It is a little difficult to know what company is in Texas. It is not on the map with a multi-national company by the same name that is a chemical company.

Isobutyl.....?

Isobutyl Acetate? Yes? 

CDC Isobutyl Acetate (click here)

"Vapour/air mixtures are explosive."

Pregnancy Risk Group: C

ROUTES OF EXPOSURE: The substance can be absorbed into the body by inhalation of its vapour. 

INHALATION RISK: A harmful contamination of the air will be reached rather slowly on evaporation of this substance at 20°C. 

EFFECTS OF SHORT-TERM EXPOSURE: The vapour is mildly irritating to the eyes and the respiratory tract. The substance may cause effects on the central nervous system . Exposure far above the OEL could cause lowering of consciousness. 

EFFECTS OF LONG-TERM OR REPEATED EXPOSURE: The liquid defats the skin.

Jackson's Deer Processing is within stone's throw of this chemical plant? Are they crazy?

Ya know, the people taking their deer for processing are not high-end income folks. Okay? The majority. What does Texas think they are doing to people?

I am less concerned about Buffalo Steel Fabrication Plant, except, when the wind blows the wrong way. Long term exposure to what is in that plant is a concern for these folks.

Digging deeper is necessary to come up with this.


Well if that isn't enough confusion there is this:

? Atofina Chemical, Inc. ? Something is rotten in the state of ??? Denmark ???

I try very hard to be accurate. I don't like to give false information and have it cause problems in the year of cyber-critics. So. Given this level of oddity....hm?

Given no real explanation about such issues, let's just go with it.

The Beaumont, (click here) TX plant produces methyl mercaptan, ethyl mercaptan, dimethyl sulfide (DMS) and methyl mercapto-proprionaldehyde (MMP).  Beaumont is celebrating its 40 year anniversary in 2016!

2016? They move the plant? Subsidiary? Contractor?

Dimethyl sulfide (DMS) (click here) has been identified as the major volatile sulfur compound in 628 samples of surface seawater representing most of the major oceanic ecozones. In at least three respects, its vertical distribution, its local patchiness, and its distribution in oceanic ecozones, the concentration of DMS in the sea exhibits a pattern similar to that of primary production. The global weightedaverage concentration of DMS in surface seawater is 102 nanograms of sulfur (DMS) per liter, corresponding to a global sea-to-air flux of 39 x 1012grams of sulfur per year. When the biogenic sulfur contributions from the land surface are added, the biogenic sulfur gas flux is approximately equal to the anthropogenic flux of sulfur dioxide. The DMS concentration in air over the equatorial Pacific varies diurnally between 120 and 200 nanograms of sulfur (DMS) per cubic meter, in agreement with the predictions of photochemical models. The estimated source flux of DMS from the oceans to the marine atmosphere is in agreement with independently obtained estimates of the removal fluxes of DMS and its oxidation products from the atmosphere.

I've got this thing about containment. It is for good reason. Chemicals. Methane. All that stuff.

Dinoflagellates and coccolithophores? You mean the phytoplankton human beings should value above all else because they produce 60 percent of the atmospheric oxygen on Earth? Those dinoflagellates and coccolithophores?

Significant dimethyl sulfide (DMS) (click here) production is confined to a few classes of marine phytoplankton, mainly the Dinophyceae (dinoflagellates) and the Prymnesiophyceae (which includes the coccolitnophores). One hundred and twenty-three individual clones of phytoplankton representing twelve algal classes were examined in exponential growth for intra- and extracellular DMS (and its precursor DMSP). There is a strong correlation between the taxonomic position of the phytoplankton and the production of DMS. Although the Dinophyceae and Prymnesiophyceae predominate, other chromophyte algae (those possessing chlorophylls a and c) also contain and release significant amounts of DMS, including some members of the Chrysophyceae and the Bacillariophyceae (the diatoms). The chlorophytes (those algae possessing chlorophylls a and b) are much less significant producers of DMS with the exception of a few very small species. Other classes, including the cryptomonads and the cyanobacteria, are minor producers. 

You mean to tell me this mulit-national company is about to pollute the marine environment in the Gulf of Mexico? You've got to be joking. No wonder it is in Texas.

Ethyl mercaptan is the stinky stuff in methane. Where else would it be produced by Texas? It has a very low boiling point. 95 degrees Fahrenheit. It most probably will explode on temperatures higher than that, especially in large amounts of a storage facility.

It is not benign to human beings.

Ethyl mercaptan (click here):

Symptoms

irritation mucous membrane; headache, nausea; In Animals: incoordination, lassitude (weakness, exhaustion); liver, kidney damage; cyanosis; narcosis

The explosive area is dependent on the amount stored in that facility and whether or not that is the ONLY chemical stored there. My guess is not. Tell the company to keep their garbage in Europe.

methylmercapto-proprionaldehyde (MMP) (click here)

...More than 60 % of the worldwide production volume of the substance is used as on-site intermediate. Approximately 35 % may be transported in specially designed railroad cars or trucks and to a lesser extend (ca. 5 %) ships to a limited number of industrial sites. The substance is transported in specifically designed strictly sealed ISO-containers approved according to international regulations on transport of dangerous goods. The German producer only transports the material to his own subsidiaries or to one of the other producers (Degussa, 2003a)...

Normally, these chemicals are benign in the ocean environment when released by phytoplankton. That release is at ocean temperatures and evaporates into the air. It is not dangerous under 'normal' circumstances. However, no different than any other naturally occurring chemical when human activity turns them into a product, there is danger that enters into such processes. Sometimes it's is dangerous to human health and in this case it is dangerous to it's release because it has such low boiling points. The products can be turned into something far safer than it is now. It is a shame the company isn't interested in protecting human health and the environment. This is ridiculous. These are well established chemicals. There is no reason for this level of negligence.

It is more or less a storage facility with some capacity to produce some of the products. IF THAT IS THE COMPANY INVOLVED. That fact is still unclear.