Risks of Oil Sands Mining for Migratory Birds

Alberta's oil sands region has been back in the news recently with proposals to build new pipelines to carry unrefined oil extracted there (diluted bitumen) south to Texas for refining. Those pipelines have their own risks, especially when they cross important watersheds or wildlife areas. Regardless of how the oil is transported, the extraction process has a tremendous impact on migratory birds. Bird Canada calls our attention to this report from 2008 on the dangers oil sands mining poses for migratory birds and their habitats (pdf). It is worth a read if you are unfamiliar with the conservation issues and the birds at risk.

Also, a book I reviewed two years ago is worth reading if you want to explore the issues in more detail

Oil Spill at Tristan da Cunha

A freighter, the Malta-based MV Oliva, ran aground near Tristan da Cunha, a group of islands in the South Atlantic. The ship released 800 tons of oil, and there is now an oil slick around Nightingale Island. The slick has the potential to be difficult to clean up since the islands are remote and cleanup vessels will have to travel a long way to reach Tristan da Cunha.

Nightengale Island is notable for its large population of Northern Rockhopper Penguins (Eudyptes moseleyi), an endangered species that has more than half of its population living within the archipelago. Conservation workers on the islands say that about 20,000 penguins have been oiled so far, with the potential for more to be oiled by the time rescue workers arrive.

There are photos of the penguins at Mongabay.com and updates at the Tristan da Cunha website.

Funding for the Gulf of Mexico

Last spring and summer we watched in horror and disbelief as the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig exploded and sank, with the well it left behind spewing oil for the next three months. Eventually the leak was stopped, but not before it left a trail of environmental damage in its wake. According to the most recent wildlife report (pdf), fish and wildlife officials found 8183 dead or oiled birds, 1144 sea turtles, 2 other reptiles, and 109 mammals in the areas affected by the spill. No doubt the oil had further effects on wildlife too small to draw the attention of staff or volunteers.

Now Congress has a chance to do something about it. BP will have to pay substantial fines under the Clean Water Act. A bill before the Senate would dedicate the revenue from those fines to restoration of the Gulf of Mexico and its habitats. Without action now, the revenue will just go into the general treasury and may not help the Gulf Coast's habitats. To that end, please consider contacting your Senators as soon as possible in support of the funding bill. Audubon has made this easy with an automated form: http://www.audubonaction.org/spillbill.

For more on the funding bill and Gulf Coast restoration, see the introductory post at NBN.

Marine Animals and Toxic Chemicals from the BP Spill

A new report based on data collected during BP's oil spill shows that high concentrations of toxic chemicals spread deep into the Gulf of Mexico following the Deepwater Horizon's explosion.

The chemicals, called polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons or PAHs, can kill animals right away in high enough concentrations and can cause cancer over time.

"From the time that these observations were made, there was an extensive release of additional oil and dispersants at the site. Therefore, the effects on the deep sea ecosystem may be considerably more severe than supported by the observations reported here," the researchers wrote in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

How persistent they are (and will be) is still uncertain.

The initial tests showed they were at high levels very deep under the water, the report shows.

"Based on our findings, subsurface exposure to PAH resulting from the Deepwater Horizon oil release was likely to be associated with acute toxicity effects in discrete depth layers between 1,000 and 1,400 meters in the region southwest of the wellhead site and extending at least as far as 13 km," the research team wrote.

PAHs include a group of compounds, and different types were at different depths, they said.

It is possible they dissipate quickly, but no one has yet showed this, they added.

"Our findings suggest that toxicity effects of the subsurface PAH compounds could have extended at least as far as 13 km from the wellhead site," the researchers said.

In September a team at Oregon State University said they found alarming levels of PAHs in the region, 40 times higher than before the area was affected by the oil spill.

New information about the effects of the spill continues to come out, and as long as it does, I will continue posting it here.

More Birds Die in a Syncrude Oil Tailings Pond

Just last week, the Syncrude finally received an historically large fine for the deaths of 1600 waterbirds in one of its oil tailings ponds in Alberta. This week, another one of their tailings ponds is involved in yet another case of oiled waterfowl. At least 230 waterfowl were euthanized after landing in one of Syncrude's ponds during a rainstorm.

Syncrude released a statement in the afternoon saying a freezing rain storm made it difficult for the birds to fly, causing dozens of the waterfowl to land at various locations on the company's site, including roads, parking lots and the Mildred Lake tailings pond. Originally spokeswoman Cheryl Robb said the government ordered about 125 of the birds that came in contact with the bitumen pond euthanized.

Approximately two hours later, a company called — emphasizing it wants to be open and transparent — with a revised number of duck deaths: 230. After 5 p.m., the government said it was conducting a regional investigation into why bird landings occurred at multiple oilsands facilities, including Suncor and Shell sites.

Alberta Environment spokeswoman Cara Tobin said there were “a handful” of bird deaths at Suncor and provincial investigators are being sent to a Shell site.

“It will become part of the larger investigation,” Tobin said. “It’s interesting that it’s happened at more than one site.”

According to Syncrude, its bird-deterrent tools were operational but failed to stop the tired waterfowl from landing in the ponds. Similar incidents occurred at ponds owned by Shell and Suncor, but with fewer ducks killed. In my opinion, a deterrent system should be able to work during severe weather since rain is a common event during migration season.

The incident is increasing political pressure for oil companies to clean up tailings ponds and for the national and provincial governments to regulate oil sands operations more effectively.

"I'm more than disappointed. I'm angry," Alberta NDP MLA Rachel Notley said. "For the last two years, since the last time this happened, the government has done nothing but invest money in PR."

"What needs to happen is the government needs to finally take this seriously. They need to take action, they need to enforce their own standards, they need to increase penalties, so they actually serve as a deterrent. That's not happening right now."

Notley said the latest incident creates an impression that the province isn't taking its obligation to develop and clean up the oilsands seriously enough.

According to Greenpeace, the industry needs to stop using tailings ponds.

"It's obvious that the provincial and federal governments are asleep at the wheel in regulating the tar sands industry and that nothing has changed since 1,600 ducks died two years ago," Greenpeace Alberta campaigner Mike Hudema said in a news release. "Syncrude needs more than a slap on the wrist and this government needs to do more than act as a public relations firm for the tar sands."

Whether political pressure will be sufficient to lead to reform remains to be seen. However, some U.S. politicians and business owners are feeling sufficient pressure to show concern over oil sands environmental problems.

Alberta Environment officials are still investigating the tailings ponds of the three companies, so the numbers and other details may change.

Update (10/27, 4:30 pm): The number of dead ducks has risen to 350, and there may be more in the pond.

Oilsands giant Syncrude says 350 birds have now died after landing on the Mildred Lake tailings pond Monday night while Suncor said the grim tally on their ponds rose to 40 ducks....

Tailing ponds are a toxic slurry of chemicals and hydrocarbons used to separate bitumen from sand.

Reporters were invited to visit Syncrude's Mildred Lake facility Wednesday where a full-scale recovery operation is underway. Several boats are trolling for birds while others on shore are using nets. It's expected the operation will take another week.

Syncrude president and CEO Scott Sullivan said the number of dead waterfowl will continue to climb. Speaking at the recovery command post, he said he's disappointed the deaths occurred despite the company's deterrent system.

According to the local radio station in Fort McMurray, Suncor reported 40 dead waterfowl and Shell has not reported any.

What Happened to Released Pelicans?

Pelicans Released at Aransas / US Coast Guard Photo

In the photo above, two Brown Pelicans that had been found coated in oil are being released at Aransas National Wildlife Refuge in Texas. (The government chose to release pelicans in Texas or Florida rather than risk having them coated in oil again.) That photo was taken on June 27, and it was one of several releases over the course of the summer. So what has happened to the released birds since then? It seems that no one knows for sure since they have not been seen or reported since their release.

To date, 443 brown pelicans have been reported dead from the BP Chemical oil spill, according to the Unified Command Center's website, but the fate of pelicans moved into Aransas National Wildlife Refuge and Goose Island State Park remains unclear.

"No, we haven't come across any of the relocated ones, but no news is good news in this case," Texas Parks and Wildlife pollution biologist Alex Nunez said.

The relocated birds aren't being tracked, so the only way they would be found is if they were dead, Nunez said....

There have been no reports of the birds being sighted at either of the release points Goose Island park interpreter Mike Mullenweg said.

"The birds may have simply made their homes in the area or they may have migrated back to Louisiana," Mullenweg said.

Aransas National Wildlife Refuge wildlife specialist Vicki Mueller took a more positive view. While the pelicans haven't been sighted in the area that doesn't mean they aren't still there, she said.

"These birds have short legs and they keep them tucked up under them most of the time. An aluminum ring can be kind of hard to spot," Mueller said.

Muelller said they accepted 104 pelicans - the most they could comfortably take in the area.

Another biologist interviewed for the article thought the lack of sightings meant that the pelicans had traveled back to Louisiana, where they could encounter some of the lingering oil on the beaches and marshes.

In addition, bands are generally reported when a bird is recaptured by a bander, flagged with a color marking of some sort, or found dead. (There are also rarer cases in which an observer can read the aluminum band's code on a living bird.) In order for a banded bird to be found dead, it has to die in a place where someone can find the carcass before scavengers carry it off. Since pelicans are large birds, the odds of being found when dead are somewhat in their favor, but I still would not assume that the bodies would be found if they did die at the refuge.

BP Kills Oil Well; Cleanup and Recovery Continues

BP successfully killed the oil well that was leaking for much of the spring and summer. A relief well intercepted the original well shaft, and then the crew aboard a drilling rig (pictured above) pumped cement through the relief well to kill the original well. A pressure test early Sunday morning confirmed that the well was sealed. The failed well will be abandoned once BP finishes its work at the site. The company says that it will devote more attention to oil cleanup now that the well is killed permanently. However, BP also left open the possibility that it would drill a new well to exploit the same oil reservoir that the failed well was supposed to access.

The US government wants oil companies to plug any wells that they have not used in the past five years and will issue new regulations in October to reduce the likelihood of leaks from abandoned wells.

In the meantime, independent scientists have found some of the oil that BP and the government claimed had disappeared. It has settled on the ocean floor in a layer stretching 12 miles in both directions from the failed well.

The Research Vessel Oceanus sailed on Aug. 21 on a mission to figure out what happened to the more than 4 million barrels of oil that gushed into the water. Onboard, Samantha Joye, a professor in the Department of Marine Sciences at the University of Georgia, says she suddenly has a pretty good idea about where a lot of it ended up. It's showing up in samples of the seafloor, between the well site and the coast.

"I've collected literally hundreds of sediment cores from the Gulf of Mexico, including around this area. And I've never seen anything like this," she said in an interview via satellite phone from the boat.

Joye describes seeing layers of oily material — in some places more than 2 inches thick — covering the bottom of the seafloor....

It's very clearly a fresh layer. Right below it she finds much more typical seafloor mud. And in that layer, she finds recently dead shrimp, worms and other invertebrates.

There is some possibility that other leaking wells or natural seeps could contribute to the mess, so the UGA scientists will have to test the chemical fingerprint of the oil to determine its source. However, the volume and freshness of the oil suggests that BP's failed well was responsible for it. Scientists from the University of South Florida have also found oil at the bottom of the Gulf, but not in the amounts recorded by Joye and her colleagues. You can read more about the discovery and see photos of the core samples at UGA's Gulf Oil Blog. If past spills are any indication, that toxic oil could be sitting there for a long time. This episode, like several others during the course of the spill and cleanup, should serve as a caution against the optimistic predictions about the spill being offered by the government, BP, and the media. It should also be a reminder that the story is not over just because the well is killed.

The outlook for ecosystems in the Gulf remains uncertain and may not be known for quite some time. Some scientists, particularly ones affiliated with the government, see a relatively quick recovery. This optimistic take is supported by the lack of oil-triggered dead zones – one potential impact – in the areas affected by the spill. (There was a dead zone in the Gulf this summer, but it was the annual one triggered by nutrient runoff from the Mississippi.) However, there are still a variety of ways that oil could affect the Gulf over the long term. Aside from the oil sitting on the bottom of the Gulf, there is still a large amount buried in the beaches or just offshore. That oil could reappear during any storm that churns the sand and waves. Some oil and natural gas remains in underwater plumes.

The continued presence of toxic oil in and around the Gulf is a concern because of its potential effects on wildlife, both commercially valuable animals like shrimp and other species, including endangered species like the Piping Plover or Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle. Oiled animals (both alive and dead) continue to be found; in fact, the numbers of some oiled animals have risen since the well was capped in July. According to the oiled wildlife report for September 17 (pdf), 8030 birds have been collected, of which 5959 were collected dead and 2071 were collected alive; of the latter, 1208 have been released. The oil has also affected 1114 sea turtles (586 of which were collected dead and 284 released), 101 mammals (92 collected dead; 3 released), and 2 other reptiles (1 dead). For a detailed breakdown of the collected birds, see this report (pdf). Updates to the detailed breakdown will be posted each Wednesday on the USFWS website. The ABA's Drew Whelan has an interview with James Van Remsen, an ornithologist at LSU, about the effects of the oil spill on birds and the Gulf Coast ecosystems.

Finally, BP has gone to great lengths to insist that the environmental damage and the health risks to cleanup workers will be minimal. Some of their PR and training materials downplay the risks posed by oil dispersants:

Representatives with BP, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Center for Toxicology and Environmental Health spoke during the meeting, which took place at Lafourche-branch NAACP official Bertha Shanklin's home.

Susan Shelnutt, a toxicologist with the center, a private consulting firm hired by BP to monitor health and environmental issues related to the spill, showed attendees how the dispersant Corexit contains some of the same chemical properties as everyday household items such as ice-cream bars, children's headache medicine, kitchen cleaners and skin lotion.

Dispersants may share some component chemicals with household products (including ice cream), but just because you would ingest cough syrup or eat a Klondike bar does not mean you would consider gulping down dish detergent, let alone oil dispersants. In the same way, having a few chemicals in common with household cleaners does not mean that dispersants are safe to touch or inhale.

Cleanup workers were exposed to both petroleum and dispersants, and the long range health effects of both are not well known. (There is already at least one disturbing case.) Of course, dispersants may also cause problems for wildlife. Since this was the first spill for which dispersants were applied in such massive amounts, their full effect (on humans or wildlife) has yet to be determined. It is too soon to assume that these chemicals will be benign.

Dead Birds Found on a Louisiana Island

Late last week, the Lower Mississippi Riverkeeper took a sampling trip around Louisiana's Terrebonne Bay in the company of other environmental activists and some filmmakers. On one of the islands they made a disturbing discovery:

In "Julia," the Lower Mississippi Riverkeeper Boston Whaler and a local fishing vessel we made our way south from Pointe Au Chien across Lake Chien and Lake Felicity to Modoto Island. What we encountered there stunned us all. The ground was littered with dead birds. So many dead birds that we aren't sure how many were out there, many dozens of dead birds just in the small area which we surveyed on the island. The dead appeared to included mostly seagulls and terns though some were badly decayed and identification was difficult. It was clear to me by the various states of decay, from scattered bones to a tern that couldn't have been dead for more than a day and everything in between, that this is an ongoing situation.

We also saw a juvenile gull that was in distress. It could hardly walk and was very unsteady when it took a step it also had very little energy. By the time we finished our sampling and were ready to leave the island the bird had died. I asked Kurt if he had seen anything like the dead birds and he said that he had been visiting this island his entire life and he has never seen dead birds in the numbers we were seeing. It is clear to me that these birds are somehow being poisoned by the BP event.

You can see video of the gull in question at the Riverkeeper's website.

Even though the well is basically plugged, and even though deep-sea bacteria have started to break down some of the submerged oil, much of the oil is still out there, and wildlife is still being harmed by it.

Up to 80% of the Spilled Oil Remains in the Gulf

Equipment at the site of BP's well / U.S. Coast Guard photo

Two weeks ago, NOAA released a report claiming that most of the oil leaking from BP's blown-out well had disappeared. The government report was widely promoted in the syndicated media but was met with skepticism from environmental journalists and marine scientists. Since that time, scientists from the University of Georgia performed their own evaluation of the government's numbers and reached a much different result (pdf). UGA's report omits oil captured directly from the wellhead (since that oil never entered the water), so its numbers do not match the government's exactly, but it still offers a useful critique of the conventional wisdom.

The UGA scientists agree that burned or skimmed oil can be said to have left the Gulf. That accounts for 10% of the oil that entered the ecosystem. The rest is either dispersed (naturally or chemically), dissolved, or residual. "Dispersed" or "dissolved" may mean that some oil has been degraded or evaporated, but that should not be assumed.

On degradation:

There are no data available from the scientific literature or the National Incident Command onrates of decomposition or weathering of oil released from the BP spill. Because so much oilexists as micro-droplets in deep, very cold ocean waters, it is difficult to infer decompositionrates from studies of previous spills occurring closer to the surface. However, several scientificstudies are currently underway to directly address this critical need.

We asked our scientific experts to estimate, as best they could, the percentage of subsurface oilthat has degraded. They suggested a range of between 5% (see Figure 3) and 10% (see Figure 2).Given that estimate, we calculated that between 168,000 and 319,000 barrels have been removedfrom the Gulf through degradation. This is equivalent to 4-8% of the total oil released into thewater. 

 On evaporation:

The NIC report estimates that 1.2 million barrels (30%) of oil released at the wellhead dissolvedin the water and are, therefore, in a form that could evaporate. However, for oil to evaporate, itmust come in contact with the atmosphere. Without knowing how much of the oil is at variousdepths, it is difficult to estimate how much oil could have reached the surface in order toevaporate. Our experts set the range of evaporation at 25% (see Figure 3) to 40% (see Figure 2).Based on this estimate, we calculated that between 306,000 and 490,000 barrels of oil haveevaporated into the atmosphere and are no longer in the Gulf of Mexico. This amounts to 8-12%of the total oil spilled into the Gulf.

The scientists also note that the degraded and evaporated forms may not be environmentally harmless, either to humans or to other organisms.

The one piece of welcome news in this report is that the remaining oil is now unlikely to enter the Loop Current and make its way along the East Coast.

Update: The New York Times has its own take on the UGA report.

Lingering Oil, Sea Turtles, and Transparency

As I mentioned in my earlier post on the NOAA report, even if the numbers in the report are accurate (and there is good reason to think they are not) the remaining oil still poses a significant threat to people and wildlife. Here are some possible long term effects, especially on sea turtles:

Rick Steiner, a retired University of Alaska professor who worked on the Exxon Valdez disaster, questioned the validity of the estimates in the report, explaining, "These are just what we call WAGs — wild- a-- guesses."

Even if the report's numbers were dead-on, Steiner said, that would not mean the oil spill disaster is over, as some pundits are claiming. The impact is likely to linger for a decade or more.

For instance, in the Exxon Valdez spill, four years passed before the herring population in Prince William Sound collapsed. The toxic contamination had apparently hurt the herrings' immune system.

"The coast is not clear," agreed Ron Kendall, director of the Institute of Environmental and Human Health at Texas Tech University. "Even if all the oil was gone tomorrow, the potential ecological consequences will be unfolding for days, weeks and years to come."

The effects on sea turtles, for instance, likely won't be known for seven years, because that's how long it will take before this year's hatchlings return to the gulf coast to lay their own eggs, he said.

Last month, scientists reported that they found near the spill site a massive die-off of pyrosomes — cucumber-shaped, gelatinous organisms that are a food source for endangered sea turtles. One scientist called it "just a mass eradication" of the creatures.

Meanwhile, droplets of oil turned up inside the shells of young crabs that are a mainstay in the diet of fish, turtles and shorebirds. The orange spots were detected in crabs across the northern Gulf Coast, from southwestern Louisiana to the Florida Panhandle.

Harriet Perry of the University of Southern Mississippi said that in 42 years of studying crabs, she'd never seen anything like it. The crabs are a key species for the whole food chain, she said. "If we have a loss of blue crabs, we're looking at a loss of everything."

Drew Wheelan from the ABA suggests another possible spill casualty: a major fish kill in Fourchon, Louisiana.

Unfortunately initial media coverage of the NOAA report left the impression that the environmental disaster was over. Columbia Journalism Review lambastes The New York Times in particular for uncritically repeating claims that the oil has disappeared. Since the Deepwater Horizon first exploded, BP has shown no interest in either transparency or accurate reporting, government agencies have been too willing to repeat low-ball damage estimates and assist BP's obfuscation, and the media (with few exceptions) have not applied sufficient skepticism to the information coming from BP and the government. The performance of these public institutions has made for a truly sorry spectacle.

BP Shuts Well; Skepticism over Claims the Oil Disappeared

Oil Spill at Bon Secour NWR / USFWS Photo

BP announced that its "static kill" was successful in pushing oil farther down into the Deepwater Horizon well. The next step will be to cement the top of the wellbore, and the federal government has given permission for that process to start. There is an explanation of the steps involved in a static kill at The Oil Drum. If the cementing is successful, then no more oil should leak out of that well. A relief well will also close the well bore from the bottom.

Meanwhile, government scientists announced that 75% of the oil that spilled from the well has disappeared from the Gulf of Mexico:

"It is estimated that burning, skimming and direct recovery from the wellhead removed one quarter (25 percent) of the oil released from the wellhead," the scientists said in the report "BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Budget: What Happened to the Oil?"

Another 25 percent naturally evaporated or dissolved and 24 percent was dispersed, either naturally or "as the result of operations," into small droplets, the report said.

The rest of the estimated 4.9 million barrels of crude spilled into the Gulf after the April 20 rig explosion that triggered the leak is either on or just beneath the water's surface as "light sheen or weathered tarballs," has washed ashore where it may have been collected, or is buried in sand and sediments at the sea bottom.

Reading this made me raise an eyebrow, as the claim leaves a lot of questions unanswered. In particular, I would like to know what happened to the large subsurface plumes of oil. The oil that dissolved or was dispersed chemically presumably sank into the water column – is that oil gone or is it still there? Based on the numbers given above, it seems to me that only the 25% burned or recovered and the 25% that evaporated can truly be said to be out of the gulf. Apparently I am not alone in my skepticism, as several scientists are questioning the report.

The scientists and other experts who challenged the government's conclusions warned that painting too rosy a picture could hamper the environmental monitoring and cleanup work that remains to be done in the Gulf.

Marine conservationist Rick Steiner, a retired University of Alaska scientist, said: "Let's look at this another way: that there's some 50 percent of the oil left. It's still there in the environment."

The government report also fails to account for the effect of vast, underwater plumes of microscopic droplets of oil that remain unmeasured, scientists said, and it downplays the potential long-term effects of the release of as much as 4.1 million barrels of oil in the Gulf of Mexico. Some 800,000 barrels were captured at the wellhead.

The remaining 50 percent in the water is the equivalent of almost eight Exxon Valdez oil spills, until now the country's benchmark environmental disaster.

"Now what we're hearing is they don't think the damage will be as bad as they initially thought," Steiner said. "We have to remember that the same thing was said after the Exxon Valdez. But much of the damage didn't become apparent until the second or third year."

Scientists also questioned the report's methodology.

"There is a lot of uncertainty in these figures," said James H. Cowan, Jr., a professor in the Department of Oceanography and Coastal Sciences at Louisiana State University,

For example, the report doesn't explain how its authors decided what was naturally dispersed oil and what was chemically dispersed oil. They gave no details of how they estimated the evaporation rate of oil — something that's difficult to do over large areas of seawater because of the effects of weather and other factors, Cowan said.

Other scientists have also questioned the conclusions. NOAA administrator Jane Lubchenco insists that the report is sound and that its conclusions should not be taken to mean that the danger to wildlife is over. Unfortunately, that is how it is likely to be portrayed in much of the media; the Reuters article I linked does not mentioned any caveats raised by either Lubchenco or the dissenting scientists.

This is a situation where I would like to be able to trust the government's scientists. However, the lack of transparency that has marked the spill response makes that difficult. The lack of transparency also makes it difficult to believe the low numbers of killed wildlife reported by the Fish and Wildlife Service. Even if dead animals were not actively concealed, the official numbers seem far too low given the volume and extent of the spill.

Oil Spill Updates

A US Fish and Wildlife officer tries to rescue an oiled bird 

BP plans to try a static kill of the broken well on Tuesday.

Wells described the static kill as a multi-step process that will start with what he called an "injectivity test" to determine the speed at which technicians will force heavy drilling mud into the well in hopes of driving the crude oil in the well back into the reservoir. Once the optimal speed is determined, technicians would pump mud in until pressure in the well has dropped to zero, indicating that the well has been contained.

At that point, technicians will dump cement into the well to permanently close it.

Wells didn't say how long the static kill would take. He said engineers believe the wellbore holds about 2,000 barrels of oil, or about 84,000 gallons. BP has 12,000 barrels of drilling mud standing by for the procedure, he said.

The goal is to force all of the oil back into the reservoir 13,000 feet below the sea floor in what is known as a "bullhead kill." Each gallon of drilling mud weighs 13.2 pounds. A gallon of oil weighs about seven pounds.

If the static kill works, BP will still complete its relief well to seal the well bore from the bottom as well. The relief well is almost complete, and a bottom kill process will probably start in mid-August.

A longer term question is what will happen to the marshes that have been coated with oil.

The oil physically smothers the surface plants, then penetrates deeply into the marsh soil. Plants may die, but the roots can still hold the soil together. If those are damaged too, erosion occurs.

When the roots wash away, the marshes turn to open water, said Mark LaSalle, executive director of the Pascagoula River Audubon Center.

Once a marsh is coated, officials have several options, he said. They can burn the plants, use low-pressure flushing, cut back vegetation or use biomedical remediation. He's not a fan of any of those options because they can do more damage than the oil.

Doing nothing, he said, may actually be the best solution. "Any kind of physical action in marshes is ill advised," he said.

The future state of the marshes is not just an aesthetic concern since they provide a breeding ground for birds and other animals and protect inland areas from the worst effects of storms.

Alarm Systems Switched Off on the Deepwater Horizon Rig

According to testimony given during the Congressional investigation of the Deepwater Horizon disaster, the drilling rig's alarm systems had been switched off on the day the rig exploded:

Williams told the hearing today that no alarms went off on the day of the explosion because they had been "inhibited". Sensors monitoring conditions on the rig and in the Macondo oil well beneath it were still working, but the computer had been instructed not to trigger any alarms in case of adverse readings.

Both visual and sound alarms should have gone off in the case of sensors detecting fire or dangerous levels of combustible or toxic gases.

The evidence of deliberate dilution of the rig's safety mechanisms is likely to have wide ramifications for BP and Transocean, the world's largest offshore drilling company. It switches the spotlight of blame away from BP and towards the subcontractor which took the decisions. Of the 126 crew on board the rig on 20 April, seven worked for BP and 79 for Transocean.

Williams said he discovered that the physical alarm system had been disabled a full year before the disaster. When he asked why, he said he was told that the view from even the most senior Transocean official on the rig had been that "they did not want people woken up at three o'clock in the morning due to false alarms".

Also:

In a third significant disclosure, Williams also revealed that a computer system used to monitor the drill shack was constantly freezing up, and on one occasion even produced wrong information. The system failed to indicate that a vital valve inside the blowout preventer, the device designed to shut down the well in case of problems, had been damaged.

It is likely that fewer crew members would have died if the alarms had been working. Whether the alarms would have prevented the explosion and subsequent spill remains unclear (to me, anyway). I hope that future hearings will explore that point in more detail.

New Cap to Close BP's Leaking Oil Well

Last night BP placed a tighter cap over the leaking wellhead in the Gulf of Mexico. If all goes well, this cap could shut off the flow of oil out of the well until a successful relief well is complete and the wellbore is blocked. (A relief well is still the only means for permanently stopping the leak.) There will be tests over the next two days to determine whether the new cap was successful.

Here is some more about the new cap and pressure tests.

If the tests on the well show the pressure rising and holding — an indication that the well is intact, with no significant damage to the casing pipe that runs the length of the well bore to 13,000 feet below the seafloor — BP, working with government scientists, could decide to leave the valves closed, effectively shutting off the well like a cap on a soda bottle.

“The best-case scenario is that pressures rise to the point we anticipate they would,” Mr. Suttles said at a briefing. “We’d likely be able to keep the well shut in.”

On the other hand, the tests could show pressures that are lower than expected, Mr. Suttles said, an indication that the well is damaged. That could mean that oil and gas are leaking into the surrounding rock.

In that case, keeping the cap closed could damage the well further. The valves would have to be reopened, he said, and oil would start escaping from the well again, although much of it, and perhaps eventually all, would be funneled through pipes to surface ships.

A technician with knowledge of the operation said that it was unlikely that the well would be left shut beyond the test period, given the risk that the pressure could eventually cause problems within the well and given that with the new cap BP should soon be able to collect all the oil.

See also this diagram for a better idea of how the system is supposed to work.

If the valves need to be reopened, there are ships on standby to resume collecting some of the leaking oil. BP was already collecting about 25,000 barrels per day from the well and has additional ships ready to bring that total up to 60,000 barrels. (Oddly, The New York Times refers to this figure as "the current high-end estimate" for the oil flowing from the well even though there are credible estimates a good deal higher than that, probably reported in past Times articles.) Given the way past operations have proceeded, I am not optimistic that BP will be able to keep those valves closed for long beyond the test period.

Switching Caps on the Leaking Oil Well

The Discoverer Enterprise and other ships flare off oil from the well / US Coast Guard Photo

With permission from the federal government, BP is attempting a risky operation to replace its first cap on the riser pipe with one that can capture more of the leaking oil.

Live video showed the cap, which had been diverting 15,000 barrels of oil a day to a ship on the surface, being lifted off the well at the seabed. As the cap was moved away, oil gushed anew from the well.

Kent Wells, a BP senior vice president in charge of the effort, said a tighter-sealing cap would be installed by the middle of this week. “At this point, we’re on plan,” he said, speaking at a briefing in Houston....

The old cap formed a loose seal, and oil and gas constantly escaped from it. The new one, two heavy-duty pieces of equipment that together are 30 feet high and weigh more than 100 tons, should eventually enable BP to collect all the oil from the well, estimated at up to 60,000 barrels a day. It will be used to divert more oil to collection ships that will be brought in over the next two to three weeks, Mr. Wells said....

The installation of the new cap is complex and, as with previous undersea efforts to contain or stop the gusher, is being done by remotely operated robots in extreme conditions of temperature and pressure 5,000 feet below the surface of the gulf.

Mr. Wells said that after the old cap was lifted off, the robots began removing six bolts that attached a remaining stub of riser pipe to a flange on the failed blowout preventer, the stack of safety equipment atop the well at the seabed. The bolt removal was expected to take the better part of a day, he said.

When the riser stub is removed, two pieces of drill pipe — presumably one that was in the riser when the blowout occurred on April 20, and one that was driven or fell into it in the disaster — will be sticking out of the flange. These will have to be bundled with a strap, Mr. Wells said, to make it easier to put the new cap on.

While this is going on, the oil will be leaking at the pace it was before. BP is planning to position more skimmers above the leaking wellhead and conduct more controlled burns in the interim. However, we know that these do not dissipate all of the oil. The upside, though, is that the operation could shut off most or all of the leaking oil once the new cap is in place. If you would like a more technical explanation of the replacement process (with pictures), see The Oil Drum's post on the new cap. I hope that this operation succeeds quickly.

The best hope for stopping the flow of oil continues to be a relief well. Right now the target date for its completion is still mid-August.

Disturbing Nesting Birds While Cleaning Beaches

Beach Oil at Pensacola / US Air Force Photo

Drew Wheelan of the American Birding Association has been covering the potential threats that nesting birds face from both the oil spill and the people sent out to clean it up. In some cases he has documented cases of endangered bird nests being destroyed. Major media outlets are starting to pay more attention to the problem. Yesterday National Geographic had a story on bird nests getting trampled.

Each morning local conservation groups share information with BP's cleanup supervisors about where nesting colonies exist, as well as cautions about not trampling, driving through, or otherwise encroaching on these areas.

But even with precautions in place, there have been instances of cleanup crews disturbing nesting colonies, noted Melanie Driscoll, director of bird conservation for the National Audubon Society's Louisiana Coastal Initiative....

Even a temporary flush—when the parents are frightened off but return soon after—can be disastrous.

Without a parent's belly to cool an egg, the embryo will literally get cooked in the Gulf Coast heat. Likewise, predators such as seagulls may swoop in to snag an unprotected egg or chick.

Increased foot and vehicle traffic have also harmed bird parents and chicks.

Losing even one parent will doom a nest, Hoggard said, since it takes two to raise a chick: one to keep the egg cool and safe and another to search for food.

New, handmade signs on the national seashore's main road implore drivers to watch out for skittering baby birds. Even so, at least one chick was run over on Thursday, according to Adrianna Hirtler, a public information officer for the park.

Birds are the most noticeable victims, but the problem extends to other organisms as well, such as ghost crabs and mollusks that burrow into the sand.

Relief Well Getting Close

According to the latest reports, BP's relief well drill is getting very close to the pipe of the leaking well. However, it is still uncertain how long it will take to bore through the pipe and plug it.

The first of two relief wells is within striking distance of the Macondo, about 15ft (4.5m) away from the pipe and 600ft or so (200m) above the reservoir, after weeks of drilling. The second, ordered by the Obama administration as a safety back-up, is some weeks behind....

The most important thing is establishing a clear connection with the Macondo so they can begin pumping in the heavy drilling mud according to Mark Proegler, a BP spokesman. A nick risks starting a new small leak or possibly even a collapse of a section of the pipe given that it was damaged in the explosion in ways still not fully understood.

Those challenges are still some days away as BP continues to find the optimal point to break into the well, a process known as ranging. "We have many days ahead of us of ranging runs," said Proegler. The process involves lowering a device down the relief well that bounces electromagnetic waves through the rock to try to measure the distance to the metal pipe of the Macondo, a target barely seven inches (18mm) in diameter.

There are still a few things that could go wrong when the drill bit meets the pipe.

The intercept could be complicated if it turns out that the oil is flowing around the pipe, between the pipe and the cement of the well bore.

Engineers also have to be spot-on in their calculations as to how much drilling mud – or pressure – to exert on the well to choke it off. A vessel containing 44,000 gallons of mud is on standby.

The mud must be viscous enough to flow down the pipe but also dense enough to slow down the oil bubbling up from below.

From what I have read, BP has basically one chance to stop the flow once they puncture the well pipe. This procedure should work, and it has worked for other wells, but the spill could get worse if it is not done correctly.

Chemical Changes and the Environment in the Gulf of Mexico

The Destruction of the Gulf / Photo by kris krüg (kk+)

In yesterday's post, I referenced some of the health and environmental concerns surrounding the heavy use of dispersants to break up the oil slick as oil pours from the broken riser. Today the EPA finally issued its own judgment about the safety of the chemicals that BP is using, and it appears that their research is incomplete.

The first round of government tests of the chemical dispersants that are being used to break up the massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico found that they aren't overly damaging to shrimp and small fish, but more tests are needed to determine what happens when they're mixed with oil.

The Environmental Protection Agency also said Wednesday that tests on eight chemical dispersants found that they don't damage the body's glands and hormones in ways that can harm development or reproductive, immune and neurological systems.

The EPA also said that BP had reduced the amount of chemical dispersants it was using by almost as much as the government ordered it to do in May. The EPA and the Coast Guard on May 26 told BP to reduce dispersant use by 75 percent from peak use. BP reduced it by 68 percent over the next month.

Further:

The EPA said that Corexit 9500 and another dispersant, JD-2000, were generally less toxic to small fish, and JD-2000 and SAF-RON GOLD were least toxic to mysid shrimp, small crustaceans found in the northern Gulf of Mexico.

The next round of tests will examine the toxicity of the oil spewing from BP's broken well and a combination of the oil and each of the eight dispersants.

The data from the first round of tests, Anastas said, show the dispersants degrade in "weeks to months," while oil can remain for years....

Much remains unknown about the effects of the chemicals on living things, including people who work with them, and on the environment.

Still, Anastas said, "the data is telling us that these are not posing the same types of hazard as the terrible hazards we're seeing in the oil."

So BP will continue using heavy amounts of Corexit and other dispersants, but in a volume somewhat reduced from their peak dispersant use in May. The EPA's report, while somewhat reassuring, leaves a lot of questions unanswered. I expect that we will be learning more about how beneficial or harmful these dispersants are as the environmental disaster progresses. To that extent the gulf is in the midst of a frightening science experiment that no one really wanted to perform.

One harmful chemical change that we know is happening is caused not by dispersants but by methane, which is mixed with the oil gushing from the well.

Scientists are confronting growing evidence that BP's ruptured well in the Gulf of Mexico is creating oxygen-depleted "dead zones" where fish and other marine life cannot survive.

In two separate research voyages, independent scientists have detected what were described as "astonishingly high" levels of methane, or natural gas, bubbling from the well site, setting off a chain of reactions that suck the oxygen out of the water. In some cases, methane concentrations are 100,000 times normal levels.

Other scientists as well as sport fishermen are reporting unusual movements of fish, shrimp, crab and other marine life, including increased shark sightings closer to the Alabama coast.

Larry Crowder, a marine biologist at Duke University, said there were already signs that fish were being driven from their habitat.

The trouble with methane is what it triggers:

Joye said her preliminary findings suggested the high volume of methane coming out of the well could upset the ocean food chain. Such high concentrations, it is feared, would trigger the growth of microbes, which break up the methane, but also gobble up oxygen needed by marine life to survive, driving out other living things.

Joye said the methane was settling in a 200-metre layer of the water column, between depths of 1,000 to 1,300 metres in concentrations that were already threatening oxygen levels.

"That water can go completely anoxic [extremely low oxygen] and that is a pretty serious situation for any oxygen-requiring organism. We haven't seen zero-oxygen water but there is certainly enough gas in the water to draw oxygen down to zero," she said.

This is pretty disturbing, as many larger organisms depend on dissolved oxygen in the water to survive. The hypoxia may account for some of the kills of marine organisms (especially fish) that have not been connected directly to petroleum poisoning. Either way, it is disturbing and promises to amplify the usual seasonal dead zones at the mouth of the Mississippi River.

Hurricane to Disrupt Oil Spill Cleanup Efforts

Oil Slick Approaching Mississippi Barrier Islands / NASA image

The first hurricane of this summer's hurricane season is heading into the Gulf of Mexico. Hurricane Alex is expected to make landfall near the U.S.-Mexico border, so it will not run directly through the area covered by the oil slick, but it is putting a temporary stop to some mitigation operations.

Inclement weather did not affect operations at the site of the well head, about 41 miles off the Louisiana coast, where large ships are capturing oil from the ruptured pipe, and drilling relief wells that offer the best chance to seal the undersea gusher.

But smaller ships, or so-called vessels of opportunity — contracted by BP to skim oily water, lay boom and transport personnel — were called in for the day, said Bryan Ferguson, a BP representative manning the Unified Command station in New Orleans.

"When seas get above two to three feet, it becomes a challenge for skimming and booming," Ferguson said, noting that about 2,800 vessels of opportunity were currently contracted for the spill response....

While the storm pushes oil away from Florida, though, high seas and winds have delayed the launch of a new system for capturing more oil from the ruptured well.

The system, which consists of a flexible pipe attached to a containment dome lowered over the ruptured well head, would siphon oil to the Helix Producer, a ship with the capacity to collect 20,000 to 25,000 barrels a day. BP spokespersons said the system should be ready to launch by July 8.

The effect the hurricane may have on the slick itself is to push the oil in more of a westerly direction, towards the Louisiana and Mississippi coasts. It appears to be doing just that.

I have seen some speculation on the internet about what effects a hurricane might have on an oil slick, from carrying the oil in the storm surge to raining oil. (This scenario was not quite serious.) Raining oil is not likely to happen, though the use of dispersants leaves some unknowns.

For the most part, oil itself doesn't actually evaporate, though some of the chemical elements in crude oil can. (The sticky tar balls washing ashore are the remnants.) That hasn't stopped some from hypothesizing that, given the dispersants BP has been applying in unprecedented quantities in the Gulf and the lack of information about how they work, it's possible that dispersant-altered oil may indeed be entering the atmosphere. The EPA says this isn't the case. "EPA has no data, information or scientific basis that suggests that oil mixed with dispersant could possibly evaporate from the Gulf into the water cycle," the agency said in a statement.

However, other substances in oil can evaporate and those could cause problems if they were carried into the water cycle:

The most problematic VOCs in oil are hydrogen sulfide, benzene, and naphthalene, writes NRDC senior scientist Gina Solomon, though she lists a number of other troublesome compounds in oil as well. Hydrogen sulfide smells like rotten eggs and can cause headaches, confusion, and respiratory problems. Benzene and naphthalene are known carcinogens. The bigger concern than rain is that these VOCs are being carried ashore by wind currents. The EPA is monitoring the VOCs in the air, and Solomon says that her study of that data finds "some levels that could raise health concerns." Exposure to the crude oil itself, either on land or in the water, is also not particularly good for humans. There's also concern that storms in the Gulf could sweep up the oil and push more onto land, and hurricane season is already upon us.

We also know that one of the dispersants that has been used in the Gulf carries its own health concerns. Corexit EC9527A contains 2-butoxyethanol, which can cause headaches, vomiting, reproductive problems, and "liver and kidney effects and/or damage." More than 300 cleanup workers have already reported feeling ill, describing symptoms ranging from vomiting and stomach pain to headaches and chest pain.

 Also troubling is that very little is known about the health effects of a cleanup on the workers who carry it out. There was an opportunity to do long range health studies in the wake of the Exxon Valdez spill. Anecdotal reports suggest a connection between exposure to the slick and various respiratory and neurological conditions. Unfortunately, no peer-reviewed study on the workers' health was ever published.

Verdict in Syncrude Duck Deaths Case

In April 2008, over 1,600 waterfowl died in an oil tailings pond managed by Syncrude in Alberta. The tailings are a toxic by-product of the processes used to separate bitumen from the ground. This spring Syncrude was tried violations of Canadian law in connection with the waterfowl deaths, and yesterday it was convicted of violating Alberta's Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act and the federal Migratory Birds Convention Act.

Oil companies operating tailings ponds, which are licensed by the province, are required to have bird deterrent programs including scare cannons, effigies and other tactics such as shiny, reflective kite-like objects to ward off the birds, which include local and migratory flocks. While other companies had their deterrent programs up and running in early April, as prosecutors alleged was customary, Syncrude's wasn't yet operational....

The interview with Mr. Matthews suggests the company took its bird deterrent program less seriously year after year. In the late 1990s, its bird team had about 13 people and would typically start on the first or second week of April, Mr. Matthews said. But in 2008, when the birds were found, the company had eight staff who didn't start until the 14th, at the earliest, and were led by Mr. Matthews who, while a long-time employee, did not have wildlife training. Many of the eight staff were further delayed by payroll issues and a funeral, according to testimony. Meanwhile, the team only had one pickup truck of its customary four, due to a shortage of rental vehicles in booming Fort McMurray and the fact that they'd lent one out, Mr. Matthews said....

Mr. Matthews and his team also had advance notice, at least 11 days before the grim discovery, that birds had been spotted in the area. Syncrude employee Frederick (Rick) Corcoran called Mr. Matthews to report the sightings, and was told “basically his people were just started that week,” according to Mr. Corcoran's statement to investigators.

Mr. Corcoran then e-mailed six supervisors in the area, notifying them that birds had been spotted and that Mr. Matthews had acknowledged the lack of deterrents. The e-mail, sent on April 17, was relied on heavily by prosecutors.

Syncrude argues that being convicted under both laws amounts to double jeopardy; a hearing on that claim will take place in August. Once that issue is settled, the court will set a date for sentencing. Syncrude could face a fine of up to $800,000 for the bird deaths.