Panel recommends continued use of oil dispersant

Source: AP

Panel recommends continued use of oil dispersant
By NOAKI SCHWARTZ (AP)


NEW ORLEANS — A federal panel of about 50 experts is recommending the continued use of chemical dispersants to break up the oil gushing in the Gulf of Mexico, despite its harm to plankton, larvae and fish.

Panel member Ron Tjeerdema (juh-DEER'-muh) said Friday they decided the animals harmed by the chemicals underwater had a better chance of rebounding quickly than birds and mammals on the shoreline. Tjeerdema chairs the Department of Environmental Toxicology at the University of California, Davis.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration asked for the panel to be assembeled to provide the federal government and BP with guidance on whether they should continue to use the controversial dispersants.

Officials have released just over a million gallons of chemicals on and in the water since the April 20 blowout.



Read more: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iJ4xX_1A_qdwE4vFklQHUzAocHgAD9G4Q3UG4

:grr:

Spread the decision making responsibility around. They have concerns about "public perception", and that it had become a "hot media topic", touched on in the report & meeting flyer.

fricking idiots, pour toxic dispersants on top of toxic oil by the milliobns of gallons. :puke:

:crazy:

connected to Nalco.

here's the report (108 page pdf) It was a 2-day event.

http://www.crrc.unh.edu/dwg/dwh_dispersants_use_meeting_report.pdf

"The Coastal Response Research Center gratefully acknowledges the CRRC authors of this
report: Nancy E. Kinner, Joseph J. Cunningham III, Zachary E. Magdol, Heather R.
Ballestero, and Tyler M. Crowe. The Center acknowledges the time and effort provided by
the participants in the workshop, whose contributions have been synthesized into this
report. In addition, the Center acknowledges the thoughtful input and comments received
from the reviewers of the draft report: Craig Carroll (USEPA, RRT6); Richard Coffin (USNRL);
William Conner (NOAA, ORR); Charlie Henry (NOAA, ORR); Bruce Hollebone
(Environment Canada); Robert Pond (USCG); Jeep Rice (NOAA, NMFS); Terry Wade
(Texas A&M University). The Center also gratefully acknowledges the help of Professor
Donald W. Davis (LSU – Emeritus), David Nieland (LSU, Sea Grant) and the staff of the
Lod Cook Hotel and Alumni Center at LSU for their help in making this meeting happen in
less than 96 hours.

The following individuals helped plan this meeting: Carl Childs (NOAA OR&R); Tom
Coolbaugh (Exxon Mobil); Dave Fritz (BP); Kurt Hansen (USCG, R&D Center); Charlie
Henry (NOAA ORR); Bruce Hollebone (Environment Canada); Ken Lee (Fisheries and
Oceans, Canada); Joe Mullin (MMS), Bob Pond (USCG); Alan Mearns (NOAA); and Al
Venosa (USEPA). The Center staff for this meeting consisted of: Heather Ballestero;
Joseph Corsello; Tyler Crowe; Joseph Cunningham; Michael Curry; Eric Doe; Nancy
Kinner; Zachary Magdol; and Kathy Mandsager. The Center also gratefully acknowledges
Bruce Hollebone and Nichole Rutherford (NOAA OR&R) for serving as group leaders.

Citation:
Coastal Response Research Center. 2010. Deepwater Horizon Dispersant Use Meeting
Report. University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH, 21 pp and appendices."


Dispersant Efficacy and Effectiveness for Surface and Deep Ocean Application
Group A initially considered the efficacy and efficiency of surface and subsurface
dispersant usage, however, on the second day of the workshop, the group was divided
into two subgroups: Group A1 examined the efficacy and efficiency of deep ocean
dispersant application, while Group A2 considered the efficacy and efficiency of
surface dispersant application.

Group members included:

Group Lead: Joseph Cunningham, Coastal Response Research Center
Recorders: Joe Corsello* & Eric Doe, University of New Hampshire
Tom Coolbaugh*, Exxon Mobil
Craig Carroll#, U.S. EPA
Per Daling, SINTEF
J.T Ewing*, Texas General Land Office
Ben Fieldhouse, Environment Canada
Chantal Guenette*, Canadian Coast Guard
Ann Hayward Walker*, SEA Consulting
Lek Kadeli#, U.S. EPA
Paul Kepkay, Bedford Institute of Oceanography - Fisheries & Oceans Canada
Ed Levine*, NOAA
Zhengkai Li, Bedford Institute of Oceanography - Fisheries & Oceans Canada
Joe Mullin*, Minerals Management Service
Duane Newell*, U.S. EPA Contractor
Bob Pond, USCG
Kelly Reynolds*, ITOPF
Al Venosa, U.S. EPA
*Group Members assigned to Group A2 on Day 2
# Group Members who were present for Day 1, but absent during Day 2

B. Physical Transport/ Chemical Behavior of Dispersed Oil
Group B was focused on the physical transport and chemical behavior of dispersed
oil. While the initial goal was to look at these characteristics for chemically dispersed
oil, the scope of the deepwater horizon incident required looking at both chemically
and naturally dispersed oil.

Group members included:

Group Lead: Bruce Hollebone,
Recorder: Tyler Crowe,
Les Bender, Texas A&M
Mary Boatman, Minerals
Michel Boufadel, Temple
Robert Carney, Louisiana
Jim Churnside, U.S. EPA
Greg Frost, U.S. EPA
Jerry Galt, Genwest
Buzz Martin, Texas General
Allan Mearns, NOAA
Scott Miles, Louisiana State
Erin O’Riley, Minerals
Jim Staves, U.S. EPA

C. Biological Effects of Dispersants on Deep Ocean Species
Group C discussed exposure pathways of dispersants applied to the subsurface and
subsequent biological effects.
Group members included:

Group Lead: Zachary Magdol, Coastal Response Research Center
Recorder: Mike Curry, Coastal Response Research Center
Adriana Bejarano, Research Planning Inc.
Richard Coffin, Naval Research Laboratory
William Conner, NOAA Office of Response and Restoration
Charlie Henry, NOAA, Scientific Support Coordinator for USCG District 8
Ken Lee, Environment Canada
Jeffrey Short, Oceana
Ron Tjeerdema, University of California

oh, wait....

We already believe that birds and such are dying on the coastline, we've seen pics and read various reports. All the oil wasn't kept under the surface by dispersant. Thus the idea of sacrificing one to save the other is clearly wrong. Both are dying.

In that case, is it a flawed strategy to try to accelerate undersea deaths?

At least when oil is on the surface, with enough skimming equipment (I don't know if there's enough skimming capacity worldwide), there's a chance to remove it before it reaches the coastlines.

(Kieran Suckling, 6/2)




Lawsuit Seeks Full Disclosure of Dispersant Impacts on Gulf's Endangered Wildlife
For Immediate Release, June 2, 2010
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2010/dispersants-06-02-2010.html

--------------------------------------------------

So how do you do all the science, without knowing all the proprietary ingredients?
We have to assume that's 50 more fed impaneled people that now know the whole recipe. Maybe
the rest of the outside scientific community and the public will get to find out eventually, too.

if she's not going to fight to end the big Frankenstein experiment, and I see no sign of that. :grr:

At this point, the options are pretty simple, and none of them are good, so the question becomes:
"What's likely to be worse?"

There are no good choices.

before it goes very far
keep it off the beaches and out of the estuaries would be a good move

We don't see Corexit doing such a great job, do we?

That is what the Corexit papers say. In a pdf.

They sprayed tons of the stuff on the surface waters, believe it or not.

The EPA finally told them to stop and BP finally listened. BP stopped spraying Corexit on surface waters.

Now that that has stopped, the oil on the surface is hitting the beaches. It can be surmised that the Corexit being applied to the surface waters did hold the oil off the beaches for weeks.


I have to agree with the 50 scientists. The Gulf is large enough to maybe, maybe, restore some semblance of it's former glory, but if all the wildlife and the shore habitats are destroyed?

This is an emergency decision. In that context it is the correct one at this time.

Notice how they always leave them out ?

I know you are at least as bummed by this as I am.

This is a crisis like none other. Snap decisions have to be made without having all the facts.

But the fact is that the seashore will take much longer to bounce back as there is no movement or circulation of the habitat on shore.

Whereas, the waters do circulate.

This whole damn thing at this point is a trade off and the "more fish in the sea" is a guide for this decision.

None of that makes it easy to take, actually it gets harder everyday.
But there are only a few choices left.

I have to vent one and a while. :thumbsup:

I have been venting on some DUers. And on Obama, and it looks like Obama is getting with the program, so there is some hope.

And there do seem to be less pro-BP items on DU, eh?

I think this week was a turning point for Obama. And BP's huge public relations drive appears not to be having any effect on many people.

members, including any new offshore accts.

Hide, distort, lie. The American standard.

& more all sponsored environmental/energy research at UC Davis.

http://eec1.ucdavis.edu/about-us-1/sponsors