Views and debates on climate change policy
Home | Panelists | Staff Blog | RSS

Post Carbon

EPA demands less-toxic dispersant

UPDATED at noon with comment from BP's Steve Rinehart.

By Juliet Eilperin

The Environmental Protection Agency informed BP officials late Wednesday that the company has 24 hours to choose a less-toxic form of chemical dispersants to break up its oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, according to government sources familiar with the decision, and must apply the new form of dispersants within 72 hours of submitting the list of alternatives.

The move is significant, because it suggests federal officials are now concerned that the unprecedented use of chemical dispersants could pose a significant threat to the Gulf of Mexico's marine life. BP has been using two forms of dispersants, Corexit 9500A and Corexit 9527A, and so far has applied 600,000 gallons on the surface and 55,000 underwater.

"Dispersants have never been used in this volume before," said an administration official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the decision hasn't been formally announced. "This is a large amount of dispersants being used, larger amounts than have ever been used, on a pipe that continues to leak oil and that BP is still trying to cap."

The new policy applies to both surface and undersea application, according to sources, and comes as the EPA has just posted BP's own results from monitoring the effect that underwater application of chemical dispersants has had in terms of toxicity, dissolved oxygen and effectiveness.

An EPA official said the agency would make an announcement on the matter later Thursday.

BP spokesman Steve Rinehart wrote in an e-mail that company officials "are conducting ongoing assessment of alternative or supplemental dispersant products" and "we'll only use approved products; any dispersant that will be used going forward will be subject to government review and approval."

"Corexit was readily available in the quantities required by the spill response plan which was pre-approved by the government for use in spill response," he added. "It has been very effective in causing the oil to form into small, isolated droplets that remain suspended until they're either eaten by naturally occurring microbes, evaporate, are picked up, or dissolve."

After BP conducted three rounds of testing, federal officials approved the use of underwater dispersants late last week, but environmentalists and some lawmakers have questioned the potential dangers of such a strategy.

On Monday, Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) sent a letter to EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson questioning the approach, given that Britain banned some formulations of the dispersant Corexit more than a decade ago.

In the letter, Markey warned, "The release of hundreds of thousands of gallons of chemicals into the Gulf of Mexico could be an unprecedented, large and aggressive experiment on our oceans, and requires careful oversight by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other appropriate federal agencies."

The EPA has a list of its approved dispersants on its Web site.

On Thursday, Markey commended the EPA, saying, "The effect of long-term use of dispersants on the marine ecosystem has not been extensively studied, and we need to act with the utmost of caution."

By

Juliet Eilperin

 |  May 20, 2010; 12:02 PM ET Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati  
Previous: Kerry and unlikely ally talk up climate bill | Next: Rahall demands NOAA hand over environmental documents

Comments

Please report offensive comments below.



The poor quality of these comments is truly embarassing. Spouting off about a situation nobody completely understands actually prevents you from learning from the thousands of experts assembled to solve an unprecedented problem.

It is amazing to me how stubborn people are about government being able to handle anything. How many failures do you need before you give up this fantasy?

Posted by: clairesolt | May 23, 2010 5:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Welcome to the new Bhopal 2010. The EPA directed BP to stop using the highly toxic dispersant and BP just thumbs their nose at the EPA. The government we now have in place is more than useless. If I was to ignore a directive from the EPA they would have had me in jail by now. All our government can do is make speeches, have meaningless hearings, and send lawyers who have no experience like Napolitano a Politician/lawyer to run things and provide oversight. If you have appendicitis you don’t call a lawyer you get an expert a medical doctor. If you have a ruptured pipe in your house you don’t call a lawyer you call a expert a plumber. The close ties between BP and all our government officials is criminal. Better government through bigger bribes.

Posted by: thasam | May 23, 2010 2:12 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Why didn't BP or any of the government agencies involved STOP the oil gusher within one or two weeks? The chemical being used to disperse the oil may be helpful to the public relations image of BP, but deliberately adding toxic chemicals to our Gulf because one doesn't want the public to see the oil slick that results from the pouring of millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico is wrong.

BP has acted and their profits are more important than our ecosystem, beaches, marshes, reefs, oysters, shrimp, etc.

Posted by: cmvoorhees | May 22, 2010 1:22 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Believe it or not, consider a nuke?

http://www.oil-price.net/en/articles/use-nukes-to-contain-the-oil-spill.php

Regulation is definitely needed when technology isn't really up to snuff with reality. Why we allow drilling a mile down is beyond me. It is apparent finite technology is all we have.

MPH

Posted by: mph2261 | May 22, 2010 10:14 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Before you can recover from a spill, you have to stop spilling.

Are they really doing their best to stop this?

Posted by: Benson | May 22, 2010 7:30 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Okay, WHERE IS THE NAVY? Underwater experts! On the payroll! Here is an issue of domestic and international concern and we do not take the control away from the guilty parties and bring in the people who should be overseeing everything. Then next time…wait for it…THEY would be the experts and would not have their own best interests at heart! Why don’t we let the criminals preside over their own trials while we are at it. Dispersents only disguise the problem by making it sink faster but it isn't gone! The government should have been prepared with products that would have saved the animals and environment. The wetlands could be safe if the laboratory tested and approved product demonstrated in the background of this video had been on hand! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5oZ8baaBOY

Posted by: leroysgame | May 22, 2010 6:11 AM
Report Offensive Comment

The EPA has provided strange instructions to BP [EPA, Addendum 2, available at www.epa.gov/bpspill/dispersants/directive-addendum2.pdf]. The key sentence reads:

“...BP shall identify... dispersant products from the National Contingency Plan Product Schedule that... have a toxicity value less than or equal to 23.00 ppm LC50 toxicity value for Menidia or 18.00 ppm LC50 for Mysidopsis....”

As is well known to environmental workers, “A lower LC50 means the substance is more toxic.” For example, copper in fish ponds, reviewed at www.koifishponds.com/copper.htm.

The EPA Web site includes toxicity ratings for 15 approved dispersant chemicals, including LC50 ratings for two marine species: the inland silverside, an estuary fish (Menidia beryllina), and the possum shrimp, also an estuary dweller (Mysidopsis bahia). In addition, there are effectiveness ratings for two crude oils, including “South Louisiana Crude.” The EPA ratings, in order from least toxic to most toxic for the inland silverside:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Toxicity LC50, ppm - -Effectiveness
Product - - - - - - - - - -Menidia - -Mysidopsis - - - - So. La.
MARE CLEAN 200- - - 1996 - - - - 938 - - - - - - - - 84.1%
JD-2000 - - - - - - - - - - - 407.00 - - - 90.50 - - - - - 77.8%
NEOS AB3000 - - - - - - - -91.1 - - - -33.0 - - - - - - 89.8%
NOKOMIS 3-AA - - - - - - -34.22 - - - 20.16 - - - - - 65.7%
ZI-400 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -31.76 - - - 20.96 - - - - - 89.8%
SEA BRAT #4 - - - - - - - - 30.00 - - - 14.00 - - - - - 60.6%
NOKOMIS 3-F4 - - - - - - -29.80 - - - -32.20 - - - - - 64.9%
SAF-RON GOLD - - - - - - 29.43 - - - 63.00 - - - - - 53.8%
COREXIT EC9500A - - - 25.20 - - - -32.23 - - - - - 54.7%
SPILLCLEAN - - - - - - - - -24.30 - - - 10.00 - - - - - - -N/A
COREXIT EC9527A - - - -14.57 - - - -24.14 - - - - - 63.4%
BIODISPERS - - - - - - - - -13.46 - - - -78.90 - - - - - 63.0%
FINASOL OSR 52 - - - - - -11.66 - - - - 9.37 - - - - - -71.6%
DISPERSIT SPC 1000 - - - 3.5 - - - - 16.6 - - - - - -105 -%
JD-109 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.90 - - - - 1.18 - - - - - - 91 -%

The main product that BP has been using is Corexit EC9500A. It has an LC50 rating for Menidia beryllina of 25.20 parts per million and an effectiveness rating for “South Louisiana Crude” of 54.7 percent.

BP is following EPA instructions literally and is reported to have ordered 60,000 gallons of Dispersit SPC 1000. That product has an LC50 rating for Menidia beryllina of 3.5 parts per million and an effectiveness rating for “South Louisiana Crude” of 105 percent. So indeed it meets the requirement:: “toxicity value less than or equal to 23.00 ppm LC50 toxicity value for Menidia.”

While Dispersit SPC 1000 can be expected to be a more effective dispersant than Corexit EC9500A, it is lethal to estuary fish at one-seventh the concentration of Corexit EC9500A--that is, it is much more toxic than the product BP has been using.

Posted by: AppDev | May 21, 2010 12:44 PM
Report Offensive Comment

For those hoping for green detergents that biodegrade

(and to the company representative with a biodegradable product that will fully degrade in 30 days)

Remember that we don't necessarily want something that is quickly degradable. One of the biggest challenges with dispersants will be that the degradation of oil and dispersant itself will consume oxygen and could seriously affect the ability of the water column to support any life.

Its far from clear if you would want quick degradation or simply something that keeps the oil inert for longer so the O2 concentration is able to be (slowly) replenished as the products are still degrading. Its much more complicated than just the biodegradability of the surfactant itself

(less toxic as being mandated would obviously be better though)

A few questions, if other are better, why are these being used? Price? Availability? Production capacity? Ease of application? This is huge questions that i'm sure BP will be answering eventually. (hope for their sake it's not the price!)

Posted by: will14 | May 20, 2010 5:42 PM
Report Offensive Comment

THE EPA IS JUST AN OTHER BIG GOVERNMENT GROUP THAT CAN SCREW UP MORE THAN IT CAN FIX.
WHAT HAS THE EPA BEEN DOING SINCE THE OIL SPILL IN ALASKA, WHERE ARE THE FIRE BOOMS THAT WE WHERE TO HAVE IF NEEDED.
THE EPA SHOULD BE SHUT DOWN FOR THE SAKE OF THIS COUNTRY,THEY ARE USELESS WITH THEIR IDEAS ABOUT CARBON.
THE EPA ,DEPT OF EDUCATION,AND A FEW OTHER NEED TO BE SHUT DOWN FOR GOOD,THEY ARE A LARGE WASTE OF TAXPAYER MONEY.

Posted by: cj362810 | May 20, 2010 3:52 PM
Report Offensive Comment

GW Bush and Dick Chaney have announced that they are partnering in a new venture called "Working The Gulf;" designed to employ Gulf fisherman and revive the moribund gulf states economies. They plan to hire inactive fisherman to harvest gulf water's shell fish and shrimp. The seafood will be processed and cleaned at Mexico's Campeche Petrochemical plant, owned by Pemex, with the application of Chaney's secret proprietary blend of sauces thus rendering the sea food safe for both human consumption and use as a childhood vaccines.

As food, the dynamic duo promise that final product distributed by Wallymart will be nonpareil. Dubyah says, just throw em on the barbie and light-no charcoal or lighting fluid required.

Posted by: Reesh | May 20, 2010 3:35 PM
Report Offensive Comment

A senior BP executive testified to Congress that the ruptured oil well in the Gulf of Mexico could conceivably spill as much as 60,000 barrels (2,520,000 Gallons) of Oil a day, more than 10~12 times current flow estimates.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/05/us/05spill.html

BP is hiding the true amount of Oil that is spilling into the Gulf. We need to analyze the True Flow Rate and charge them accordingly for the Waste, as well as the Cleanup and Restoration.

We have several proven techniques for determining the flow rate of the spill.
May 13th NPR interviewed Dr. IAN MCDONALD (Biological Oceanographer, Florida State University): “These measures are well within the means of science. This is not a new and unproven area. And if they're not doing it, then I hate to say it, but it sounds like they're choosing not to do it.”

Dr. NORMAN GUINASSO (Director, Geochemical and Environmental Research Group, Texas A&M University): We got a glimpse of it in the headquarters of our Homeland Security Department, because it was a backdrop to the secretary talking about some other issue. But, you know, that this data exists, I think the public would be interested in seeing it.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126782907

BP is hiding the true amount of Oil that is spilling into the Gulf. We need to analyze the True Flow Rate and charge them accordingly for the Waste, as well as the Cleanup and Restoration.

The Oil and Gas Industries have been Cheating the Public out of Billions every year, all while enjoying both Public Subsidies and Tax exemptions (in the case of Gulf Coast Drillers).

Current Estimates:

60,000 barrels (2,520,000 Gallons) a Day. 30 Days = over 60,000,000 Gallons (60 Million).

Posted by: liveride | May 20, 2010 3:09 PM
Report Offensive Comment

May 19, 2010 – A proposal from three major companies recommends dispersing Green Earth Technologies' G-MARINE Fuel Spill Clean-UP! by aircraft to combat the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. The plan was proposed to government agencies.

The proposal involves the use of 7 aircraft to disperse an environmentally green oil treatment in the Gulf. The strategy would enhance current efforts to control the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

The ingredient list has been reviewed by the US EPA and contains no ingredients considered hazardous by OSHA. G-MARINE Fuel Spill Clean-UP! blends plant derived, water based and ultimate biodegradable ingredients that are formulated to quickly emulsify and encapsulate fuel and oil spills.

Stock is moving today for them. Perhaps they got the gig?

Posted by: jayzeemd | May 20, 2010 2:46 PM
Report Offensive Comment

BP will get sued for oil damage and now then can turn around and sue the EPA for forcing them to use less effective dispersants.

Posted by: FLvet | May 20, 2010 1:39 PM
========================================

An outstanding display of wingnut ignorance, FLvet.

The alternative dispersants are 1) MORE effective, and 2) LESS toxic.

"Of 18 dispersants whose use EPA has approved, 12 were found to be more effective on southern Louisiana crude than Corexit, EPA data show. Two of the 12 were found to be 100 percent effective on Gulf of Mexico crude, while the two Corexit products rated 56 percent and 63 percent effective, respectively. The toxicity of the 12 was shown to be either comparable to the Corexit line or, in some cases, 10 or 20 times less, according to EPA."
...
"Among Corexit's competitors, a product called Dispersit far outpaced Corexit 9500, EPA test results show, rating nearly twice as effective and between half and a third as toxic, based on two tests performed on fish and shrimp."
~

Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya | May 20, 2010 2:41 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Ms. Eilperin make no sense.

The EPA site [www.epa.gov/emergencies/content/ncp/product_schedule.htm] lists these approved dispersants:
BIODISPERS (formerly PETROBIODISPERS), COREXIT EC9500A (formerly COREXIT 9500), COREXIT EC9527A (formerly COREXIT 9527), DISPERSIT SPC 1000, FINASOL OSR 52, FIREMAN'S BRAND SPILLCLEAN (see SPILLCLEAN), JD-109
JD-2000, MARE CLEAN 200 (formerly MARE CLEAN 505), NEOS AB3000, NOKOMIS 3-AA, NOKOMIS 3-F4, SAF-RON GOLD, SEA BRAT #4, SEACARE E.P.A. (see DISPERSIT SPC 1000), SF-GOLD DISPERSANT (see SAF-RON GOLD), ZI-400 and ZI-400 OIL SPILL DISPERSANT (see ZI-400)

Previous widely distributed news reports said:
"It has been confirmed that the dispersal agent being used by BP and the government is Corexit 9500, a solvent originally developed by Exxon and now manufactured by Nalco Holding Company of Naperville, IL."
and
"British Petroleum and government disaster-relief agencies are using a toxic chemical to disperse oil in the Gulf of Mexico, even though a better alternative appears to be available. Called Dispersit, it’s manufactured by the U.S. Polychemical Corporation and has been approved for use by the Environmental Protection Agency."

So while it is possible there is a better product than what BP is using, it appears BP has been using an EPA-approved product. What's the fuss?

Posted by: AppDev | May 20, 2010 2:30 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Drat! Just when I was getting used to eatin' those oil-soaked oysters and shrimp!
The batter has been ... different.

Posted by: perryneheum | May 20, 2010 2:20 PM
Report Offensive Comment

My company, which just hit the market, fulfills the EPA's request for a nontoxic solution to the Gulf oil spill, and we've been trying to get through to BP and EPA for weeks.
Our solution, Petromist, will completely biodegrade all oil in less than 30 days, and it will clean wildlife in just minutes. It will also make the shores pristine within hours. We at PES would pay a fee to anyone who gets into contact with someone important at BP or the EPA, if we get the contract to clean up all or a significant part of the spill.
Thank you,
David Elmore
Chief Marketing Officer
Petromist Environmental Solutions
Atlanta, GA
404-409-3283

Posted by: yandarn | May 20, 2010 2:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment

The poisons used no doubt will enter the food chain for a generation, maybe more. Instead of a pipe inserted into the gushing pipe, why hasn't a larger one putting the gushing pipe into it been used? It might be the robots don't have the power nor hydraulic systems needed to lift the weight of both to accomplish this. I wonder if steel stranded wire could be pulled under the gushing pipe with inflatable balloons attached to lift it is feasible. The spill has entered the Gulf Stream endangering the coral reef on FL east coast and the Atlantic coastal fishing industry as well as the LA coast being despoiled.

Posted by: jameschirico | May 20, 2010 1:51 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Now comes the U.S. version of the Gestapo, they don't want the oil spill dissolved, it doesn't fit their agenda. The more oil that hits the shore, the more support they can drum up for their anti drilling cause. they will go out and appeal to the great dumbmasses, and will cause drilling to be shelved for another twenty years. It's because of the EPA that we have to drill in deep water anyway. China is drilling in the gulf, and they aren't drilling in a mile deep water. But, that’s what you get, the EPA is at fault to begin with, and then they want to make it harder to fix the problem they caused.

Posted by: phines1 | May 20, 2010 1:49 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I would like to hear exactly what kind of disperants are being used - with a description of the chemcial make-up


And a short description of how toxic these chemicals are claimed to be.

And descriptions of what the EPA wants to use - and how much LESS toxic it is.


It is annoying that the EPA is NOT making a recommendation - they are TELLING BP TO MAKE THE CHOICE.


HOWEVER THE EPA IS DICTATING THE CHOICE, AREN'T THEY ?


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | May 20, 2010 1:42 PM
Report Offensive Comment

There is a product that meets the EPA guidelines and the company is ready to participate - MOP Environmental Solutions. They are in communication with BP, but the politics are stopping them. See my blog for more information from the president of the company. http://bit.ly/cKfVVF

LET'S STOP THE POLITICS AND FIX THE SITUATION

Reuven I Rubinson, CPA, MBA

Posted by: sdcpa | May 20, 2010 1:41 PM
Report Offensive Comment

BP will get sued for oil damage and now then can turn around and sue the EPA for forcing them to use less effective dispersants.

Posted by: FLvet | May 20, 2010 1:39 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Ah yes, the Einsteins called the EPA finally checking in. These are the same dimwits that suggested to ban DDT.
Posted by: ANTILIB | May 20, 2010 11:31 AM
_________________________
Well, they're clearly Einsteins compared to you. Without the DDT ban, we'd have no more bald eagles, among other things.

And of course you're probably completely unaware of the fact that the move to ban DDT began before EPA was even established. Too complicated a fact for a neocon.

Posted by: luridone | May 20, 2010 1:36 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Well it has become apparent that its not working anyways so why even bother.

Lou
www.web-anonymity.cz.tc

Posted by: clermontpc | May 20, 2010 1:35 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Wondering how many of the idiots who posted the initial comments actually live down here and have family, friends and community in danger from Corexit and other toxic dispersants.

Or how many of them work for BP and related companies.

It's about time the EPA did this.

Posted by: dirtysouth | May 20, 2010 1:31 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Ah yes, the Einsteins called the EPA finally checking in. These are the same dimwits that suggested to ban DDT.

POSTED BY: ANTILIB | MAY 20, 2010 11:31 AM
REPORT OFFENSIVE COMMENT

_______

Tom DeLay | Republican

In 1995, DeLay had this to say about the Environmental Protection Agency:

The EPA, the Gestapo of government, pure and simply has been one of the major clawhooks that the government has maintained on the backs of our constituents.


GOOD TIMES, ANTILIB!

good times...

Posted by: lichtme | May 20, 2010 1:26 PM
Report Offensive Comment

It seems to me supremely stupid for the government and BP to try to cover up the extent of the erupting oil and the damage it is causing and will cause. The evidence is going to be inescapable shortly. Deliberately misleading the public in this instance is short-sighted to say the least, and will only lead to a further erosion of public confidence in both the government and the oil industry.

The fact that nobody apparently ever foresaw the possibility of this kind of situation and consequently had no plans to deal with it just boggles my mind. The flailing, floundering panic response to this spill is inexcusable.

Posted by: nicekid | May 20, 2010 1:19 PM
Report Offensive Comment

EPA stops oil cleanup... how useful

Posted by: Obama_TRAITOR_in_Chief | May 20, 2010 1:08 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Tom DeLay | Republican

In 1995, DeLay had this to say about the Environmental Protection Agency:

The EPA, the Gestapo of government, pure and simply has been one of the major clawhooks that the government has maintained on the backs of our constituents.


GOOD TIMES, REAGAN REVOLUTIONARIES!

good times...

Posted by: lichtme | May 20, 2010 1:03 PM
Report Offensive Comment

One can't make a rubber stamp without using a little oil.

Oh, a billion gallons isn't so much for a really versatile rubber stamp.

It works on defense contractors, environmental reviews, labor laws...

Posted by: forestbloggod | May 20, 2010 1:02 PM
Report Offensive Comment

It should be clear the EPA, BP, Transocean, NOAA, congress, and all of the Gulf Coast state governments have absolutely no idea what they are doing in the emergency response to the BP oil leak. This should be clear even to those who among us who are unable to grasp any of the technical aspects.

As a nation and society we've seen all this before...both during and following Hurricane Katrina and the response to 9/11. Both of these events were "significant toxic events", but our nation's monopolized press just fumbled along not understanding, not digging and not reporting the issue details -- reporters just parrot at face value the words of people in-charge, nearly all of who were incompetent.

The problem is cheap reporting. For example, last evening, WaPo writer Joel Achenbach's story, "In the bayou, fish and oil have mixed for decades". This piece 'sort-of' portrayed apathetic local fishermen -- the shrimpers, oystermen, snapper boats and crawdad trappers -- local folk who just didn't believe the BP oil event to be that big of a thing. Besides, they made supplemental income from the oil rigs.

I know better.

I was a lobsterman for four years out of Key Largo. After that, I spent decades cleaning up hazardous waste sites and preventing enlarging environmental messes from growing in size.

For every 'Billy-Bob the bibber-shrimper', there are dozens more fishermen who do care. There are also recreational users who care. These people care a great deal.

Then again, last night on the PBS News Hour -- all the "experts" waxed eloquently on how the surfactants being used were just fine with everyone who counts...this morning they're not fine.

Again the corporate media -- print and broadcast -- are keeping the public ill-informed.

Posted by: Vunderlutz | May 20, 2010 12:58 PM
Report Offensive Comment

From Day One BP could have gradually Wedged an Outlet Pipe into the current broken pipe and Retrieved most of the Oil and Gas into Tankers. They were and still are being TOO CHEAP in investing in Resources to Stop this Disaster.


Even now, BP is hiding the true amount of Oil that is spilling into the Gulf. We need to analyze the True Flow Rate and charge them accordingly to the Waste, as well as the Cleanup and Restoration.

The Woods Hole scientists are being "Denied Access" for Independent analysis. We have several proven techniques for determining the flow rate of the spill.

The Oil and Gas Industries have been Cheating the Public out of Billions every year, by "Underestimating Flow Rates", all while enjoying both Public Subsidies and Tax exemptions (in the case of Gulf Coast Drillers).

TAKE ACTION LOUISIANA, CONGRESS & SENATE:

Send FEMA, National Guard, Coast Guard, US Navy to use Smart Sponges to Soak up the Oil.

Require Drillers to be Insured for Worst case Scenario ($100 Billion ~ $1~2 Trillion from the looks of this accident).

The Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund supported by industry fees should be raised from $1 Billion to $500 Billion.

Current Drillers should be subject to new Insurance and Safety Regulation Requirements (& Frequent Inspections to Verify compliance) to include Secondary Relief Wells, Remote Acoustic Triggers for Shut Off Valves, corrosion resistant Carbon Fiber Reinforced pipes, and High Quality Cement Sealing requirements; many of which are standard safety requirements in Canada, Brazil, and Norway.

Posted by: liveride | May 20, 2010 12:42 PM
Report Offensive Comment

60,000 barrels a day? The spindletop didn't come in that big in the early 20th century! And, just for the record, aliens did NOT land in area 51.

Posted by: jim999 | May 20, 2010 12:41 PM
Report Offensive Comment

This stinks as bad as the FDA banning salt statement a few weeks ago. In the endless media horserace the retractions are always buried. In the meantime everyone needs to throw in their 2 cents.

Posted by: theobserver4 | May 20, 2010 12:41 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I am favor of sending BP notice of public execution of its leadership.

Posted by: kevin1231 | May 20, 2010 12:35 PM
Report Offensive Comment

If BP and Louisiana is serious about cleaning up the Oil spill they should be using Tools made specifically for that Job: AbTech Smart Sponges Absorb Oil while Repelling Water and Float for easy retrieval.

http://www.abtechindustries.com/

Current Estimates:

60,000 barrels (2,520,000 Gallons) a Day. 30 Days = over 60,000,000 Gallons (60 Million).

Posted by: liveride | May 20, 2010 12:35 PM
Report Offensive Comment

BP never should have used a butyl cellosolve based dispersant. The chemical has appreciable toxicity and has higher toxicity than alternatives. It is clear that BP used the cheapest dispersant they could and did not use one with less toxicity simply because the butyl cellosolve is so cheap.

The best type material to use would be a propyl-glycol ether-based material, designed specially not to wreck havoc on the environment and these are better oil emulsifiers than ethylene glycol based ones, albeit twice the cost of what they were using last week.

Once again, BP decided to cut costs instead of doing the right thing.

btw: I sure hope that the CEO of BP ends up like the villian in the James Bond movie "Quantum of Solitude."

Those unknowlegable goofballs who dismiss the value of the EPA forget that without it the chemical industry would be subject to lawsuits far in excess than it is today because the EPA's imprimatur, akin to FDA approval, obviates most claims for damages. So, for those idiotic mouth breathers who want to abolish the EPA, you ought to realize that the EPA is the best thing that ever happened to the chemical industry in America because it has prevented the industry from being subject to crippling lawsuits.

Posted by: kuvasz | May 20, 2010 12:26 PM
Report Offensive Comment

The dispersant is going to make the water fraction of the oil/water emulsion too high for the slick to burn.

Posted by: jim999 | May 20, 2010 11:53 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Why don't they just burn the oil? Maybe the whole ocean will catch fire.

Posted by: foofoofoo | May 20, 2010 11:48 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Rep. Edward J. "Fast Eddie" Markey (D-Mass.)

From my state, The People's Republic of Taxachusetts....Why am I not surprised?

Posted by: ANTILIB | May 20, 2010 11:44 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Who is on FIRST? The EPA site referenced in the article lists BOTH chemicals as approved! It states that they BOTH are useful for dispersing crude oil in salt water. Has the WP grilled the EPA dudes who approved this stuff in the first place? Why jump on BP for using chemicals previously approved by EPA (during the Clinton administration)? If you want to jump on BP, how about nailing them for the squeeze the company man put on the driller to flush the mud even though the negative pressure test showed an anomaly? How about jumping on MMS - they don't even require a negative pressure test on the bottom plug! And the BOP that couldn't squeeze off the casing and drill pipe! Lot's of blame to go around.

Posted by: jim999 | May 20, 2010 11:40 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Sounds like political pressure?

Does the government want to take responsbility?

Do you wan the government to do it with the time and efficency of the post office?

Posted by: wlbutts | May 20, 2010 11:37 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Ah yes, the Einsteins called the EPA finally checking in. These are the same dimwits that suggested to ban DDT.

Posted by: ANTILIB | May 20, 2010 11:31 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Ah yes...the EPA!!!
A group of political appointees with absolutely no expertise in the areas they are trying to control. Typical of the current administration!
Posted by: brooklynborn1 | May 20, 2010 11:09 AM
_____________________________________
Typical ignorant neo-con. I'll bet you didn't know that Lisa Jackson, the EPA Administrator, has a Master of Science in chemical engineering from Princeton. She's been working at EPA and the NJ Dept. of Environmental Protection on a variety of issues, including hazardous waste.

As opposed to Bush's first head of EPA, Michael Leavitt, who has a Bachelor's in business and economics and no experience in environmental issues.

Posted by: luridone | May 20, 2010 11:30 AM
Report Offensive Comment

By far the best answer seen ever for effective clean-up of this oil-goo was clearly demonstrated on CNN a few days ago by a company rep (based in Florida I believe) & it involved not just a material that formed an effective matting soak-up of masses of that goo but provided massive doses of a bacteria/enzyme that would then attack & consume the stuff! Why is it not being deployed -NOW!!!????

Posted by: neilo1 | May 20, 2010 11:27 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hey...we finally hear from the EPA!!!!

Posted by: economy48 | May 20, 2010 11:25 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Damage is already done. Too late to worry now. The Obama government is just like the Bush government: INEPT!

Posted by: Maddogg | May 20, 2010 11:21 AM
Report Offensive Comment

http://twurl.nl/s0egkw Is ANYBODY listening?!!!!
9:18 AM May 7th via Tweetburner

Posted by: SarasotaPete | May 20, 2010 11:18 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Ah yes...the EPA!!!
A group of political appointees with absolutely no expertise in the areas they are trying to control. Typical of the current administration!

Posted by: brooklynborn1 | May 20, 2010 11:09 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Disband the EPA and let private industry solve the problem? Where have I heard those similar sentiments before? Oh Ya, from the Bush administration and their hands off approach toward regulating THE OIL INDUSTRY. The EPA like most other "government" regulating / policing agencies are the best way that modern society has learned "through experience" to manage what would otherwise dog eat dog chaos, death and destruction. It's just incredible to see such an extreme lack of reasoning ability among many of America's voting public. Pew research recently polled scientists and found that only 6% of them vote Republican. That's not a surprise as most scientists are "thinking" people.

Posted by: cmrosko | May 20, 2010 11:04 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Great BP as always trying to give the run around. BP refuses to say how much oil is being leaked every day. BP refuses data access to independent experts. BP is dumping an absurd amount of chemical dispersants that is prohibited in their own homeland because of its toxicity....and the list goes on and on...plainly outrageous.
In retrospect, why bother? According to Mr. Hayward the Gulf is too big, so no harm done. As ironic as it seems, maybe Mr. Hayward should have a summer internship with Exxon to learn a little more about prevention and reaction.
Boycott BP and CALL your representative to impose a massive penalty because we know they will refuse to pay the costs to clean the Gulf and a massive loss on the environment is already under way.

Posted by: mterra | May 20, 2010 11:00 AM
Report Offensive Comment

The EPA is a pox on business. Does the EPA really want this oil problem solved?
Save the coast line disband the EPA..

POSTED BY: YOKOHLMAN | MAY 20, 2010 10:20 AM
REPORT OFFENSIVE COMMENT

Tom DeLay | Republican

In 1995, DeLay had this to say about the Environmental Protection Agency:

The EPA, the Gestapo of government, pure and simply has been one of the major clawhooks that the government has maintained on the backs of our constituents.


GOOD TIMES, YOKOHLMAN!

good times...

Posted by: lichtme | May 20, 2010 10:57 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hey, it's Capitalism, folks!

Don't you like money??


POSTED BY: GKAM | MAY 20, 2010 10:47 AM
REPORT OFFENSIVE COMMENT

What could be more American than linking the root of all evil?

"In God We Trust"—right?

Posted by: lichtme | May 20, 2010 10:55 AM
Report Offensive Comment

The EPA is like the wind, it blows one way and then another way. They think something is great one minute, and don't like it the next. The EPA is like environmentalists, they can't agree on anything.

Posted by: gmclain | May 20, 2010 10:49 AM
Report Offensive Comment


Hey, it's Capitalism, folks!

Don't you like money??


Posted by: gkam | May 20, 2010 10:47 AM
Report Offensive Comment

BP is a pox on our earth. BP doesn't really careabout your or anybody's health. Ban BP.
POSTED BY: GLENGLISH | MAY 20, 2010 10:33 AM
REPORT OFFENSIVE COMMENT
LOL BP is in the oil/gas business. They provide a product you demand. Yes you unless you walk to ride a bike then you use oil/gas and are just as much to blame as the next person. Guess what??? You’re just as responsible for the coal miners that died last month as you ALSO REQUIRE COAL!!!!! LIB T@RDS are hilarious.

Posted by: askgees | May 20, 2010 10:46 AM
Report Offensive Comment

So where is the announcement you speak of in this story? I haven't seen ANY mention of it in other sources. Or is this just made up like most of the press coverage on this topic?

Posted by: otbricki | May 20, 2010 10:44 AM
Report Offensive Comment

It's a sad state when the profit motives of a company cause it to select a solution that is worse than the problem that it is solving.
BP for too long has stood for Bought Politicians.
Now it is Big Problem.
Nationalization of all resources in this country and US territories and waters,may become necessary, to pay for remediation of the problems it has created.

Posted by: laurelphoto | May 20, 2010 10:42 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Yeah, who needs the EPA. Poison our water, poison our oceans, poison the food supply. Our children will all die of cancer, but who cares, the free market and profit first!!

Posted by: WestOfTheMississippi | May 20, 2010 10:36 AM
Report Offensive Comment

BP is a pox on our earth. BP doesn't really careabout your or anybody's health. Ban BP.

Posted by: glenglish | May 20, 2010 10:33 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Why not seriously look at the smart guys plan and stop killing things?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5SxX2EntEo&feature=related

Disperse to where?
Gather it and deal with it in extraction and use.


The EPA is a nonsensical and 'way to expensive' Governance. Fund the people to handle it, and get out of the way as the expert obstructionist.

Posted by: dottydo | May 20, 2010 10:31 AM
Report Offensive Comment

The EPA is a pox on business. Does the EPA really want this oil problem solved?
Save the coast line disband the EPA..

Posted by: yokohlman | May 20, 2010 10:20 AM
Report Offensive Comment

What will happen if BP doesn't comply? A fine or judicial action should be severe enough to make BP want to reform its ways.

Posted by: ebroadwe | May 20, 2010 10:16 AM
Report Offensive Comment

I hope it works!

Posted by: young23 | May 20, 2010 10:14 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Post a Comment


 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company