A COMPREHENSIVE COMPARISON BETWEEN OSE II,
MECHANICAL METHODS AND CHEMICAL DISPERSANTS
IN LAYMEN’S TERMS

INTRODUCTION

Oil Spill Eater II is the name of a non-toxic product which provides the means for moving oil spill response out of its current 19th Century methodology into the realm of advanced technological 21st Century breakthroughs for swiftly addressing and remediating 100% of any spill in any environment. In comparison, current response methods employed by three major oil companies - BP, Exxon and Shell - are obsolete and obtain dismal results.

Most recently, BP, Exxon, and Shell have utilized mechanical clean up on the Gulf of Mexico Deepwater Horizon (DWH) oil blowout, the Yellowstone River oil spill in Montana, and the recent oil spill in the North Sea, respectively. Mechanical clean up in calm seas only has the capability of remediating somewhere between 2 and 8% of a spill; a woefully inadequate response.

Also utilized in the Gulf of Mexico blowout was Exxon’s outmoded invention Corexit, a chemical dispersant licensed to Nalco Holding Company for manufacturing and distribution. The label on this horrifically toxic dispersant 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. Despite this, millions of gallons of Corexit have been sprayed on and injected into the Gulf’s wateres.
THE EPA’S
DESTRUCTIVE POLICIES

The EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) requires that any dispersant product applying for inclusion in the Code of Federal Regulations National Contingency Plan Product Schedule of approved products for oil spill cleanup, known as the NCP list, undergo a dispersant test before permitting their use on spills in US navigable waters. A dispersant product must demonstrate that it causes a minimum of 45% of the oil to sink within 30 minutes, despite the contrary indication to this as a standard because the NCP list states that it is illegal to sink spilled oil.

Hence, one of the US EPA’s illogical criteria for addressing a toxic spill is that it moves the oil into the secondary water column zone. This spreads the toxic contamination throughout the most vital area for marine life where at least 60% of marine species live. (The catastrophic results of this are being thoroughly documented in increasing numbers of science papers currently being released.) The purpose of cleaning up an oil spill is to remove the toxicity from the environment so that living organisms, even single-celled organisms, can survive. What is the logic, then, in adding Corexit, an even more toxic substance than the oil, to spread the contamination throughout the living environment of the majority of marine life species? A spill’s damaging impact should be limited, not purposefully expanded and moved into additional, secondary areas.

After a period of time, dispersants then cause the oil to sink to the seabed, adversely effecting bottom dwellers and wiping out entire species. The sunken oil then causes additional problems such as the depletion of oxygen from the water because so much carbon* has been loaded into the water column. Depletion of oxygen causes mass die offs (called fish kills) where enormous numbers of marine life are obliterated all at once from extreme lack of oxygen.

This, however, is not the end of the destructive onslaught of the chemical dispersant response. Next, the cleanup response to the DWH showed that, even when dispersants are applied up to 75 miles away from the shore, the oil can still, through underwater plumes, be delivered to the shorelines where even greater natural resource destruction then ensues in, yet, a third and unnecessary assault on natural res

The fact being that we're not going to live on another planet at anytime in the near future, might I suggest we start taking care of this one a little better?

Texas Tea! Black Gold.

Nice job, Russia. Ever consider fixing your infrastructure with some of that money made from your 13% of the world's oil production? How about creating some jobs for your many unemployed countrymen, by offering them wages for correcting this and other environmental messes you have created? You make BP/Marathon and every other producer look like environmental activists!

we should invade them and take their oil!

Let's sneak in and take for ourselves !!

ahh! #$%$ ! the septic system backed up again hunny ! dammit !

Well this doesn't look good

too many errors like this around the world

yall arent paying attention. this means nada if they have so much money. like homer said...CANT SOMEONE ELSE DO IT

We are truly killing ourselves! This is incredibly sad!

humanity will end the world !!!

something wrong in this news is not only Russia this problem concern to whole planet no matter if is in Russia or not

save money by fixing the dam pipelines

Classic example of what less regulation will gets you. Corporations will just fix & prevent ecological problems because they are all such good stewarts of the environment by nature. The USA could learn something here.

and California thinks it can save the world

OHH ME ME!!!! I WANT TO BUY THAT LOT FOR MY GRANDSON!!!! not

When I see catastrophes like this, I remind myself that the planet will survive, not as we would like it to be, but in its own way. It is we who may not survive. Why do we insist on pooping in our home?

Take a match to it. Then they will fix it.

looks like a great place for the OCCUPY crowd