Toxic chemical used on Gulf oil spill

Associated Press

The US Coast Guard has routinely approved BP requests to use thousands of gallons of toxic chemical a day to break up oil slicks in the Gulf of Mexico despite a federal directive that the chemicals be used only rarely on surface waters, congressional investigators said after examining BP and government documents.

The documents show the Coast Guard approved 74 waivers over a 48-day period after the restrictions were imposed, resulting in hundreds of thousands of gallons of the chemicals to be spread on Gulf waters. Only in a small number of cases did the government scale back BP's request.

The extensive use of dispersants to break up oil gushing from BP's Deepwater Horizon raised concerns early on as to what long-term damage the toxic chemicals might be doing to the Gulf's aquatic life. That prompted the Environmental Protection Agency on May 26 to direct BP to stop using the chemicals on the water surface except in "rare cases".

But Republican Edward Markey said that the chemicals continued to be used extensively with Coast Guard approval, often at a rate of 6,000 to 10,000 gallons a day. A request was made and approved on June 13 to spread as much as 36,000 gallons of dispersant, according to data obtained by Markey's Energy and Environment subcommittee.

The EPA directive "has become more of a meaningless paperwork exercise than an attempt ... to eliminate surface application of chemical dispersants," Markey wrote in a letter sent on Friday to retired Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen, the government's point man on the spill.

Markey's office released the letter yesterday as well as the documents his panel had analysed. Markey said that instead of complying with the EPA directive, "BP often carpet bombed the ocean with these chemicals and the Coast Guard allowed them to do it".

The House investigators found that the Coast Guard routinely approved the chemical use, in some cases a week in advance. On five occasions the Coast Guard approved a BP request to use 6,000 gallons a day over a week-long period and "in many of these days BP still used more than double" the limit that was approved, Markey said in his letter.

The chemicals break down masses of oil into small droplets that allow the oil to be more easily consumed by bacteria. But the chemicals are also toxic and it's not known what impact the large volume of chemicals being used against the BP spill might be having on marine life.

The EPA has acknowledged that there are trade offs and that some use of the chemicals are essential to combat the oil spill. The EPA directive issued in May concerned only surface dispersal of the chemicals. BP also has been using large amounts of chemicals near the ocean floor at the site of the damaged wellhead.

In recent weeks, little oil has been noticed on the Gulf surface, and scientists believe one reason for that might be the extensive use of the chemical dispersants.

  • Paragluteus
    I have to laugh at this new piece of spin. Photos in the MSM of people minimg the clearing of oil from the beaches, and dead birds being dangled over photoshopped 'black' sea, are starting to give the game away. The political ban on fishing and drilling are keeping the fiction, and the compo, flowing. If you didn't know that the US is really and only all about $$$, it would be incredible. Now there is no oil, it must be the dispersant! Another precautionary extension of the 'fishing ban' until the compo fund is approaching zero, and BP's assets have been comfortably acquired at knock-down prices? But then, we will now see the rest of BP's assets being consumed in legal dogfights with the likes of Halliburton & co., Blood is thicker than water,or oil,and lawyer's blood flows in Obama's veins. Can we see some proper oil clean-up pictures, please? We know what they are supposed to look like, having seen Torrey Canyon, Milfprd Haven Exxon Valdez, etc. so don't try the old photoshopping and posing schtick. Might be OK for Kansas, but not in the real world.
  • pfbulmer
    If BP has very wisely requested the US coast guard has been requested for approval an the US Government agency.Any damages that result if any will be to the US government account. There is no way BP can be held responsible , BP must start to dig its heels on compensation and must refuse all consequential losses. The first costs and the most important is for the victims and families which the US government rarely mention and must be kept separate from any other claims and paid before any other genuine claims are met , the next is the direst claims are for other direct damages and costs and that does not include all the other spurious claims regarding the tourist industry which if they want to claim against any one should fall firmly into the lap of President Obama who has hypes this situation up to his political advantage which has backed fire against the tourist industry. It is rare for a criminal to set up a 20 Billion fund but if they did we all could go on holiday to Florida !
  • friend108
    A little late on this story. BP's use of immense quantities of Correxit 9500 dispersant (much greater than admitted to here) has been all over the web for the last 3 months. Injecting it directly into the oil gusher has meant most of the oil is now in suspension in vast plumes in a mile of water - hence it not being visible on the surface. The scale of BP's criminality and control of the media in the area is both astonishing and frightening. This disaster is so vast in scale and the effects will be so long-lasting that it's difficult for most of us to comprehend. And there are 2 other oil spills going on right now - one threatening Lake Michigan, one in China! It looks like we're going to have to learn the hard way as we simply won't wean ourselves off oil willingly.
  • kawasakiman
    Great...so now, when the fishermen return to work in the region, we can expect the effects of toxic chemicals to persist for decades.....
  • guidor
    I question the amount of background reading undertaken by AP when compiling this scaremongering piece. BP used a dispersant called Corexit 9500 which admittedly is banned in UK waters because it is more toxic to aquatic species than the oil itself. It is used to break down the oil into smaller droplets to enable local bacteria to dispose of the crude oil that has spilled from the well and is itself biodegradable. As with many difficult decisions, the use of this product is a trade off - dispersing a huge volume of oil with a relatively small amount of dispersant in order to allow Mother Nature to play a part in dealing with the spillage versus the addition of the dispersant.

Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date