gulf oil spill 2

8/8/2019 Gulf Oil Spill 2

1/6

Related articles

Gulf oil spill - Is BP ignoring a

green solution? Part I

Gulf oil spill - Is BP ignoring a green solution?Part II - Like a bird in oilMay 19th, 2010 5:11 pm ET

By Carol Everhart Roper, Philadelphia Science Examiner

In yesterdays

column, linked at

left, we talked about

the product S-200,

which is abioremediation

agent specifically designed to take oil from spills and

bind it together into clumps and then feed it to a colony of

bacteria included with the agent. The process takes

several weeks, but during that time, the oil is not able to

further pollute and at the end of the time, the oil is gone,

the bacteria die off with no more food, and carbon

dioxide and water is whats left.

In direct contrast to the current dispersalproducts being used, bioremediation agents

remove the oil - dispersants simply break it up

into smaller bits and spread it out in a larger

area.

We want to know why BP is using dispersals

instead of bioremediation when the latter

promises a much better result.

S-200 sounded like an answer to everyones

desires, a way to save the Gulf Coast and its

wildlife and industries, but we needed to find a

way to determine if these claims are indeed true.

To that end, I enlisted help from three professionals one a chemist working for the government, another

a toxicologist, and the third, a biologist. Oil spills and such technology are NOT their primary fields of work,

but they still have ample ability to understand the bulk of the documents we perused. All of us read

through multiple documents available including some provided to us by the s-200 manufacturer, as well

as spent a lot of time digging on the internet ourselves.

Sustainable DevelopmentFull-Time, Part-Time and DistanceCourses. Intensive Tutor Support.www.sobe.salford.ac.uk/Courses

Business Is DevelopmentLearn how private capital drivesdevelopment in emerging markets.www.legatumventures.com

Print Close [x]

Page 1 of 6Gulf oil spill - Is BP ignoring a green solution? Part II - Like a bird in oil - Philadelphia S...

9/4/2010http://www.examiner.com/science-in-philadelphia/gulf-oil-spill-is-bp-ignoring-a-green-solu ...


2/6

V Below: NASA image of slick on May 17, 2010.

We also reviewed stories related to previous spills which used this technology. As stated yesterday, there

are not a lot of documents which offer decisive information.

Im going to quote some of our conclusions interestingly, each of us working entirely independently

arrived at very similar conclusions. None of us felt biased either towards or against the product.

We had specific questions we wanted to answer:

1. Can we find independent evidence that this product works as described?

2. Can we determine what, if any, toxicity there is attached to this product, and compare it to the toxicity of

the current kerosene-based dispersant being used?

3. What is the cost compared to the dispersal agent?

4. What exactly is BPs position on this product, and why has it dropped considering it? - This one was




3/6

addressed to BP but they have not answered, instead simply putting me on a media alert email list.

5. Where have these products been used, and what is their success?

Question 1. Can we find independent evidence that this product works as

described?

Answer Yes and no. There are indeed documents which address this and other

bioremediation agents but most of them conclude that there hasnt been enough studyto determine if they can work all the time in all areas. They did conclude, however, that

these products do SEEM to work as described in the limited studies which were done.

The 2004 EPA document (we also referenced yesterday) which talks in general about bioremediation

basically says in 61 pages, that it looks like the stuff works but we cant be sure because there are so few

studies and everyplace is different anyhow.

Question 2. Toxicity compare S-200 vs current dispersal agents.

Answer There were a number of documents discussing this, but there were

contradictory numbers or typos - but it does seem to indicate that there is some

degree of toxidity - the LC50 concentration which means how many organisms arealive at certain time intervals after application looking at survival or death of 50%. A

high LC-50 number is good, low is bad. The faster a product attains a low count, the

more disastrous it is. One report claimed that S-200 was as toxic as diesel fuel which is pretty toxic - .

ALL other reports disputed that finding. The MSDS sheet for the s-200 product states that ingesting it is

non-toxic. and that it is a mild skin and eye irritant.

A sub-concern here was whether or not the products over-use the oxygen content in the water and make

an aerobic environment turn anaerobic. (Simply put - Aerobic means aquatic life has oxygen and thus can

breathe, anaerobic means it suffocates.) Although the subject arose in some papers, there was nothing

definitive that we could determine other than a report provided to us by the manufacturer of a study

conducted by Severn-Trent Environmental Leadership A GLP compliant report titled: A study of the

Aerobic Biodegradation in Seawater of S-200C using the Closed Bottle Procedure.Obviously this could

be a very important concern. We quote from this reports Summary:

A figure of 60% degradation within 28 days is usually taken

as being indicative of a good potential for degradation in the

marine environment. The % of Degradability of S-200C in two

different concentrations was 67.2% and 73.1%.

Those are good numbers.

From our team: As for toxicity, I'm not saying it's very

toxic. It's not. Neither is diesel fuel, for that matter. Their

technical bulletin claimed toxicity values that were also

pretty much in line with their reference toxicant, sodium

dodecyl sulfate, which is a surfactant that's in all sorts of




4/6

things we use, from shampoos to toothpaste. So I wouldn't say it's *particularly* toxic, just a bit more than

at least one competitor claims for their product.

But one must compare the oxygen use between both the bioremediation agent and the dispersal agents to

have a real idea of which is better. From one manufacturers website we see the characteristics of using

Kemex a typical dispersal agent. According to this Indian companys page, the dispersant is Practically

non-toxic. Exactly what is the range for practically? No info on Oxygen issues there, either. So, tothat end, weve got emails out to some specialists who might be able to answer this.

In addition, here is an excellent summary of current dispersal agents.

Question 3. COST COMPARISON: S-200 is definitely more expensive than typical

dispersal agents. But its also apparently considerably better, in particular on coastlines.

The EPA put out a document comparing multiple products which reflect costs. The

latest one we found was from 1999, meaning all costs shown would probably be

roportionately higher today. You can view that document here.

One thing which screams at you is the difference in cost between open water remediation and

once the oil hits land. One example shows that in spill incidents, Franken (1991) showed that the cost

of removing oil off shore (by either dispersants or mechanical recovery) averaged $7,350/tonne, whereas

shoreline cleanup ran as high as $147,000$294,000/tonne.These figures clearly reflect the devastation

that oil will cause once it landfalls. And, its beginning to hit land now.

From our toxologist: This stuff is recommended to be applied at a 1:10 ratio to the oil making it

exorbitantly expensive in a spill of this size. I don't think it's likely they'll be pouring this stuff on the entire

slick out on the seas. Depending on what the cost of such a treatment would be, but there would be some

serious cost-benefit considerations. Anyway, this stuff, and products like it, seems more likely something

to be used as part of a comprehensive cleanup effort for contaminated shorelines.

Question 4 What is BPs position on the use of S-200 or like

bioremediation agents? Well, BP is ignoring my calls and emails asking for

that information.

So I just dont know.

They did subscribe me to a media bulletin, though.

< At left is an image of a bird covered in oil... using bioremediation, that bird

would be clean.

I have also written to the US Fish and Wildlife organization, the EPA, President Obamas staff and Vice

President Biden, and assorted other appropriate agencies. One hopes well get some sort of answers

soon. If you agree, I hope you'll consider emailing links to these two articles to the above, and to anyone

you think might be in a position to get BP to look at bioremediation.




5/6

Question 5 - Where have these products been used, and what is their success?

Bioremediation products have been used in multiple spills. Most of them seem to be in fresh water, but

there are some cases of salt water use. Some of the places S-200 was used include the following

information:

From the IEP website:

"The product has been tested thoroughly. Building on thesuccess of the largest bioremediation project in history

(Exxon Valdez, 70 miles of shoreline) and the Prestige

Spill bioremediation, the technical mechanism and its

advantages were clearly seen as our products became

the premiere products used in the spill clean up. What's

more, S-200 required only one application, not the

multiple applications required by other technologies."

Spain the location of the Prestige [tanker shown at

right]oil spill Wikipedias article on this spill says thatthe cleanup was a success but doesnt mention

products used at all.

Also used in these following locations, verified by

documents provided to me by Jim Lynn, CEO, IEP. In each case, the documents expressed extreme

satisfaction with the results.

South Branch of the Chicago River, Illinois

Commencement Bay, New Jersey

River Boyne oil spill, Ireland

Finally, note that the EPA itself lists S-200 as an approved bioremedial agent in its voluminous report

Selection Guide for Oil Spill Applied Technologies: Volume I - Decision Making

Conclusion at this time:Use of a bioremediation agent - S-200 or a similar product -seems strongly

indicated at the least in areas near the coastline and in areas of coast which have already seen oil

landfall. A dispersant agent on land is futile it just spreads the oil more thinly over a greater area.

Should s-200 or similar products be used on open water? Well look at that in Part 3, and hopefully will

have additional expert information to provide.

But we ask again, in desperation as we see the oil spreading, WHY IS BP ignoring this type of

product? Seeing a disaster of this magnitude is heartbreaking in and of itself. To see it mismanaged, and

see that such mismanagement is causing decades of damage that do not have to happen - just to avoid

spending a few more bucks - is nothing short of criminal.

IMAGES:

Tar chunk on beach: http://soundwaves.usgs.gov/2007/05/tarLG.jpg




6/6

NASA sattelite view of spill:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/44000/44006/gulf_tmo_2010137.jpg

Blue Protozoans used in wastewater cleanup:

http://starcentral.mbl.edu/msr/rawdata/viewable/anaerobic_and_micro-

aerophilic_protozoa_1153235625_aampw.jpg

Bird in oil: http://skyrider.biz/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/exxonvaldez-disaster.jpg

Money: http://news-libraries.mit.edu/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/money.jpg

Prestige sinking:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/02/europe_prestige_tanker_oil_spill/img/1.jpg

If you like my articles, please click on the SUBSCRIBE link at the top of this article to receive an

email whenever a new column is posted.

Tags: oil spill


gulf oil spill 2

Documents