Comparision of Cleanup Techniques

There are many ways to cleanup oils but not all of them fit the situation. Even then there are benefits and cons to each one of those methods.

Surface Dispersants
The major benefit of this technique is that the dispersants can be applied over a large area from specially-fit airplanes or helicopters. When the chemicals are applied, dispersed oil is significantly less toxic. The use of underwater dispersants was purely experimental when the BP oil spill first occurred. Similar in nature to traditional dispersants, the idea is that underwater dispersants attach to the oil before it can reach the surface, thus minimizing the amount of oil that eventually lands on shore.

However, because the chemical properties of leaked oil will change over time, dispersants may lose their ability to break apart the oil. There are also concerns about the dispersants themselves , which are also toxic, damaging the environment. This technique, however, requires the use of remote vehicles to apply the chemicals, which may be less effective at extreme depths. Being that this technique is not completely tested, critics worry that breaking up oil at extreme depths may release more toxic components into the water and could potentially damage the underwater ecosystem.

 Controlled Burns
The process of burning removes large portions of oil from the water's surface, keeping it away from the shoreline.

This technique must be conducted soon after the oil has been spilled, however, and can be severely affected by bad weather. During the current spill, controlled burn operations had to be postponed when waters made this technique dangerous. Controlled burns also produce columns of smoke, which shift the environmental impact from the sea to the air. 

Booms and Skimmers

One of the methods that does not require any dramatic changes to the environment or any additions to it is using booms and skimmers.

But the efficiency of skimmers is highly dependent on sea conditions and the presence of debris, which can both pose serious roadblocks to these techniques. 


Sorbent Materials
There are three distinct types of sorbent materials:

Natural organic sorbents can soak up between 3-15 times their weight, but may sink as a result and tend to be difficult to collect. Examples of natural sorbents include peat moss, straw, sawdust, feathers and even ground corncobs.

Natural inorganic sorbents like clay, perlite, glass wool, sand or volcanic ash all can soak up 4 to 20 times their weight in oil. These substances have similar concerns as natural organic sorbents, but are also inexpensive and available in large quantities, although they are not used on the water's surface.

Synthetic sorbents are similar to plastics and are designed to soak up liquids into their surface and can absorb liquids into their solid structures that causes the material to swell. According to the EPA, most synthetic sorbents can absorb up to 70 times their weight in oil.

The major concern with sorbent materials is that although they absorb the oil, the materials must be retrieved, which may prove extremely difficult, and could potentially make the situation worse.

Bioremediation

These bacteria occur naturally and will act to remove oil from an ecosystem, and their biomass will tend to replace other populations in the food chain. Whether applied on land or on water, the nutrient-rich emulsion creates a bloom of local, indigenous, pre-existing, hydrocarbon-consuming bacteria. Those specific bacteria break down the hydrocarbons into water and carbon dioxide, with EPA tests showing 98% of alkanes biodegraded in 28 days; and aromatics being biodegraded 200 times faster than in nature.



However there are many limiting factors that influence the rate of breakdown which could render it useless. Oil spill can happen everywhere, from arctic to tropical marine, from soil to water, and that is why the physical and chemical environment of oil spill can vary significantly from one to other.
Many factors have been proved to influence microbial degradation of petroleum, including physical status of oil spill, temperature, oxygen, nutrients, soil type and characteristics, and vegetation etc. 
Oxygen can be relatively easily obtained in the slick oil spill, but the nutrients are sometimes limited.

Natural Recovery
 In some areas, the environmental impact of cleaning up a spill could potentially outweigh the benefits of cleaning certain areas, especially if these places are highly dense with vegetation or relatively remote. Wave action, naturally occurring microorganisms, sunlight and natural water dispersion all contribute to break down oil leaked into the ocean.

Although relying on natural forces and "doing nothing" may be hard for outsiders to swallow, in some cases it is the best environmental option. For many of the cleanup options available to crews, "natural recovery" is an important component

The Nuke Option

I guess the biggest benefit to this would be that the extreme heat would seal up the gas wells with the melted rocks.

  

BUT

However, the Obama administration has shot the idea down , and with good reason. Engineers have suggested that a nuclear explosion could destroy the wellhead, making the leak impossible to seal. Most importantly, detonating a nuclear device on land to seal a gas well is an entirely different proposition than using one beneath the sea floor to seal an oil well. But what’s worse than an oil spill? A radioactive oil spill.