The Science & Technology Advisory Board of the Lawrence Anthony Earth Organization (LAEO) has just published a significant position paper entitled A Call for a Twenty-First-Century Solution in Oil Spill Response.
Bringing energy industry professionals, interagency federal and state officials, and environmental interests together at the same table, the work brings forth an important principle overlooked during the 2010 BP Oil Spill:
The foremost reason one cleans up an oil/chemical spill is to remove the pollutants/toxicity from the environment as rapidly as possible so that living organisms can survive and the ecosystem can sustain itself.
Utilizing this principle as a fundamental standard for oil spill cleanup guidance and policy establishes a valuable frame of reference by which one can evaluate response methods—mechanical cleanup, dispersants, and nontoxic agents—as to their effectiveness and economic viability.

The guidance material contained in this work is a constructive offering for every oil-producing country in the world and their potentially contaminated ecosystems. The paper brings a new analysis and assessment of the BP Macondo disaster response. It contains guidelines for the selection process for oil spill cleanup agents, along with an evaluation process that can be used to grade potential effectiveness of those agents in swiftly removing spilled oil from the environment.
The LAEO analysis challenges the standard that “25 percent cleaned up” is an acceptable industry benchmark for an effective spill response, as research indicates that existing technology can far exceed that.

Recently a special feature covering the 2010 BP spill response (“Science in Support of the Deepwater Horizon Response”), published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) journal of December 2012, sent mixed messages and missed the importance of the above principle as the basis for measuring response effectiveness . While hailing the cleanup as successful, the Perspective, co-authored by federal interagency scientists and associates, also acknowledged, “Despite aggressive recovery and removal efforts, only around one-quarter of the oil was removed by the federally directed response.” Notwithstanding these statistics, it is unclear how this academic work arrived at an overall conclusion that the spill response was effective, indicating similar methodology will likely be used on future spills.

Long-term and even recent studies of oil spill environmental damage and the response methods employed show that these “successful” methods have failed to remove the toxicity from the environment (and in the case of dispersants, have added toxicity), ending up in enormous destruction to wildlife, marine life, the local economy, and human health.
The Twenty-First-Century Solution paper expresses a significant concern that federal agencies tasked with protecting our waters and natural resources hold the viewpoint that (a) the negative effects of chemical dispersants “need more study before anyone will really know for sure,” while they continue to use them as a preferred preapproved method, and (b) there are no better methods.
This paper’s Call for Action details and builds a science-based case for halting the use of dispersants that contain pollutants and do not remove oil and its toxic components from the environment; and more importantly, it presents an effective nontoxic replacement for current methodology.

The LAEO Science & Technology Board’s review of the US EPA’s National Contingency Plan (NCP) found that it currently lists a category of nontoxic first-response oil spill cleanup technology, applicable in all environments, that safely and effectively removes hydrocarbons and all harmful chemicals from a spill site, resulting in complete and rapid restoration with no negative environmental “trade-offs.”
If there were no economically viable and effective spill-fighting alternative available, then the situation would be dire indeed. The problem is that the US EPA has restricted the use of this technology in open-water environments, and despite ample supporting science to the contrary, they have refused to correct their policy, which is perpetrating false science throughout the industry. The board researched why.

The LAEO paper addresses how it came to be that a fully developed science-based spill cleanup protocol continues to be obstructed by the U.S. EPA contrary to the Clean Water Act and its Mission Statement despite the fact that it vastly exceeds the results of currently deployed first-response technologies. This widely used and recognized spill-response methodology—Bioremediation Category Enzyme Additive—not only quickly detoxifies and diminishes the adhesive qualities of a spill (and, if need be, detoxifies any deployed dispersants), but its end point is a conversion of close to 100 percent of the toxic spill components to harmless carbon dioxide and water in a matter of a few days to a few weeks. At this time, there is only one supplier—OSEI International—that manufactures an enzyme-additive product (OSE II), which is a currently available, fully tested, commercial product.

This new perspective makes for a complete change in methodology if one keeps in mind again that the only reason for the existence of contingency plans and spill response at all is to remove elevated toxicity levels and the other damaging qualities of an oil spill so that living organisms, from the tiniest microbes up to the largest mammals, can survive.
LAEO has compiled and released this material in support of all sides and stakeholders, recognizing the importance of supporting the indispensable economic contributions to society that oil and gas companies render, while advocating that it is vital, and entirely possible, to simultaneously produce energy and economically protect the environment.

The information presented is intended to provide a gateway for achieving far higher standards in oil spill response as well as for meeting the compliance criteria of the Clean Water Act. The LAEO Science & Technology Advisory Board urges all national, regional, and area oil spill response professionals to consider the data offered and to join them in taking a new look at contingency plans and the science on which they are based.
To summarize the action items:

• Ban the use of toxic chemical dispersants, or any other scientifically identified toxic agent used for oil spill “cleanup,” in US navigable waters and all environments.

• Revise and correct the National Contingency Plan and all related guidance documents referenced by Regional and Area Response Teams to reflect current science and information, specifically including

• the immediate withdrawal of the EPA’s preapproval (blanket authorization) for the use of dispersants in US navigable waters as part of the National Contingency Plan;

• correction of all material guiding the use of Bioremediation Agents to remove the misinformation and to list EA Type as a first-response nontoxic option;

• add the article BIOREMEDIATION TECHNIQUES, CATEGORY DEFINITIONS, AND MODES OF ACTION IN MARINE AND FRESHWATER ENVIRONMENTS to the NRT, RRT, NOAA, and Coast Guard published bioremediation materials to reeducate all team members on the corrected science concerning bioremediation.

• Exert pressure on the US EPA to issue the necessary authorization for nontoxic bioremediation methods already screened by EPA scientists and approved (Bioremediation Agent Type EA, OSE II) to be deployed immediately to bring the Gulf waters and associated environments back to good health.

• Raise pollution removal standards up to the original intent of the Clean Water Act by requiring all companies that have the potential through their working processes of creating oil spills to include NCP-listed products that are nontoxic in their cleanup protocols, ensuring their plans employ methods that swiftly and completely remove oil from a spill area.

oOo

Here’s the inside story.

The official response to the BP Gulf Oil Spill has been controlled like no other response in American history to an environmental catastrophe. The US Government, to include the EPA, NOAA, Energy, Interior, the White House, has colluded with BP et al. to keep the lid on what has really been taking place in our waters, on our beaches and with our seafood.

The information blackout, and especially the choking off of vital data and research studies have occurred through the following deliberate process:

(1) First the government exerted its total control over all the concerned agencies and departments responsible for any aspect of the oil spill. Therefore, all of the previously mentioned agencies were immediately co-opted to execute a political agenda in which economics and politics always trumped health and environment.

(2) Next the government, in collaboration with BP, sought to control all other public institutions like the OSATF (Oil Spill Academic Task Force in Florida). There are true advocates working in academic bodies like the OSATF; however, once they were included under the BIG UMBRELLA, everyone was expected to fall in line. Almost everyone did, with a few notable and courageous exceptions.
How it works is that if a geology professor were to break ranks, his department chairman might be contacted about a large pending government grant which ‘might’ be put into jeopardy. The ways of controlling those who are expert in the relevant academic disciplines are endless, and unfortunately have profoundly compromised the entire information gathering-process regarding the BP oil spill.  

(3) Funding, as you just read, is the oil of all academic and scientific research. Without it, nothing gets done. Therefore, whoever controls the funding and grant approval process effectively controls the message. From speaking with many, especially those who function within the relevant institutions, no one has ever seen such a clampdown. It appears that the US Gov’t/BP Juggernaut has just about ensured that unless one plays by their rules, no funding will be forthcoming. “YES!”, it is that controlled and oppressive. While this ongoing, multi-institutional dynamic has been operative for many decades, it has now entered a new realm of self-enforcement —> “Their way or the highway!” This has simply forced many truth-speakers to take to the information highway … with a vengeance.
Here’s an example of how BP had allocated the first installment of a $500 million dollar grant program to Florida universities in the amount of $25 million.
USF to receive funds from BP grant

How much control do you think $500 MIL can purchase?!

(4) Of course, the absolute control of the mainstream media has been the cornerstone of their strategy to control all information that flows into the public domain. Whereas the media seemed to be on top of the real story in the very beginning, it now seems that occurred for dramatic effect. As soon as the Macondo well was ‘capped’, virtually everyone went back to sleep, particularly the Mainstream Media.

(5) As for the alternative and fringe media, there have been major battles going on from day one. See how BP has saturated the ad space of each and every website and blog with their BP ads claiming they have fixed the GOM, are fixing the GOM, will fix the GOM. What must be pointed out is the vast amount of financial allocation necessary to run all these ads 24/7 for two (2) years. Couldn’t that money have been much better spent on really fixing the problems instead of paying lip service? The extraordinary efforts by BP to coverup the ongoing BP oil spill challenges is now legend; their numerous and fierce initiatives to airbrush anything having to do with the cosmetic aspects of this oil spill are likewise unparalleled in modern industrial disaster history.

(6) Data-collecting for even the layperson who resides on the GOM coastline was made extremely difficult because “BP was given a lead position in the unified command structure authorized by the US Federal Government immediately following the burning and sinking of the Deepwater Horizon. This transference of authority away from the impacted state governments was unprecedented in US history and created a virtual monopoly over the flow of information from BP to the appropriate authorities, as well as to the public-at-large.”
~ Feb. 25th Press Release from GRA entitled :
Conclusive Evidence That BP Misrepresented Gulf Oil Spill Sent To Congress
The counties were then subordinated to BP and could forcefully be compelled to control fact-finding citizens and truth-seeking professionals, which they did.

(7) War Between the States One need not look any further than the citizens tensions between Florida and Louisiana to begin to understand how they can control the information flow. Louisiana is a drill state and has been all about oil for since the 1930s; Florida couldn’t be further from that position given the predominance of its tourism, agriculture, boating and fishing. When two states are operating at cross purposes in regard to such a formidable undertaking as remediating the biggest oil spill in us history, one can appreciate the many hapless implications of such an unworkable relationship.
Bear in mind that Louisiana politics has been oiled by petrodollars for decades. Almost everyone is connected to the Oil & Gas Industry in some way, shape or form. One almost has to leave the state to get away from the slick and sleazy influence that goes with this territory. Therefore, much of the official info and data is often tilted and distorted to meet the demands of the hidden agenda of the Oil & Gas Industry.
There are many effective citizen advocates in NOLA area who have broken out of this box. Since they are so close to ground zero, they have provided much valuable information and proven to be indispensable info/data resources.

(8) Controlled Opposition: This one is a real challenge because of how many are unwittingly controlled, and don’t have a clue. Many who fall into that category have been used as instruments to undermine the true citizen advocates among us. The degree to which divide and conquer has been utilized with great effect through controlled opposition strategy is quite extraordinary. Until you have been a victim of such tactics, as the GOSRC has, you really can’t imagine the extent to which your environmental or health advocacy can be paralyzed.
As for the Controlled Opposition which may be executed through a formal COINTELPRO Op, an organization must be set up like a CIA special task force where each member executes on a strictly need-to-know-basis and the entire operation is strictly compartmentalized, as well as completely firewalled where it concerns internet services, software and hardware.
Who in the world can ever practically function under such conditions?!

(9) Obama’s ‘Special’ BP Oil Spill White House Response Team: It has since come to light that the Obama Administration quickly created a Response Team that worked secretly and deeply in the bowels of the White House. This group was constituted to perform many functions but particularly one above everything else — to limit the political fallout from the BP oil spill by any means necessary.
It has now been widely reported that the White House was either giving orders throughout the ongoing 87 day undersea gusher, or blessing every move that BP made. Therefore, all of the misguided decisions to pollute the GOM with the highly toxic dispersant Corexit ultimately were approved by the White House.
Furthermore, the nonstop PR campaign to convince everyone that the GOM was perfectly okay the day the gusher was capped was also run out of the White House. What bigger threat to the re-election of Obama could there be but the devastation of the regional economy of the Southeast.
This particular political side of the BP oil spill story gets dirtier in oil the deeper you drill; therefore, the SOTN will issue a dedicated, special report prior to the November, 2012 election.

Gulf Oil Spill Remediation Conference
Submitted: September 12, 2012

Unknown to many throughout the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) advocacy network, the BP Gulf oil spill has triggered a sea change in the way that oil spills are addressed around the world. Only because of the indiscriminate use of Corexit by BP throughout the Gulf did this environmental assault rise to a level of awareness necessary to change the status quo. The public outcry within the USA and beyond was heard by nations everywhere who have since been confronted with cleaning up massive oil spills.

Here’s a short list of oil spills which have occurred since the BP oil spill in the Gulf.

SOURCE: Wikipedia – List of oil spills
Click on to enlarge

This list does not contain hundreds of other oil spills around the globe which have never been properly cleaned up. This list only includes those spills that have risen to a certain volume of oil spilt; therefore, many other spills do not appear which are in urgent need of remediation. For example, the Niger River Delta is an area which has seen numerous oil spills that have gone addressed for years.

UN confirms massive oil pollution in Niger Delta  

The BP Gulf Oil Spill revealed the truth about Corexit which would have otherwise stayed hidden.

Although a great environmental tragedy, the BP oil spill in the GOM has had at least one extremely important benefit to the world community. This unintended benefit took the form of blowing the whistle on the use of the highly toxic dispersant Corexit. The name given to Corexit was chosen to subliminally lead one to believe that it corrects oil spills when it really doesn’t. Corexit effectively hides the oil by dispersing it in a minute form which makes it much more difficult to remediate.

Only by “blowing up” in the Gulf of Mexico with such dramatic fireworks was the world’s attention captured long enough so that the practice of wanton dispersant spraying would be exposed. As we have seen everywhere else on the planet, even in the USA’s backyard at Prince William Sound, Alaska, very little real change has ever occurred.  The revelations oozing from the Gulf have had, and will continue to have, tremendous effects on oil spill response globally for decades to come.

The Deepwater Horizon explodes and burns before sinking into the Gulf of Mexico.

Steve Pedigo, CEO of OSEI Corporation in Dallas, TX has been invited to shorelines around the world to put on demonstrations for OSE-II, a bio-remediation product which has been approved by the EPA. OSE II has been the bio-remediation agent of choice for various US military oil spills in places where their operations have required a quick, clean and effective approach.

Mr. Pedigo was recently invited to the coastline of the Middle East to put on a demonstration of OSE-II. The results of this presentation, as well as a number of other demonstrations given at other oil spill sites around the world by Pedigo, have produced a very positive response to bio-remediation agents.

According to Mr. Pedigo, the BP oil spill response using Corexit in the Gulf marked a turning point for dispersant use. The wanton use of a toxic (per the EPA NCP notebook) product like Corexit precipitated so much negative and justified criticism that it was instrumental in changing the ‘minds’ of entire nations. They quickly became aware of the many toxic side effects and collateral damage associated with chemical dispersants like Corexit. Mr. Pedigo also pointed out the veritable sea change in attitude which has taken place throughout the oil spill response industry itself. With the exception of the USA, many countries will never go back to the highly questionable and environmentally-damaging use of dispersants like Corexit.

Along with many other affected and concerned parties, the Gulf Oil Spill Remediation Conference questions why the US Coast Guard, EPA, NOAA and Departments of Interior and Energy have yet to request an immediate termination of Corexit use in the Gulf of Mexico. The OSE-II product has been approved for use and even utilized by the US Armed Forces with great success. Yet the EPA persists in favoring Corexit in remediating oil spills in US territorial waters.

Dr. Tom Termotto, former National Coordinator of the Gulf Oil Spill Remediation Conference, declared back in January of 2011 that:

“We need to unite and ignite a public awareness campaign, using “The Hidden Crisis in the Gulf” video to educate the broad public about the existence of an unusually safe and non-toxic, easily applied, and highly effective bio-remediation agent. We have received numerous recommendations from all over the world for the past 8+ months regarding various mitigation techniques and bio-remediation alternatives for the Gulf of Mexico. When we heard about Oil Spill Eaters II, and the fact that it is EPA-approved (NCP listed) and has demonstrated its effectiveness at least 14 times on the BP Gulf Oil Spill, we wondered why it wasn’t being used 24/7 throughout the GOM.”

These and other questions need to be satisfactorily addressed before the GOM ecosystems are forever altered. Chemical destruction on the order of the BP oil spill ought to be minimized however possible. Particularly in light of the massive amount of hydrocarbon effluent which poured into the GOM in 2010, measures should be taken to mitigate this petrochemical disaster, not make it worse. In the view of many experts, Corexit has only made the whole Gulf situation much worse, even if it did ‘disappear’ a lot of the oil.

Seabirds bore the brunt of the BP Gulf oil spill

This photo is one that BP would rather never have been taken. Corexit was designed to disperse the oil so that the coating of birds could be prevented. Then the effects of the oil spill would be out of sight, out of mind. The BP Gulf oil spill could then be declared officially over, as it has been. However, because the toxic side effects of Corexit cannot not be easily detected, and are not being investigated by the government or researched by the Oil & Gas Industry, the serious health effects from both spill and dispersant use continues unabated.

Use Of Toxic Dispersant COREXIT in GOM Must Be Stopped

EPA Grossly Misrepresents The Toxicity Of Corexit Used In Gulf Of Mexico

Submitted by: Gulf Oil Spill Remediation Conference
Date: July 21, 2012
oilspillsolution@comcast.net
http://OilSpillSolutionsNow.org/

By Dr. Tom Termotto

It is with deep regret that we publish this report.  We do not take this responsibility lightly, as the consequences of the following observations are of such great import and have such far-reaching ramifications for the entire planet.  Truly, the fate of the oceans of the world hangs in the balance, as does the future of humankind.

The Gulf of Mexico (GOM) does not exist in isolation and is, in fact, connected to the Seven Seas.  Hence, we publish these findings in order that the world community will come together to further contemplate this dire and demanding predicament.  We also do so with the hope that an appropriate global response will be formulated, and acted upon, for the sake of future generations.  It is the most basic responsibility for every civilization to leave their world in a better condition than that which they inherited from their forbears.

After conducting the Gulf Oil Spill Remediation Conference for over seven months, we can now disseminate the following information with the authority and confidence of those who have thoroughly investigated a crime scene.  There are many research articles, investigative reports and penetrating exposes archived at the following website.  Particularly those posted from August through November provide a unique body of evidence, many with compelling photo-documentaries, which portray the true state of affairs at the Macondo Prospect in the GOM.

Phoenix Rising from the Gulf
http://phoenixrisingfromthegulf.wordpress.com/

The pictorial evidence tells the whole story.

Especially that the BP narrative is nothing but a corporate-created illusion – a web of fabrication spun in collaboration with the US Federal Government and Mainstream Media.  Big Oil, as well as the Military-Industrial Complex, have aided and abetted this whole scheme and info blackout because the very future of the Oil & Gas Industry is at stake, as is the future of the US Empire and War-Making Machine which sprawls around the world and requires vast amounts of hydrocarbon fuel.

Should the truth seep out and into the mass consciousness – that the GOM is slowly but surely filling up with oil and gas – certainly many would rightly question the integrity, and sanity, of the whole venture, as well as the entire industry itself.  And then perhaps the process would begin of transitioning the planet away from the hydrocarbon fuel paradigm altogether.

  It’s not a pretty picture.

The various pictures, photos and diagrams that fill the many articles at the aforementioned website represent photo-evidence about the true state of affairs on the seafloor surrounding the Macondo Prospect in the Mississippi Canyon, which is located in the Central Planning Area of the northern Gulf of Mexico.  The very dynamics of the dramatic changes and continuous evolution of the seafloor have been captured in ways that very few have ever seen.  These snapshots have given us a window of understanding into the true state of the underlying geological formations around the various wells drilled in the Macondo Prospect.

Although our many deductions may be difficult for the layperson to apprehend at first, to the trained eye these are but obvious conclusions which are simply the result of cause and effect.  In other words there is no dispute concerning the most serious geological changes which have occurred, and continue to occur, in the region around the Macondo wells.  The original predicament (an 87 day gushing well) was extremely serious, as grasped by the entire world, and the existing situation is only going to get progressively worse.

So, just what does this current picture look like.  Please click on the link below to view the relevant diagrams and read the commentary:

An AUTOPSY of the BP Gulf Oil Well at the Macondo Prospect

As the diagrams clearly indicate, the geology around the well bore has been blown.  This occurred because of drilling contiguous to a salt dome(1), as well as because of the gas explosions which did much damage to the integrity of the well casing, cementing, well bore, well head, and foundation around the well head.  Eighty-seven straight days of gushing hydrocarbon effluent under great pressure only served to further undermine the entire well system.  Finally, when it was capped, putting the system back under pressure forced the upsurging hydrocarbons to find weaknesses throughout the greater system, which revealed all sorts of compromised, fractured and unsettled geology through which the hydrocarbons could travel all the way to the seafloor and into the GOM.

(1)“The rock beds in the vicinity of a salt dome are highly fractured and permeable due to stress and deformation which occur as the salt dome thrusted upwards.” (Per BK Lim, Geohazards Specialist)

We also have faults* to deal with in this scenario of which there are both deep and shallow.  Depending on the current vital stats of the blown out well, especially its actual depth; the number, location and severity of the breaches throughout the well system; the pressure at the wellhead; as well as the type and status of geological formations/strata it has been drilled into, these faults will become prominently configured into the future stability of the whole region.  Larger faults can open up much greater opportunities for the hydrocarbons to find their way to the seafloor via cracks and crevices, craters and chasms.  In fact the numerous leaks and seeps throughout the seafloor surface, which are quite apparent from various ROV live-feeds, give testimony to sub-seafloor geological formations in great turmoil and undergoing unprecedented flux.

*“Once the oil gets into the shallow faulted zones, we have an uncontrollable situation.  The place where most of the oil and gas is coming out  is at the foot hills of the continental shelf as shown in figure 134-1 in the article “BP continues to dazzle us with their unlimited magic”.  The discovery by WHOI of the 22 mile long river of oil originated from these leaks.  So the leaks will be mainly along the faults where I have marked (shallow) in “What is going on at West Sirius” and deep strike-slip faults (red line)  on fig 134-1.” (Per BK Lim, Geohazards Specialist)

Just how bad is this situation? There are actually three different ongoing disasters – each more grave and challenging than the previous one – which must be considered when assessing the awesome destruction to the GOM by the Oil & Gas Industry.

I.  A single gushing well at 70 – 100,000 barrels per day of hydrocarbon effluent for 87 days into the GOM at the Macondo Prospect along with two smaller rogue wells

II. Numerous leaks and seeps within five to ten square miles of the Macondo well with an aggregate outflow of an unknown amount of hydrocarbon effluent per day into the GOM

III.  Countless small gushers and mini-spills, leaks and seeps, throughout the Gulf of Mexico, where oil drilling has been conducted for many decades, with an aggregate outflow into the GOM that can not even be estimated, but is well in excess of any guesstimate which would ensure its slow and steady demise (not too unlike the petrochemical cesspool known as the Caspian Sea).

It is the last scenario which we all face and to which there is no easy or obvious solution.  The truth be told, there currently does not exist the technology or machinery or equipment to repair the damage that has been wrought by the process of deep undersea drilling, especially when it is performed in the wrong place.  Therefore, wherever the oil and gas find points of entry into the GOM through the seafloor, some of these leaks and seeps will only continue to get worse.  Here’s why:

Methane gas mixed with saltwater and mud makes for a very potent corrosive agent.  Under high pressure it will find every point of egress through the rock and sediment formations all the way up to the seafloor where it will find any point of exit that is available.  The longer and more forcefully that it flows throughout the fractured area, which is dependent on the volume, temperature and pressure at the source of the hydrocarbons, the more its corrosive effects will widen, broaden and enlarge the channels, cracks and crevices throughout the sub-seafloor geology, thereby creating a predicament that no science, technology or equipment can remedy.

Dire realities of the methane hydrate predicament

The Macondo Prospect in the GOM is just one of many throughout the oceans of the world where the seafloor has beds of methane hydrate locked in place by very high pressure and low temperatures.  Likewise, there are myriad repositories and large “reservoirs” of methane clathrates in the sub-seafloor strata, and especially within the more superficial geological formations, which are being greatly impacted by all oil and gas drilling and extraction activities.  It does not take much imagination to understand how the upsurging hydrocarbons (very hot oil and gas under high pressure) are quickly converting the frozen methane hydrate to gas, thereby causing innumerable “micro-displacements”, the cumulative effect of which will translate to larger “macro-displacements” of rock, sediment and other geological formations.

When you factor in this constant vaporization of methane hydrates/clathrates both sub-seafloor as well as those scattered around the seafloor surface to the existing scenario, this devolving situation becomes that much more difficult to effectively remedy.  With the resulting shifts and resettling and reconfiguration of the entire seafloor terrain and underlying strata occurring in the wake of these dynamics, we are left with a situation that is not going to get better through the use of even more invasive technology and intrusive machinery.

Question: How many times can you grout a seafloor crack that was caused by an underlying superficial fault after drilling into an old mud volcano?

Answer: “In the attempt to seal the oil from oozing through the faults, BP resorted to high pressure grouting.  Basically it is like cementing the cracks in the rock by injecting grout (cement mixture) at high pressure. The way they do this is by drilling an injection hole into the shallow rocks and pumping in the grout. The grout in “slurry” state will permeate into the cracks, cure and seal up the cracks. However it is not working because of the presence of gas and oil. It is like super-glue. You need to clean the surfaces before you apply the glue; otherwise it won’t stick and will come off eventually after a few days or weeks. That is why we can see a few blown out craters – shown in my article – Is the last rite for the Macondo Well for real?” (Per BK Lim, Geohazards Specialist)

Likewise, how do you fill a newly emerging gash in the seafloor which is caused by a deep fault due to low level seismic activity, or worse, a full blown earthquake?!

Seismic activity in the GOM and the uptick in earthquakes in the Mississippi River Basin and surrounding region

The oil and gas platforms that were in operation throughout the northern Gulf of Mexico in 2006 (per Wikipedia).

We now come to the most serious issue regarding the relentless drilling for oil and gas throughout the Gulf of Mexico.  The map above clearly illustrates the density of drilling throughout the northern GOM as of 2006.  Likewise, the map below demonstrates the extraordinary and increasing intensity of these very same operations off the coast of Louisiana alone.

Green lines represent active pipes (25,000 miles in all). Yellow dots represent oil rigs.

The map that follows, however, tells a story which demands the attention of every resident of the GOM coastline.  The video link below the map shows the development timeline of the successively deeper wells being drilled during the last decade.  Of course, with greater depths come much greater risks, as the technology and machinery have not been proportionately upgraded to accommodate the extraordinary demands and unforeseen contingencies of such a speculative and dangerous enterprise*.

*Oil and gas drilling in seawater depths of over 4000 feet, and through 15,000 to 25,000 feet of the earth’s crust and mantle, is considered extremely dangerous to those from whom reason and common sense have not yet fled.

Click on the map to enlarge.

Gulf of Mexico Oil Rigs: 1942-2005

It’s critical to understand the location and current activity of the various faults which exist throughout the GOM and how they connect to the New Madrid Fault Line, as well as other major faults at much greater distance.  There does appear to be a emerging uptick in earthquake activity in the greater Louisiana area, as well as contiguous regions in the GOM as demonstrated by unprecedented, albeit low level earthquakes.  Correlations between these earthquakes/seismic activity and major operations at the Macondo Prospect have been alluded to in our previous postings, as well as by many recent articles explaining the inevitable subsidence which occurs when prodigious volumes of oil and gas are removed through drilling in the GOM.

Just how much oil and gas have been removed from the GOM since drilling first began there in the ’30s? More significantly, how might substantial movements of the GOM seafloor (due to undersea volcanoes and earthquakes) affect the 28,000+ unmonitored and abandoned wells which are highly concentrated south of the Louisiana coastline?!

24,486 permanent and 3,593 temporarily abandoned wells in the Gulf of Mexico

Earthquake Activity in Gulf of Mexico Prompts 2003 Study for MMS

Gulf of Mexico Subsea Structures May Be in Seismic Danger Zone – Part 2

Now then, the question remains just how vulnerable has the GOM been made to a truly catastrophic event, ending up with an overwhelming displacement of water producing tidal waves, in the aftermath of an undersea earthquake.

There is no question that the ceaseless fracturing of the seafloor and fissuring of the sub-seafloor geological strata by the Oil & Gas Industry has set up a quite conducive environment for HUGE unintended consequences.  We leave it up to the experts to conduct the necessary risk assessments, which will most assuredly let loose a sea of red flags about what Big Oil has done, and is currently doing, in (and to) the Gulf of Mexico.

Furthermore, we are deeply concerned that, if a permanent moratorium on all new oil and gas drilling and extraction in the GOM is not put into place poste haste, the coastal communities will remain in a very precarious situation.  The most immediate concern relates to the combination of ill-advised drilling activity (conducted in spite of geohazard assessments/recommendations) with unpredictable seismic events, which could trigger undersea landslides at the shelf edge causing massive water displacement.

Worsening GOM predicament is reflective of the status quo around the globe

Now consider the following scenario: that this very same predicament, which we have all witnessed in the Gulf of Mexico, is happening wherever oil and gas drilling is conducted in the various water bodies throughout the planet.  Therefore we can multiply the Macondo Prospect disaster a hundred times and still not come close to the impacts that these ongoing gushers and spills, leaks and seeps are having the world over.

Perhaps the BP Gulf Oil Spill was the defining moment in modern history when all the nations of the world community were called by Mother Earth herself to begin transitioning the planet away from the Hydrocarbon Fuel Paradigm.  After all, we may never get another chance!

Transitioning The Planet Away From The Hydrocarbon Fuel Paradigm

Tom Termotto, National Coordinator
Gulf Oil Spill Remediation Conference
Tallahassee, FL
OilSpillSolution@comcast.net
SKYPE: Gulf_Advocate
http://oilspillsolutionsnow.org/

Author’s Note: This short reality check was made possible by BK Lim, Geohazards Specialist (Click here for CV), whose research and analysis of the BP Gulf Oil Spill have proved invaluable to ferreting out the truth of this unprecedented environmental devastation. BK provided figures 137-06, 136-3, 1h and 137-01 including the commentary, which only an experienced and highly skilled geohazards expert could furnish with authority.  He is also responsible for many of the articles/essays posted on this website, as well as some that are linked to this article.

ADDENDUM:
There are two very significant topics, which have been not been discussed in this report, that beg for acknowledgement and further attention in light of the title:
The Gulf of Mexico is Dying
Both of these problems are highly consequential and therefore merit separate papers in order to give them the treatment they deserve, if we are to understand why the GOM is slowly dying.  Until those papers are completed, we offer the following short summaries:

#1  The wanton and indiscriminate use of the dispersant, Corexit, turned an extremely serious regional disaster into an unmitigated global catastrophe.

How so?  The dispersants Corexit 9500 and 9527 both served to interact with the oil in such a way that much of it sank to the bottom.  It also caused much dispersed oil to be held in suspension within the water column, as well as carried with the currents to and fro in amounts which can only be guessed.  There is an emerging consensus that, because of the overwhelming volume of Corexit which was dispensed throughout the GOM, the Loop Current, which has historically guaranteed the flow of the warm Gulf waters into the Gulf Stream Current, has been fundamentally altered.

The most obvious consequence was to profoundly slow down the turnover of water into and out of the GOM.  By curtailing this natural, rejuvenative process, the Gulf has become a more stagnant body of water, with significantly less opportunity to cleanse itself.  Even the normal hurricane pattern in the GOM slackened precipitously this past hurricane season, thereby diminishing much churning and mechanical action which can be helpful to the natural breakdown of petroleum and its many byproducts.

Of course, the real unknown here is how dramatic and lasting the effects a stalled Loop Current will have on the Gulf Stream’s influence on the weather of Great Britain, Continental Europe and the contiguous land masses. By many accounts the recent meteorological developments, especially in Northern Europe, are being viewed with great apprehension about what the future weather patterns will bring?  Many are concerned that a tipping point has already arrived and that this sea change will irrevocably transform a way of life.

What else do we know about Corexit from an environmental health perspective?

How many times have we all heard that dispersed oil is at least four times more toxic than oil alone?  Here are the test results from the EPA study, as well as the EPA link:

(1) 10.72 parts per million (ppm) of oil alone will kill 50% of the fish test species in a normal aquatic environment within 96 hours.

(2) 25.20 parts per million of dispersant (Corexit 9500) alone will kill 50% of the fish test species in a normal aquatic environment within 96 hours.

(3) 2.61 parts per million of dispersed oil (Corexit-laden) alone will kill 50% of the fish test species in a normal aquatic environment within 96 hours.

National Contingency Plan Product Schedule Toxicity and Effectiveness Summaries

“Crude oil has proven toxicity at 1 part per million, with constituents like benzene exhibiting genotoxicity in the parts per billion range. The dispersants have made the oil “disappear,” according to the mainstream media, and yet we have marine toxicology documents PROVING that the dispersants PREVENT the natural break…down of some constituents of the oil, e.g. the lesser soluble hydrocarbons such as naphthalene.” (Per Gulf Oil Spill Truth)

Not only is the dispersed oil much more toxic, it is now virtually impossible to remediate in its current micronized or nano-sized state.  Disappeared they did to the oil, and so did they to the various technologies and methodologies which would have been effective in cleaning up oil alone.  Now we are left with a predicament that requires a form of mitigation which must be conceived, before it can be tried and tested.

In the meantime the entire GOM food chain (including those who continue to eat the seafood) is concentrating these newly formed toxic byproducts in their tissues, the effects of which will gradually wend their way through the bodies of each and every organism that is exposed to them.  Just how poisonous to life dispersed oil is we may not know for years, nor does any government-funded research institution seem to be in a hurry to find out!

Both Corexit 9500 and 9527 were sprayed liberally for many months both on the GOM surface, as well as undersea.  The officially reported amount is shown below; the covert spraying continues to this very day in volumes which can only be determined by reviewing the disbursement records at Nalco Holding Company.  The photo above (Fig. 137-06) , in addition to much anecdotal evidence, unequivocally demonstrates continued dispersant use up to this very day, which therefore indicates a much higher volume used throughout the GOM.

Surface dispersant used: 1, 072,514 gallons
Subsea dispersant used: 771,272 gallons
Total dispersant used: 1,843,786 gallons

Consider what Wikipedia has to say about 9527: “Corexit 9527, considered by the EPA to be an acute health hazard, is stated by its manufacturer to be potentially harmful to red blood cells, the kidneys and the liver, and may irritate eyes and skin.^[14][24] The chemical 2-butoxyethanol, found in Corexit 9527, was identified as having caused lasting health problems in workers involved in the cleanup of the Exxon Valdez oil spill.^[25] According to the Alaska Community Action on Toxics, the use of Corexit during the Exxon Valdez oil spill caused people “respiratory, nervous system, liver, kidney and blood disorders”.^[16] Like 9527, 9500 can cause hemolysis (rupture of blood cells) and may also causeinternal bleeding.”^[4]

COREXIT being offloaded according to strict OSHA procedures

The following link offers a more in-depth discussion of how this unprecedented mixture of massive amounts of dispersant, oil, methane and radioactive hydrocarbons have forever altered the energetics of the Gulf of Mexico. It is then much easier to understand the unanticipated and immediate stalling of the Loop Current in light of these critical changes to the GOM fundamentals.

Environmental and Health Impacts of the BP Gulf Oil Spill

#2  The deeper the geological source of the hydrocarbons, the more radioactive isotopes present in the oil and gas.

That hydrocarbons pulled from the bowels of the earth have a scientifically verified radioactive component(s) is the dirty little secret of the Oil & Gas Industry. So secret in fact that, if it were to get out, this single scientific fact would seal the fate of the entire industry.  It also undergirds the correct understanding that oil and gas are both abiotic in nature and abiogenic in origin – facts which cast a refreshing light on the notion of Peak Oil.
Yes, we have reached Peak Oil, but not because of the untenable Fossil Fuel Theory which has been known to be false by the Oil and Gas Industry since its inception.  It has been asserted that the Macondo Prospect sits on a reservoir of abiotic oil the size of Mount Everest, one of the two largest batholiths with proven oil and gas mega-reserves in the GOM.  However, that doesn’t make it economically feasible or technologically prudent to extract; nor is it smart to engage in such utter folly, as the sinking of the Deepwater Horizon dramatically demonstrated.

Soon after the BP Gulf Oil Spill began there appeared a headline which was more telling than them all:

“They’ve Literally Punched A Hole Into Hell: We Need A Crash Alternative Energy Program Now, Assuming We Even Survive”

Mantle-generated hydrocarbons come from very young geological formations deep in the earth, and are the product of extremely powerful geo-thermal forces.  The presence of radioactive isotopes such as uranium, thorium, radium show up in much greater concentrations the deeper the well bore is drilled into the earth’s crust, and are ubiquitous throughout the mantle.  Therefore, the hydrocarbon constituents, which are actually found in the interstitial spaces, porous rock formations and quaternary sediments and are scattered everywhere because of their liquid and gaseous states, exist within and around this highly radioactive environment.
How radioactive is the hydrocarbon effluent upsurging from the wells in the GOM that are drilled at 12, 15, 18, 20, 25 or 30,000 feet through the crust and into the mantle?  Here’s a link to the American Petroleum Institute website that will partially answer this question:
Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material (NORM) in North American Oilfields

Here’s another link to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency website page entitled Radiation Protection that shows just how serious this matter has become from an environmental health standpoint.

Oil and Gas Production Wastes (Naturally-Occurring Radioactive Materials identified by the EPA)

Whenever there is a higher concentration of methane gas in the mix of oil/gas that comes out of any given well, it means that:

“The more methane that is present reflects the amount of Uranium and Thorium in the oil reserve. The deeper the oil, the younger the radiological decay is that produces helium.”

“Helium is a naturally occurring gas formed in oil reserves. So common that helium detectors have been used to discover oil reserves. Helium is an inert gas known to be a by-product from the radiological decay of uranium and thorium. Uranium and Thorium are known to be in great quantities at greater depths. Yes, radioactive elements occur naturally and can be found and detected in smaller amounts in shallow oil reserves. Oil reserves that do not produce large amounts of methane also lack uranium and thorium. The presence of methane is proportional to the presence of uranium and thorium, both radioactive elements.”

“The energy coming from uranium and thorium decay is thought to be the most significant energy source inside the earth,” Tolich said. “So this is the driving engine for things such as tectonic plate movements, volcanoes and earthquake. We are looking for neutrinos, particularly electron antineutrinos … coming from uranium and thorium decay inside the earth. The uranium and thorium is distributed all through the earth in the mantle.” (Per http://oilandgasleaks.wordpress.com/2010/12/11/urgent-radioactive-oil-from-bp-blowout/)

Uranium, thorium neutrino research could determine Earth’s age, energy production

From our many discussions with those knowledgeable at the OSATF (Oil Spill Academic Task Force) here in Tallahassee, FL, it became evident early on in the spill that the percentage of methane of the total hydrocarbon composition was quite high.  Some observed that it appeared to very slowly decrease, yet remained high right up until the capping of the gusher.  Hence, we know that this oil spill in the GOM has a very definite radioactive component which must be addressed.

Please understand that we are not suggesting that the fish will start glowing with radiation; only that long term exposure to low level radioactivity has its obvious consequences to all living organisms.  In the meantime, those living on the GOM coastline ought to introduce copious amounts of seaweed (e.g. kelp) into their diets.

Where it concerns the release of radioactivity into the waters, there is simply no way to put this genie back into the bottle within the current scientific paradigm  … unless there is alchemical science yet to be revealed or new age technologies to be developed.

As we said in the introduction, “It is with great regret that we file this report.”

May we all do our part in spreading the awareness of these realities, so that many more of US will be in the position to make informed decisions about where we live, work and play, what we eat, our health and safety, our livelihoods, our families, our communities …  …  …  and our shared environment known as Mother Earth.

The Seventh Sign of the HOPI Prophecy:
“You will hear of the sea turning black,
and many living things dying because of it.”

This report “indicated that all eight dispersants had roughly the same toxicity, and all fell into the “practically non-toxic” or “slightly toxic” category. Scientists found that none of the eight dispersants displayed endocrine-disrupting activity of “biological significance.” The same report went on to say that “dispersant-oil mixtures were generally no more toxic to the aquatic test species than oil alone.”

The first question that jumps out for those who have researched this subject with any degree of thoroughness is how this recent report fails to reconcile with previous studies performed by the EPA. Here is some test data retrieved from the EPA website that was posted previous to the BP Gulf Oil Spill.

“The dispersant (Corexit 9500) and dispersed oil have demonstrated the following levels of toxicity per the EPA website link that follows:
(1) 10.72 parts per million (ppm) of oil alone will kill 50% of the fish test species in a normal aquatic environment within 96 hours.
(2) 25.20 parts per million of dispersant (Corexit 9500) alone will kill 50% of the fish test species in a normal aquatic environment within 96 hours.
(3) 2.61 parts per million of dispersed oil (Corexit-laden) alone will kill 50% of the fish test species in a normal aquatic environment within 96 hours.”

This data diverges from the recent report to such a significant degree that the results which were just posted at the EPA.GOV website under the title of “The BP Oil Spill: Responsive Science Supports Emergency Response” must be seriously scrutinized.

What is the buying public to make of such conflicting data? Those who have medical conditions which require complete avoidance of toxic seafood need to know with certainty what they are eating.
Likewise, the fishermen in the Gulf need to know the true condition of their catch. Swimmers and beachgoers need to know the state of the water, as well as the beaches.
Boaters ought to be informed of the relevant risk factors when out in the areas of recently sprayed waters, whether surface or deep sea.  

The most serious questions to emerge from this report revolve around the issue of credibility. Can the EPA ever be trusted again to conduct the necessary research regarding anything having to do with the Gulf of Mexico oil spill caused by BP?

By issuing such blanket statements about the relatively low toxicity associated with this spill, irrespective of location on the beach, in the waters, in the wetlands or estuaries, seems to be quite disingenuous.

Furthermore, the federal government’s declaration that the ‘clean up phase’ of the Deepwater Horizon spill is over begs for review, especially in light of the large quantities of submerged oil unaccounted for residing in the water column, DOJ’s discovery of false flow rate numbers reported by BP and new sightings of oil slicks all over the Gulf. In light of all that, the clean up phase is not over and further use of Corexit dispersant isn’t an effective solution.

Moreover, that the EPA has approved for use a very safe bioremediation agent known as Oil Spill Eater II, but has yet to allow its use in the Gulf raises many additional questions. From our investigation, it has become clear that Corexit has been given preferential treatment over other much safer alternatives. The Gulf Oil Spill Remediation Conference (GOSRC) was quoted as follows in this regard:
“When we heard about Oil Spill Eaters II, and the fact that it is EPA-approved (NCP listed) and has demonstrated its effectiveness at least 14 times for the BP Gulf Oil Spill, we wondered why it wasn’t being used 24/7.”

The GOSRC went on to issue a press release entitled: Coalition Of Enviro, Citizens And Political Groups Demand COREXIT Use Be Stopped which pointed out the deliberate false image which has been created around the use of this toxic dispersant — Corexit 9500.

The Gulf Rescue Alliance (GRA) also made the recent observations in their press release entitled: BP Gulf Oil Spill Revisited
“Many of these studies point out the obvious; that when you mix a tremendous volume of released oil with methane gas and further mix it with a toxic dispersant like Corexit, as they have done throughout this oil spill, a chemical cocktail is created that will have as far-reaching ecological ramifications as it will profound environmental consequences.”

The Earth Orgainization (TEO) has also weighed in on this issue through their release of an excellent documentary entitled: Hidden Crisis in the GULF. Barbara Wiseman, TEO President, has been an ardent advocate for safer oil remediation measures since the very beginning of this oil spill. She has said that,
“At the beginning of the disaster, TEO investigated to find effective, non-toxic technologies currently available in adequate supply to clean up an oil spill of this size. Once we isolated the best solutions, we then investigated to find what the barriers to getting them implemented were. The barriers have all come down to specific people in the EPA. They are, in effect, holding the Gulf hostage and, for some unexplained reason, won’t let it be cleaned up.”

Lastly, perhaps the words of Steven Pedigo reflect the voice of reason more than any other in this ongoing oil spill when he was quoted in A 2nd Anniversary Report on the BP Gulf Oil Spill as follows:
“The toxic dispersants add absolutely nothing to EFFECTIVE RESPONSE. There is no scientific basis for it, and their use violates The Clean Water Act, EPA’s charter and common sense.”
“Corexit’s label clearly states it can cause kidney failure and death and the MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheet) specifically warns, “Do not contaminate surface water” with it. Additionally, toxicity testing in regards to marine species shows little tolerance by all forms of sea life; thus, applying it on spills as a preferred response method increases the toxicity of the spilled oil on which it is used.”

Submitted by: Gulf Rescue Alliance
POC: Susan Aarde
http://www.gulfrescuealliance.webs.com/

In the past 18 years, no other product but Corexit has ever been approved, despite being inferior in results, more toxic, and more expensive than many of the other products on the list.  This has effectively supported and protected a monopoly owned by big oil companies, by setting the situation up in such a way that no other products can compete. Moreover, the pre-approval hurdle has prevented technologically superior and environmentally safe clean up applications from being used—the EPA’s own bureaucratic web has blind sighted itself off track and in effect forced residents and sea life into enduring exposure to horribly toxic chemical concentrations through the use of these preapproved dispersants in their living environments.

One such company with a 23 year history battling with the EPA to obtain preapproval is the OSEI Corporation.  Despite its product Oil Spill Eater II (OSE II) being listed on the NCP since 1996 with a record of cleaning up more than 18,000 spills, and rigorous scientific testing that proves it to be an effective and completely non-toxic alternative to dispersants – the EPA has refused requests from Gulf state officials and even BP to permit its use on GOM waters.

“The toxic dispersants add absolutely nothing to EFFECTIVE RESPONSE.

There is no scientific basis for it, and their use violates The Clean Water Act, EPA’s charter and common sense.  All stakeholders continue doing the same thing over and over again, with the exact same negative outcome—although the EPA calls the toxins in dispersants’ reasonable tradeoffs’, Corexit and dispersants like it, have a horrible track record”, said Steven Pedigo, CEO OSEI.

Corexit’s label clearly states it can cause kidney failure and death and the MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheet) specifically warns, “Do not contaminate surface water” with it.  Additionally, toxicity testing in regards to marine species shows little tolerance by all forms of sea life; thus, applying it on spills as a preferred response method increases the toxicity of the spilled oil on which it is used,” Pedigo emphasized. 

Dispersants are gaining a justifiable reputation for exacerbating an ocean spill’s problems by sinking the oil into the water column where 60% of marine species live, adversely effecting their ability to survive.  Fears now exist that the entire food chain may be threatened by large quantities of Corexit dispersant used on the Gulf spill. One less known fact is that (per US EPA official guidelines) for a dispersant to be deemed effective, it must sink 45% of the oil within 30 minutes.   That’s it… nothing else mentioned in the criteria and no clean up standard is mandated.  In other words, the imagined solution to the problem of oil hitting shores or adhering to wildlife is not a solution at all–it just moves the problem to a secondary area creating further complications.  Toxic chemical dispersant response has proven to just create more natural resource damages, adverse litigation and generally increase spill related costs. (See Study) .

In a report just published by the Tampa Bay Times on the work of Geologist James Kirby whose research is being overseen by the University of South Florida, harmful quantities of Corexit dispersant and oil are still present and a threat to beachgoers in the Gulf of Mexico.

Tiny globs of it, mingled with the chemical dispersant that was supposed to break it up, have settled into the shallows, mingling with the shells, he said. When Kirby shines his light across the legs of a grad student who’d been in the water and showered, it shows orange blotches where the globs still stick to his skin.  Without the UV light, the skin just looks normal.

[Photos courtesy of James “Rip” Kirby]

“If I had grandkids playing in the surf, I wouldn’t want them to come in contact with that,” said Kirby, “The dispersant accelerates the absorption by the skin.”

In Nov of 2011, the US EPA requested a meeting with CEO OSEI Corporation, Steven Pedigo after receiving 373 pages of scientific documents showing that OSEI’s Oil Spill Eater II would be a non-toxic alternative to dispersants and solution to the problems existing in the Gulf.  This information included citing EPA’s own requested use of OSE II®  on the Osage Indian Reservation in 2003 and a presentation attended by several EPA officials where they were given first hand reports and scientific documentation on results with OSE II  on 100’s of spill clean ups performed by the US Navy in San Diego Bay, California, USA.

Concerned citizens, including State Senator AG Crowe of LA who authored a petition to ban the use of dispersants find it hard to believe that EPA and NOAA scientists continue to claim there isn’t yet enough experience and scientific tracking to understand the effects of the use of dispersants.[i]   However these same dispersants have been used for the past 25 years on oil spills, notably Exxon Valdez, Torre Canyon Spill-Santa Barbara, the Mega Borg Spill, San Francisco South Korea Tanker spill and countless other spills around the world.  A study of the Ixtoc spill showed negative effects lingering 30 years later.  The track record has clearly been dismal and there is ample documentation on sick and dying responders and millions of dead species of the sea, water ways and shores.

 “Now we have the Deepwater Horizon accumulating reports of tens of thousands of sick Gulf residents and responders, dolphins and other life suffering from an overdose of the by-product of these EPA enforced clean up protocols.  What is really sad is that we can’t get approval to apply a proven bioremediation product (OSE II) to truly clean it up.  Corexit plus MC252 DWH Oil is a cancer causing combination of chemical compounds which is quite contrary to the premise and purpose of the Clean Water Act,” said a Gulf Rescue Alliance spokesperson Susan Aarde. 

Defenders of the use of dispersants indicate it “reduces total environmental damage”. Charlie Pajor a spokesman for the manufacturer of Corexit, Nalco, explained:  It’s more toxic to marine life, but less toxic to life along the shore and animals at the surface because the oil is not at the surface,” Pajor said. “It’s generally less environmentally harmful than allowing the oil to migrate to the surface.”

Given that the amount of dispersants applied in the Gulf was unprecedented–1.84 million gallons, both on the surface and injected 5000ft down – the affects are unknown and still being studied.

In a word, two years after, we have – new deepwater drilling permits being issued as part of a campaign to reduce foreign oil dependency, along with Cuba and other US Gulf oil regions stepping up their deep water production—unfortunately the SAME spill countermeasure plans remain in place and advanced technology offering safer and more effective solutions remains under an EPA blockade.

CLEANING UP THE SUNKEN OIL – WHY DOESN’T THAT DESERVE EMERGENCY RESPONSE?

Two years after some of the larger environmental organizations are engaged in conducting much needed studies of the Gulf, maintaining a lobby presence for regulatory legislation and/or bringing the responsible parties to justice.  A most recent study published by Surfrider Foundation, points out with absolute clarity that the BP spill response using dispersants was wholly inadequate.  While the bulk of attention is riveted on the horrible effects and who is at fault, The Earth Organization (TEO), founded by renowned conservationist  Lawrence Anthony  who recently passed away, has been working to get the Gulf’s waters cleaned up as its primary focus.

Barbara Wiseman, International President of TEO said, “At the beginning of the disaster, TEO investigated to find effective, non-toxic technologies currently available in adequate supply to clean up an oil spill of this size.  Once we isolated the best solutions, we then investigated to find what the barriers to getting them implemented were.  The barriers have all come down to specific people in the EPA.  They are, in effect, holding the Gulf hostage and, for some unexplained reason, won’t let it be cleaned up.”

The Earth Organization produced a film to promoted non-toxic solutions entitled: The Crisis in the Gulf  released last year. Interviewed in the film are scientists, fishermen, government officials and OSE II’s inventor Steven Pedigo, as an example of one effective solution that the EPA has dedicatedly blocked despite all scientific indications to the contrary.    

With little support from the EPA over their 23 year history, the OSEI Corporation (which has pre-approval for its bioremediation product in India, Greece, Nigeria and South Korea), just sent 12 certified letter submissions to the Department of Interior, Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) urging pre-approval of OSE II for cleaning up the Gulf and inclusion in the Spill Countermeasure Plan as well as for use in regard to all the permitting,  approvals and licensing in all BSEE districts.

In June of 2011 the Department of Interior released a test conducted on the effectiveness of dispersants compared to the OSE II product finding its ability to actually clean up a spill (not sink it) was exceptional. [ii] “Since the EPA did not seem interested in finding an alternative for toxic dispersants, we decided to seek pre-approval through the DOI since they themselves preformed the testing showing dispersants to be questionable in truly remediating a spill”, commented Pedigo.

In a conference call on April 16^th 2012 between EPA Regional Response Team 6 Officials (Steve Mason, Jim Staves, Ragan Broyles) and OSEI CEO who requested the use of OSE II on the recent Shell Oil Spill in the Gulf, no consensus could be reached.  According to Pedigo, who has been demanding an in-writing response to his formal pre-approval request from RRT 6 for more than a year, one of the conference call participants’ said: “we cannot come up with a reason not to use OSE II”.

[i] http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep/04/science/la-sci-dispersants-20100905 Mervin Fingas, a retired scientist with the Canadian government, said that of roughly 40 biodegradability studies he surveyed between 1997 and 2008, about 60% said dispersant retarded growth of oil-eating microbes and 15% reported no effect. The remaining 25% noted a positive effect.

But positive findings are open to interpretation. At a 1999 oil spill conference, researchers reported that microbial populations dining on oil treated with the dispersant Corexit 9500 (used by BP in the gulf) grew more than seven times as large as those eating oil dispersed physically, suggesting the bacteria were helping.

Yet a comprehensive 2005 review of dispersants by the National Research Council concluded that the healthy bacterial growth in such studies could easily be due to microbes feeding on dispersant, not oil. “There is no conclusive evidence demonstrating either the enhancement or the inhibition of microbial biodegradation when dispersants are used,” the 12 authors wrote.

Some confusion comes from the diversity of dispersant formulas, Fingas said. Some contain chemicals that bacteria prefer to digest. Others block the ability of some microbes to attach to oil droplets and start feeding on the hydrocarbons.

The primary purpose of dispersants is to move oil away from surface-dwelling marine life. In the case of the BP well blowout, because the application was deep under the sea, much of the oil never rose to the surface — which means it went somewhere else, said Robert Diaz, a marine scientist at the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, Va.

[ii] The US department of Interior, through solicitation number M08PS00094, award number: M09PC002, through their Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and Enforcement (BOEMRE), (previously Mineral Management Service) paid for a study of dielectric oil’s ability to be dispersed, skimmed and bio remediated.

Information specifically related to the product called OSE II begins on page 12.  It states:

“Bioremediation Study

This bioremediation effectiveness testing protocol (CFR, 1999) was designed to determine oil’s ability to naturally biodegrade by quantifying changes in the oil composition resulting from biodegradation.

An EPA National Contingency Plan (NCP) approved product, Oil Spill Eater II (Oil

Spill Eater International, Corp.), was included in the experimental design. Bioremediation testing on Oil Spill Eater II (OSE II) has proven it to be effective at degrading highly-saturated crude oils in the laboratory.”

Submitted by: Gulf Rescue Alliance
POC: Susan Aarde
http://www.gulfrescuealliance.webs.com/

Friday, April 20th marks the 2nd anniversary of the BP Gulf Oil Spill. For those of us who live, work and play on the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) coastline, it is not a happy day … at all!

What has happened during the past 2 years which might give us hope that the US Federal Government or BP might be taking this unprecedented oil spill seriously?

If we are to portray the true state of affairs of this worst oil spill in American history, it would look like this excellent report from the Gulf Rescue Alliance.

DEEPWATER UNKNOWNS -TWO YEARS AFTER

As you can see from this report, as well as from all the anecdotal evidence gathered to date, we have every reason to believe that the Macondo Prospect well in the GOM is still leaking. A substantial amount of mostly circumstantial evidence has been consistently provided which indicates an oil well and surrounding area which has been irremediably compromised.

Just what exactly does this mean?  

Because of the degree to which the sub-seafloor geological formations in the Macondo were undermined throughout the entire process of drilling, experiencing one or more massive explosions, followed by 87 straight days of gushing hydrocarbon effluent, the geological strata was forever altered. These critical geological transformations translated to significant changes in the topograghy of the seafloor around the previously gushing well. New cracks and crevices, fissures and faults, leaks and seeps, craters and clefts were created which allowed for the oil and gas emerging from deep at the source to find numerous conduits through all the way to the GOM seafloor.

The far-reaching ramifications of this predicament are inestimable, because we don’t know two critical points of information: (i) How much pressure is the hydrocarbon effluent under both at the wellhead and at the source, over 18,000 feet deep? (ii) What volume of hydrocarbon brew currently exists at the source?

Regardless of the answers to these questions, two things remain apparent. (1) Given the very high pressure readings which were estimated during the flowing oil volcano of 2010 (and those taking upon capping the one well), it is certain that the hydrocarbon effluent will attempt to find every way possible through the fractured and unsettled geology and into the GOM. (2) Given the public record evidence of the amount of oil estimated in the immediate area of the Macondo Prospect, BP tapped a well which may never stop leaking in our collective lifetimes.

Some experts, who operate outside the box of mainstream petroleum engineering and geology, have even stated that this predicament has been duplicated hundreds of times throughout the Gulf of Mexico. In other words, oil wells blow all the time, we just never hear about it. Not like the Deepwater Horizon, mind you, but they become problematic in different ways. Therefore, there exists an evolving situation on the GOM seafloor which would startle those who regularly swim and fish and boat there, especially anywhere near the Louisiana coastline.

Here’s a very telling quote from a Geohazards Specialist who has tracked the developments at the Macondo with the skill and experience of a forensic geologist:

“The simplistic and geologically unrealistic aim of plugging a single tubular hole in a solid mass of rocks is as unreal and unstable as a “sand castle on the beach”. After months of spewing a corrosive mix of gas, oil and brine into the fragile faulted Gulf Salt-Geology, even the most optimistic geologists would come to the grim conclusion that the 18,300 ft well is no longer the only vertical conduit out of the reservoir. In all probability, a complex multi-pathway monster has developed in its place. As said many times before, there is simply no way to put the genie back into the bottle”.
~ BK Lim, Geohazard Expert (CV linked here)

The Gulf of Mexico is STILL Dying

Our previous report focused on this same material, and since nothing has really changed since we published that report, we have therefore decided to direct your attention to some other exceedingly important matters. These developments are actually revelations which only came to light because of the BP Gulf Oil Spill. In our investigation of the state of the waters and wetlands of coastal Louisiana we we’re frequently directed to various reports similar to the following:

FAULTING, SUBSIDENCE AND LAND LOSS IN COASTAL LOUISIANA

In the ‘wake’ of Katrina, most everyone knows that the city of New Orleans is surrounded by a vast system of berms and pumps in order to keep the city dry. In fact there are urban areas which currently exist under sea level, not too unlike parts of the Netherlands. The upshot of this progressively worsening predicament is that this major urban center continues to sink, as does much of the land around it.

The aforementioned report quite conclusively demonstrates that some very serious and ongoing subsidence is taking place throughout this Louisiana region of the GOM coastline. Here is an excerpt from the “Summary and Conclusions”:

SOURCE: http://www.coastalenv.com

What is particularly curious about this report is that it neglects to discuss the connection between the stunning degree of subsidence and the inordinate amount of oil and gas drilling which has been performed around the same area since the early 1930s. Bear in mind that it has been proven many times that removing vast amount of hydrocarbons from the earth will always create ideal circumstances for the earth to resettle and re-conform itself around the voluminous displacements which inevitably occur with the extraction process.

These begin as micro-displacements, which eventually aggregate into larger ones, that can ultimately effectuate macro-displacements such a earthquakes or other types of seismic activity. When these displacements occur near a fault line, they can trigger all manner of geological movements, from underwater landslides to shelf rearrangements. As we all know, the bigger the displacement, the greater the likelihood of a tsunami due to the resulting massive displacement of water.

Wherever oil and gas drilling operations are conducted in the water bodies of the planet, subsidence is a known fact of life. Given the enormous water pressures which exist at these deepwater drilling sites, it is quite easy to understand how new geological dynamics result from a surfeit of indiscriminate drilling. This is exactly what occurred in the Macondo Prospect in April of 2010 when BP, Halliburton, Transocean and Anadarko all participated in a highly ill-advised oil venture.

The essay entitled The Gulf of Mexico is Dying – Part I clearly explains the highly risky circumstances under which BP chose to drill in this area. The report also goes on to delineate the awesome unintended consequences and collateral damage from this foolhardy enterprise. Foolhardy because the import of the previous “Subsidence Report” is well known to all the big oil companies, as it is to the appropriate federal departments and state agencies.

The confluence of circumstances which converge in the Mississippi River Basin and surrounding GOM region make this area particularly vulnerable to land loss, subsidence and other profound coastal dynamics. By continuing to drill in this GOM region, the many risk factors associated with future oil spills will only increase in number and intensify in severity.
We will complete this particular discussion of the extreme example of collateral damage to the GOM – destruction of the Louisiana wetlands, marshes, estuaries and beaches – due to subsidence by posting the following little known factoid:

SOURCE: Environmental Literacy Council

Here we have Louisiana land sinking at the rate of 25 square miles per day, and nobody’s talking about it?!

Not the Departments of Interior or Energy, not the Coast Guard or NOAA, not even the EPA? Of course, there is absolutely no discussion around the correlation of decades of oil and gas drilling and the alarming rate of subsidence. Even various state governments and the hydrofracking industry have acknowledged the direct relationship between the increasing incidence of seismic activity and fracking operations recently conducted in several states.

Hydrocarbon Effluent + Corexit = ?

Does anyone really know what happens to a body of saltwater and all of it life forms when oil and dissolved methane gas are continually mixed with COREXIT in order to systematically disappear the surface oil slicks?

Our previous report does elaborate in a very general way what may occur in terms of various health and environmental impacts:

Environmental and Health Impacts of the BP Gulf Oil Spill

The following picture we believe represents the obvious and most catastrophic effects on the animal life which has suffered greatly up to this very day.

The real unknown in the petrochemical cesspool that has been created is how the Corexit will alter the chemical breakdown of the oil. But, more importantly, how will oil-eating bacteria relate to the new and foreign compounds created by the Corexit[1].

Even more critical is how these new chemical combinations will bio-accumulate throughout the food chain as it wends it way onto the American meal table. There is no question that, as these toxic chemicals inexorably work their way up the food chain, higher toxic concentrations will show up in the tissues of those higher up in the chain. The seafood, therefore, coming from the GOM is not safe to eat. Why?

Because sufficient toxicological studies have not yet been performed. All of the appropriate departments, including the CDC, EPA, NOAA and Dept. of Interior have shirked their responsibilities around this highly consequential matter. That’s because it is especially consequential for the entire GOM fishing industry. That represents a HUGE regional economy with lots of potential political and certain commercial repercussions.

Should economic and political matters trump health and environmental?!

Another very important point about the application of traditional toxicology research studies is that they typically look at chemicals in isolation. Interactions are rarely addressed in this field, nor are the inevitable synergistic effects which result from different chemical compounds like various polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons that are associated with oil spills. This scientific deficit has created a critical void in our knowledge base, and therefore substantially limited our ability to respond appropriately to many toxic exposures.

The 2nd Anniversary has produced a spate of revealing articles.

There has been a flurry of great articles, press releases, videos and documentaries that deserve proper attention on this 2nd anniversary of the BP Gulf Oil Spill. We have provided the tiles and links below, not in any particular order or priority, so that the reader can become further enlightened in order to make informed decisions.

Beyond Pollution

BP Oil Spill Disaster: The Growing Emergency, the Unpunished Crime

Inside Story Americas: Environment still engulfed by BP’s oil spill

2 Years After the BP Oil Spill, Is the Gulf Ecosystem Collapsing?

Why Gulf of Mexico Seafood is Not Really Safe

Gulf of Mexico Seafood Safety according to the FDA and EPA

BP Covered Up Blow-out Two Years Prior to Deadly Deepwater Horizon Spill

PART 2: BP Covered Up Blow-out Prior to Deepwater Horizon

Damage in oil’s wake

2 years later, fish sick near BP oil spill site

Surfrider Foundation Releases Findings of Gulf Oil Spill Disaster

Gulf Seafood Deformities Raise Questions Among Scientists And Fisherman (VIDEO)

BP’s Corexit Oil Tar Sponged Up by Human Skin

April 11 2012 COREXIT Still Being Sprayed into GULF of MEXICO and North Sea, BP Oil Disaster Update

Oil from Deepwater Horizon spill still causing damage in gulf 2 years later, scientists find

MC252/COREXIT contamination on skin

Gulf of Mexico News Update

Conclusion:
The best solution to this ever-evolving environmental and public health disaster is to stay informed. Seeking out the best sources of information, which resonate intuitively, is crucial in this war for people’s attention. There are many credible resources available on the internet, so pick and choose those which address the immediate concerns in your geographic area.
The problems on Pensacola Beach will be different than those on Siesta Key, where red tide has been a serious problem for years, for example.
In this regard, the GOSRC will endeavor to stay abreast of the most recent developments in the waters, on the beaches and with the seafood.

Gulf Oil Spill Remediation Conference
International Citizens’ Initiative
Gulf Oil Spill Solutions Now!
oilspillsolution@comcast.net

Endnotes:
[1] Steven Pedigo has provided a voice of reason throughout the BP oil spill.
“Corexit’s label clearly states it can cause kidney failure and death and the MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheet) specifically warns, “Do not contaminate surface water” with it. Additionally, toxicity testing in regards to marine species shows little tolerance by all forms of sea life; thus, applying it on spills as a preferred response method increases the toxicity of the spilled oil on which it is used,” Steven Pedigo emphasized.
“The toxic dispersants add absolutely nothing to EFFECTIVE RESPONSE.
There is no scientific basis for it, and their use violates The Clean Water Act, EPA’s charter and common sense. All stakeholders continue doing the same thing over and over again, with the exact same negative outcome—although the EPA calls the toxins in dispersants’ reasonable tradeoffs’, Corexit and dispersants like it, have a horrible track record”, said Steven Pedigo, CEO OSEI.
“Since the EPA did not seem interested in finding an alternative for toxic dispersants, we decided to seek pre-approval through the DOI since they themselves preformed the testing showing dispersants to be questionable in truly remediating a spill”, commented Pedigo.

Author’s Note:
There has been a tremendous amount of discussion for the past two years about what has really gone on here in the Gulf. Here’s the scoop!

The official response to the BP Gulf Oil Spill has been controlled like no other response in American history. The US Government, to include the EPA, NOAA, Energy, Interior, the White House, has colluded with BP et al. to keep the lid on what has really been taking place in our waters, on our beaches and with our seafood.

The information blackout, and especially the choking off of vital data and research studies have occurred through the following deliberate process:

(1) First the government exerted its total control over all the concerned agencies and departments responsible for any aspect of the oil spill. Therefore, all of the previously mentioned agencies were immediately co-opted to execute a political agenda in which economics and politics always trumped health and environment.

(2) Next the government, in collaboration with BP, sought to control all other public institutions like the OSATF (Oil Spill Academic Task Force in Florida). There are true advocates working in academic bodies like the OSATF; however, once they were included under the BIG UMBRELLA, everyone was expected to fall in line. Almost everyone did, with a few notable and courageous exceptions.
How it works is that if a geology professor were to break ranks, his department chairman might be contacted about a large pending government grant which ‘might’ be put into jeopardy. The ways of controlling those who are expert in the relevant academic disciplines are endless, and unfortunately have profoundly compromised the entire information gathering-process regarding the BP oil spill.

(3) Funding, as you just read, is the oil of all academic and scientific research. Without it, nothing gets done. Therefore, whoever controls the funding process and grant approval controls the message. From speaking with many, especially those who function within the relevant institutions, no one has ever seen such a clampdown. It appears that the US Gov’t/BP Juggernaut has just about ensured that unless one plays by their rules, no funding will be forthcoming. “YES!”, it is that controlled and oppressive. While this ongoing, multi-institutional dynamic has been operative for many decades, it has now entered a new realm of self-enforcement —> “Their way or the highway!” This has simply forced many truth-speakers to take to the information highway … with a vengeance.
Here’s an example of how BP had allocated the first installment of a $500 million dollar grant program to Florida universities in the amount of $25 million.
USF to receive funds from BP grant

How much control do you think $500 MIL can purchase?!

(4) Of course, the absolute control of the mainstream media has been the cornerstone of their strategy to control all information that flows into the public domain. Whereas the media seemed to be on top of the real story in the very beginning, it now seems that occurred for dramatic effect. As soon as the Macondo well was ‘capped’, virtually everyone went back to sleep, particularly the mainstream media. Only Huffington, whom we consider to be hybrid media in spite of their HUGE Alexa rank, had done a pretty good job with some angles.

(5) As for the alternative and fringe media, there have been major battles going on from day one. See how BP has saturated the ad space of each and every website and blog with their BP ads claiming they have fixed the GOM, are fixing the GOM, will fix the GOM. What must be pointed out is the vast amount of financial allocation necessary to run all these ads 24/7 for two (2) years. Couldn’t that money have been much better spent on really fixing the problems instead of paying lip service? The extraordinary efforts by BP to coverup the ongoing BP oil spill challenges is now legend; their numerous and fierce initiatives to airbrush anything having to do with the cosmetic aspects of this oil spill are likewise unparalleled in modern industrial disaster history.

(6) Data-collecting for even the layperson who resides on the GOM coastline was made extremely difficult because “BP was given a lead position in the unified command structure authorized by the US Federal Government immediately following the burning and sinking of the Deepwater Horizon. This transference of authority away from the impacted state governments was unprecedented in US history and created a virtual monopoly over the flow of information from BP to the appropriate authorities, as well as to the public-at-large.”
~ Feb. 25th Press Release from GRA entitled : Conclusive Evidence That BP Misrepresented Gulf Oil Spill Sent To Congress
The counties were then subordinated to BP and could forcefully be compelled to control fact-finding citizens and truth-seeking professionals, which they did.

(7) War Between the States One need not look any further than the citizens tensions between Florida and Louisiana to begin to understand how they can control the information flow. Louisiana is a drill state and has been all about oil for since the 1930s; Florida couldn’t be further from that position given the predominance of its tourism, agriculture, boating and fishing. When two states are operating at cross purposes in regard to such a formidable undertaking as remediating the biggest oil spill in us history, one can appreciate the many hapless implications of such an unworkable relationship.
Bear in mind that Louisiana politics has been oiled by petrodollars for decades. Almost everyone is connected to the Oil & Gas Industry in some way, shape or form. One almost has to leave the state to get away from the slick and sleazy influence that goes with this territory. Therefore, much of the official info and data is often tilted and distorted, polished and airbrushed to meet the demands of the ‘hidden’ agenda of the Oil & Gas Industry.
There are many effective citizen advocates in NOLA area who have broken out of this box. Since they are so close to ground zero, they have provided much valuable information and proven to be indispensable info/data resources.

(8) Controlled Opposition: This one is a real challenge because of how many are unwittingly controlled, and don’t have a clue. Many who fall into that category have been used as instruments to undermine the true citizen advocates among us. The degree to which divide and conquer has been utilized with great effect through controlled opposition strategy is quite extraordinary. Until you have been a victim of such tactics, as the GOSRC has, you really can’t imagine the extent to which your environmental or health advocacy can be paralyzed.
As for the Controlled Opposition which may be executed through a formal COINTELPRO Op, an organization must be set up like a CIA special task force where each member executes on a strictly need-to-know-basis and the entire operation is strictly compartmentalized, as well as completely firewalled where it concerns internet services, software and hardware.
Who in the world can ever practically function under such conditions?!

(9) Obama’s Special White House Response Team: It has since come to light that the Obama Administration quickly created a Response Team that worked secretly and deeply in the bowels of the White House. This group was constituted to perform many functions but particularly one above everything else — to limit the political fallout from the BP oil spill by any means necessary.
It has now been widely reported that the White House was either giving orders throughout the ongoing 87 day spill, or blessing every move that BP made. Therefore, all of the misguided decisions to pollute the GOM with the highly toxic dispersant, Corexit, ultimately were approved by the White House.
Furthermore, the nonstop PR campaign to convince everyone that the GOM was perfectly okay the day the gusher was capped was also run out of the White House. What bigger threat to the re-election of Obama could there be but the devastation of the regional economy of the Southeast.
This particular political side of the story gets deeper and dirtier in oil than you can imagine, so SOTN will issue a dedicated, special report prior to the November 2012 election.

By Gulf Rescue Alliance

As of April 20, 2012—the 2^nd Anniversary of the Deepwater Horizon Disaster — we have a backdrop of recently published scientific studies[i] indicating sick and dying dolphins, coral and other sea life; bacteria laden tar balls washing onto beaches, an intoxicated Gulf food chain and a Macondo geohazard risk zone over a mile below the surface that some experts say has the potential of releasing toxic gas and oil into the Gulf of Mexico for the next 25 years.  Behind this deepwater curtain, there are still many unknowns about the BP Oil Spill events and response.

While a federal trial is still pending and BP settlement talks with the Department of Justice and other stakeholders are on-going, the public are still waiting for a revelation to settle the many open questions associated with the largest oil spill in history.

One unexplained fact generally not known is that oil did not begin to spill into the Gulf of Mexico until 22 April, coincidently and squarely on Earth Day.  The large quantities from the Macondo Reservoir only began spewing into the Gulf after several unexplained detonated explosions.  The explosions leave open questions since the top well blow out that killed the 11 men was brought under control.  

One Geo Hazard Specialist[ii] with a team of insider whistleblowers have brought to the surface answers to a number of  these deepwater unknowns having spent the past two years engaged in forensic studies and analysis of disaster records.  The Gulf Rescue Alliance (GRA) compiled some of this material into a Briefing Package for Congress and the Attorney Generals of the states of Alabama and Louisiana last month hoping to draw attention to factors they believe might be missed in trial examinations.

The material revealed a hidden 3^rd Macondo well that was not the celebrated final capped well (Well A) seen on TV screens across the country, but rather, a well 720ft away from that pictured well.

The actual well (visible at 1:17hrs on this ROV Video[iii]) shows a completely different situation from that described and reported to congressional investigators and the public.  Contrary to published records on the event, one sees a well with its blowout preventer (BOP), well bore and casing scattered in pieces on the seabed floor which industry experts say could only have resulted from a powerful explosion that left a gapping oil gushing crater.

23 April 2010-The undisclosed 3rd BP Well – open oil gushing crater that could not be capped.

Nov 2010–Here lies the grave of the 3^rd BP Well, the unknown gusher.

The ROV images above (provided to GRA by industry professionals on a Wiki Leaks-like mission)  represent the actual well drilled 13,000 ft below the sea floor [referred to as Well BE]. This was the source of the original blow out on April 20^th killing 11 and igniting the DWH rig. Marked by a giant solitary piled ‘tombstone’, it lays eerily silent in the middle of a devastated seafloor. Devoid of life, the wasted seabed scarred by trenches, scattered pieces of wrecks, potholes, craters and an artificial turf of cement-drilling mud mixture, is reminiscent of a bombed out battlefield.  The internationally broadcasted capped Well A was only drilled to

5000 ft below seabed level and never hit the reservoir to release a flow.  No one knows why this capping event in a different location [substantiated by BP ROV location coordinates] deferred attention from the 3^rd well.  There are still concerns that the reservoir’s gases and high pressure took a detour through cracks and fissures and was not, in fact, laid to rest but instead “morphed into a ‘multiple-headed hydra’ deep beneath the seafloor that is even more difficult to kill”.

Two years after, the Macondo well location is still off limits like a taped off crime scene. However BP has had free access to the area while outside investigators are not permitted to enter.  After more than a year of grouting, patching up and cleaning up the seabed around the Macondo wells, we may not ever know what really happened.  Liken this to letting a murderer spend a month to clean up the crime scene before sending in the CSI team.  Some say the information needed to answer so many questions may end up staying buried under the tombstone forever.

GEO HAZARD CONDITIONS[iv] INDICATE CAPPING THE WELL AND STOPPING ALL LEAKAGE WAS NEVER POSSIBLE

In a recent communication to GRA from the insider whistleblowers (requesting to remain anonymous) it was again made clear, there is and was never any means of shutting down, capping or plugging the Macondo Reservoir:

“We have vertically weak zones near to the salt structure all over the place.  Where is the compression going to come from?  You have dilation and no elastic rebound (compression). Concentrate on the big picture, it is no longer just one well but a multitude of leaks like the head of a hydra.  You chop off one, three more appear. “

Despite reports (as recent as Mar 2012) that new oil slicks are still appearing in the vicinity, BP, the Coast Guard, and NOAA have indicated new sightings of oil were caused by “natural seeps” and not the Macondo well (s).  But why then is the controversial toxic dispersant Corexit still foaming up on beaches along with this ‘natural seeping oil’?  Residents continue to report oil and dispersant in their waters.  Investigative Journalist Dahr Jamail who has reported extensively on the BP spill reported on a 25 mile long slick he witnessed while flying over the Gulf in March, 2012.

The compromised state of the seabed floor described in a letter to congress on Jan 14^th 2011 by Geohazards Analyst BK Lim tells why we are still seeing oil and strongly suggests the disaster location remains an ongoing threat:

“Since the beginning of the Deepwater Horizon blowout, I have been deeply concerned about the fragile, highly fractured and faulted Salt Intrusive-Geology that was a major contributing factor to the uncontrollable continuing hydrocarbon seepage out of the Macondo reservoir. The continuing hydrocarbon seepage will have long term, irreversible and potentially dire consequences in the GOM as follows:

a. the vaporization of enormous amounts of methane hydrates on a scale not seen before

b. the release of stresses between the lower and upper crust resulting in the abnormal occurrences of low magnitude, shallow earthquakes adjacent to the New Madrid Fault

c. the sub-seabed underground erosion in the vicinity of the shelf edge undermining the slope stability with possible tsunami-generating, giant, submarine landslides.

There is no question that the oil seepages, gas columns, fissures and blowout craters in the seafloor around the Macondo wellhead, observed from the ROV videos, have been the direct result of indiscriminate drilling, grouting, injection of dispersant and other undisclosed recovery activities” said Lim.

Given this frightening forecast of a Macondo Reservoir out of control, how will the residents and life in the Gulf be affected?  With the clean up phase promoted by BP and the EPA as over, emphasis on reducing US oil dependence and everyone standing in line for ‘restoration phase’ funds, it seems that continued leaking oil is not a subject of interest.  Moreover, with 73 newly issued Department of Interior deep water drilling permits and absolutely no change in the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) stance on Oil Spill Response/Clean up regulations, the prospect of another disaster looms.

LESSONS NOT LEARNED– INEFFECTIVE OIL SPILL RESPONSE

Two years after– oil spill clean-up ‘technology’ is apparently not about effectiveness but market dominance–Exxon invented/Nalco manufactured Corexit dispersant is the ONLY product with EPA/DOI preapproval since 1994.  And, preapproval is a key word in oil spill response-since no companies will stockpile for emergency use  a product in the quantities necessary for a large scale disaster unless pre-approval exists.  Many products have been listed on the EPA’s official National Contingency Plan (NCP) for oil spill cleanup list but that doesn’t mean they will be allowed to be used on US navigable waters when there is a spill.  They still have to go through a request process.  In the past 18 years, no other product but Corexit has ever been approved, despite being inferior in results, more toxic, and more expensive than many of the other products on the list.  This has effectively supported and protected a monopoly owned by big oil companies, by setting the situation up in such a way that no other products can compete. Moreover, the preapproval hurdle has prevented technologically superior and environmentally safe clean up applications from being used—the EPA’s own bureaucratic web has blind sighted itself off track and in effect forced residents and sea life into enduring exposure to horribly toxic chemical concentrations through the use of these preapproved dispersants in their living environments.

One such company with a 23 year history battling with the EPA to obtain preapproval is the OSEI Corporation.  Despite its product Oil Spill Eater II (OSE II) being listed on the NCP since 1996 with a record of cleaning up more than 18,000 spills, and rigorous scientific testing that proves it to be an effective and completely non-toxic alternative to dispersants – the EPA has refused requests from Gulf state officials and even BP to permit its use on GOM waters.

“The toxic dispersants add absolutely nothing to EFFECTIVE RESPONSE.

There is no scientific basis for it, and their use violates The Clean Water Act, EPA’s charter and common sense.  All stakeholders continue doing the same thing over and over again, with the exact same negative outcome—although the EPA calls the toxins in dispersants’ reasonable tradeoffs’, Corexit and dispersants like it, have a horrible track record”, said Steven Pedigo, CEO OSEI.

Corexit’s label clearly states it can cause kidney failure and death and the MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheet) specifically warns, “Do not contaminate surface water” with it.  Additionally, toxicity testing in regards to marine species shows little tolerance by all forms of sea life; thus, applying it on spills as a preferred response method increases the toxicity of the spilled oil on which it is used,” Pedigo emphasized.

Dispersants are gaining a justifiable reputation for exacerbating an ocean spill’s problems by sinking the oil into the water column where 60% of marine species live, adversely effecting their ability to survive.  Fears now exist that the entire food chain may be threatened by large quantities of Corexit dispersant used on the Gulf spill.  One less known fact is that (per US EPA official guidelines) for a dispersant to be deemed effective, it must sink 45% of the oil within 30 minutes.   That’s it… nothing else mentioned in the criteria and no clean up standard is mandated.  In other words, the imagined solution to the problem of oil hitting shores or adhering to wildlife is not a solution at all–it just moves the problem to a secondary area creating further complications.  Toxic chemical dispersant response has proven to just create more natural resource damages, adverse litigation and generally increase spill related costs. (See Study) .

In a report just published by the Tampa Bay Times on the work of Geologist James Kirby whose research is being overseen by the University of South Florida, harmful quantities of Corexit dispersant and oil are still present and a threat to beachgoers in the Gulf of Mexico.

Tiny globs of it, mingled with the chemical dispersant that was supposed to break it up, have settled into the shallows, mingling with the shells, he said. When Kirby shines his light across the legs of a grad student who’d been in the water and showered, it shows orange blotches where the globs still stick to his skin.  Without the UV light, the skin just looks normal.

[Photos courtesy of James “Rip” Kirby]

“If I had grandkids playing in the surf, I wouldn’t want them to come in contact with that,” said Kirby, “The dispersant accelerates the absorption by the skin.”

In Nov of 2011, the US EPA requested a meeting with CEO OSEI Corporation, Steven Pedigo after receiving 373 pages of scientific documents showing that OSEI’s Oil Spill Eater II would be a non-toxic alternative to dispersants and solution to the problems existing in the Gulf.  This information included citing EPA’s own requested use of OSE II®  on the Osage Indian Reservation in 2003 and a presentation attended by several EPA officials where they were given first hand reports and scientific documentation on results with OSE II  on 100’s of spill clean ups performed by the US Navy in San Diego Bay, California, USA.

Concerned citizens, including State Senator AG Crowe of LA who authored a petition to ban the use of dispersants find it hard to believe that EPA and NOAA scientists continue to claim there isn’t yet enough experience and scientific tracking to understand the effects of the use of dispersants.[v] However these same dispersants have been used for the past 25 years on oil spills, notably Exxon Valdez, Torre Canyon Spill-Santa Barbara, the Mega Borg Spill, San Francisco South Korea Tanker spill and countless other spills around the world.  A study of the Ixtoc spill showed negative effects lingering 30 years later.  The track record has clearly been dismal and there is ample documentation on sick and dying responders and millions of dead species of the sea, water ways and shores.

“Now we have the Deepwater Horizon accumulating reports of tens of thousands of sick Gulf residents and responders, dolphins and other life suffering from an overdose of the by-product of these EPA enforced clean up protocols.  What is really sad is that we can’t get approval to apply a proven bioremediation product (OSE II) to truly clean it up.  Corexit plus MC252 DWH Oil is a cancer causing combination of chemical compounds which is quite contrary to the premise and purpose of the Clean Water Act,” said a Gulf Rescue Alliance spokesperson Susan Aarde.

Defenders of the use of dispersants indicate it “reduces total environmental damage”.  Charlie Pajor a spokesman for the manufacturer of Corexit, Nalco, explained:  It’s more toxic to marine life, but less toxic to life along the shore and animals at the surface because the oil is not at the surface,” Pajor said. “It’s generally less environmentally harmful than allowing the oil to migrate to the surface.”

Given that the amount of dispersants applied in the Gulf was unprecedented–1.84 million gallons, both on the surface and injected 5000ft down – the affects are unknown and still being studied.

In a word, two years after, we have – new deepwater drilling permits being issued as part of a campaign to reduce foreign oil dependency, along with Cuba and other US Gulf oil regions stepping up their deep water production—unfortunately the SAME spill countermeasure plans remain in place and advanced technology offering safer and more effective solutions remains under an EPA blockade.

CLEANING UP THE SUNKEN OIL – WHY DOESN’T THAT DESERVE EMERGENCY RESPONSE?

Two years after some of the larger environmental organizations are engaged in conducting much needed studies of the Gulf, maintaining a lobby presence for regulatory legislation and/or bringing the responsible parties to justice.  A most recent study published by Surfrider Foundation, points out with absolute clarity that the BP spill response using dispersants was wholly inadequate.  While the bulk of attention is riveted on the horrible effects and who is at fault, The Earth Organization (TEO), founded by renowned conservationist  Lawrence Anthony who recently passed away, has been working to get the Gulf’s waters cleaned up as its primary focus.

Barbara Wiseman, International President of TEO said, “At the beginning of the disaster, TEO investigated to find effective, non-toxic technologies currently available in adequate supply to clean up an oil spill of this size.  Once we isolated the best solutions, we then investigated to find what the barriers to getting them implemented were.  The barriers have all come down to specific people in the EPA.  They are, in effect, holding the Gulf hostage and, for some unexplained reason, won’t let it be cleaned up.”

The Earth Organization produced a film to promoted non-toxic solutions entitled: The Crisis in the Gulf released last year. Interviewed in the film are scientists, fishermen, government officials and OSE II’s inventor Steven Pedigo, as an example of one effective solution that the EPA has dedicatedly blocked despite all scientific indications to the contrary.

With little support from the EPA over their 23 year history, the OSEI Corporation (which has preapproval for its bioremediation product in India, Greece, Nigeria and South Korea), just sent 12 certified letter submissions to the Department of Interior, Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) urging preapproval of OSE II for cleaning up the Gulf and inclusion in the Spill Countermeasure Plan as well as for use in regard to all the permitting,  approvals and licensing in all BSEE districts.

In June of 2011 the Department of Interior released a test conducted on the effectiveness of dispersants compared to the OSE II product finding its ability to actually clean up a spill (not sink it) was exceptional. [vi] “Since the EPA did not seem interested in finding an alternative for toxic dispersants, we decided to seek preapproval through the DOI since they themselves preformed the testing showing dispersants to be questionable in truly remediating a spill”, commented Pedigo.

In a conference call today between EPA Regional Response Team 6 Officials (Steve Mason, Jim Staves, Ragan  Boyles) and OSEI CEO who requested the use of OSE II on the recent Shell Oil Spill in the Gulf, no consensus could be reached.  According to Pedigo, who has been demanding an in-writing response to his formal pre-approval request from RRT 6 for more than a year, one of the conference call participants’ said: “we cannot come up with a reason not to use OSE II”.

HOW WILL WE EVER KNOW THE TRUTH UNLESS A SURVEY BY INDEPENDENT GEOHAZARD SPECIALISTS IS CONDUCTED?

A concerned citizen, Rhea Aker, conducted her own study released on You Tube in Jan 2012 entitled: Proof BP’s Well Is Not Capped as They Say It Is. The posting has a link to a petition to demand an independent ROV survey of the seabed floor.

A seafloor survey conducted by BP (using the various multi-beam sonar and sub-bottom profiling techniques) was conducted 15 months later after repeated sightings of new oil.  Such a seafloor survey should have been conducted as soon as possible to gather more information on the causes of the disaster and confirm no further leakage.  “This belated seafloor survey is nothing more than a carefully choreographed survey designed to show the world that the Macondo Disaster had ended and the new oil spills are nothing more than natural random seeps,” said Lim.

Facts uncovered by the unnamed insiders and summarized by The Gulf Rescue Alliance that they hoped would open the door to a new line of questioning during the BP trial, (of which could be confirmed by an independent ROV survey), included:

1. The undisclosed 3rd Macondo well reported as finally sealed in Sept 2010 was drilled without a permit which is illegal.  It is this well that was connected to DWH that had the blowout.
2. Nearby Well A and Well B, which had MMS permits, had to be abandoned and capped earlier than the blowout due to geohazard risks.
3. Congressional Records, MMS records and BP testimony omit the existence of a 3^rd well and official public statements asserted there was only one well—the one that was reportedly capped.
4. Evidently, BP tried to cover up the fact of 3 wells by calling them “3 leaks” in the fallen riser.
5. The original blowout, killing 11 people that occurred on the 20^th of April did not result in oil leaking from the well.  And yet, no one has questioned, or required an explanation for the additional unexplained explosions that triggered the release of oil into the Gulf—oil that did not begin flowing until the 22^nd of April.  Per Geohazard expert BK Lim, the only way that a 5-story high and multi-ton’d BOP could have been thrown over 70 feet away from its original position is if detonation of large magnitude was deliberately set.

Industry experts speculate that a small nuclear device was placed at the bottom of the well at 18,000 ft in a last ditch effort to stop the flow.  But instead, this produced an even more dangerous environment of fractures, faults and fissures that can never be capped.

A FINAL WORD FOR EARTH DAY:

“The simplistic and geologically unrealistic aim of plugging a single tubular hole in a solid mass of rocks is as unreal and unstable as a “sand castle on the beach”.  After months of spewing a corrosive mix of gas, oil and brine into the fragile faulted Gulf Salt-Geology, even the most optimistic geologists would come to the grim conclusion that the 18,300 ft well is no longer the only vertical conduit out of the reservoir. In all probability, a complex multi-pathway monster (more akin to the mythical multi-headed Hydra that Heracles tried to slay) has developed in its place. As said many times before, there is simply no way to plug the genie back into the bottle”. BK Lim Geohazard Expert

END

By GULF RESCUE ALLIANCE
Submitted: April 17, 2012

Endnotes:

[i] Recent Scientific Studies include: http://ec2-50-19-166-97.compute-1.amazonaws.com/news/environment/water/oil-from-deepwater-horizon-spill-still-causing-damage-in-gulf-2-years/1225134

Gulf of Mexico Dolphins Sick, Dying After BP Oil Spill
Environment News Service
Located in the northern Gulf of Mexico, Barataria Bay, received heavy and prolonged exposure to oil during the BP/Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the spring and summer of 2010. NOAA and its local, state and federal research partners started the …
See all stories on this topic »

Impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on a deep-water coral …
To assess the potential impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on offshore ecosystems, 11 sites hosting deep-water coral communities were examined 3 to 4 …
www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/03/…/1118029109.abstract

Deepwater Horizon Spill Responsible for Dying Coral in the Gulf
Natural Resources Defense Council (blog)
Scientists reported this week that they have positively identified oil from the Deepwater Horizon spill as the culprit behind the slow death of a deepwater coral community in the Gulf. The dead and dying corals–bare, slimy, and covered in brown …
See all stories on this topic »

NOAA Scientists Confirm BP Oil Spill Harms Dolphins and Deep-Sea Corals
Voice of America
March 28, 2012 NOAA Scientists Confirm BP Oil Spill Harms Dolphins and Deep-Sea Corals VOA News US-based marine scientists say bottlenose dolphins and deep-sea corals in the northern Gulf of Mexico, where the massive Deepwater Horizon oil spill …
See all stories on this topic »

http://news.yahoo.com/deadly-bacteria-lurk-deepwater-horizon-tar-balls-135602784.html

[ii] BK Lim, a 30 year Geohazard specialist with 30 years experience has a long and

track record of assessing the Geohazards of more than 200 drilling locations in some of

the most adverse geological conditions.

[iii] Much of the original underwater video that was analyzed comes from oilspillhub.org*, “an online resource provided by Purdue University for those studying the largest environmental disaster in U.S. history. The site provides an archive of the underwater video of the event, as well as additional tools and resources for educators, scientists, and engineers who are expanding their knowledge of environmental issues.”

[iv] Geological study ABSTRACT-Gulf of Mexico, Mississippi Canyon

The most prominent submarine physiographic trough in the northern Gulf of Mexico is the Mississippi Canyon. This submarine trough has an average width of 8 km., length of 120 km., and bathymetric relief of 300m. Its origin has generally been attributed to channel entrenchment of the Mississippi River during low stands of sea level and erosion of the more distal parts by turbidity currents or submarine gravity flows. In the last two years, a dense, high-resolution seismic and side-scan sonar grid (305 m.), together with deep borings utilized to obtain samples for C-14 dating, has been used to establish a time-stratigraphic framework and origin for this feature. Nine horizons, chosen from borings and dated by C-14 and paleontologic methods, have been traced laterally on the seismic lines. These horizons range in age from Illinoian (400,000 years B.P.) to late Holocene (3,500 years B.P.). During the interval from Illinoian to late Pleistocene (25,000-27,000 years B.P.), the Mississippi River deposited a series of fluvial and deltaic deposits of approximately 1,000 m. There is no evidence that a submarine canyon existed in the vicinity of the present feature during this time interval. Approximately 25,000 years ago, a C-14-dated horizon was truncated by the initial formation of the submarine canyon. Samples dated by C-14, obtained near the base of the canyon fill, show that by 20,000 years B.P.,canyon fill had commenced. Thus, this major submarine trough had, at most, 7,000 years in which to remove 1,500 to 2,000 km.³ of material. It is highly probable, therefore, that the canyon originated from massive shelf-edge slope failure on an unstable continental margin. A series of successive failures, each one creating an upslope instability that triggered the next failure, caused an elongate trough to form that excavated the canyon to a depth of 1,220 m. below present sea level. Once the canyon has formed, its steep side walls continued to be unstable and sediments slumped into the canyon axis, forming the initial canyon fill. This phase is well documented: the lowermost sediment fill is composed of displaced material similar to that now found on the canyon rim. Large scars from side-wall failures can also be easily mapped on the seismic data. From 20,000 years to approximately 5,000 years B.P., a series of late Wisconsin and Holocene delta lobes formed and were responsible for the remainder of the fill of the canyon. During the past 5,000 years only a thin deep-water pelagic drape has been deposited within the canyon. Maps have been constructed that depict the various horizons, and the geometry of these horizons verify this mode of formation.

[v] http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep/04/science/la-sci-dispersants-20100905 Mervin Fingas, a retired scientist with the Canadian government, said that of roughly 40 biodegradability studies he surveyed between 1997 and 2008, about 60% said dispersant retarded growth of oil-eating microbes and 15% reported no effect. The remaining 25% noted a positive effect.

But positive findings are open to interpretation. At a 1999 oil spill conference, researchers reported that microbial populations dining on oil treated with the dispersant Corexit 9500 (used by BP in the gulf) grew more than seven times as large as those eating oil dispersed physically, suggesting the bacteria were helping.

Yet a comprehensive 2005 review of dispersants by the National Research Council concluded that the healthy bacterial growth in such studies could easily be due to microbes feeding on dispersant, not oil. “There is no conclusive evidence demonstrating either the enhancement or the inhibition of microbial biodegradation when dispersants are used,” the 12 authors wrote.

Some confusion comes from the diversity of dispersant formulas, Fingas said. Some contain chemicals that bacteria prefer to digest. Others block the ability of some microbes to attach to oil droplets and start feeding on the hydrocarbons.

The primary purpose of dispersants is to move oil away from surface-dwelling marine life. In the case of the BP well blowout, because the application was deep under the sea, much of the oil never rose to the surface — which means it went somewhere else, said Robert Diaz, a marine scientist at the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, Va.

[vi] The US department of Interior, through solicitation number M08PS00094, award number: M09PC002, through their Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and Enforcement (BOEMRE), (previously Mineral Management Service) paid for a study of dielectric oil’s ability to be dispersed, skimmed and bio remediated.

Information specifically related to the product called OSE II begins on page 12.  It states:

“Bioremediation Study

This bioremediation effectiveness testing protocol (CFR, 1999) was designed to determine oil’s ability to naturally biodegrade by quantifying changes in the oil composition resulting from biodegradation.

An EPA National Contingency Plan (NCP) approved product, Oil Spill Eater II (Oil Spill Eater International, Corp.), was included in the experimental design. Bioremediation testing on Oil Spill Eater II (OSE II) has proven it to be effective at degrading highly-saturated crude oils in the laboratory.”

Conclusive Evidence That BP Misrepresented Gulf Oil Spill Sent to Congress

Gulf Rescue Alliance (GRA) has just sent a briefing package to the Attorney Generals of Alabama and Louisiana which presents evidence they believe has never seen the light of day concerning the how and why of the Deepwater Horizon Disaster and subsequent release of toxic oil into the Gulf—oil that is still gushing from various seabed fractures and fissures.
The evidence provided therein clearly indicates:
• The unmentioned existence of a 3rd Macondo well (the real source of the explosion, DWH sinking and ensuing oil spill)
• The current condition of this well being such that it can never be properly capped.
• The compromised condition of the seabed floor being such that there are multiple unnatural sources of gushers continuing to pour into the Gulf, with Corexit dispersant still suppressing its visibility
• That the highly publicized capped well (Well A) never occurred as reported, and in fact was an abandoned well, hence it was never the source of the millions of gallons released into the Gulf.

GRA’s special report (a comprehensive compilation of research released by insiders and experts through confidential internet sources) has been forwarded to Congress in advance of BP’s upcoming trial on Monday, February 27th in New Orleans, LA.  Entitled An Expert’s Analysis of ROV Film Footage Taken at the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Disaster Site, it has also been submitted to the appropriate federal, state and county authorities, plaintiff attorneys, and environmental and health advocacy groups who have a stake in the outcome of the trial.  

“The Gulf Rescue Alliance has no interest in publicity for itself, pointing fingers, finding who to blame or anything else; we are interested in catalyzing action on an urgent basis to save the Gulf from long-term, disastrous impacts by getting actual solutions being applied; solutions that have been blocked by the EPA for the past 23 years.  We hold the EPA directly responsible for keeping in place the destructive response protocols used in this disaster aka Corexit.  The Gulf and the life it supports can’t wait 3, 6 or 12 months for a trial to bring a resolution; nor will a real resolution be possible if no admission occurs of the currently uncapped well. Justice and damage dollars will mean nothing if the Gulf is dead,” said a spokesperson for GRA.

Much of the original underwater video that was analyzed comes from oilspillhub.org*, “an online resource for those studying the largest environmental disaster in U.S. history. The site provides an archive of the underwater video of the event, as well as additional tools and resources for educators, scientists, and engineers who are expanding our knowledge of environmental issues.”

“Oilspillhub.org is developed and hosted by Purdue University working in cooperation with the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming and the Energy and Environment Subcommittee in the House Energy and Commerce Committee.”
~ oilspillhub.org

The aforementioned “Expert’s Analysis” makes plain the fact that much information, of which BP et al. was the exclusive source, had been misrepresented with prior deliberation before being submitted to the US Federal Government and other concerned parties.  In many cases the forensic analysis has laid bare a pattern of tampering with evidence in an attempt to mitigate the compensatory and punitive damages BP might be forced to pay.

This extraordinary report goes on to document a scenario in which it appears that BP illegally drilled more than one well at the Macondo Prospect in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM). Furthermore, the well that was ultimately capped after 87 straight days of gushing oil and gas into the Gulf may not be the one that was licensed by the appropriate US permitting agencies.

The factual sequence of events, and especially the actual response by BP, appear to be far different from those reported in the media and by the Coast Guard.  It is important to note that BP was given a lead position in the unified command structure authorized by the US Federal Government immediately following the burning and sinking of the Deepwater Horizon.  This transference of authority away from the impacted state governments was unprecedented in US history and created a virtual monopoly over the flow of information from BP to the appropriate authorities, as well as to the public-at-large.

From even a cursory reading of this “Expert’s Analysis” it becomes clear that the actual evolution of the BP oil spill fits a narrative that is replete with instances of covering up and altering much essential data and information, which would have served as definitive evidence against BP in numerous foreseen legal actions.  Ultimately, much of the information contained in this report may serve to “indict” not only BP and their corporate co-conspirators on several different violations of federal law and state statutes, but also various departments and agencies within the US Federal Government.

However, this was not the purpose for writing this report; rather this consortium of environmental organizations, health advocacy groups and citizen activists encourage the efficient dissemination of this analysis (and its various assessments) in the interest that the much needed federal programs and state initiatives will be implemented expeditiously to “clean up the Gulf”.  They are particularly concerned and eager to see the proper remediation of the GOM waters, beaches, wetlands and estuaries begin in earnest.

“All this is absolutely relevant to the case at hand; and particularly getting this vital information into the hands of the Attorney General of Alabama and anyone else involved in this trial. But our purpose for doing so is to gain attention to what we consider the real situation: EPA’s continued endorsement of toxic Corexit dispersants being used in the Gulf waters, as well as their enforced ban on safe, non-toxic bioremediation products such as Oil Spill Eater II-an effective EPA tested and approved product used around the world,” said GRA.
“It would seem plausible that government officials knew of the information about the 3rd Well but aided in covering it up similar to the recent PEER report revealing the fact that top White House officials manipulated scientific analyses by independent experts to seriously lowball the amount of oil leaking from the BP Deepwater Horizon.”

The formal report can be found at the link below:
An Expert’s Analysis of ROV Film Footage Taken at the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Disaster Site

You may access the following links below for the contents of this briefing package—please be patient and allow time to download

1. BRIEFING TO STATE AG’S
2. BLACKOUT OF ROV VIDEO FOOTAGE
3. A CHILLING FORECAST
4. A SUMMARY OF DISCREPANCIES
5. WELL BLOWOUT—SEQUENCE ILLUSTRATION