Monday, April 18, 2011

Chemical Engineering Professional Skills 2011

The following activity is designed to prompt expression of your knowledge of, and ability to apply, engineering professional skills. Its purpose is to determine how well your engineering program has taught you these skills. By participating, you are giving your consent to have your posts used for academic research purposes. When your posts are evaluated by the program assessment committee, your names will be removed. 

To post a comment: 1) click on the Sign In button in the upper right hand corner of the blog page, then sign in using your gmail account and password (If you don’t have a gmail account, sign up for one – it only takes a couple minutes); 2) scroll down to the bottom of the page and click on the word “comments,” which appears right below the list of sources.
Tuesday Week 1 Initial Posts: All participants post initial responses to these instructions (see below) and the scenario.

Time line: You will have 2 weeks to complete the on-line discussion as a team. Use this blog to capture your thoughts, perspectives, ideas, and revisions as you work together on this problem. This activity is discussion-based, meaning you will participate through a collaborative exchange and critique of each other’s ideas and work. The goal is to challenge and support one another as a team to tap your collective resources and experiences to dig more deeply into the issue(s) raised in the scenario. Ideally everyone in the discussion will refine his/her ideas through the discussion that develops, so you should respond well before the activity ends so that the discussion has time to mature. It is important to make your initial posts and subsequent responses in a timely manner. You are expected to make multiple posts during each stage of this on-going discussion. The timeline below suggests how to pace your discussion. This is just a suggestion. Feel free to pace the discussion as you see fit.
Thursday Week 1 Response Posts: Participants respond by tying together information and perspectives on important points and possible approaches. Participants identify gaps in information and seek to fill those gaps.
Tuesday Week 2 Refine Posts: Participants work toward agreement on what is most important, determine what they still need to find out, and evaluate one or more approaches from the previous week’s discussion.
Thursday Week 2 Polish Final Posts: Participants come to an agreement on what is most important, and propose one or more approaches to address the problem(s).

Discussion Instructions
Imagine that you are a team of engineers working together for a company or organization to address the problem(s) raised in the scenario.  Discuss what your team would need to take into consideration to begin to address the problem(s).  You do not need to suggest specific technical solutions, but identify the most important factors and suggest one or more viable approaches.

Suggestions for discussion topics
·         Identify the primary and secondary problems raised in the scenario.
·         Who are the major stakeholders and what are their perspectives?
·         What outside resources (people, literature/references, and technologies) could be engaged in developing viable approaches?
·         Identify related contemporary issues.
·         Brainstorm a number of feasible approaches to address the issue.
·         Consider the following contexts: economic, environmental, cultural/societal, and global. What impacts would the approaches you brainstormed have on these contexts?
·         Come to agreement on one or more viable approaches and state the rationale.
BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Clean Up Controversies
April 2011 marks the one year anniversary of the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the largest unintended discharge of oil into marine waters in history. The 86-day gusher sent nearly 200 million gallons of oil, tens of millions of gallons of natural gas and 1.8 million gallons of poorly studied chemical dispersants into the northern Gulf of Mexico. The breadth and depth of the oil’s impacts on the Gulf of Mexico’s complex ecosystem continues to be intensely debated.
According to the government’s “oil budget,” released by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association in November, a quarter of the oil evaporated or dissolved into the water. Another 13 percent was blown into fine droplets as it rushed from the broken riser pipe, the report says. Much of this dispersed oil mixed with natural gas from the well and remained deep in the gulf as a thin plume that drifted for months.

The chemical dispersant Corexit 9500 sprayed at the wellhead dispersed another 16 percent into fine droplets, which joined the plume, the report says. Natural oil-munching bacteria then swarmed the plumes, according to research published in the journal Science in August by Terry Hazen of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Three weeks after the well was capped in July, Hazen and his crew no longer found signs of deep oil or gas as they crisscrossed the gulf.

In addition to the quarter of the oil that NOAA says nature erased, the Unified Command, led by the U.S. Coast Guard, dispensed with a third of it. Some 17 percent of the total got sucked into the “top hat” lowered onto the broken riser pipe or was otherwise directly recovered, loaded onto tankers and moved to refineries. Flaring at the surface burned another 5 percent. Only 3 percent of the oil was skimmed.
Much of the criticism focused on the dispersant’s effectiveness, along with whether it damaged, or will damage, wildlife.

 “The dispersants got stuck in deep water layers around 3,000 feet [915 meters] and below,” said study leader David Valentine, a microbial geochemist at the University of California, Santa Barbara…. “We were seeing it three months after the well had been capped. We found that all of that dispersant added at depth stayed in the deepwater plumes. Not only did it stay, but it didn’t get rapidly biodegraded as many people had predicted.”

In total, the response team pumped over 800,000 gallons of dispersants into the oil flow; dispersants break down oil into smaller droplets that can degrade more quickly. But the impact of the dispersants themselves has been up for debate. For the new study, scientists tracked the dispersants by following one of its ingredients: dioctyl sodium sulfosuccinate (DOSS).

Some 640,000 pounds (290,000 kilograms) of DOSS was injected between April and July, a huge number made all the more daunting because the chemical comprises only ten percent of the total dispersant volume, according to the study, published online January 26 in the journal Environmental Science & Technology.

The dispersants had degraded very little by September, and were still found at ocean depths of around 3,000 feet below. But researchers aren’t sure what to make of this realization that the dispersants lingered longer than expected:

On the one hand, it is positive that the dispersants remained in deep waters and didn’t float up through the water column, where they would have mingled with surface layers, says Elizabeth Kujawinski, a chemical oceanographer at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts, who led the study. “But the bad news is that it stayed there. It didn’t really go away as quickly as maybe they had thought it would.”

As for the impact on deep sea marine animals, already battered by the spill, researchers just don’t know what the future holds. Says environmental toxicologist Ronald Kendal:
“These organisms have developed capabilities to live under high pressures, with low oxygen levels, and with no sunlight. It’s a more rigorous and perhaps less changing environment, and all of a sudden a wave of chemical dispersants comes by. What does that mean for the environment? I don’t know. I really don’t. But it concerns me significantly.”

Sources

A year after BP oil spill, fate of gulf ecosystem remains murky. (April 17, 2011). The Washington Post.

Deepwater Horizon Dispersants Lingered in the Deep. (January 27, 2011). Nature.

Gulf Spill Dispersants Surprisingly Long Lasting. (January 27, 2011). National Geographic.

Chemical Dispersants Used in the BP Oil Spill Lingered in the Ocean Depths (January 31, 2011). Discover.

14 comments:

  1. So I don't know how this is expected to be done. But my initial take on this problem was to consider to consider the possible separation mechanisms for separating the dispersant and the sea water. A few ideas include:
    -liquid/liquid separations
    -vapor pressure/Distillation
    -adsorption/absorption
    -bio remediation
    Without any technical information, it is reasonable to assume that there is some way to either mostly separate the chemicals, or at least remove enough of the water that the sheer volume was reduced to a manageable level.

    This conclusion leads to the next probable issue, which is the transportation of the contaminated water from 3000 feet below the surface to on the surface treatment facilities. This could be fixed by using staged pumping via underwater stations.

    Should this be achieved, the next hurdle would be the overall concentration of the contaminated water. This is likely the most difficult problem, as there is no real way to avoid the fact that the contaminant is diffusing out into the world's oceans. Thus like most environmental remediation sites (ie pump and treat methods), it appears to be a case of "just keep pumping until the job is done."

    This last portion is likely to be the limiting factor in the speed and effectiveness of the remediation, and for that reason should be the focus of most of the research and development.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Upon further thought, the issue of transporting the contaminated water is even simpler than expected, as the high pressure at those depths would create an adequate driving force to move the water up through piping to the surface.

    ReplyDelete
  3. In terms of the relevant parties, there are several that come to mind:
    -BP, TransOcean, Haliburton, etc.: These companies are motivated both willingly and unwillingly to address and fix the contamination until it is no longer an environmental issue, or that the concentrations of the pollutant are low enough to be considered reasonably re-mediated.
    -Gulf of Mexico Border Countries: These countries must address the loss of revenue, the health effects, as well as the give and take of negotiations between public companies and governments.
    -Communities and Individuals: Individuals are possibly the hardest hurt as their incomes are directly related to the health of the ecosystems from which they harvest.
    -Environmentalists: these people have the ecosystems in mind, and are concerned that companies will settle for less than a full cleanup which harms those organisms which cannot defend themselves.
    -World Countries: the oceans are interconnected and if the problem is not addressed then it could potentially wash up on their shores and pose a problem for their communities.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Personally, I find it sad and shocking that there's still all this oil down in the Gulf. I mean, I knew it was a big disaster and that a lot of oil was released, but over a year later and there's still a significant presence? That's really something...

    Still, from what it looks like, the problem is not so much the amount of oil remaining in the gulf, (the oil just needs to be worked on and cleaned up by people over a long period of time,) but rather the dispersants that were used to help treat the oil. Thanks to "trade secret" interference, we have no idea what else is in Corexit 9500 for the most part, other than the dioctyl sodium sulfosuccinate that they're using to track the concentration.

    The separations sounds like a good idea, but unless there's some way to implement it at a deep-sea level, wouldn't that mean we would have to suck up the contaminated water and separate it out in a separate location?

    ReplyDelete
  5. So what exactly is in Corexit 9500? I guess because of "trade secrets" we will never really know. I'm not sure if tracking the movement of dioctyl sodium sulfosuccinate will give a full representation of where the dispersant is located, since it only accounts for 10% of the compound.

    So even if it is possible to pump up the contaminated water and treat it at a different location, how do we know when the treatment process is finished? How will we be able to tell when all the dispersant has disappeared?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Using a pump and treat method would probably be the best method for clean up. But like you say, the contaminant is continuosly diffusing into the world's ocean. Eventually the concentration will be so low that the natural oil-eating bacteria will be able to handle the job but until then, a lot of money and manpower will be used to clean up this spill.
    The dispesant on the other hand should have been tested and approved before being used. We have no way of knowing whether it was or not but I'd like to think that they were smart enough to use something that wasn't going to further impact the environment. Although the plume is 3000 feet below the water surface where it will not effect us anymore, the species of fish that have lived in that habitat for thousands of years now have a new obstacle to overcome. Hopefully they will be able to adapt because it sounds like this plume of dispersant isn't going away for a while.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I believe that we have to work within the constraints of this problem. As with most environmental issues, assumptions were made and actions were taken that in hindsight were wrong, such as the safety of the dispersant and its ability to degrade naturally.

    Regardless, I believe that the method of tracking it is sufficient, as there are lots of compounds which are measured via indicators, such as fecal coliforms (E. coli is measured rather than the specific micro-organisms). Thus I think its reasonable to say that when the indicator becomes dilute enough to where it is at a safe concentration, or when it is at no longer detectable levels, then the cleanup will be complete.

    In terms of treating the water, as was mentioned above, the water would have to be pumped up from the ocean to a surface treatment facility. And yes, while this is will require a lot of manpower and money, almost all environmental cleanups do.

    I think so far the two agreed upon "gaps in knowledge" would be the effect of the dispersant on marine life and down to what concentrations is it still hazardous. Does anyone have other items they think are vital information?

    In terms of addressing this problem, the prompt leads me to believe that we need to come up with a proposed solution, are there any suggestions or ideas on that front besides those mentioned in the first post?

    ReplyDelete
  8. I think the two "gaps in knowledge" we have agreed on so far are good. I'm still very concerned about determining what concentration of dispersant is considered hazardous. If we can determine this concentration with the limited information we have been given, how wide of a radius must we cover to measure the dispersant concentration? Should we focus our efforts in the gulf or spread into the Atlantic or further?

    I see no other logical method so far than the pump and treat method. Maybe if robots could reach those depths and sift out the dispersant...Nevermind. I'm not sure if that technology exists.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I haven't found any current reports about the concentration of the dispersant today, but if you examine where the incident occurred, and the macro-mixing of the ocean, you can see that in general, the gulf of mexico:

    http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/8q_1.html

    is a relatively stagnant area, while just outside of it, a strong current circulates around the Atlantic ocean. In which case I think it might be reasonable to assume that once the dispersant diffuses into the Atlantic it will be diluted enough to be safe. This keeps the target area within the gulf of mexico.

    Position of Deepwater Horizon oil cap and source of dispersant:

    http://casaybelresort.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/noaa_projection-map.jpg

    ReplyDelete
  10. It’s the same here for me on the “unable to see many other solutions” side of the fence. The only other solution I can think of would be going down there and filling the affected area with bacteria that would break down the dispersants, but adding additional potential contaminants to the environment would probably make things worse before they get better.

    That does bring up something to keep in mind, though. Although the introduction of these dispersants is potentially wrecking the undersea ecosystem, what all is down there anyway? I'm not advocating the option of just doing nothing and leaving the mess down there, not at all. But what exactly are we risking to lose by having a large concentration of chemical dispersant stuck down below? From my understanding in reading the articles, most aquatic life (as of yet, at least,) in the larger parts of the ocean are unaffected by the deep-sea dispersant contamination.

    Perhaps we could get the assistance of an oceanographer or other expert on deep-sea life to be able to know what is going on down there. We would have a better idea of what we could gain or lose before undertaking any ventures that run the risk of messing things up even further.

    ReplyDelete
  11. As mentioned before, the pressure would aid in pumping, if the same pressure wouldn't crush traditional piping. It seems reasonable to be assume oil companies already know how to do this, but the resources required to do so are unknown. What will hold the piping in place, how will it be connected, and how will it be maintained? These are all major issues. However, the volume of water that would have to be removed, along with not accidentally removing marine organism, make this impossible, among other reasons.

    This brings me to my second point, does any action need to be taken, or action to prevent another mishap such as this from occurring? It seems that the only real solution to this problem is to do nothing, and learn from it. We do not know the environmental impact of the dispersant, so it seems we cannot comment on this aspect, but the introduction of extreme volumes of improperly studied chemical compounds should be better regulated, even in the case of other environmental emergencies.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I agree. While not taking action may seem negligent, what can feasibly be done at the bottom of the ocean floor? The only way we can reasonably counter the dispersant is if we knew the entirety of its composition. But, due to "trade secrets," I doubt the company that made it will simply send off a list of its ingredients on request to help preserve an environment virtually no one ever thinks about on a regular basis.

    Analyzing current samples wouldn't help much either, as it the dispersant is so completely mixed in that it would be very difficult to separate the dispersant from residual oil plumes and natural undersea chemicals.

    I don't want to sound like a quitter, but the best we can probably do at this point is learn and move on.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Just to be clear here - We're 3000 feet below the surface. This translates to roughly 100 atm of pressure. The high pressure is in no way going to create a driving force against gravity that will overcome 3000 feet of head. While pumping it out of the ocean could be feasible, it hasn't been determined the exact area of the ocean floor that this stuff is covering.

    The contaminant has undoubtedly spread out significantly by now. For this reason, it would probably be difficult to determine how much water to remove and where to put it.

    A treatment plant could be built to continuously separate the water and dump it back into the ocean - but this would also have a lot of unknowns. The temperature of this water is most likely significantly cooler than that of water above it. The clean water would have to be pumped back down to 3000 feet in order to prevent a large heat flux.

    Another solution would be to bind a chemical or catalyst to a particle that's denser than water and just dump it into the area. This chemical/catalyst would speed up the degradation of the dispersant. Significant research and testing could be done on the catalyst to determine its effects on wildlife.

    Testing the dispersant itself on animals could also reveal if it's even necessary to treat the water.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Upon further research, I would say that using a catalyst to degrade the dispersant faster is probably the best approach.

    ReplyDelete