Fw: [NatureNS] questions on oil dispersants

From: David & Alison Webster <dwebster@glinx.com>
To: NatureNS@chebucto.ns.ca
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 22:22:21 -0300
Precedence: bulk
Return-Path: <naturens-mml-owner@chebucto.ns.ca>
Original-Recipient: rfc822;"| (cd /csuite/info/Environment/FNSN/MList; /csuite/lib/arch2html)"

next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects


This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--Boundary_(ID_26Nc8//bKvBzA+mWFyu2UA)
Content-type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

Hi Jim & All,                Sept 29, 2010
    I have had no response to my questions of Aug 5 but some of those questions, and many other aspects, are well covered in the October issue of National Geographic.

    At least in the Gulf, a dispersant was used to decrease oil fowling of beaches. So in one sense the purpose was cosmetic but it was bread and butter from the tourism industry viewpoint (540,000 jobs; i.e. economy).

    This is not discussed directly but, reading between the lines, I would guess that dispersant use, by decreasing the extent/duration of surface oil, is a positive for sea birds; provided their dependence on marine life is ignored. 

    Based on experience in a spill off France, the dispersant used ((Corexit 9500) is more toxic to marine life than oil and any dispersant will increase the volume of water affected.

    A possible increase of oil toxicity from dispersant use, due to an increase in the oil/water interface was not mentioned. I continue t suspect that it is huge.

    The Gulf has a healthy assortment of aerobic oil-eating microbes (having 3500 oil platforms, thousands of miles of pipeline and an average annual reported spill over 40 years of 383,040 gallons has no doubt helped nurture this ability but perhape the 41 million [!] gallons per year from natural seeps has helped even more (?).) 

    On the positive side, these microbes consume oil fairly rapidly given good aeration but, on the negative side, too rapid consumption leads to anaerobic dead zones.

    Why are we spending 500 million to cementize the Sydney tar pond muck when a shovel full of Gulf marsh mud would likely do a better job for about $499,999,975 less ?

Yours truly, Dave Webster, Kentville
----- Original Message ----- 
From: James W. Wolford 
To: NatureNS ; Mark Butler ; Gretchen Fitzgerald ; Mark Dittrick 
Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2010 4:19 PM
Subject: [NatureNS] questions on oil dispersants


Dr. Ken Lee at Bedford Inst. of Oceanography has been studying bioremediation (with bacteria etc.) of various kinds of spilled hydrocarbons including crude oil and its fractions for several decades, I think.  I am forwarding to Mark Butler of Ecol. Action Ctr. for possible answers to your questions, David.  Cheers from Jim in Wolfville



Begin forwarded message:


  From: David & Alison Webster <dwebster@glinx.com>
  Date: August 5, 2010 12:51:05 PM ADT
  To: naturens@chebucto.ns.ca
  Subject: Oil spills: was Re: [NatureNS] Canadian gannets & winter in Gulf of Mexico -- study needed
  Reply-To: naturens@chebucto.ns.ca


  Hi Jim & All,                Aug 5, 2010
      The Gulf spill raises once again four questions. Perhaps someone on this list can shed some light.

      Is the use of dispersants (wetting agents) strictly cosmetic ?
      Do these wetting agents have direct adverse effects on marine life ?
      Do they indirectly have adverse effects by dispersing the oil and thus increasing the oil/water interface ?
      Has a search for aerobic organisms that are able to use crude oil components as an energy source been undertaken ?  Natural outcrops of oil-bearing shale would be likely sites for example. Seeding a spill area with an oil-consuming organism might be an efficient way to clean up; especially trace amounts.

  Yt, Dave Webster, Kentville




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



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3049 - Release Date: 08/03/10 11:22:00

--Boundary_(ID_26Nc8//bKvBzA+mWFyu2UA)
Content-type: text/html; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18939">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY 
style="WORD-WRAP: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space" 
bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Hi Jim &amp; All,&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Sept 29, 2010</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; I have had no response to&nbsp;my questions 
of Aug 5&nbsp;but some of those questions, and many other aspects,&nbsp;are well 
covered in the October issue of National Geographic.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; At least in the 
Gulf,&nbsp;a&nbsp;dispersant was used to decrease oil fowling of beaches. So in 
one sense the purpose was cosmetic but it was bread and butter from the tourism 
industry viewpoint (540,000 jobs; i.e. economy).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; This is not discussed directly but, reading 
between the lines, I would guess that dispersant use, by decreasing the 
extent/duration of surface oil, is a positive for&nbsp;sea&nbsp;birds; provided 
their dependence on marine life is ignored. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Based on experience in a spill off France, 
the dispersant used ((Corexit 9500) is more toxic to marine life than oil and 
any dispersant will increase the volume of water affected.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; A possible increase of oil 
toxicity&nbsp;from&nbsp;dispersant use,&nbsp;due to an increase in the oil/water 
interface was not mentioned. I continue t suspect that it is huge.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The Gulf has a healthy assortment of 
aerobic oil-eating microbes (having 3500 oil platforms, thousands of miles of 
pipeline and&nbsp;an average annual reported&nbsp;spill over 40 years&nbsp;of 
383,040 gallons&nbsp;has no doubt helped nurture this ability but perhape the 41 
million [!]&nbsp;gallons per year&nbsp;from natural seeps has helped even more 
(?).)&nbsp;</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; On the positive side, these 
microbes&nbsp;consume oil fairly rapidly given good aeration but, on the 
negative side, too rapid consumption leads to anaerobic dead zones.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Why are we spending 500 million 
to&nbsp;cementize the Sydney tar pond muck&nbsp;when a shovel full of Gulf marsh 
mud would likely do a better job for about $499,999,975 less ?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Yours truly, Dave Webster, Kentville</FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- 
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A 
title=jimwolford@eastlink.ca href="mailto:jimwolford@eastlink.ca">James W. 
Wolford</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=naturens@chebucto.ns.ca 
href="mailto:naturens@chebucto.ns.ca">NatureNS</A> ; <A 
title=action@ecologyaction.ca href="mailto:action@ecologyaction.ca">Mark 
Butler</A> ; <A title=gretchenf@sierraclub.ca 
href="mailto:gretchenf@sierraclub.ca">Gretchen Fitzgerald</A> ; <A 
title=markd@sierraclub.ca href="mailto:markd@sierraclub.ca">Mark Dittrick</A> 
</DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, August 05, 2010 4:19 PM</DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> [NatureNS] questions on oil dispersants</DIV></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT><FONT size=2></FONT><BR></DIV>Dr. Ken Lee at Bedford 
Inst. of Oceanography has been studying bioremediation (with bacteria etc.) of 
various kinds of spilled hydrocarbons including crude oil and its fractions for 
several decades, I think. &nbsp;I am forwarding to Mark Butler of Ecol. Action 
Ctr. for possible answers to your questions, David. &nbsp;Cheers from Jim in 
Wolfville<BR>
<DIV><BR>
<DIV>Begin forwarded message:</DIV><BR class=Apple-interchange-newline>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
  <DIV style="MARGIN: 0px"><FONT style="FONT: 12px Helvetica; COLOR: #000000" 
  color=#000000 size=3 face=Helvetica><B>From: </B></FONT><FONT 
  style="FONT: 12px Helvetica" size=3 face=Helvetica>David &amp; Alison Webster 
  &lt;<A 
href="mailto:dwebster@glinx.com">dwebster@glinx.com</A>&gt;</FONT></DIV>
  <DIV style="MARGIN: 0px"><FONT style="FONT: 12px Helvetica; COLOR: #000000" 
  color=#000000 size=3 face=Helvetica><B>Date: </B></FONT><FONT 
  style="FONT: 12px Helvetica" size=3 face=Helvetica>August 5, 2010 12:51:05 PM 
  ADT</FONT></DIV>
  <DIV style="MARGIN: 0px"><FONT style="FONT: 12px Helvetica; COLOR: #000000" 
  color=#000000 size=3 face=Helvetica><B>To: </B></FONT><FONT 
  style="FONT: 12px Helvetica" size=3 face=Helvetica><A 
  href="mailto:naturens@chebucto.ns.ca">naturens@chebucto.ns.ca</A></FONT></DIV>
  <DIV style="MARGIN: 0px"><FONT style="FONT: 12px Helvetica; COLOR: #000000" 
  color=#000000 size=3 face=Helvetica><B>Subject: </B></FONT><FONT 
  style="FONT: 12px Helvetica" size=3 face=Helvetica><B>Oil spills: was Re: 
  [NatureNS] Canadian gannets &amp; winter in Gulf of Mexico -- study 
  needed</B></FONT></DIV>
  <DIV style="MARGIN: 0px"><FONT style="FONT: 12px Helvetica; COLOR: #000000" 
  color=#000000 size=3 face=Helvetica><B>Reply-To: </B></FONT><FONT 
  style="FONT: 12px Helvetica" size=3 face=Helvetica><A 
  href="mailto:naturens@chebucto.ns.ca">naturens@chebucto.ns.ca</A></FONT></DIV>
  <DIV style="MARGIN: 0px; MIN-HEIGHT: 14px"><BR></DIV><SPAN 
  style="WIDOWS: 2; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; TEXT-INDENT: 0px; BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate; FONT: medium Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; ORPHANS: 2; LETTER-SPACING: normal; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px" 
  class=Apple-style-span>
  <DIV><FONT size=2>Hi Jim &amp; All,&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
  &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Aug 5, 2010</FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT size=2>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The Gulf spill raises once again four 
  questions. Perhaps someone on this list can shed some light.</FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><FONT size=2>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Is the use of dispersants (wetting 
  agents) strictly cosmetic ?</FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT size=2>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Do these wetting agents have direct 
  adverse effects on marine life ?</FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT size=2>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Do they indirectly have adverse effects 
  by dispersing the oil and thus increasing the oil/water interface 
  ?</FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT size=2>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Has a search for aerobic organisms that 
  are able to use crude oil components as an energy source been undertaken 
  ?&nbsp;&nbsp;Natural outcrops of oil-bearing shale&nbsp;would be likely sites 
  for example. Seeding a spill area with an oil-consuming organism might be an 
  efficient way to clean up; especially trace amounts.</FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><FONT size=2>Yt, Dave Webster, 
Kentville</FONT></DIV></SPAN></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR>
<P>
<HR>

<P></P><BR>No virus found in this incoming message.<BR>Checked by AVG - 
www.avg.com <BR>Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3049 - Release Date: 
08/03/10 11:22:00<BR></BODY></HTML>

--Boundary_(ID_26Nc8//bKvBzA+mWFyu2UA)--

next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects