Much of oil spill has naturally dispersed or evaporated

[Ought Six]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/28/us...pagewanted=all


ABC News reports that cleanup crews cannot find any oil to clean up:

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/bp-oil-spil...ry?id=11254252

So much for the hysterical predictions of the ultimate ecological disaster of all time.

[Suz]

Funny that they can still find oil chunks from the Exxon Valdez after all these years, but the oil from the gulf has dispersed/evaporated.

(My understanding of oil is that since it's composed of various large, complicated molecules it evaporates very, very slowly.)

[CanadaSue]

Maybe if they checked for the tiny little droplets of it up & down the water column...?

[Ought Six]

Not all oil is created equal. The stuff in the Gulf is light, sweet crude, which has a much higher percentage of volatile stuff that evaporates. Also, the Gulf has very warm water, which means more bacterial to break down the oil. The warmer water also means lower viscosity and easier dispersal. And the leak is far out to sea and a mile below the surface, allowing much of the oil to disperse before it reaches shore.

Conversely, the Exxon Valdez oil was heavy crude dumped right on top of the water a very short distance from shore. The very cold temps mean that very little bacterial degradation occurred. The oil was heavy crude, and the cold kept the viscosity even higher.

In other words, the two spills were radically different situations. Not surprisingly, they had very different results.

[dyrt]

The volatile components of oil evaporate within a dozen hours or so if laying on the surface in the sun. The reason that there is very little oil to see is the huge amounts of dispersal chemicals that were injected into the leaked oil at the wellhead.

It will be interesting to see the long term effects of breaking up the oil so it is dispersed and mixed with water at depths instead of letting it all set on the surface. The gulf has a lot of little creatures that feed on oil. At the least I would expect a population explosion of those creatures.

Other than that, nobody knows but the media will always prefer the doomer stories.

[jason]

Yes. It's all gone! It has nothing to do with the million gallons of dispersants that sink it.

[CanadaSue]

I've been watching various: "Where's the oil?" clips on different news outlets. Most are using this odd light - almost looks like blacklight; maybe it is. Plenty of oil showing up in the sand - on some beaches, when you dig down, you can see one or more layers of it. Other films sadly, show oil close to & going down into, the dens of various marine life.

It can't simply have all magically evaporated away or broken down into wonderfully non-toxic components.

I very much fear we'll see it - indirectly, in the next many generations of marine life.

It's there. And as pointed out, different spills, different profiles.

[Exodia]

Originally Posted by jason

Yes. It's all gone! It has nothing to do with the million gallons of dispersants that sink it.

Dispersants don't sink things, they disperse them into much smaller particles which leads to greater surface area of the particles. My thought is that this would make it easier for the naturally occurring processes to do their jobs.

Now I'm going to piggy back on dyrt's thought, and suggest an outrageous idea. I too would expect to see a spike in the microbes that feed on oil. Something must feed on them. Also, there has been a major slowdown on commercial fishing in the area. I would not be shocked to see bumper years of fishing a few years after the all clear is sounded.

[DReynolds]

Mankind has virtually no experience with a large spill under a mile of oceanwater. The Ixtoc spill was in shallow water. The Valdez spill (and all shipping accidents) was on the surface and was also in relatively shallow water. The massive spills in 1991 into the Persian Gulf were in shallow water.

Only time will tell how fast crude oil degrades under these circumstances, having been liberally dosed with Corexit, and having emanated from 1mile below the sea. We just don't know. My guess is there will be virtually no LA oysters next season. We'll see.

[Exodia]

Originally Posted by CanadaSue

It can't simply have all magically evaporated away or broken down into wonderfully non-toxic components.

Sue, it's a naturally occurring substance, and leaks into the Gulf all the time. Before the spill the Gulf was not a toxic cesspool, so there must be natural processes that mitigate it.

[Exodia]

From a Yahoo article today:

Perhaps the most important cause of the oil’s disappearance, some researchers suspect, is that the oil has been devoured by microbes. The lesson from past spills is that the lion’s share of the cleanup work is done by nature in the form of oil-eating bacteria and fungi. The microbes break down the hydrocarbons in oil to use as fuel to grow and reproduce. A bit of oil in the water is like a feeding frenzy, causing microbial populations to grow exponentially.

Typically, there are enough microbes in the ocean to consume half of any oil spilled in a month or two, says Howarth. Such microbes have been found in every ocean of the world sampled, from the Arctic to Antarctica. But there are reasons to think that the process may occur more quickly in the Gulf than in other oceans.

Microbes grow faster in the warmer water of the Gulf than they do in, say, the cool waters off Alaska, where the Exxon Valdez spill occurred. Moreover, the Gulf is hardly pristine. Even before humans started drilling for oil in the Gulf — and spilling lots of it — oil naturally seeped into the water. As a result, the Gulf evolved a rich collection of petroleum-loving microbes, ready to pounce on any new spill. The microbes are clever and tough, observes Samantha Joye, microbial geochemist at the University of Georgia. Joye has shown that oxygen levels in parts of the Gulf contaminated with oil have dropped. Since microbes need oxygen to eat the petroleum, that’s evidence that the microbes are hard at work.

The controversial dispersant used to break up the oil as it gushed from the deep-sea well may have helped the microbes do their work. Microbes can more easily consume small drops of oil than big ones. And there is evidence the microbes like to munch on the dispersant as well.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews_excl/ynews_excl_sc3270

[DReynolds]

Originally Posted by Exodia

And there is evidence the microbes like to munch on the dispersant as well.

Hi! I'm a Red Flag!

(I don't think serious journalism involves implying that the toxic dispersant, Corexit, is good for the environment. The use of the language "like to munch on" makes me wonder if this puff-piece came from one of the BP-employed journalists).

[Exodia]

The article didn't say it was good for the environment, it said that the microbes may feed on it as well (albeit in a 6th grade way of saying it).

If the microbess like hydrocarbons, then any hydrocarbon source will likely serve as food. I'm not sure of the make-up of Corexit, but if it has surfactants/polymers as part of it, many of these are derrived from pretoleum sources and may well serve as a food source.

[DReynolds]

Originally Posted by Exodia

If the microbess like hydrocarbons, then any hydrocarbon source will likely serve as food. I'm not sure of the make-up of Corexit, but if it has surfactants/polymers as part of it, many of these are derrived from pretoleum sources.

The point is that Corexit is toxic to marinelife (meaning plankton, fish and crustaceans), and there is a large literature devoted to debating just how toxic it is. Nobody in their right mind would interpret this literature in terms like "microbes like to munch" on Corexit.

It's like saying "oh, don't worry about pollution in Philadelphia. There's even evidence that microbes like to munch on smog". Advertising. Not science, not facts, not evidence, not truth. Just whatever BS comes into the head of the 23yr old "journalist" who just graduated from Yale.

[rc]

I do find it interesting that the focus (not just here, but other places as well) is on the damage caused by the evil dispersants.

Presumably, BP had to pay for the evil dispersants, and then inject them into the ocean merely because it was the evil thing to do, because it would cause greater harm, not because it would mitigate the harm, not even a tiny amount.

I'm no chemist, but I assumed that they were dumping something like Dawn(R) dishwashing liquid, albeit probably the industrial version, and probably in the giant economy-size bottle.

[DReynolds]

Originally Posted by rc

I do find it interesting that the focus (not just here, but other places as well) is on the damage caused by the evil dispersants.

Presumably, BP had to pay for the evil dispersants, and then inject them into the ocean merely because it was the evil thing to do

I find it interesting that some people mock the toxicity of Corexit, and think that if a large corporation like BP used some compound, then it must be safe.

How about this--there is a shitload of scientific evidence that Corexit is toxic. Can we at least agree on that? Or have we all lost our minds?

[rc]

I'm not "mocking the toxicity" of it. I assume that Dawn Dishwashing liquid is toxic, and since this stuff is probably stronger, then it's probably more toxic.

But they presumably paid money for the stuff (unless it was toxic waste from some other process). Since BP is evil and wants to maximize its profits, why would they waste money on the stuff?

[DReynolds]

Originally Posted by rc

Since BP is evil and wants to maximize its profits, why would they waste money on the stuff?

They would spend money on the stuff because it disperses the oil. This makes it look like there is less oil. This makes BP look better. This increases the value of BP incorporated. However, the Corexit itself is toxic poison, and they would prefer to ignore that fact, and so they hire "journalists", and when you read a quote like microbes "like to munch" on Corexit, one suspects that the author is an idiot and/or employee of BP.

[Exodia]

I don't have a dog in this fight, I'm just trying to lend some of my knowlege of chemistry to help understand what may be going on here. Because some compound is toxic to fish or crustaceans at some concentration has no bearing on whether a different life form will use it as a food source. CO2 is poisonous to humans, but not so much to plant life.

The components of these two Corexit products are all organic (mainly surfactants and glycol ethers), so it's not a strectch to think they may be acted on by microbes that have an affinity for hydrocarbons. One of the ingredients listed is actually pertoleum distillates - not a reach on that one.

The components of COREXIT 9500 and 9527 are:
CAS Registry Number Chemical Name
57-55-6 1,2-Propanediol
111-76-2 Ethanol, 2-butoxy-*
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

http://www.epa.gov/bpspill/dispersants.html#chemicals

[dharma]

Let’s look at some of these hellish demon-chemicals. The following reflects variously ingredients in Corexit 9500 and 9527. Info per Wikipedia.

2-Butoxyethanol is frequently found in popular cleaning products.[1][2] It provides cleaning power and the characteristic odor of Windex and other glass cleaners. It is the main ingredient of many home, commercial and industrial cleaning solutions, such as Simple Green All-Purpose Cleaner. ... 30-60% by weight of Corexit 9527

Sorbitan is a mixture of chemical compounds ... Sorbitan is primarily used in the production of surfactants such as polysorbates.
Sorbitan esters ( also known as Spans ) are lipophilic non ionic surfactants that are used as emulsifying agents in the preparation of emulsions, creams, and ointments for pharmaceutical and cosmetic use. When used alone they produce stable water-in-oil emulsions but they are frequently used with a polysorbate in varying proportions to produce water-in-oil or oil-in-water emulsions

Butanedioc acid, AKA Succinic acid is a dicarboxylic acid. Succinate plays a biochemical role in the citric acid cycle. ... In nutraceutical form as a food additive and dietary supplement, is safe and approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.[2] As an excipient in pharmaceutical products it is used to control acidity[3] and, more rarely, in effervescent tablets.[4]

Hyrdro treated light petroleum distillates [I’d say no comment necessary here. - d]

Propylene glycol ... is used:
As a solvent in many pharmaceuticals, including oral, injectable and topical formulations. Notably, diazepam, which is insoluble in water, uses propylene glycol as its solvent in its clinical, injectable form.[5]
As a humectant food additive, labeled as E number E1520
As an emulsification agent in Angostura and orange bitters
As a moisturizer in medicines, cosmetics, food, toothpaste, mouth wash, hair care and tobacco products

An organic sulfonate (or organic sulfonic acid salt) is a synthetic chemical detergent, that acts as a surfactant to emulsify oil and allow its dispersion into water. The identity of the sulfonate used in both forms of Corexit was disclosed to the EPA in June 2010, as dioctyl sodium sulfosuccinate.[19] Often referred to as docusate sodium, this chemical is the active ingredient in several stool-softener laxatives.

Ohmigod! Stool softener! We’re all gonna die!

Yeah, yeah, I know, this is serious. But while I don't want to go swimming in Windex, face cream, or stool softener, neither do I think they are, especially in highly dilute form, going to end life as we know it. How much of this crap was in the Gulf already?

[dharma]

While we're on the subject of running in circles, screaming and shouting, (and observing that there appears to be a noteworthy lack of boomslang venom, nanopowdered plutonium, Ebola toxin, Thimerosal, ricin, dioxin, bad juju, your mom's brussel sprouts, or Pelosi-essence-containing retardojuice in the dispersant) let it be noted that the father of Brazil's deep sea exploration effort has been quoted as saying the oil leak has already caused a huge bloom of hydrocarbon-utilizing micro-organisms, and that the net effect of the oil release will be "like a gigantic injection of fertilizer into the water of the Gulf."

FWIW, of course, and paraphrased.

[Auburn Boy]

Originally Posted by Suz

Funny that they can still find oil chunks from the Exxon Valdez after all these years, but the oil from the gulf has dispersed/evaporated.

(My understanding of oil is that since it's composed of various large, complicated molecules it evaporates very, very slowly.)

Different grade of oil, colder environment, less hospitable to the kind of micro-organisms that eat oil, and more rocky shoreline which allowed the oild to penetrate deeper under the surface and thus avoid oxidation and cleanup.

[Auburn Boy]

Originally Posted by DReynolds

The point is that Corexit is toxic to marinelife (meaning plankton, fish and crustaceans), and there is a large literature devoted to debating just how toxic it is. Nobody in their right mind would interpret this literature in terms like "microbes like to munch" on Corexit.

It's like saying "oh, don't worry about pollution in Philadelphia. There's even evidence that microbes like to munch on smog". Advertising. Not science, not facts, not evidence, not truth. Just whatever BS comes into the head of the 23yr old "journalist" who just graduated from Yale.

Even a million gallons of corexit is like a 24 ounce can of soda dumped into a football stadium full of water..,

The Navy used to have a saying..,

"The solution to pollution is dilution..,"

The corexit (and the oil spill) is being very, very seriously diluted.

Admitedly, immediate visibility shows damage and causes concern, but in the near term the whole thing will dissipate, dilute, disperse, diffuse..,

(Oh, I almost forgot DIGEST, can't go forgetting them munching microbes!)

[DReynolds]

I don't think anyone seriously believes that this spill has "dispersed/evaporated". There are underwater "plumes" of oil according to NOAA (at least there were a week ago) which are not rising to the surface, as would normally be expected, given that oil is less dense than water. But there are a lot of variables here, including Corexit, and it's too early to declare anything.

[Auburn Boy]

Originally Posted by DReynolds

They would spend money on the stuff because it disperses the oil. This makes it look like there is less oil. This makes BP look better. This increases the value of BP incorporated. However, the Corexit itself is toxic poison, and they would prefer to ignore that fact, and so they hire "journalists", and when you read a quote like microbes "like to munch" on Corexit, one suspects that the author is an idiot and/or employee of BP.

As Exodia, Potemkin, and others have noted, the idea of dispersants is not to "make it LOOK LIKE ther is less oil."

It is to break up the oil slick into very small emulsified droplets that will more rapidly be disposed of by the natural processes we have already mentioned here time and again..,