevented the heavy drilling mud injected into the well last week from getting far enough down the well to overcome the pressure from the escaping oil and gas, people familiar with BP's findings said. They said much of the drilling mud may also have escaped from the well into the rock formation outside the wellbore..."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...577164268.html

have you commented on this, GRG55?

they are saying they busted a rupture disc in the 16" casing trying to kill the well? the well is flowing on the outside of the casing around the well bore?

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: As expected, BP abandons Top Kill approach

The article states:

...Williams says going faster caused the bottom of the well to split open, swallowing tools and that drilling fluid called "mud."

"We actually got stuck. And we got stuck so bad we had to send tools down into the drill pipe and sever the pipe," Williams explained...

Now I will admit it is truly difficult to find much humour in this situation, but when I read the part about drilling "too fast" causing the bottom of the well to "split open" and "swallowing the tools" in some sort of biblical wrath-of-God scene it had me falling out of my chair howling in laughter.

I think we're at risk of throwing out the baby with the bathwater here, GRG55.

When I listen to what Mike Williams says (not some articles paraphrasing of him) on 60 Minutes, at YouTube: 60 MINUTES -- THE BLOWOUT or also at 60 Minutes - BP disaster - Deepwater Horizon survivor Mike Williams, he sounds like a credible witness to me. He was the Deepwater Horizon's Chief Electronics Technician and one of the last guys to get off the rig alive.

It sounds to me like the BOP had multiple failures, known prior to the blow-out, which prevented reliable pressure tests and reduced its reliability. Then when BP ordered the mud replaced with seawater before the final plug had set, based on (unreliable!) pressure tests of the other two plugs, the game was over.

[Jay]

Re: As expected, BP abandons Top Kill approach

There's talk that Sept 11 is carried out by the CIA and the Americans sunk the South Korean warship. So do you want to believe that as well?

Sept. 11th is the new Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies.

Awesome thread guys thanks.

[touchring]

Re: As expected, BP abandons Top Kill approach

We'll see. Still seems like far too much speculation going on here, and not much hard fact...

There's talk that Sept 11 is carried out by the CIA and the Americans sunk the South Korean warship. So do you want to believe that as well?

[GRG55]

Re: As expected, BP abandons Top Kill approach

It appears the GRG55 was wrong on that

We'll see. Still seems like far too much speculation going on here, and not much hard fact...

[Rajiv]

Re: As expected, BP abandons Top Kill approach

It appears the GRG55 was wrong on that

Senator confirms reports that wellbore is pierced; oil seeping from seabed in multiple places

Senator Bill Nelson was interviewed by Andrea Mitchell this morning on MSNBC and confirmed reports of oil seeping up from additional leak points on the seafloor.

Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL): Andrea we’re looking into something new right now, that there’s reports of oil that’s seeping up from the seabed… which would indicate, if that’s true, that the well casing itself is actually pierced… underneath the seabed. So, you know, the problems could be just enormous with what we’re facing.

Andrea Mitchell, MSNBC: Now let me understand better what you’re saying. If that is true that it is coming up from that seabed, even the relief well won’t be the final solution to cap this thing. That means that we’ve got oil gushing up at disparate places along the ocean floor.

Sen. Nelson: That is possible, unless you get the plug down low enough, below where the pipe would be breached.

A report confirms that Senator Nelson’s office is “fully aware of the breaking news and significance of what the Senator said to Andrea Mitchell.

Nelson is not the first to mention reports of a rupture in the wellbore.

BPs findings show fracture in the wellbore

Wall Street Journal, June 2:

BP PLC has concluded that its “top-kill” attempt last week to seal its broken well in the Gulf of Mexico may have failed due to a malfunctioning disk inside the well about 1,000 feet below the ocean floor.

The disk, part of the subsea safety infrastructure, may have ruptured during the surge of oil and gas up the well on April 20 that led to the explosion aboard the Deepwater Horizon rig, BP officials said. The rig sank two days later, triggering a leak that has since become the worst in U.S. history.

The broken disk may have prevented the heavy drilling mud injected into the well last week from getting far enough down the well to overcome the pressure from the escaping oil and gas, people familiar with BP’s findings said. They said much of the drilling mud may also have escaped from the well into the rock formation outside the wellbore. …

The administration told BP on Saturday to halt the top-kill procedure, after becoming “very concerned” that the operation was putting too much pressure on the out-of-control well.

Will the relief well work if the wellbore is fractured?

Bloomberg, June 2:

Plugging the well is another challenge even after BP successfully intersects it, Robert Bea, a University of California Berkeley engineering professor, said. BP has said it believes the well bore to be damaged, which could hamper efforts to fill it with mud and set a concrete plug, Bea said.

What if the relief well does not work?

Bloomberg, June 2:

The ultimate worst-case scenario is that the well is never successfully plugged, said Fred Aminzadeh, a research professor at the University of Southern California’s Center for Integrated Smart Oil Fields who previously worked for Unocal Corp. That would leave the well to flow for probably more than a decade, he said in a telephone interview

Additional references made to oil seeping from the sea floor because of a ruptured casing along the wellbore

On May 27, oil industry insider Matthew Simmons said that the gigantic 22 mi x 6 mi x 3,000 ft plume north of well is likely coming from another leak point at the wellhead or a fissure in the sea floor.




May 26, Simmons made reference to “another leak –much bigger– 5 to 6 miles away”:



Matthew Simmons on Bloomberg, May 28:



Matthew Simmons: “Chairman and CEO of Simmons & Company International, is a prominent oil-industry insider and one of the world’s leading experts on the topic of peak oil. Simmons… create[d] an investment banking firm catering to oil companies. In his previous capacity, he served as energy adviser to U.S. President George W. Bush.”

[don]

Re: As expected, BP abandons Top Kill approach

NASA shots of Gulf....

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fea...l_gallery.html

[KGW]

Re: As expected, BP abandons Top Kill approach

Here's a current image of the spill, with the Loop Current and its eddy:

[strittmatter]

Re: As expected, BP abandons Top Kill approach

http://bp.concerts.com/gom/kentwells...long053110.htm

If you have not seen this video, check it out.

This is pretty "big stuff", and big stuff can't be thrown together overnight-as I am reminded by the video. I keep forgetting that I'm an onshore 2000' or less water well guy which means that the time, effort and execution required with deepwater apps is off the charts by comparison. It's now apparent that the sticks and stones they've been throwing at it in the meantime were indeed induced by politico/public pressures. I honestly had been wondering about the possibilities of placing an overshot with a relief line and wondering why it has not been attempted. Evidently it has been in the works for a while, but again - takes more time to execute than I had realized.

[GRG55]

Re: As expected, BP abandons Top Kill approach

They had to cut loose the riser pipe. But if you look at the pics, right below the cut is a flange where the riser pipe bolted to the LMRP which is sitting on top of the BOP stack.

TPC is correct. They had to cut or blow away the riser. That was always known. I think the risk was that they weren't sure exactly what that would to do to the flow rates [almost certainly higher, but by how much?]. Now that the riser has been removed they have more options, including taking apart the high pressure flange that connected marine riser to the BOP stack. Here's a copy of a post of mine from last week:

They have pretty well exhausted all options to contain or cap the leak working with the existing wellhead without clearing the marine riser. My best guess is what BP really wants is to try to get a better measurement of the flow rate and fluid composition using this latest idea.

There is no way to assure a positive seal on a cut off end of pipe. But if the flowrate they measure on the recovery vessel seems manageable the next thing they might try is to use the remote vehicles to unbolt the high pressure flange connection where the marine riser attaches to the top of the BOP stack, float an open BOP valve over the plume, drop it onto the high pressure flange, bolt it up with the remotes, and then close it to try to cap the well. If they think this can work they may try it, even though it means suspending the collection of the oil during that operation, because it will take less time than completing the relief wells.

This would appear somewhat simpler to accomplish in this situation than onshore, because they would be bringing the BOP onto the flange from above. Onshore we have to move the BOP across the flow laterally to position it over the wellhead or casing bowl flange.

I am not sure why BP has apparently decided not to pursue this option. I think it has more to do with the politics and potential liability issues [e.g. more oil gets released during that delicate operation because it means removing the current containment apparatus and letting the well flow for perhaps several days]. BP is probably now going to take no risk and play it safe until they get a relief well down. I hope not, but who knows in these times when everybody is a bloody expert and "smarter than BP".

[Roughneck]

Re: As expected, BP abandons Top Kill approach

They had to cut loose the riser pipe. But if you look at the pics, right below the cut is a flange where the riser pipe bolted to the LMRP which is sitting on top of the BOP stack.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: As expected, BP abandons Top Kill approach

I'm just a little surprised that they haven't made some sort of flanged connection to bolt up instead of cutting the pipe and trying to slip something over it. Perhaps the rov's don't have that capability? I know there are issues with pressure and containment but you would think it could be managed. You could install a riser pack with valves to relieve the pressure if necessary. IDK enough about deep water operations. In shallow water we would send divers down.

Well, I don't even work shallow waters, much less deep. But I'd figure that this is not an either-or, flange or cut, but rather that the pipe had to be cut regardless, for any solution along these lines, whether to fit a collar or a flange or a rubber gasket.

In other words, how do you imagine they'd fit that flange, without first cutting the pipe off down where it was still straight and solid, below the bends and such?