What’s in Corexit — from the Horse’s Mouth

Here’s a list of what is reported to be the chemical components in Corexit:

Chemical Name

  • 1,2-Propanediol
  • Ethanol, 2-butoxy- (only in Corexit 9527)
  • Butanedioic acid, 2-sulfo-, 1,4-bis(2-ethylhexyl) ester, sodium salt (1:1)
  • Sorbitan, mono-(9Z)-9-octadecenoate
  • Sorbitan, mono-(9Z)-9-octadecenoate, poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl) derivs.
  • Sorbitan, tri-(9Z)-9-octadecenoate, poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl) derivs
  • 2-Propanol, 1-(2-butoxy-1-methylethoxy)-
  • Distillates (petroleum), hydrotreated light

A Nalco spokesman claims that “Both COREXIT dispersants have been approved by the EPA as part of the National Contingency Plan for treating oil spills.” What they don’t bother to mention is the circumstances for which they are approved, and that the approved dispersal method does NOT allow for it to be used sub-surface. In fact, as we reported earlier in this ecological disaster, the EPA and BP are specifically prohibited from using it in that fashion by the Clean Water Act of 1972. (CWA)

Throughout all of the Congressional hearings, all the wailing and gnashing of teeth, no one seems to want to call the EPA and Lisa Jackson on the carpet for issuing permits in direct defiance of the CWA. The simple fact is that using Corexit under water was, and still is, illegal. It’s also illegal for the EPA to have issued a permit to do so. The CWA specifically states that a permit may NOT be issued if there is reasonable question as to the toxicity and/or result of releasing that chemical into the water. BP claimed early on that they didn’t know what the repercussions might be. Remember that? By their own admission they used it unlawfully. Though the EPA shouldn’t have issued the permit, that doesn’t make BP any less culpable. As an “expert” (yeah, right) oil company, it is incumbent upon them to know about things like the CWA.

BP goes on to claim that the products are biodegradable, ignoring the fact that it can’t biodegrade in absence of air… which is exactly where both the oil and the Corexit now are. Could BP be lying? Ya THINK?

Comments (4)

[...] View full post &#959n Protect Th&#1077 Ocean [...]

devinJune 17th, 2010 at 11:13 pm

this is totally inappropriate

Dolores MedinaJune 19th, 2010 at 12:41 pm

To BP, A system without the moral question is a system doomed to fail. How far do you want this scenario to be carried out?? Really compassion for all living beings is the only way.

HarveyJune 26th, 2010 at 5:03 pm

Where’s the government oversite?!

Leave a comment

Your comment

Any content made available as part of protecttheocean.com (including blogs, forums, chat rooms) and any opinions, advice, statements, comments, 3rd party links, embedded multi-media or other information contained in any messages posted or transmitted by any third party are the responsibility of the author of that message and not of protecttheocean.com (unless specifically identifying protecttheocean.com as the author of the message). The fact that a particular message is posted on, or transmitted using the protecttheocean.com web site does not mean that protecttheocean.com has endorsed that message in any way or verified the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any content. We encourage visitors to protecttheocean.com to report any objectionable message or inaccuracies by using our Contact Form.