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.

8 comments:

  1. Any attempted cleanup process will likely cost a large sum of money for a measly effect. It maybe more beneficial to study the effects of deep water oil dispersant than try remove it. The experts can not reach a consensus on the possible effects and this is the first opportunity study deep water oil spills. These are uncharted grounds and instead of spending billions doing nothing, the money could be invested in better understanding the situation.

    ReplyDelete
  2. All environmental clean up programs cost a lot of money though, for instance the remediation at Hanford costs billions of dollars over its lifetime. Luckily in this case, BP is a company that can afford to spend the money to solve the problem, rather than just ignore it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Primary Problem: The BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill sent nearly 200 million gallons of oil, tens of millions of gallons of natural gas, and chemical dispersants into the northern Gulf of Mexico.

    Secondary Problem: The chemical dispersants sent to help clean the spill were poorly studied and lingered much longer than researchers expected. The effects this all will have on marine life is still unknown.

    Major Stakeholders: BP, countries/states bordering the Gulf of Mexico, environmental agencies, the US economy, and the list could go on…

    Outside Resources: Some good informational resources I found include the following link: http://www.esri.com/services/disaster-response/gulf-oil-spill-2010/resources.html. It has a lot of links giving data, applications, and other information related to the spill that happened. While the goal is to find a solution to stopping oil spills faster, this information shows the responses from BP as well as state responses which might be helpful if the route we choose to take this discussion is more on government responses than on stopping spills or how to determine when/how much chemical dispersants to use.

    Related Contemporary Issues: I think the original oil spill is still a contemporary issue, but it has also brought about new difficulties regarding progress in the oil industry state-side. Politically, there have been bans placed regarding offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. This has led to 12 rigs leaving the Gulf and heading to other countries like Brazil and Egypt. These movements by oil companies have led to jobs being lost and fuel prices increasing.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I would start with the environmental problems because as far as I know, there isn’t a straight forward way to clean up the mess. Also, it is going to be very difficult to clean water 3,000ft deep. I think the first step should be from a hastily research standpoint to find out what this chemical will do to deepwater life and how long it will really last. We need to know as much about this chemical dispersant as possible to fully understand the future outcome. Once we know the effect of the chemical then we will be able take the next step.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I agree that the environmental problem from an engineering standpoint would be the best to do at this time, but I'm unsure how much hasty research could be done at this time... as they had mentioned in the description, it has lasted longer than they thought it would. I think the last thing that should be done is inserting any additional chemicals to break up the dispersant faster. The natural breakdown should be studied to understand the possible environmental dangers. The last thing we want to do is put more chemicals that might put even more stress on the environment/wildlife.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I would strongly agree that more research needs to be done on the dispersant. More specifically, we need to know how much dispersant is present in the environment. Once this is established studies could be run to determine if the present concentrations are detrimental to marine life. If toxic concentrations of the dispersant are found then a plan for cleanup can be pursued. There is no need to potentially escalate the problem through cleanup if there are not toxic levels found.

    ReplyDelete
  7. It is my opinion that the best course of action would be to evaluate the effect and duration of the dispersent. The dispersent clearly assists with spill degradation (dispersed 16%) but the negative impacts (if any) must be evaluated to guide future implementations of the chemical. The problem as I see it is to layout a plan for dispersent characterization, to figured out which organizations should be involved, and to determine, if their are negative impacts, at what point they out weigh the positive effect of spill dispersion.

    ReplyDelete
  8. It is my opinion that the best course of action would be to evaluate the effect and duration of the dispersent. The dispersent clearly assists with spill degradation (dispersed 16%) but the negative impacts (if any) must be evaluated to guide future implementations of the chemical. The problem as I see it is to layout a plan for dispersent characterization, to figured out which organizations should be involved, and to determine, if their are negative impacts, at what point they out weigh the positive effect of spill dispersion.

    ReplyDelete