from BP that they have finally had partial success in capturing
some of the hemorrhaging oil from the decimated Deepwater Horizon Gulf
of Mexico well is cause for some desperately needed relief. But it's
only a small part of the whole story.
To that end, BP has chosen to spray environmentally dangerous "dispersants' onto the endless gushing black gold floating on the surface of the gulf, in lieu of applying a "green' product which could clean up the oil without any toxicity - in fact, BP has now gleaned EPA approval to use the same dispersants under water - for which there's simply no data at all.
is a green product which claims the ability to guarantee that the
beaches will not be contaminated. This product, which has been tested
and approved by the EPA, has been used in other oil spills around the
world with good results, and is manufactured by an American company in
the US, Spain and Australia.
Lynn continued, "We have sufficient material that we could ship 2 truckloads today and then keep manufacturing. We have enough materials for 100,000 gallons if necessary and can make additional if there is a need.
I testified at the Louisiana Senate committee for Natural Resources, and afterwards, held conversations with Chairman Senator Gautreaux, and a representative of BP. I left fully expecting BP to look into the technology and contact me, but I have had no response from BP.
In addition, even though the spill coordinators say that they are looking at all products for the best available technology, we have had no response from the Unified Command, Coast Guard, EPA, or NOAA concerning using S-200 on the spill. According to press reports, untested solutions are being tried. S-200 is tested by the EPA and listed on the US EPA National Contingency Plan's product schedule for use on the shorelines and waters of the US. EPA successfully used S-200 for a spill in Commencement Bay, WA on their own project."
The difference between this treatment and the current dispersal detergents being used is of paramount importance. Dispersal agents do not eliminate the oil, they just break it up into smaller droplets which are then "dispersed' " i.e. spread throughout a wider range of ocean. With the dispersal method, aquatic life can and often is compromised. Imagine you have a cup of oil in a quart of water. Dispersal methodology means you add something like dish detergent to it and shake it up, then pour it all into a nice big swimming pool. Not a very satisfactory solution! Bioremediation, on the other hand, would mean you'd add some of the biological product to the oil in the quart, and let the bacteria eat the oil" converting it into carbon dioxide and water.
So again we ask why is BP not pursuing this solution? Well, so far we've covered the manufacturer's claim. Now we'll compare it to EPA documents and BP commentary.
In order to understand the nature of a bioremediation product, we have visited many websites and reviewed many documents, including a 61 page study of available literature done by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
In this somewhat disappointing document the EPA concludes that there is a decided lack of appropriately designed scientific tests on these products" nevertheless:
From page 44:
Bioremediation products have been applied to clean up petroleum hydrocarbon
contamination in various ecosystems and under a wide range of environmental conditions. Their applications include in-situ remediation of hydrocarbon contaminated marine shorelines, soil environments, surface water, groundwater, and water, and ex-situ treatment of hydrocarbon contaminated soil (e.g., use of land treatment units or other types of reactor systems such as compost piles, biopiles, slurry reactors, etc.) and water (e.g., in a bioreactor). Bioremediation technology is typically used as a secondary polishing step after conventional mechanical cleanup options have been applied to remove free oil product.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).