The Gulf of Mexico Is Still Dying

Pathogenic Micro-organisms Proliferate Due
To Polluted And Poisoned GOM ‘Bioterrain’

by Gulf Oil Spill Remediation Cyber-Conference

There have been several significant developments over the past few decades in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) which now require special and immediate attention.  The multitude of oil spills — both large and small — require extraordinary remediation measures, as well as the application of safe and proven technologies which will not make the existing hydrocarbon pollution worse. There are other major sources of water pollution in the GOM which have also became apparent, particularly since the eye-opening 2010 BP oil spill.

The Gulf of Mexico is Dying: A Special Report On The BP Gulf Oil Spill

The BP Gulf Oil Spill drew the world’s attention to the GOM for a variety of reasons. The sheer volume of oil spilt was unprecedented, as were its profound and lasting effects on a large geographic area.  Because it occurred in such a large body of water, many population centers were adversely impacted as they continue to be up to this very day.  However, it was the incompetent and negligent oil spill response from BP that received the justified scrutiny of the entire world.

Some have since advanced the notion that global oil spill response has been forever changed for the better, because of how profoundly BP mismanaged the spill for all to see. In this regard, they speak of a literal sea change regarding the methodologies and modalities, process and procedure, science and technology that are now accepted by many of the nations of the world.

The entire world watched in horror as millions of gallons of the dispersant Corexit were used to ‘disappear’ the gushing oil in the Macondo Prospect throughout 2010 and beyond.  Disappearing the oil actually meant sinking it, after micronizing it, so that both BP and  the US Federal Government could be ‘applauded’ for a successful response.  However, the known health risks/dangers and environmental damage caused by Corexit became so well publicized that it has now been banned in those countries which have learned from the BP fiasco.  The following article provides more details in this regard.

Dispersant Use Like Corexit Sees Precipitous Decline Worldwide

The single revelation about the ramped up toxicity of Corexit-treated oil served to awaken many stakeholders about the safety of dispersant use in our coastal waters. More importantly, this issue also triggered a variety of concerns about the overall condition of the Gulf of Mexico.  Residents along the GOM coast, business owners, annual vacationers, property owners and the like began to research and discover the true state of the Gulf.

It was through a confluence of many disparate circumstances during the gushing, “ginormous”  oil volcano which brought to light the following critical observations about the overall status of the Gulf of Mexico. These various perceptions and insights, when considered in the aggregate and within a much larger context, have allowed to surface an assessment of the GOM which can no longer be denied or ignored. 

BP Gulf Oil Spill Cover-up and Corexit Poisoning Exposed

The Rising: Connecting Human Health and Oil Operations

13 Year Old Scientist Finds Perfect Solution To The Santa Barbara Oil Spill

California Coastline Oil Spill
Refugio State Beach
Santa Barbara
2015

13 Year Old Scientist Shows the Experts How Bioremediation Can Clean Up Oil Spills and Save Wildlife

Alana Tessman collaborates with the Lawrence Anthony Earth Organization (LAEO) to formulate an effective and nontoxic oil spill response plan for oiled birds and marine life.

Lawrence Anthony Earth Organization Challenges EPA’s Proposed Clean Water Protection Regulations

LAEO Claims Evasive Bureaucratic Language Masks Outdated Science

While the five-year anniversary mark for the catastrophic 2010 BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico has captured renewed media and public attention, few discussions seem to be addressing conflicting science on oil spill clean up chemicals, alleged to be one the most ‘insidious and invisible’ threats to earth’s oceans combined with a ‘broken emergency response system for addressing hazardous chemical spills in the United States’.

LAEO Issues ‘A CALL TO ACTION’ Regarding Sound Oil Spill Remediation And Response Plans

A CALL TO ACTION FOR EARTH’S WATERS

Issued by: Lawrence Anthony Earth Organization

Date: April 20th, 2015 (5th Anniversary of the BP Gulf Oil Spill)

Re: Taking Action to Protect & Preserve Earth’s Waters

PRESS RELEASE

“A CALL TO ACTION” is the product of a 5 year investigation by the Lawrence Anthony Earth Organization (LAEO) of oil spill response both within the United States and throughout its territorial waters.  The LAEO also took into consideration research conducted on oil spill response programs and protocols in other countries around the world.

Their extensive examination of the predominant oil spill response techniques and technologies, remediation agents and materials presents a much needed assessment of the state of the art.  Particularly in the wake of the BP Gulf oil spill has the LAEO’s non-profit endeavor proven to be quite valuable for oil-producing nations large and small.

Because of the serious mistakes made by BP and the U.S. Federal Government during the 87-day gushing oil well in the GOM’s Macondo Prospect, much has been learned about what not to do.  As a result, there has been a sea change in oil spill response planning and implementation throughout the worldwide Oil & Gas Industry.  Curiously, the USA is still one of a few nations which has chosen to continue with the same ineffective technologies and polluting agents to address oil spills both on land and in the waters.

Alaskan Residents Outraged Over Attempts To Justify Chemical Dispersant Use

FOR  IMMEDIATE  RELEASE

EPA/Coast Guard Planned Meetings re Chemical Dispersant Use Being ‘Safe’, Outrages Alaskan Residents and Tribal Governments

Alaska Change Oil Spill Response Alliance condemns planned federal agency-sponsored community meetings being held this week as a deceptive attempt to gain public support for ‘poisoning Alaskan waters’ and a move to erode the power of the Clean Water Act.

Anchorage, Alaska November 12-17, 2013__The Alaska Regional Response Team (ARRT), a federal inter-agency body tasked with formulating response plans to oil and hazardous substance discharges in Alaska, are holding public meetings in five hub Alaskan regions this week to present their revised oil spill response plans. The first meeting, scheduled in King Salmon, Alaska on Wednesday, November 13^th will present information on plans that give pre-authorization for the spraying and injection of the same controversial chemical dispersants as were used on the 1989 Exxon Valdez and 2010 Gulf of Mexico British Petroleum (BP) Oil Spills to be used in Alaskan waters.

The Alaska Inter-Tribal Council and the Change Oil Spill Response Global Alliance-Alaska Delegation, say Tribal Nations, fisherman and concerned citizens vehemently oppose the plan because it erodes the regulatory power of the Clean Water Act.  In a widely distributed Public Notification to Tribal Governments and Alaskan citizens, they explain that U.S. policies and laws mandating government to government consultation with Tribal Nations on such plans are being undermined and short circuited by the ARRT.

The ARRT’s ‘questionable Tribal Consultation process’, planned to begin on Nov 13^th, “is a misuse of public funds to force through approval of the Coast Guard’s dispersant use plans setting a dangerous precedent for inappropriate government to government consultation with Federally Recognized Tribes” said Walter Parker, an Arctic expert with 40 years experience in oil & gas oversight.  “Chemical Dispersant use in oil spill response should be retired globally as obsolete, and is especially inappropriate for Alaska, since the method is ineffective in frigid waters” he continued.

The Public Notification educational materials distributed to more than 250 potentially impacted Tribal and Fishing communities illustrate that human rights violations are taking place through the ARRT’s inept Tribal engagement processes.  According to the documents, the pre authorization plans would allow for the use of chemical dispersants over the objections of Tribal authorities and environmental groups in the event of an oil spill.

 I.      See attached documents for details:

• Briefing to Tribal Governments and Coastal Residents-Urgent Action Required
• Tribal Exclusion Fact Sheet
• An Open Letter to Oil Spill Response Professionals
• Sample Tribal Resolution to Ban Chemical Dispersants
• A Case Against Chemical Dispersants

II. See ARRT website for meeting call in information and other details at: http://alaskarrt.org/Documents.aspx?f=12371

PLEASE CALL IN TO OR ATTEND THESE GOVERNMENT-SPONSORED MEETINGS AND HELP TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS AND THE PUBLIC GET ANSWERS TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:

Any proposal for the use of chemical dispersants requires that the following questions be addressed by the inter-agency ARRT presenting their dispersant plans for discussion:

1. Of greatest importance in oil spill response is rapid reduction of oil toxicity and its impact on ecosystems and threat to human health. Dispersants do not remove oil or reduce toxicity of the oil but increase it, how does the revised plan address this?
2. Based on 2012 DOI testing and other science we have reviewed, dispersants are not effective in frigid waters below a certain temperature.  How does your plan overcome that?
3. How will dispersants applied by aerial and/or other application methods not impact marine life, coastal and up-river communities?
4. Since dispersants do not remove oil and its most toxic compounds but instead sink and disperse them into the water column increasing absorption capacity and ingestion by marine life, how is this addressed in the plan?
5. How will chemical dispersants not impact Customary and Traditional and Modern Life-ways of hunting, fishing, gathering ability to navigate and access clean water?
6. What non-toxic alternatives can be used to replace chemical dispersants invented by and/or owned by the major oil companies? (LAEO’s research has found technology that does indeed exist to truly detoxify and swiftly clean up an oil spill, and that technology is being successfully used in many parts of the world today.)
7. How does the use of chemical dispersants comply with the Clean Water Act?  (see: http://protectmarinelifenow.org/revitalization)

(Note: See also study/position paper at: www.protectmarinelifenow.org which is based on multiple scientific studies cited indicating unquestionable food chain, ecosystem and human health impacts of dispersants.)      If any proposed chemical dispersant guidelines do not meet the criteria at: http://protectmarinelifenow.org/identification for selecting products for oil spill cleanup, they should not be approved.

 FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nikos Pastos-Center for Water Advocacy,
AI-TC and Alaska Delegation Spokesperson
406-459-1829

Diane Wagenbrenner
VP Special Project Operations
Lawrence Anthony Earth Organization
COSR Global Alliance Media Relations
Ph: 858-531-6200

Carl Wassilie-Yup’iaq Biologist
907.382.3403

Distributed by the Alaska Inter-Tribal Council and Lawrence Anthony Earth Organization and Change Oil Spill Response Global Alliance Initiative for education purposes.

Press Release Available Online at: http://protectmarinelifenow.org/important-briefing-on-alaska-federal-agency-push-for-chemical-dispersant-pre-authorization-november-2013

Government Recklessly Reopened Fisheries in the Gulf

Based Decision on Skewed Data and Questionable Testing Methodology

You know how it is with almost anything the US Federal Government touches?
The further one gets away from the scene of the crime – in this case the Macondo Prospect in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) – the more reality comes spilling out. Concerning the BP oil spill, it was only a matter of time that the verified facts would start to seep out from those scientific research institutions whose only purpose was to unravel the truth.

Everyone knew something was very wrong back in 2010 when the “US Department of Commerce – National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) began closing fisheries on May 2, 2010.  It began reopening them, with various spatial and other limits, on June 23. The well was capped on July 15.”

Gulf Coast fishermen and tour boat operators, restauranteurs and store owners, hoteliers and motel owners all began to ask how such a decision could have been made while the well was still gushing.

Likewise, state government representatives, county officials and city commissioners all asked the very same questions about the safety of the seafood coming from the GOM.

As did Gulf Coast residents and vacationers, boaters and tourists, and curiosity-seekers of every stripe and color. Everyone wanted to know whether fish from the GOM, especially the shellfish from the northern Gulf region, was safe to eat. After all, the health and welfare of an entire culture revolves around seafood and the industry that produces it.  

A New Look at Oil Spill Response

Just Released:
A New Look at Oil Spill Response
An Analysis of the BP Macondo Spill Cleanup

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.  

EPA Accused of Violating the Clean Water Act

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

For More Information Contact: Susan Aarde
Susanaarde@gmail.com
Gulf Rescue Alliance

EPA Accused of Violating the Clean Water Act
Costing Billions in Environmental Damage

CEO Discusses Non-Toxic Oil Spill Cleanup Method on Fox Business Network, March 3

March 1, 2013–Dallas Texas– In the wake of the ongoing civil trial with high stakes for BP over the 2010 Gulf oil spill, the OSEI Corporation Chairman puts a new slant on preventable devastation outlining how the oil giant could have saved billions in damages and Clean Water Act fines if the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had not stood in the way of science and spill response advancements.

Airing on Sunday, 3 March on Fox Business Network, the 21st Century Business TV Series will feature OSEI Corporation’s non-toxic oil spill cleanup method, Oil Spill Eater II (OSE II), bringing to light a cost-effective solution for oil companies operating anywhere in the world – from the Gulf’s warm waters to the icy clime of Alaska.

The show interviews OSEI CEO Steven Pedigo, inventor of OSE II, a biological enzyme that detoxifies and then converts oil and toxic waste into a natural food source for the enhanced native bacteria found in the area of a spill. The end result of this process is close to 100% of the oil fully removed from the environment. Pedigo tells about the 23-year history of his company and its successes in removing oil and other toxic spills in every type of environment, including difficult-to-reach, sensitive habitats. Pedigo has aggressively challenged the EPA for “violating the very Clean Water Act it is there to enforce by pre-approving toxic dispersants and tampering with science testing and results to justify inadequate oil spill cleanup protocols used on the BP Oil Spill.”

The EPA, along with other federal agencies who direct oil spill contingency plans are responsible for safeguarding U.S. natural resources and public health. Pedigo asserts that in stark contrast to their mandate, they have seemingly favored dangerous “cleanup” methods utilizing dispersants, which independent studies have shown to be more harmful to marine life and human health than the oil. During the Deepwater Horizon (DWH) crisis, Gulf State officials, deeply concerned over the excessive use of Corexit (the toxic chemical dispersant applied in unprecedented doses to Gulf waters to disperse and sink the oil into the water column), specifically requested the use of OSE II as an alternative method for addressing the spill. Despite repeated requests, including from BP itself, the EPA continued to enforce the use of dispersants and justify their destructive “tradeoffs” while blocking non-toxic solutions.

Amongst a large number of industry and independent science groups, an international environmental organization the Lawrence Anthony Earth Organization (LAEO) has investigated current oil spill methodologies and advocates for the use of OSE II as a first-response cleanup method. “The 21st Century Business TV Show featuring a product that has been safely used in 30 countries around the world and which has cleaned up over 23,000 oil spills, is a good starting point for raising public and industry awareness that there are better solutions out there which will save the oil and gas industry billions in clean up costs, damage claims and Clean Water Act fines, not to mention protecting human health and the environment. We encourage industry leaders, environmental groups and federal officials in this field to urgently review current methodology for the sake of all living organisms that rely on clean water,” said LAEO International President, Barbara Wiseman.

The LAEO is about to publish a position paper to educate emergency response professionals and industry stakeholders, calling for a ban on the use of dispersants while bringing to light alternative solutions. The paper highlights the specific category of Bioremediation technology that the EPA has approved and listed which has undergone years of field tests and use proving its efficacy at removing close to 100% of an oil spill through non-toxic means and at a fraction of traditional cost. Some of the most recent tests were conducted by, among others, a BP science team, and the Department of Interior, showing superior results.

“The former Administrator of NOAA Jane Lubchenco, EPA officials and other senior members of the interagency committee have publically admitted that in the end, only 8% of the spilled oil in the Gulf was actually removed, and seemingly ignore statistical realities by asserting they directed a ‘successful spill response,’ –which is an utter falsehood,” said Pedigo.

According to BP’s recent court filing, 810,000 barrels of ‘cleaned up oil’ never polluted the waters since it was recovered directly from the riser pipe although this amount is added into the cleanup statistics claimed by NOAA and the EPA, misleadingly inflating the actual numbers of spilled oil removed from the environment. Regardless, the disputed spill volume and removal figures raise the question – what happened to the remainder of the estimated 2 million barrels of oil plus dispersant chemicals left in the Gulf of Mexico and how are the continued appearing slicks and unnatural seeps from the fractured seabed floor in the Macondo zone being handled? “The EPA and Coast Guard seem to think that nature will take care of the rest and are taking no action; but independent science proves differently. An honest evaluation would show that the toxicity added by ‘clean up’ chemicals is a violation of Clean Water Act Law because these agents add pollutants to the environment and do not remove the oil, leaving dispersants and oil residing in the water column and the sea floor. The threat of Clean Water Act fines mistakenly encourage clean up systems that hide or make the oil volume rapidly undetectable,” continued Pedigo.

The TV program will explain how the OSE II process works and is environmentally safe using natures own bioremediation processes to effectively eliminate hazardous materials.

Click Link for Airing Schedule: http://21cbtv.com/clearance-report/

For more information visit: www.osei.us

About 21st Century Business
21st Century Business is an award winning television series produced by Multi-Media Productions. The show features companies providing business viewers an in-depth opportunity to find solutions within many industries globally.
21st Century Business airs on CNBC and the Fox Business Network to over 100 million viewers nationwide as well as internationally via DirecTV and Dish Network. The series is also available at more than 27 prestigious college universities, including Carnegie Mellon University, Howard University, Dartmouth College and Georgetown University.

For specific market-by-market air dates and times, please e-mail Moniqueh@mmpusa.com.
For more information, please visit http://www.21cbtv.com.

The BP Gulf Oil Spill Info Blackout And Data Lockdown

There has been a tremendous amount of discussion for the past two and one half year about what has really gone on here in the Gulf of Mexico in the wake of the BP oil spill.

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.