Last Tuesday, June 8, a team of scientists confirmed what many of us suspect: Vast underwater concentrations of oil sprawling for miles in the Gulf of Mexico from the damaged, crude-belching BP PLC well are unprecedented in human history and threaten to wreak havoc on marine life. The scientists’ finding was confirmed for the first time by federal officials. As Paul Quinlan and Josh Voorhees of Greenwire report:

Researchers aboard the F.G. Walton Smith vessel…traced an underwater oil plume 15 miles wide, 3 miles long and about 600 feet thick…. “It’s an infusion of oil and gas unlike anything else that has ever been seen anywhere, certainly in human history,” said Samantha Joye of the University of Georgia, the expedition leader.

Bacteria are breaking down the oil’s hydrocarbons in a massive, microorganism feeding frenzy that has sent oxygen levels plunging close to what is considered “dead zone” conditions, at which most marine life are smothered for a lack of dissolved oxygen….

Less clear to researchers like Joye are what role the unprecedented deployment of oil-dispersing chemicals are having…on fisheries. “The primary producers — the base of the food web in the ocean — is going to be altered. There’s no doubt about that,” Joye said. “We have no idea what dispersants are going to do to microorganisms. We know they are toxic to many larvae….“

There are good reasons to be concerned about the dispersant Corexit that BP is using. Since the regular media (the supposedly conservative FoxNews included) are not doing their job, Fellowship of the Minds looked into the matter. The following is a Primer on Corexit. Sources used for this primer are identified at the end.

*****

What is Corexit?

Corexit is a line of oil dispersants or solvents, originally developed by Exxon and now manufactured by Nalco Holding Company (NHC) of Naperville, IL. Interestingly, NHC is associated with Exxon and British Petroleum (BP) — the latter is the same company that insists on using Corexit.  

An oil dispersant is basically a detergent, like your diswashing detergent. It disperses or breaks up the oil film into small droplets that intermix with seawater.

There are at least four different formulations of Corexit:

• Corexit EC 7664A
• Corexit EC 9500A (aka Corexit 9500)
• Corexit 9527A
• Corexit EC 9580A

Corexit EC9500A is mainly comprised of hydrotreated light petroleum distillates, propylene glycol and a proprietary organic sulfonic acid salt. Propylene glycol is a chemical commonly used as a solvent or moisturizer in pharmaceuticals and cosmetics. An organic sulfonic acid salt is a synthetic chemical detergent, such as that used in laundry detergents, which acts as a surfactant to emulsify oil and allow its dispersion into water. 

A variant of Corexit was used in the 1989 Exxon Valdez disaster in Alaska. In the present Deepwater Horizon oil spill, BP is using unprecedentedly large quantities of Corexit EC9500A and Corexit EC9527A, applying 800,000 gallons total, but more accurate estimates run as high as 1,000,000 gallons underwater.

Is Corexit Effective?

Corexit 9500 was 54.7% effective and Corexit EC9527A was 63.4% effective in handling Louisiana crude oil. Corexit is not a very efficient oil dispersant; there are others that are better. (More below)

Is Corexit Safe to Use?

The short answer is “No!” Corexit is highly toxic to humans as well as marine life.

The federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has identified the 2-butoxyethanol in Corexit to be a causal agent in the health problems experienced by cleanup workers after the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill of respiratory, nervous system, liver, kidney and blood disorders.

According to the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS), Corexit 9500‘s “potential human bazard is: High.” It can cause central nervous system depression; nausea; unconsciousness;  liver, kidney damage; and red blood cell hemolysis with repeated or prolonged exposure through inhalation or ingestion. 

Here is what the MSDS for Corexit EC9500A says about Accidental Release Measures:

PERSONAL PRECAUTIONS :
Restrict access to area as appropriate until clean-up operations are complete. Ensure clean-up is conducted by trained personnel only. Ventilate spill area if possible. Do not touch spilled material. Remove sources of ignition.

Stop or reduce any leaks if it is safe to do so. Have emergency equipment (for fires, spills, leaks, etc.) readily available. Use personal protective equipment recommended in Section 8 (Exposure Controls/Personal Protection). Notify appropriate government, occupational health and safety and environmental authorities.

RESPIRATORY PROTECTION :
If significant mists, vapors or aerosols are generated an approved respirator is recommended. An organic vapor cartridge with dust/mist prefilter or supplied air may be used. In event of emergency or planned entry into unknown concentrations a positive pressure, full-facepiece SCBA should be used. If respiratory protection is required, institute a complete respiratory protection program including selection, fit testing, training, maintenance and inspection.

HAND PROTECTION :
Nitrile gloves, Viton# gloves, Polyvinyl alcohol gloves

SKIN PROTECTION :
Wear impervious apron and boots.

EYE PROTECTION :
Wear chemical splash goggles.

HYGIENE RECOMMENDATIONS :
Keep an eye wash fountain available. Keep a safety shower available. If clothing is contaminated, remove clothing and thoroughly wash the affected area. Launder contaminated clothing before reuse.

On May 19, 2010 the EPA gave BP 24 hours to choose less toxic alternatives to Corexit, selected from the list of EPA-approved dispersants on the National Contingency Plan Product Schedule. BP was to begin applying the less toxic dispersants within 72 hours of EPA approval of their choices, but BP refused to change from Corexit, citing safety and availability concerns with alternatives.

According to the EPA, Corexit is more toxic than dispersants made by several competitors and less effective in handling southern Louisiana crude. Not only is Corexit toxic to human and marine life, it helps keep spilled oil submerged. The quantities used in the Gulf will create unprecedented underwater damage to organisms.

There are claims that Corexit is one of the most poisonous dispersants ever developed, that it is 4 times more toxic than crude oil, and 20 times more toxic than other dispersants, but only half as effective.

Is there a better alternative than Corexit?

There is an oil dispersant called Dispersit, manufactured by Polychem, a division of U.S. Polychemical Corporation. Dispersit is a much less harmful water-based product, with about one third of the toxicity that Corexit 9500 presents. Corexit 9500 is a harsh petroleum-based solvent which is dangerous to people and sea life. Dispersit’s human health effect is “slight to none.” Dispersit is also on the EPA’s approved list of dispersants.

Dispersit is also more effective than Corexit. Dispersit has a demonstrated effectiveness of 100% on the lighter South Louisiana crude, and 40% on Pruhoe Bay’s heavier crude. Exxon’s Corexit 9500 is just 55% effective on SL and 55% effective on PB. On an average, Dispersit is 70% effective, and may prove 100% effective, while Corexit 9500 is an average of 50% effective, with a maximum effective use of just 55%.

Bruce Gebhardt at Polychem Marine Products was asked if Dispersit was being used in the Gulf Oil Spill situation. “Very little,” he replied.  When asked why, the impression was that the government had used Corexit 9500 in the past, and was going with what they know — no matter how dangerous that might prove to be.

Why does BP insist on using the highly toxic, less effective Corexit?

Why is Corexit 9500 is being used at all, when the water-based Dispersit is available, markedly more effective and less toxic? Follow the money.

Recall that earlier I had said that Corexit is manufactured by Nalco Holding Company (NHC), which is associated with BP. Rodney F. Chase, who sits on the board of Nalco, was also a BP board member. The likelihood that he still holds shares in both companies is very high. In fact, it was reported on May 3, 2010, that BP has acquired Nalco Holding’s entire inventory of its Corexit oil dispersant! Not surprisingly, NHC’s stock took a sharp jump, up more than 18% at its highest point of the day when it was announced that their product is the one BP will use in the Gulf. 

But wait! It gets even better! Peter Sutherland, the Chairman of Goldman Sachs International, was also, until last year, the Chairman of BP! The same Goldman Sachs that sold $250 million of its BP stock right before the oil rig explosion/spill.

Conclusion

There are experts who think that oil dispersants of whatever variety shouldn’t even be used in the Gulf.

Dispersing the oil neither eliminates it nor decreases its toxicity. All dispersants do is to break the oil into small particles, where it becomes less visible. But the oil’s still there, spewing toxicity at an even greater rate (due to higher surface area), except now it’s pretty much impossible to skim or trap or vacuum or even soak up the oil particles at the shoreline because most of it will never make it to the shoreline.  Instead, the toxic crude oil AND the dispersant will be spread all over the ocean’s waters. 

In effect, to “disperse” the oil means it will NEVER be cleaned up. It will just stay out there, polluting and poisoning the ocean and marine life, including the fish, shrimp, mollusk that we humans consume as food. 

And if using oil dispersants is unwise, it is approaching madness to use a dispersant as toxic as Corexit. Add to the insane formula the fact the Corexit isn’t even a very effective dispersant, and we’re looking at avarice and mendacity on the part of BP at the level of true EVIL. As for the Obama administration, any government that tolerates such evil is minimally incompetent and maximally complicit in evil.

More alarming still is the opinion in some quarters that when the toxic Corexit 9500 is combined with the warm waters of the Gulf, much of it will transition into a gaseous state that will be absorbed into clouds, to be released as toxic rain upon all of the Eastern United States.

May God help us!

H/t Fellowship co-founder Steve and beloved member May.

~Eowyn

Sources:

“Corexit,” Wikipedia.

“Corexit Is Killing The Gulf (Part I),” sitfu.com, May 29, 2010.

8ackgr0und N015e, “Important Primer on Corexit: Different Types and Hazards,” DailyKos, May 30, 2010.

“BP Embraces Exxon’s Toxic Dispersant, Ignores Safer Alternative,” Protect the Ocean.

Want to share YOUR story with our dynamic and rapidly growing audience?
Click here to become a Contributor.

--1 rating (1 down, 0 up) |

Comments

Posted by Bob Cumbers on

Let me say that I am shocked, SHOCKED, that you didn't bother to go any reputable sources for your data for this story. A few facts that even the slightest bit of research would have revealed. The reason dispersants are used is because it makes it easier for naturally-occuring micro-organisms to consume the oil. Why do you think there hasn't been an Exxon Valdez-type disaster on the shoreline? The dispersants are keeping the oil from the shore! The Corexit 9500 product being used in the Gulf does not contain any 2-butoxyethanol. Next, one of the reasons Dispersit is not being used is because it contains endocrine disruptors. Those can cause the marine life to be forced into a sex change. Finally, Corexit does not evaporate, it biodegrades. It will not go up into the clouds.

Posted by Anonymous on

PLEASE GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT! Corexit WILL VAPORIZE under the high HEAT in the gulf and IS ALREADY making people SICK! IF this CONTINUES, IT CAN be taken up on the wind and into the clouds and mix with rain and be carried THROUGHOUT the U.S., if not the WORLD!AND with the impending hurricane season, this unconscionable event is HIGHLY LIKELY. And once this occurs, there is NO remedial effort POSSIBLE!

Posted by Anonymous on

Don't know any of the scientific stuff of your world, but all this old Indian could tell you is if you had lived like the Tribes used to live this wouldn't even be happening. Can't do anything more than kill millions of people. Gotta go sometime.

Posted by xdrfox on

Corexit was used during the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill disaster in Alaska. In 2010, Corexit EC9500A and Corexit EC9527A are being used in unprecedentedly large quantities in the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.[5][6] The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had pre-approved both forms of Corexit for uses in emergencies such as the Gulf oil spill.[7] On May 19, 2010 the EPA gave BP 24 hours to choose less toxic alternatives to Corexit, selected from the list of EPA-approved dispersants on the National Contingency Plan Product Schedule[8], and begin applying them within 72 hours of EPA approval of their choices; or, if BP could not find an alternative, to provide a report on the alternative dispersants investigated and reasons for their rejection[9]. BP took the latter option, citing safety and availability concerns with alternatives.[10] Sea Brat 4, the only effective alternative that is available in quantities large enough for the spill and is less toxic, was rejected by BP because of the risk that components would break down into nonylphenol, which persists in the environment and is toxic to marine life.[11] BP had used Corexit EC9500A and Corexit EC9527A by late May, applying 800,000 US gallons (3,000,000 l) total,[12] but more accurate estimates run as high as 1,000,000 US gallons (3,800,000 l) underwater.[13] By late April 2010, Nalco, the maker of Corexit, says that it has been deploying only Corexit 9500.[14] Composition Corexit 9527 The proprietary composition is not public, but the manufacturer's own safety data sheet on Corexit EC9527A says the main components are 2-butoxyethanol and a proprietary organic sulfonate with a small concentration of propylene glycol.[15][16] Corexit 9500 In response to public pressure, the EPA and Nalco released the list of the six ingredients in Corexit 9500, revealing constituents including sorbitan, butanedioic acid, and petroleum distillates.[3] Corexit EC9500A is mainly comprised of hydrotreated light petroleum distillates, propylene glycol and a proprietary organic sulfonate.[17] Environmentalists also pressured Nalco to reveal to the public what concentrations of each chemical are in the product; Nalco considers that information to be a trade secret, but has shared it with the EPA.[18] Propylene glycol is a chemical commonly used as a solvent or moisturizer in pharmaceuticals and cosmetics, and is of relatively low toxicity. 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] http://www.answers.com/topic/corexit dioctyl sodium sulfosuccinate http://www.pesticideinfo.org/Detail_Chemical.jsp?Rec_Id=PC33310

Posted by xdrfox on

Nonylphenol From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Structure of the hormone estradiol and one of the nonylphenols. [edit] Occurrence in the environment Nonylphenol has been detected widely in waste water streams across the globe, which is a concern since it is toxic to many aquatic organisms. For example, nonylphenol has been detected both in the Great Lakes and in the region of New York City.[6] In 1984, the formation of 4-nonylphenols from nonylphenol ethoxylates in wastewater treatment plants was first discovered.[7] Nonylphenol is persistent in the environment,[8] therefore lingers with the potential to negatively affect organisms it comes in contact with. Nonylphenol also bioaccumulates, which is dangerous to animals and humans who eat meat. [edit] Environmental protection policies Nonylphenol and nonyphenol ethoxylates have been banned in the European Union as a hazard to human and environmental safety.[9] For freshwater ecosystems, the Environmental Protection Agency has set two types of standards: the first which is considered acute criteria is one-hour average concentration of nonylphenol does not exceed 28 μg/L more than once every three years on the average.[10] For saltwater ecosystems, the standard is considered to be chronic criteria and is set to four-day average concentration of nonylphenol that does not exceed 6.6 μg/l more than once every three years on the average. [10] referances http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonylphenol

Posted by Anonymous on

comment below,bob cumbers must work fora fishery or bp! you need to get your facts right! your dumb,anything water based or oil based can and will evaporate. so if you think a petroleum based dipersent wont evaporate like i said YOUR DUMB!!!!