Posted by | May 22, 2010 14:36 | Filed under: Top Stories

British Petroleum was asked by the Environmental Protection Agency to find an less toxic application to break up the oil spill than Corexit, but says it can’t find one. (h/t The Political Carnival)

BP spokesman Scott Dean said Friday that BP had replied with a letter “that outlines our findings that none of the alternative products on the EPA’s National Contingency Plan Product Schedule list meets all three criteria specified in yesterday’s directive for availability, toxicity and effectiveness.”

Dean noted that “Corexit is an EPA pre-approved, effective, low-toxicity dispersant that is readily available, and we continue to use it.”

He did not directly address widely broadcast news reports that more than 100,000 gallons of an alternative dispersant chemical call Sea-Brat 4 was stockpiled near Houston and available for application.

Scientists testified before Congress with the consensus that little is known about what effects Corexit will have on wildlife and the environment.

“We don’t know what the effect of dispersants applied a mile underwater is; there’s been no laboratory testing of that at all, or the effect of what it does when it combines with oil a mile underwater,” said Sylvia Earle, the explorer-in-residence for the National Geographic Society and former chief scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. “I would say, until we know more about the fate of the dispersants, I’d tell BP or anybody else who’s involved with this, whether it’s EPA or whatever, ‘Stop, just stop, don’t do it.’

BP says it will use mud to try to stem the oil leaks.

The “top kill” method to halt the flow calls for mud twice the density of water to be pumped into the well using a Helix Energy Solutions Group Inc. rig…The mud should stop the flow so the well can be sealed with cement, he said.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2010 Liberaland
By: Alan

Alan Colmes is the publisher of Liberaland.