By Dr. Tom Termotto

For all of us who live on and near the Gulf Coast of Mexico, we exist in a state that alternates between exasperation and incredulity, between anger and grief, between shock and awe at what this oil spill has come to represent. Where do we start? How do we begin to express our collective disillusionment with so many instances of betrayal and letdown? As well as the relentless falling short of what used to be considered reasonable expectations of government and corporate social responsibility.

Is it unreasonable to expect our governments – federal, state, county – to ensure that industry (Oil & Gas in this case) complies with the laws of our land. Should we be concerned that basic regulatory oversight, put into place to protect people, property and environment, was completely ignored, suspended and not enforced? Do we accept that such disasters occur through a highly unlikely series of human errors, bureaucratic mistakes, equipment malfunctions and technological breakdowns? How can everything go wrong, at the worst possible time, in the perfectly wrong place, unless … … …

The BP Gulf Oil Spill was created by man; it was not an act of God as some would have us believe. It was an utterly manmade event; not an accident or conspiracy of circumstances where fate would have everything accidentally go wrong that could go possibly go wrong. Not only have these disasters happened many times before; they will happen many more times in the future, if the status quo does not change quickly. When the prevailing mentality (Drill Baby Drill), which so dominates certain sectors of the Energy Industry, is defined by an Operate to Failure MO, what else could be expected?

Here we are on Thursday, July 8, day # 79 of this nonstop oil gusher and what has occurred to instill confidence in the hearts and minds of the people regarding an enduring solution? Let’s put aside the gushing well, as it is clear that BP and the Coast Guard are completely out of their league on that one. We’re now talking about a coordinated, deliberate and well thought out response to the polluted waters and tainted coastline of the Gulf of Mexico. What have the US Government and BP really endeavored to do in order to protect coastlines, embargo estuaries and pluck the still living marine life from the depths of this petrochemical cesspool? Have they at least released pertinent and vital information on a timely basis, which can assist many of us in our mitigation efforts?

These are our beaches, after all. We live here. We play here. We work here. For many, the Gulf is like a second back yard – a place where we go for fresh seafood and fun in the sun, on the beach and in the water. For boating and fishing, swimming and snorkeling. We go to the Gulf when we seek the peace and comfort that only the Gulf and Her beautiful beaches and wetlands can bring. And now that is all gone, with no prospect of returning in our lifetime. Truly, many are silently weeping in the privacy of their homes due to the sheer enormity and gravity of this heart-rending event.

So, where are we today? Or, where will we be tomorrow with this completely unacceptable state of affairs? More importantly, where will the BP-US Government tag team be on day # 80. Will BP still spray poisonous dispersants in and on the Gulf? Is the Coast Guard now spraying toxic dispersants from their own planes, as we have been told? Has BP relinquished any control over what is essentially a federal disaster area, as well as a crime scene – theirs. Given these facts, any official response should be legally and operationally directed by the US Federal Government?

As Dr. Thomas B. Manton, former CEO/President of the International Oil Spill Control Corporation, has wisely pointed out in his articles – British Petroleum is an oil company that makes its money drilling for and extracting oil. They are positively not in the oil spill control business, as their history clearly demonstrates. And yet the US Federal Government has given BP complete command and control over the Gulf of Mexico. For all practical purposes, a foreign multi-national corporation is enforcing Martial Law in US Territorial Waters. BP, the largest corporation in the UK, is to this day the chief component of a unified command structure from which all concerned US jurisdictions are taking orders.

Please know that British Petroleum has hired on a security staff and small paid-for-hire mercenary army that would make most small nations jealous. They allocate more time and resource in securing than they do in cleaning up. They spend more in marketing warm and fuzzy slogans around this PR disaster than they do mitigating and remediating the water and shoreline. They direct more personnel in the affected geographic area toward tasks that are peripheral to oil spill control than they do toward protecting the fragile Florida wetlands, Louisiana bayous or Alabama beaches.

Now we get to the real kicker here. The reader will find four proposals formulated by two different organizations (at the hyperlink below), which have a great interest in capping the gushing well and, at the very least, containing and capturing the leaking oil. Both groups have an equally strong desire to implement an integrated implementation plan to protect, mitigate and remediate all affected areas in the Gulf of Mexico. The challenge has been to get a response from anyone at BP, the Coast Guard, the concerned State governments or the impacted counties in North Florida, Alabama or Mississippi. These proposals have also been sent to the White House, specifically to the Office of Energy and Climate Change policy, as well as to the Co-Chair of the Gulf Oil Spill Commission Investigation.   Read More…

Screen Shot 2015-07-18 at 10.03.59 AM

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.

Read More…

Posted by: Site Administrator | August 18, 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.   Read More…

Quite incredibly, the EPA issued a positive report on May 1, 2012 regarding the safety and toxicity of various dispersants use in the BP Gulf Oil Spill. Included in this assessment was the use of Corexit.

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/

Posted by: Site Administrator | May 3, 2012

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 pre-approval since 1994.  And, pre-approval 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 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 16th 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/

Posted by: Site Administrator | February 26, 2012

Conclusive Evidence That BP Misrepresented Gulf Oil Spill Sent To Congress

PRESS RELEASE:

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

Posted by: Site Administrator | December 5, 2011

The Gulf of Mexico is Dying

A Special Report on the BP Gulf Oil Spill

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.”

Posted by: Site Administrator | November 14, 2011

Letter to Governor Crist regarding Gadsden Correctional Facility

Office of Governor Charlie Crist
State of Florida
PL-05 The Capitol
Tallahassee, FL 32399-0001

February 24, 2010

Dear Governor Crist:

We have recently been informed about the planned construction of a biomass incinerator by ADAGE, right across the street from the Gadsden Correctional Facility in Gretna, FL. As you know full well, incinerators of this type will produce extraordinary amounts of air pollution to include dioxin, one of the most toxic and carcinogenic organic chemicals released into the environment by industry. This incinerator will also significantly contribute to the total particulate matter volume which already plagues much of North Florida. We are compelled to point out that particulate matter concentration directly correlates with a whole host of upper respiratory conditions and diseases to include lung cancer, emphysema, CREST, COPD, asthma, chronic bronchitis, numerous inhalant allergies, acute/chronic sinusitis, etc. Hence, these are the primary reasons for respectfully sending you this urgent plea and request.

There are well over 1500 prison inmates currently being housed at Gadsden Correctional. They are women – all of them – in addition to being wards of the State. Most of them are also childbearing age and, therefore, likely to carry children in the future who will also be profoundly affected by this ill-conceived financial scheme. Please, Governor Crist, make no mistake about it, these women and their future children will be quite adversely affected by this air-fouling incinerator. Unfortunately, they have very little to say about where they are housed within the Florida Department of Corrections. It therefore becomes incumbent upon FL DOCS to ensure that wherever they are imprisoned is environmentally safe and free of threats to their health. For those with serious medical conditions, especially upper respiratory in nature, it becomes critical that they are kept out of harm’s way so as not to advance their disease process.

In your capacity as governor, you are directly responsible for the health and welfare of these very vulnerable Florida citizens. They have not chosen to live in Gretna; the State put them there. They are therefore under your care, as they are under the care of the Secretary of the Department of Corrections and Florida’s Department of Management Services. We trust that the State of Florida will act in the best interests of these individuals who are powerless to determine where they are incarcerated.

Furthermore, the State is tasked with the responsibility of maintaining an environment that is safe and healthy for all of its citizens, so we are also concerned about the schools and homes and businesses that are located in close proximity to this planned incinerator. We would hope that the Department of Environmental Protection will start complying with your recent directives concerning air quality and carbon impacts. To date, they have clearly violated this mandate and shirked their responsibility to the residents of this State, as has the FL Department of Health and the Department of Agriculture. We request that rulemaking proceedings be initiated to regulate carbon dioxide from these incinerators consistent with your Executive Orders 07-126, 07-127 and 07-128, and that state subsidies be withheld from all biomass incinerators, both future and already constructed.

If the State will not uphold the sacred trust that exists with its citizenry, then how can you possibly expect industry to honor it? We re-submit to you for your serious consideration the social contract which you signed when you came into office. We, likewise, submit it to the respective secretaries who are listed below, and who are empowered to quickly bring about an immediate resolution of this matter.

Very sincerely,

Dr. Tom Termotto, President
Healthcare Professionals for Clean Environment

Cc: Jeff Kottkamp, Lieutenant Governor
Walter A. McNeil, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections
Linda H. South, Secretary, Florida Department of Management Services
Michael W. Sole, Secretary, Florida Department of Environmental Protection
Ana M. Viamonte Ross, State Surgeon General, Florida Department of Health
Charles H. Bronson, Commissioner, Florida Department of Agriculture
Senator Al Lawson
Representative Alan B. Williams
Representative Marti Coley
Lisa Conti, Director, Division of Environmental Health
Kendra Goff, Chief Toxicologist, Division of Environmental Health
Joyce Arnold, Warden, Gadsden Correctional Facility
Mayor Anthony J. Baker, City of Gretna, FL
Mayor Pro-Tem Willie Fagg, City of Gretna, FL
John Smith, Commissioner, City of Gretna, FL
Helen Franks, Commissioner, City of Gretna, FL
Nadine Smith, Commissioner, City of Gretna, FL
Antonio Jefferson, Gretna City Manager
Harold Knowles, Gretna City Attorney
Dr. Matthew M. Carter II
Johnny Williams, Gadsden County Administrator
Eugene Lamb Jr., Chairman, Gadsden County Commission
Peggy E. Kassees, Aide to the Governor
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Of Counsel, Levin, Papantonio, Thomas, Mitchell, P.A.
Editor, Tallahassee Democrat
Editor, Miami Herald
Editor, St. Petersburg Times
Editor, Orlando Sentinel
Editor, Palm Beach Post
Editor, Florida Times Union

Posted by: Site Administrator | September 4, 2011

Ian R. Crane Named Co-Defendant in Lawsuit Against Deborah Dupre

PRESS RELEASE:

Ian R. Crane Named Co-Defendant in Lawsuit Against Deborah Dupre

Suit Alleges Conspiracy to Commit Character Defamation/Assassination by Libel and Slander

Ian R. Crane has recently been named a co-defendant in a $10 million lawsuit being filed by the Gulf Oil Spill Remediation Conference (GOSRC) against Deborah Dupre. The lawsuit alleges that Ian R. Crane and Deborah Dupre conspired to conduct a highly coordinated campaign of deliberate and malicious character assassination against the some of the most out-spoken members of the GOSRC, an International Citizens’ Initiative.

This lawsuit further alleges that this conspiracy was carried out by the systematic practice of character defamation through both the posting of libelous articles, newsletters, emails and comments throughout the internet, as well as by the slanderous radio interviews conducted by Crane and Dupre over the past 6+ months. The lawsuit is requesting both compensatory and punitive damages in the amount of $10 million to be paid to all injured parties.

The GOSRC has already indicated that the full amount of the compensatory and punitive damages adjudicated by the court will be used to establish a BP Gulf Oil Spill Remediation Fund. Most of the proceeds from this fund will be utilized toward the creation of a professional organization dedicated to scientifically determining the numerous medical conditions, health problems and wellness issues directly caused by the BP Gulf Oil Spill.

Several parties, completely outside of the GOSRC, have likewise been injured in numerous ways by the two individuals named above, as well as by the Gulf Coast Barefoot Doctors (GCBD), an organization co-founded by Deborah Dupre and her sister, Delia LaBarre. The lawsuit further alleges that the GCBD has been a primary platform from which much of this premeditated character assassination and consequent defamation of character has been launched.

New evidence has been received by the GOSRC which adds to Ian R. Crane’s open admission that he secretly taped the National Coordinator, an illegal act in the State of Florida. In an exchange of emails between the GOSRC and Crane, the following statement was issued by Ian Crane in response to this illegal taping of the telephone conversation: “You would of course also need to file for Extradition!” (Per Crane’s email dated April 2, 2011)

A recent Crane email to the GOSRC indicates, not only a threat to release more purposefully, defamatory material onto the internet, but also insinuates a strong intention to continue these unlawful character assassinations whenever it serves his purpose to do so. The GOSRC has made overtures to Crane to learn the truth regarding the great number of falsehoods which he, himself, is illegally disseminating.

The GOSRC has made it clear that the choice is now his; he can cease and desist his criminal behavior or suffer the consequences in the appropriate courts of law. For our part, please be advised that those of us who have been profoundly harmed by the behavior of both Deborah Dupre and Ian Crane, we will henceforth defend ourselves and our ongoing conference with great vigor and legal prowess.

An Important Message to Each Defendant:

Deborah Dupre, due to the imminence and gravity of the forthcoming court case, it is required that a full retraction of the relevant libelous article and subsequent comments (both written and verbal) which began this entire saga. Only through this necessary act of good faith on her part will the GOSRC nullify all future legal actions against her.

As for Ian R. Crane, only an immediate cessation of all factually incorrect and defamatory posts related to this matter, as well as a full retraction of his false statements made to impugn the aforementioned characters will release him from the upcoming lawsuit and all future litigation. Also, unless this recommended response is acknowledged and acted upon, an extremely aggressive internet campaign will be geared up which will be proportionately upgraded to include all of those other individuals who have likewise suffered from his highly dubious and reprehensible behavior.

CAVEAT: The internet campaign, which has only recently been initiated to implement this defensive strategy, will evolve into a multi-faceted, multi-media platform which will be used as a model for many other good people who have suffered the same fate on the world wide web. Should any reader possess additional information regarding this case, please feel free to email @ gosrclawsuit@aol.com

Submitted by: Gulf Oil Spill Remediation Conference
Date: September 3, 2011

Posted by: Site Administrator | August 31, 2011

Ian R. Crane Poses As Gulf Oil Spill Advocate

‘Journalists’ Ian Crane & Deborah Dupre destroy Gulf citizens’ movement

By Sheila Samarski

Just who is Ian R. Crane and why does he, together with the Gulf Coast Barefoot Doctors, persist in destroying the Gulf Oil Spill citizens’ movement?  Why does a Britisher suddenly appear on the scene of the greatest environmental catastrophe in US history hawking his wares and conspiracies?

Ian R Crane hawking his Gulf oil spill products online

After many months of investigation of this British citizen – Ian R. Crane – we can report the following facts about his business, his mission and his “journalistic” practice where it concerns the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM).

It is very important to note that this foreign ‘journalist’ lives in the United Kingdom not too far from London, admits to being an ex-Shlumberger oilman, and makes his money from selling internet conspiracy theory (which may be true or false) about the Gulf oil spill.  The point is that this is how he earns his income, by selling videos that purport to explain away all things related to the Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill.

The following headline has appeared on many of the internet’s alternative news sites over the past 6 months:

 Ian Crane, Ex-Schlumberger Oilman, Illegally

Tapes Former GOSRC Coordinator

Here is one of the Gulf Oil Spill news sites where it can be found:

http://phoenixrisingfromthegulf.wordpress.com/2011/08/28/all-points-bulletin-re-ian-r-crane/

The first question anyone would ask is: Why was Ian Crane illegally and secretly taping a member – the National Coordinator no less – of the Gulf Oil Spill Remediation Conference?  What was his purpose?

In light of all the hacking and illegal behavior during the News of the World scandal in London, we now know that many journalists commit illegal actions as a matter of job performance.  That doesn’t make it right, or ethical, or appropriate in any way.  It just goes to show the rest of the world how far such a profession has strayed from legal conduct.  Of course, in this instance the question remains why Crane felt compelled to conduct illegal taping of a telephone conversation?  Who is he really working for?

During the course of researching this whole affair, it became quite evident that Crane does work very closely with members of the Gulf Coast Barefoot Doctors (GCBD) group in NOLA.  He and Deborah Dupre, a GCBD founder and ex-board member, have apparently teamed up to character assassinate anyone who disagrees with them or their modus operandi.  Cross their path in any serious way and many agree you’re toast as far as personal destruction on the internet is concerned.

Deborah Dupre has admitted that she and her family are paid by oil companies to transport oil through pipelines which they have permitted (contracted) to run across their properties in Louisiana.  Dupre also writes for Examiner.com, an internet news platform which is staffed by citizen writers, all of whom are paid according to the size of their readership.  Examiner.com has a very close partnership with Thomson Reuters, the huge media conglomerate headquartered across the street from BP International Headquarters in London.  Wait, this gets more interesting by the paragraph!

Just who are the Gulf Coast Barefoot Doctors and what is their MO?  Please read the following article to fully understand the damage that this organization has wrought throughout the GOM coastline advocacy groups and beyond.

BEWARE of Deborah Dupre and Delia LaBarre

Who are the Gulf Coast Barefoot Doctors?

So, here’s the context:  We have hundreds of real citizen advocates who live all over the Gulf of Mexico coastline, and who have worked since April of 2010 to bring into the public domain whatever they could contribute toward addressing the Gulf oil spill.  They come from all different walks of life, both professionals and laypeople, and their shared passion and advocacy is assisting the rehabilitation of the GOM and its coastal environment.  After 9 months into the Gulf oil spill, here comes Ian R. Crane bullying his way into the GOM advocacy network.  Apparently he was not receiving enough publicity for his many conspiratorial narratives concerning the spill. He has lots of videos for sale and he’s not selling many of them; he just doesn’t get any traction.

So, what does he do?  He starts committing character assassinations on some of the most effective heroes of the Gulf Oil Spill to get the attention he seeks.  And, then, he starts to get the attention (advertising) he obviously craves to jumpstart his oil spill business.  So now he thinks he’s hit on a winning formula by bashing the heroes to get attention.

Whose characters does he defame?  People who have not only sacrificed their livelihoods, but in some instances their very lives.  These individuals have spent their own money, time and energy with no compensation, reimbursement or donations and have put themselves in harm’s way to reveal the truths around the oil spill.  And this is how Ian R. Crane treats them!  A businessman from outside of London brings his own wrecking ball to the Gulf after it’s been destroyed by BP et al.

Why does Ian R. Crane conduct such an unconscionable smear campaign?  Why would he persist, after months of being told the facts, in defaming the characters of those who worked tirelessly to reveal the truth about the greatest environmental disaster in North American history?  He’s not even from the USA and yet he makes money off of our tragedy and ruins the reputations of some of our best and brightest.  Why?

Ian R. Crane has started a facebook page which is entitled:

Please Like This Page & Help Expose BP’s Robert Kaluza

This entire site is basically dedicated to one of Crane’s current life missions.  For all intents and purposes Crane would have us all believe that Robert Kaluza, “one of BP’s company men on the deepwater Horizon when it exploded”, is responsible for the whole Gulf oil spill.  If you were to closely peruse his facebook page you will quickly see how many times Crane pitches his videos, dvds and other items for sale to the reader.  This site is really about one thing, and one thing only: Ian Crane selling Ian Crane’s products, and sometimes at the expense of very good, hard-working advocates.

For the uninitiated it is very important to understand that the Gulf Oil Spill is the result of countless individuals, companies, politicians, regulators, contractors, sub-contractors, citizens, Big Oil employees, Military-Industrial Complex corporations, the US Federal Government, various state governments, etc., who either didn’t do their jobs or did them so well that this oil spill was just about guaranteed to happen.  To lay the blame at the feet of one man – Robert Kaluza – or to even insinuate that he is the lynchpin (smoking gun) in such an investigation is simply ridiculous, which is just one reason why so many throughout the GOM advocacy network are profoundly offended by Crane’s dishonesty and disingenuousness.

Please understand that we are not suggesting that Robert Kaluza did not play a significant part in the lead-up to the explosion, burning and sinking of the Deepwater Horizon.  Only the evidence and proven facts can determine exactly what his role was in this very serious and consequential episode.  However, many feel Crane can no longer be trusted to ferret out the truth because of his unlawful and self-interested behavior in related matters.

Even if Crane were to lay the blame at the feet of an entire company like BP (whose actual responsibility is obvious historical fact by now and whose true criminal culpability may very well bankrupt it), his narrative would fall far short of the mark of truth.  Many of us have come to realize that when anyone pushes a story with such obvious shortcomings, there is usually an agenda.  We do know from talking to many who have read Crane’s comments and websites that he is well known for bashing those who receive more attention and publicity than himself.

The real environmental advocate cares not about how much publicity he receives because his intentions are honorable and he seeks no monetary gain or fame from his activism.  Can we say the same about an Englishman who comes into our neck of the woods and foists his theories, and products, and libelous statements into our faces?

‘Journalists’ Ian Crane & Deborah Dupre destroy citizens’ movement

Just what is their MO?  The GCBD simply label anyone who has fallen out with them an infiltrator.  Disagree with them, don’t promote them, try to break away from their influence and you are suddenly called a BP agent, COINTELPRO, psyop or some other such pejorative label.

As for Ian Crane, his favorite way of smearing anyone who he targets is to falsely accuse them of being part of the controlled opposition.   Not a very nice thing to do to lifelong environmental activists whose very lives depend on the trust and good will that has been built over a lifetime.  He is given to doing this so casually that he seems to be arrogantly unaware of the consequences of his actions.  Actions which are essentially criminal as we have seen with the News of the World hacking scandal.

As for the damage that has been inflicted on the entire Gulf of Mexico Advocacy Network, one can only imagine what will occur when highly influential and brutally honest advocates are taken down by such scurrilous and fallacious writing.  When this occurred earlier this year, one could see the many volunteer advocates flee from the scene of this Crane/Dupre crime spree so as not to be tainted by their scandalous writing.  No one wants to be tarred with the black and oily brush of the false accusation of betrayal.

What would anyone do when the most vocal and authoritative Gulf advocates are taken out with one slice of the slanderous blade?  So quickly and easily!  These two perpetrators sowed the seeds of fear and alarm so deeply that most of these folks will never come back to their respective health advocacies and environmental groups.  Others have strongly expressed an aversion to working with any environmental health advocacy groups in the foreseeable future.

Even more tragic, the libelous articles and comments disseminated by both Crane and Dupre have planted so many seeds of mistrust that, where many worked together in a collegial relationship, these quickly dissolved into distrustful interactions.  Mutual suspicion now replaced what was mutual trust throughout many of the key groups, which were making real headway with various Gulf restoration projects.

This investigative journalist has spoken to many Gulf residents, enviro groups and citizens throughout the Southeast during the past year and heard many stories about several different aspects of the BP Gulf oil spill.  Clearly, the writings of Ian R. Crane and Deborah Dupre have done more to undermine a vibrant citizens’ movement than all the other mainstream media disinformation taken together.

After viewing numerous emails from different individuals formerly associated with the GCBD, it became clear that it was the most destructive enterprise on the Gulf.  So many good people were defamed and humiliated that the word started to spread like wildfire.  Unfortunately for Ian Crane, he chose to throw fuel on the fire, when he could have worked to put it out.  True intentions do become known quite quickly under conditions of duress like the Gulf oil spill.  Many of those concerned have remarked that a fraud is very easy to spot when the situation is as desperate as it has been during this awesomely tragic oil spill.

One final point of information is that Deborah Dupre is the subject of a $10 million defamation of character lawsuit.  The suit alleges defamation of character by libelous articles which she was paid to write, as well as by slander during radio interviews she conducted.  As for Ian R. Crane, we leave you with his highly dubious and childish dare which he made to the very same Gulf advocates referred to throughout this expose.   Mr. Crane had the audacity to publish this dare in his newsletter back in April 2011 in which he was selling his latest video on the oil spill.  He showed absolutely no interest in hearing the truth or correcting the many deliberate falsehoods, which he had previously disseminated by email/newsletter as well as posted on the internet:

If these observations are inaccurate, please file the appropriate legal action!” (Per Ian Crane’s Newsletter of April 1, 2011)

Please be aware that Ian R. Crane is now under very serious investigation for the same criminal behavior as Deborah Dupre.  According to those who have been injured by Ian Crane’s actions, he is being taken up on his challenge shown above.

Mugshot of Ian R. Crane

We will end this expose with a note of appreciation for the many Gulf advocates who have literally died in the line of duty.  Some who have not been killed have continued to perform their work under death threat; others have literally been the object of attempted murder and assault.  Through the despicable actions and writings of both Ian R. Crane and Deborah Dupre these same individuals have now incurred an additional risk.  Their lives have been put into even greater jeopardy and their characters thoroughly defamed through false and malicious statements they continue to post on the internet.

Older Posts »

Categories

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.