[Coral-List] BP Oil Spill Response

Tom Williams ctwiliams at yahoo.com
Fri May 7 18:15:13 EDT 2010

I thought I would also weigh in on this - other than Deepwater-Horizon
I have worked in Lousiana and coastal texas from 1975 and have worked on oil/gas projects from North Slope/Endicott to ARAMCO Persian/Arab Gulfand several tanker failures as far away as Singapore..

No. and quotes from > Steve LeGore

1. Leaving aside potential carcinogenicity, it is the latter that 
> generally exhibit toxicity.  

2. Fortunately, crude oil floats, and in doing so it provides opportunity 
> for the more toxic lighter fractions to differentially evaporate into 
> the atmosphere, removing them from the water column environment.  

> And yes, the extreme depth at which this
> oil is released in the marine environment may well create
> unprecedented opportunities for mixing and dissolution.   

When discharged from the seafloor at 2000psi you first have to address the various phyical/distillation etc changes in the "crude oil" on the way-up from 4000ft in the water column and remember how much may be under water rather than floating stuff on the surface...

Remember also that the crude has dissolved gases - CH4-C6-C12 which are at >>>2000psi which while on the way-up do a lot of things we have No Ideas about, much less real science other, see the changes in vacuum/atmospheric distillation towers.

I believe we can assume the worst until someone proves that it does no harm

3.  These same lighter fractions tend to dissolve into the water column, 
> but fortunately they do so only to a limited extent.  

Does anyone know what the C1-C40 composition is of the in-place (>4000psi) crude being discharged from the seafloor at 2000psi??
 you first have to address the various phyical/distillation etc changes in the "crude oil" on the way-up and remember how much may be under water rather than the stuff on the surface...

4.  The only light component that dissolves to an appreciable extent is 
> benzene, which, if I remember correctly, can reach 17 ppm in a super 
> saturated state.  

Only benzene wow - ain't that enough compared to ETX!!
By the way some CRUDEs are the second in benzene only to gasoline/naptha depending on the field...again I haven't seen the in-place composition compared to the surface scum...where will the rest of it go??

5.  This means that there is a profound limit to the depth at which these 
> compounds can exert their toxic impacts.  They are generally limited to 
> the top few centimeters of the water column, which is of concern for 
> floating eggs and some other planktonic components.

Not unless anyone has any real data on what happens between 2000 and 500psi in seawater, then some refining experience may apply. 

6.  These factors may well enhance impacts of the spill in the GoM, but 
> what concerns me much more profoundly is the wholesale use of 
> dispersants. 

> They also emulsify spilled hydrocarbons, making them more biologically 
> available in the water column..  I question whether BP would have used 
> so much of these ill-advised compounds if public pressure had been more 
> measured.

Agreed especially as the Oil cleaners are only trying to get the stuff OUT of SIGHT and OUT of the PUBLIC MINDs

7.  > Oil spills are nasty when they reach shore.  There is no question 
> about it, and the oil will indeed cause many environmental problems in 
> these environments for many years to come, depending on how much oil 
> reaches these areas..  

> But the oil will most likely NOT cause destruction of all GoM fisheries 
> for the foreseeable future.  Deepwater fisheries likely will be affected
> more by fouling of gear by oil than by oil killing the target fish.

> But the spill will not turn the GoM into a biological desert.  By 
> screaming “Murder” I believe well-meaning environmentalists run the risk 
> of providing “Drill Baby Drill” people an argument when the ultimate 
> environmental effects fail to measure up to extreme panic calls.  

All of this "NOT Going to kil ALL" is unfounded especially in the marshes of the Louisiana coast which would be impossible to "clean"

We should get information but from WHOM..BP is not giving and has not given the information - it is "proprietary" which means we are to keep quiet because we don't have ALL while BP can say anything...BUT I remember a code of "Prove no harm" and "informed consent" which has been shown now to be used by BP...who also did Endicott in the Arctic OCean.

8.  > Let us please be measured and realistic so as to not provide a free 
> advantage to those who would overlook the real issues involved here.

THEY already have all of the highly paid for advantage and will "overlook" bury or sink anyone who tries to differ..

Sorry I had to react to this one

Dr. Tom Williams, Un.Ks 1962, and others

--- On Fri, 5/7/10, Steve LeGore <slegore at mindspring.com> wrote:
> From: Steve LeGore <slegore at mindspring.com>
> Subject: [Coral-List] BP Oil Spill Response
> To: "Coral List" <coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov>
> Date: Friday, May 7, 2010, 12:23 PM
> However, we must remember that crude oil is not as toxic as
> refined petroleum products.  It is a mix of many hydrocarbons, including 
> many heavy complex compounds as well as lighter fractions.  

> Steve LeGore
> Steve LeGore, Ph.D.
> LeGore Environmental Associates, Inc.
> 2804 Gulf Drive N.
> Holmes Beach, Florida 34217 USA
> Tel: 941/778-4650
> Fax: 941/778-4761
> Cell: 941/447-8010
> GMT + 4 hrs
> _______________________________________________
> Coral-List mailing list
> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list

More information about the Coral-List mailing list