It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Coast Guard tested Corexit in 1998. Look what they found!

page: 1
7

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 08:00 AM
link   
I found this report about the Coast Guard testing COREXIT9500 in 1997. They poured some oil in the Ocean in Alaska, and sprayed 600 litres on the oil slick they produces. This is what they found.



Analysis of the surface oil samples collected during the Alaska North Slope field experiment demonstrated that a change in chemical composition of the Alaska North Slope did occur as the oil became weathered (over 55 hours).

The oil showed an increase in the resin and asphaltene content, which may have been the result of photo-oxidation

www.dec.state.ak.us...

Interest to note: Apparently, the dispersant was supplied by

AEA Technology plc
National Environmental Technology Centre
Culham
Abingdon
Oxfordshire
OX14 3DB

Who is AEA Technology?




A world leading climate change consultancy

www.aeat.co.uk...




posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 08:07 AM
link   
A little more about AEA.


Leading climate change consultancy AEA, on behalf of and working with the European Space Agency, has launched a new and groundbreaking service to provide earth observation imagery and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions information to the media and public.

The first user to sign up to the service is Sky News, which is running a series of
programmes in conjunction with, and to follow up the 15th United Nations climate
change conference in Copenhagen (COP15).

www.dec.state.ak.us...

Also. their title page has an image with a return key and a power button.

Return To Power.

www.aeat.co.uk...



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 08:14 AM
link   
I really hope that people will read the pdf I posted in the OP, because there are little gems to find like:



At low wind speeds (< 5 ms') the IFO-180 fuel oil that had weathered on the sea surface for 24 hours (and lost 8% of its volume by evaporative loss) would have been on the border line of effective dispersibility with Corexit 9500.

www.dec.state.ak.us...

Corexit9500 isn't even effective after 24hrs. Sure, they are spraying it at the source, but they have been spraying for 40 days with aircraft.

Are people starting to realize what going on? This is an attack on you, America.
They want our constitution.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 10:31 AM
link   
I have to wonder at the basic premise of using dispersants on oil spills. It seems to me it would be easier to clean up if they used a coagulant that brought the oil molecules together. Using dispersants will only break the oil down into smaller particles that can then easily enter into plant and animal life. Am I missing something here?



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
I have to wonder at the basic premise of using dispersants on oil spills. It seems to me it would be easier to clean up if they used a coagulant that brought the oil molecules together. Using dispersants will only break the oil down into smaller particles that can then easily enter into plant and animal life. Am I missing something here?


I think the important part on this is


At low wind speeds (< 5 ms') the IFO-180 fuel oil that had weathered on the sea surface for 24 hours (and lost 8% of its volume by evaporative loss) would have been on the border line of effective dispersibility with Corexit 9500.


Allowing the dispersion of the oil gives it greater surface area and speeds the evaporation process. Though, I agree that this is not the best method as the evaporation seems slow, but it is more effective and less costly than skimming. It also dilutes the build up that causes sludge the was up on shore and stick to everything.

Sounds like a good plan if you are in the bind that the Gulf is in, but, the real solution is to have immediate actions in place before it happens. I am also not a big fan of adding more to make less. Just plug the leak already.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 10:42 AM
link   
We need to boycott them and all their products and service stations. Here is a link please comment star and flag!!!!!!!!!!
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by axiomuser
 


But now aren't they claiming people don't have to worry about the storm season and oil coming ashore because it won't evaporate and turn into rains? They are caught in another set of lies.
I also think (not sure, of course), that the dispersant will be worrisome in the rain, and hurricanes.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 12:08 PM
link   
I didn't realize that there was wind at the bottom of the ocean to weather the 8% away. The oil is affected if there was wind present to carry the molecules in the air. Without the wind, the oil molecules will just break down into smaller particles which will be harder for us to see.

I also thought that it would take more than 24 hours for the oil to reach from the well to the surface.

It seems as though BP is just 'wingin it' on this tragedy.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by OurskiesRpoisoned
 


Another good find!

One problem... That PDF you linked to isn't complete. It stops at the "Contents" page. Do you have a link to the full report?



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by HrdCorHillbilly
reply to post by OurskiesRpoisoned
 


Another good find!

One problem... That PDF you linked to isn't complete. It stops at the "Contents" page. Do you have a link to the full report?


Thanks!

Can't seem to find the full pdf.



new topics

top topics



 
7

log in

join