MIGHTY MICROBES: Tiny bacteria, such as Alcanivorax borkumensis pictured here, will ultimately clean up the ongoing Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
Image: Courtesy of Heimholtz Center for Infection Research (HZI)
-
What a Plant Knows
How does a Venus flytrap know when to snap shut? Can it actually feel an insect’s tiny, spindly legs? And how do cherry blossoms know when to bloom? Can they...
Read More »
The last (and only) defense against the ongoing Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is tiny—billions of hydrocarbon-chewing microbes, such as Alcanivorax borkumensis. In fact, the primary motive for using the more than 830,000 gallons of chemical dispersants on the oil slick both above and below the surface of the sea is to break the oil into smaller droplets that bacteria can more easily consume.
"If the oil is in very small droplets, microbial degradation is much quicker," says microbial ecologist Kenneth Lee, director of the Center for Offshore Oil, Gas and Energy Research with Fisheries and Oceans Canada, who has been measuring the oil droplets in the Gulf of Mexico to determine the effectiveness of the dispersant use. "The dispersants can also stimulate microbial growth. Bacteria will chew on the dispersants as well as the oil."
For decades scientists have pursued genetic modifications that might enhance these microbes' ability to chew up oil spills, whether on land or sea. Even geneticist Craig Venter forecast such an application last week during the unveiling of the world's first synthetic cell, and one of the first patents on a genetically engineered organism was a hydrocarbon-eating microbe, notes microbiologist Ronald Atlas of the University of Louisville. But there are no signs of such organisms put to work outside the lab.
"Microbes are available now but they are not effective for the most part," says marine microbiologist Jay Grimes of the University of Southern Mississippi. At this point, there are no man-made microbes that are more effective than naturally occurring ones at utilizing hydrocarbons.
The natural world is replete with a host of organisms that combine as a community to decompose oil—and no single microbe, no matter how genetically enhanced, has proved better than this natural defense. "Every ocean we look at, from the Antarctic to the Arctic, there are oil-degrading bacteria," says Atlas, who evaluated genetically engineered microbes and other cleanup ideas in the wake of the Exxon-Valdez oil spill in Alaska. "Petroleum has thousands of compounds. It's complex and the communities that feed on it are complex. A superbug fails because it competes with this community that is adapted to the environment."
Nor is it easy to help the existing communities of thousands of microbes, such as various species of Vibrio and Pseudomonads, to eat the oil faster—seeding experiments have generally failed. "Microbes are a lot like teenagers, they are hard to control," says marine chemist Chris Reddy of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. "The concept that nature will eat it all up is not accurate, at least not on the time scale we're worried about."
Just like your automobile, these marine-dwelling bacteria and fungi use the hydrocarbons as fuel—and emit the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2) as a result. In essence, the microbes break down the ring structures of the hydrocarbons in seaborne oil using enzymes and oxygen in the seawater. The end result is ancient oil turned into modern-day bacterial biomass—populations can grow exponentially in days. "Down in the Gulf of Mexico there is an indigenous population [of microbes] adapted to oil from so much marine traffic and daily spills. Oil is not new," says Lee, who has also been monitoring the plumes of oil beneath the surface. "There are so many natural seeps around the world that if it wasn't for microbes we would have a lot of oil in the oceans."
Already, measurements of oxygen depletion of as much as 30 percent in the Gulf of Mexico seawater suggest that the microbes are hard at work eating oil. "I take the 30 percent depletion of oxygen in water near the oil as indicating bacterial degradation," Atlas says.
That happens best near the surface, whether at land or sea, where warm-water bacteria such as Thalassolituus oleivorans can thrive; colder, deeper waters inhibit microbial growth. "Metabolism slows by about a factor of two or three for every 10 degree[s] Celsius you drop in temperature," notes biogeochemist David Valentine of the University of California, Santa Barbara, who just received funding from the National Science Foundation to characterize the microbial response to the ongoing oil spill. "The deeper stuff, that's going to happen very slowly because the temperature is so low."
Unfortunately, that's exactly where some of the Deepwater Horizon oil seems to be ending up. "They saw the oil at 800 to 1,400 meters depth," says microbial ecologist Andreas Teske of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, whose graduate student Luke McKay was on the research vessel Pelican that first reported such subsurface plumes—as predicted by small-scale experiments, such as the U.S. Minerals Management Services Project "Deep Spill". "It is either at the surface or hanging in the water column and possibly sinking down to the sediment."
Yet, microbes are the only process to break down the oil deeper in the water, far away from physical processes on the surface such as evaporation or waves. "The deep waters are dominantly microbial" when it comes to oil degradation, although these communities are not as well studied as those at the surface, notes microbial geochemist Samantha Joye of the University of Georgia. "As long as there is oxygen around, it will get chewed up."
To understand how the microbes will work and how quickly, however, will require a better understanding of exactly how much oil is out there. "It's a function of size, and we don't know size," Joye says. "We need to know how much oil is leaking out. Without that information we can't begin to make any kind of calculation of potential oxygen demand or anything else." BP now admits that its original estimate of roughly 200,000 gallons per day was far too low without providing an alternative; independent experts have offered estimates as high as four million gallons per day.
It is possible to add fertilizers, such as iron, nitrogen and phosphorus, to stimulate the growth of such bacteria, an approach used to speed up microbial activity in the sediment along the Alaska coast after the Exxon-Valdez spill. "We saw a three to five times increase in rate of biodegradation," Atlas says, suggesting the technique might prove effective along the oil-inundated Louisiana coast as well. "It was hundreds of miles of shoreline, the largest bioremediation project ever."
But that's strictly onshore. "In the ocean, how do you keep the nutrients with the oil?" Lee asks. "It's much easier to add to soil. That's why you don't see bioremediation in the open ocean." And aerating soils in wetlands can have its own problems; Lee tried tilling oil-soaked wetlands in Nova Scotia where there was limited oxygen to increase microbial activity. "That didn't work. We had large erosion as a result," he says. "If the oil reaches shore, our recommendation was to leave the oil alone and let nature do it."
But sediment, whether the muck of Louisiana marshland or the deep ocean seafloor, suffers from a dearth of oxygen. That means it's up to anaerobic microbes—ancient organisms that live via sulfate rather than oxygen—to do the dirty work of consuming the spill. "What occurred in 10 days aerobically, took 365 days to occur anaerobically," says Atlas of the breakdown of oil in the wake of the Amoco Cadiz spill off the coast of France in 1978. Adds Teske: "The heavy components are sinking to the sediment and forming an oily or tarry carpet or getting buried. Then they are much harder to degrade."
Such anaerobic environments can develop locally in the seawater itself, thanks to a ready supply of oil and blooming microbes eager to devour it. In deepwater, where there's less mixing with the surface waters to provide fresh supplies of oxygen, a dead zone may result. "It's not exchanging with the atmosphere," Joye notes. "Once the oxygen is gone, how are you going to replace it? It's not going to get mixed up by winter storms." That's bad news for the speedy breakdown of oil as well as for the Lophelia coral and other sessile deepwater life.
At the same time, the addition of 130,000 gallons of dispersants deep beneath the surface is having uncertain effects; it may even end up killing the microbes it is meant to help thanks to the fact that Corexit 9527A contains the solvent 2-butoxyethanol, which is a known human carcinogen and toxic to animals and other life. But the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and others are monitoring whether adding such dispersants ends up boosting microbe-growth and hence dangerously depletes oxygen levels, among other potential environmental ill effects.
Nor is it clear how fast the microbial community will respond. "Which microbial communities are the fastest responders?" Teske asks. "That would be interesting to know" and this oil spill may provide the real- world answer. Some research suggests that oil spills may actually feed themselves nitrogen by stimulating the growth of various bacteria that fix the vital nutrient, Joye notes. At the same time, microbial predators such as protozoa tend to dampen the efficiency of would-be oil-eating microbes.
Scientists are still working to deploy known oil-eaters, such as Alcanivorax, in the form of booms laced with slow-release fertilizer and the microbes. In experiments such microbial booms ate heavy fuel oil in two months and "the experimental waste water was clean enough to be released back to the sea," says environmental geneticist Peter Golyshin of Bangor University in Wales. But "in the Gulf of Mexico, the amount of oil is simply too big. The oil gets dispersed but there is not enough [nitrogen] and [phosphorus] to feed bacterial growth."
Ultimately, it is only microbes that can remove the oil from the ocean. "In the long run, it's biodegradation that removes most of the oil from the environment in these situations," Lee says. Or, as Joye puts it, "They're clever, they're tough, they can basically eat nails…. The microbes have to save us again."
Regardless, the oil will linger in the environment for a long time. The microbes break down hydrocarbons in "weeks to months to years, depending on the compounds and concentrations—not hours or days," Atlas notes. "Much of the real tar or asphalt compounds are not readily subject to microbial attack…. Tar tends to persist. Asphalt tends to persist."
Adds Valentine: "We wouldn't make roads out of them if the bacteria ate them."
See what we're tweeting about
43 Comments
Add CommentI guess the uncaptured methane will just be released...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is the unknown secondary, tertiary and down stream affects that make any huge scale action like microbes risky.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe thing that bothers me about using anything *alive* to do our dirty work, is that we know so little about life and the processes that allow it to perpetuate/propagate itself.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe problem is, when you engineer an organism to perform a single task, you don't know if/when/how it will mutate.
Say, you've engineered a species to metabolise crude oil/tar/asphalt -to feed on an area of thousands of square miles, nonetheless. Anyone familiar with a bacterium's lifestyle will know that they will eventually, inevitably mutate (think about the sheer number of bacteria that will feed on and multiply in that gooey icky stuff...).
Mutations are random but, eventually some mutations will prove beneficial for the organism and stick through generations. Such as? Perhaps, as the successful bacteria consume the crude and the oil starts to run out, the diminishing resources will push the bacteria to start feeding on other stuff such as other marine life -or anything else for that matter.
This is the deal: When you breed something as aggressive as a crude-oil-eating-bacteria, you can't expect it to lie down and take it as a champ when its food is gone.
The world is already full of lab-fugitive bacteria and algae. we don't need something that digests hydrocarbons to make our gray-goo nightmares come true.
The oil slick and the dispersal agents and BP's amazing/unbelievable/weird/historically consistent attitude are bad enough already.
Please don't make us deal with anything worse.
The thing that bothers me about using anything *alive* to do our dirty work, is that we know so little about life and the processes that allow it to perpetuate/propagate itself.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe problem is, when you engineer an organism to perform a single task, you don't know if/when/how it will mutate.
Say, you've engineered a species to metabolise crude oil/tar/asphalt -to feed on an area of thousands of square miles, nonetheless. Anyone familiar with a bacterium's lifestyle will know that they will eventually, inevitably mutate (think about the sheer number of bacteria that will feed on and multiply in that gooey icky stuff...).
Mutations are random but, eventually some mutations will prove beneficial for the organism and stick through generations. Such as? Perhaps, as the successful bacteria consume the crude and the oil starts to run out, the diminishing resources will push the bacteria to start feeding on other stuff such as other marine life -or anything else for that matter.
This is the deal: When you breed something as aggressive as a crude-oil-eating-bacteria, you can't expect it to lie down and take it as a champ when its food is gone.
The world is already full of lab-fugitive bacteria and algae. we don't need something that digests hydrocarbons to make our gray-goo nightmares come true.
The oil slick and the dispersal agents and BP's amazing/unbelievable/weird/historically consistent attitude are bad enough already.
Please don't make us deal with anything worse.
However the scientists decide to attack the oil with microbial agents and or nitrogen fertilizers our company has the equipment available to apply it in shallow water and estuaries. As the oil moves onshore it may be a viable solution. We already use a bacteria (vectobac 200g) as a larvacide for disease carying mosquitoes, and apply it in simalar environments. We have the equipment and industry experties to apply an oil eating microbe via helicopter. www.heliap.com
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere's an old movie called the "Andromeda Strain", where engineered microbes consumed all the plastics derived from petroleum. Airplanes fall from the sky, etc. Whats a healthy population of petroleum consuming microbes to do when the food's all gone?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The thing that bothers me about using anything *alive* to do our dirty work, is that we know so little about life and the processes that allow it to perpetuate/propagate itself."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn the contrary. We know that life is incredibly resilient, can thrive and adapt to all manner of hostile environments and can eat just about anything you throw at it.
Um, Andromeda strain was about a microbe captured in a space probe. Nothing earthly about it; that was the main plot point of the novel.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a lifelong student of the ocean-thanks for the great article. The millions of ocean bacteria and microbes' work slowly at this depth-1 mile. The combined dispersant and oil sludge will devastate the waterways, estuaries and the inhabitants of the Eco-system unless it is vacuumed up or eradicated. Was this a play-it-by-ear plan. BP could have back filled and sealed the oil leak three-weeks ago.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisfrgough - Not that it makes any real difference, but as I recall the movie was purposely unclear. While the facility was supposed to have been built to handle recovery of microbes from space probes, the incident depicted may have been an operational test procedure...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, they might mutate into something that could eat YOU. HOWEVER, since oil-eating microbes have already been around a long, long, long time, I think this is the best guess as to what might happen when their food supply runs out:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey'll die off. Period.
We have a huge deadzone in the gulf from where fertilizers wash into the gulf. Isn't there enough nitrogen already in the water? Wasn't that the biggest environmental problem prior to this one?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere was nothing unclear about the movie or the book at all. A space organization had a satellite in orbit that was meant to collect space debris for study. It caught something which contained a microorganism that was violently deadly to everything on earth, and highly corrosive to organic compounds as well. There is never any allusion to or hinting that it might have been manufactured.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisyes even before reading this article, it sound like a bad idea, inderducing new microbe to the ocean where it wasnt. We have seen this turn out ugly before.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a graduate student in the area and one involved in research pertaining to the Deepwater Horizon blowout. Maybe it should be clarified that DUMPING BACTERIA OF ANYKIND INTO THE OCEAN is not an option being considered at this point in time. We as researchers are studying the affects the oil is having on the microbial community (and the ecosystem as a whole) and who all in the bacterial community is stepping up to degrade it period. THAT'S IT NO SCI-FI stuff going on. Research about the affects only, not trying new things to dose the ocean with to scare all of you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat is the source of the "known human carcinogen" Statement? Both IARC and the EPA say it is not carcinogenic to humans.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs there a source for the statement "known human carcinogen"? Both IARC and EPA say 2-butoxyethanol is not a human carcinogen.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would like to know why BP shouldn't be criminally prosecuted. We do not know the widespread effects or just how many species will be seriously damaged. The oceans are so important to ecosystems around the planet. I just can't believe that dumping toxic solvents into the ocean so hydrocarbon eating bacteria is the best solution anyone could come up with. It scares me to think about the consequences 5 or 10 years from now.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisElectrify the Debate!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis calamity may have only just begun. The geologic force that has been unleashed might have to gush until the pressure is relieved- that could mean an inch of oil the world over! Even if it were to stop in the next half hour, there is already the oil equivalent of a dozen Exxon Valdez spills out there.
In a vulgar display of power, BP has stopped scientists from accessing the gusher site, is refusing an EPA order to stop using COREXIT 9500, the toxic dispersant keeping the oil from reaching the surface where the world can see, photograph and measure the true extent of the damage being done to the Gulf of Mexico, and soon, Atlantic Ocean. They have even gone so far as to threaten a CBS news crew with arrest if they filmed a soiled beach.
As the Coast Guard, National Marine Mineral Service and the Obama administration lay prostrate before BP, major newspapers work to conceal, obscure, and spin the unfolding calamity.
Our 'leaders' aren't getting the message at all- they want to drill and to continue listening to their oil company bosses.
But this is the best shot we'll ever have to change things.
The true cost of oil is war, asthma, environmental destruction, lost tourism and global climate change. No amount of money makes up for that. There is only one solution, and the oil companies fear it- Solar Panels on our rooftops and Electric Cars to drive.
The real reason Toyota is being slammed relentlessly in the press is not over safety, but because they have teamed with TESLA MOTORS to mass produce what the world now needs most!
1. Nickel-Metal Hydride is the only proven EV (Electric Vehicle) battery; after 100K or 200K miles NiMH can be remelted down into new batteries without new mining.
2. Instead of "research", we need to start making and improving plug-in cars right now, not waiting for the perfect that never comes. Lowering cost is the name of the game.
3. Solar power and plug-in cars is the only sustainable way to power individual autos.
4. Running an EV 1000 miles per month takes only 250 kilo-Watt-hours of electric, about $25 worth; about what two old refrigerators cost and about a third of the average home usage.
5. It would take only a tenth of the average home roof -- 6 square yards -- to make 250 kWh per month, enough electric energy to run a plug-in car 1000 miles per month.
6. Because solar power and plug-in cars would cut oil profits, Big Oil has used its financial power to strangle and delay use of these obviously simple and working alternative to oil and coal.
7. No matter how many nuke or coal plants we build, it won't replace one drop of oil unless there are plug-in cars to use the electric; but if we had plug-in cars, we wouldn't even need new power plants. The money not spent on oil pays for solar. We can make it happen. And we should.
8. America's largest open-pit coal mine is a witches cauldron of toxic waste and caustic destruction; but if the ground were left alone, and covered with solar panels, we'd get more electric energy from the same space (28,000 acres) than we get from the coal.
9. Instead of risking death in criminal coal mines, or skirting safety rules on oil rigs, the same workers could be manufacturing and installing solar panels and building and recycling electric plug-in cars and reforming their batteries.
10. Electric cars are all powered with American electrons; no electric is imported. Buying oil from people who hate us gives them our money and leaves only air and ground pollution, asthma and smog after it's burned.
If there were no alternative to oil-fired cars, the permanent lung damage caused by burning oil might be necessary; but there IS an alternative, solar and plug-in cars. There is no higher cost than killing your kids lungs -and the Earth- to enrich Big Oil.
Join Operation 'Sunburst'- Electrify the Debate!
Please help pass this information around.
Thank you
If the CEO's and CFO's of these large companies had the oil sludge dumped on their property and in their bedrooms, maybe they would begin to feel for the people this is going to effect!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs far as placing blame on the consumer, I feel this guy is full of it!
Nobody asked them to take shortcuts that would jeopardize the entire gulf ecosystem and beyond.
To frgough at 9:12pm on 5/25/10: "On the contrary. We know that life is incredibly resilient, can thrive and adapt to all manner of hostile environments and can eat just about anything you throw at it." If anything, your comment only reassure us of life's fragility and the notion to justify continued abuse of the planet. Substitute humans as the microbes and you can see our method of "resiliency" in the mammal world and look how many other species of life that have been wiped out because of our resilience. Oh, yes microbes will survive us and I am glad for them. Let's just make sure we had no part in that. If it will happen, let it not happen by the hands of man. Your one-eye blinded statement seems to say, do whatever the heck you want to the planet and it will bounce back. What will bounce back--sure some form of life will be resilient enough to take our licking--which form of life is the question. Will you bounce back? Take a swim in the oil plume and let us know will ya. I don't find your talk and ones like it inspiring; it is pompous. I am positive that people with such "super-god attitude" are the very ones at the core of most of our plant's destructive activities.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI completely agree that bacteria and some microbes are the only thing to clean-up Gulf without damaging effect on its sensitive ecosystem.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe can solve this global problem by using something similar to biotechnology ECOLAN which combines values (merits) of absorption and biodegradative methods to liquidate oil contamination (in a period of 10 minutes). It doesnt require gathering and liquidating dangerous waste products from polluted area.
ECOLAN was successfully used for cleaning oil spot caused by sinking ships during a severe storm in the Black Sea in 2009. For Ukrainians it was something terrible likewise Oil Spill 2010 for Americans. Thank God, our government implemented this method very fast. Consequently, it appears very convenient and cheap. Accordingly, 5 $ for cleaning the 1 m2. I think we can collaboratively save our magnificent nature by sending 5 $ in some fund created by us to buy this absorbent. See details on http://inekosorb.com.ua/uk/products/ekolan.shtml
I completely agree that bacteria and some microbes are the only thing to clean-up Gulf without damaging effect on its sensitive ecosystem.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe can solve this global problem by using something similar to biotechnology ECOLAN which combines values (merits) of absorption and biodegradative methods to liquidate oil contamination (in a period of 10 minutes). It doesn’t require gathering and liquidating dangerous waste products from polluted area.
ECOLAN was successfully used for cleaning oil spot caused by sinking ships during a severe storm in the Black Sea in 2009. For Ukrainians it was something terrible likewise Oil Spill 2010 for Americans. Thank God, our government implemented this method very fast. Consequently, it appears very convenient and cheap. Accordingly, 5 $ for cleaning the 1 m2. I think we can collaboratively save our magnificent nature by sending 5 $ in some fund created by us to buy this absorbent. See details on http://inekosorb.com.ua/uk/products/ekolan.shtml
There is one way to get BP executives to react. Give them fish and prawns from the gulf of mexico to eat every day.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisStudies have shown that marine wildlife will also feed on the microbe by product eliminating any secondary, tertiary and down stream affects you might be concerned about. More info here, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VfypUzx1tI&feature=topvideos
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisStudies have shown that marine wildlife will also feed on the microbe by product eliminating any secondary, tertiary and down stream affects you might be concerned about. More info here, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VfypUzx1tI&feature=topvideos
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI truly believe these organisms CAN do the cleanup job in the
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGulf of Mexico. And I'm sure these are readily created in
laboratories around the world. Perhaps the good President
we voted for in the White House ought to be clued into this
most marvelous solution, although I have the feeling he already knows about these things.
Plese notify our president of this as yhr CEO of BP seems incompetent to deal with the scope and reality of the situation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is a video on www.microsorb.org - talks all about the state of Texas using microbes. Also a video of these microbes used in a fishtank. If they used this in 1990 in the Gulf, why can't they use it today in the Gulf?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnyone interested in this article may also be interested in this story from the June 1990 issue of Texas Monthly:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.texasmonthly.com/1990-06-01/feature7-1.php
A number of companies in the U.S. manufacture these oil-eating microbes (existing microbes nothing engineered) and have for decades. One firm Osprey Biotechnics is an EPA partner. In warm climates on shorelines, marshes, etc. this could be the only solution. This is one part of the solution, a mitigation effort. Worried. Test the stuff. Do it now. Not 10 years from now. Ecosystems are dying. Government funded studies have already been conducted Rittmann, et. al. 1993. No one is talking about adding tons of microbes into the ocean, but why not. These microbes have been cleaning out bilges of boats and cleaning up marina spills for 20 years. Why not?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishey m doing my graduatin in biotechnology..from India..for my PG entrance i was thinking oil spill research as a topic for my SoP(statement of purpose like an college essay)..can anyone give me any leads or suggestiong on this please?? thankyou..
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe BP response is completely inadequate for this spill. There is a non toxic alternative that is on the EPA’s National contingency plan for oil spills which means it can be legally used on any spill. OIL SPILL EATER II (OSE II). OSE II’s is a first response bioremediation product that in order to be on the EPA NCP list it actually had to prove OSE II could remediate oil to CO2 and water. The EPA has performed numerous toxicity tests on OSE II themselves, and OSE II has a general toxicity of greater than 9,000, compared to corexit of 2, the lower the number the greater the toxicity. OSE II has been used on a spill by the EPA/Regional response team successfully, yet they refuse to access this product for this spill. BP contractors has used OSE II on a well blow out in Trinidad, and Tobago, and on their refinery on the Island of Crete in Greece. The dispersant is so toxic that it prevents bacteria from utilizing the oil as a food source as the EPA claims. There was another product that Exxon owned called inipol that they tried to get approved for the EPA NCP list under the same category as OSE II. Inipol had the same toxic solvent 2 butoxy ethanol, that is in corexit and causes it to have such a horrible toxicity level. Exxon after 3 years of testing against OSE II gave up because they discovered that inipol actually inhibits the remediation of oil because it was so toxic. So the EPA new before they ever approved corexit that the 2 butoxy ethanol in corexit would prevent the bacteria from breaking down the oil since 2 butoxy ethanol increases the toxicity level of a spill, yet they go and and state the reverse. The former president of the OSEI Corporation drank some OSE II on channel 11 news in Houston in 1992, and stated let our competition do that. OSE II is used as a first and only response tool around the world and has cleaned up over 14,000 spills. The EPA is aware of over 100 spills that the US Navy cleaned up in San Diego Bay over a 3 year period, yet they will not access OSE II. There is a safe non alternative OSE II
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSteven Pedigo
It is absurd that petrol companies drill in such difficult sites without having installed failsafe mechanisms. One solution would be to drill a second intersecting borehole before exploiting the site. Why have they not pumped liquid nitrogen into the well to seal it? Indeed why aren't oil tankers equiped with liquid nitrogen gear to plug holes in the hull with frozen sea-water? International legislation is urgently needed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthank you for some good news.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is a misleading story. The problem is that the dispersants they have and are using contain toxic constituents that act as microbial inhibitors. So the end result is a visible onslot of oil and tar balls coming ashore. These so called scientist should be forced to tell the WHOLE truth. Parsing information makes them look less educated, or bought off.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry, I'm new to this, but wouldn't hydrophobic fertilizers stay dissolved in the oil. As for adding more bacteria to the environment we could probably just take already existing bacteria, culture them in mass quantities and add them to the areas in need. We did alot of work with techniques for mass producing bacteria very quickly when anthrax was a weapon. We could probably just modify these processes to mass produce the naturally occuring microbes and add them to the areas in the gulf hit worst.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'd like any comments anyone could give me on the viability of this. Thanks.
BP successfully tests non toxic solution for Gulf spill, OSE II
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTesting of OSE II by Dr. Tsao of British Petroleum
BioChem Strike Team Leader
Regarding the Effectiveness of OSE II Remediating Oil from Deepwater Horizon, Blow Out, Gulf of Mexico
British Petroleum tested Oil Spill Eater II at Louisiana State University. Relevant sections of BP’s BCST (Bio Chem Strike Team) test results are posted.
British Petroleum formed the Bio Chem Strike Team (BCST). Under the direction of Dr. Tsao, BCST was established in response to the Deepwater Horizon incident by the Alternative Response Technology (ART) program. The BCST consisted of experts from BP, LSU, LDEQ (Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality), USCG (U.S. Coast Guard), OSPR (California), SCAT, and highly experienced oil spill response consultants. Furthermore, BCST operated in conjunction EPA and NOAA.
The tests were conducted with Gas Chromatograph Mass Spectrometry EPA test procedures. PAH and Alkane degradation was quantified.
OSE II showed a great ability to be able to remediate PAH’s, as well as the Alkanes. In fact, by the conclusion of the testing time frame, OSE II had remediated 80% of both components of the oil released by BP which ended up in Bay Jimmy, Louisiana.
This test by a major oil company is the second major testing of OSE II on two of the largest spills on water in the history of Earth caused by Man. Exxon tested OSE II in 1989 and discovered OSE II was the most effective product on Alaskan Crude oil from the Valdez spill.
BP has now successfully tested OSE II on their spill in the Gulf of Mexico which is over 600,000,000 gallons of oil spilled.
Dr. Tsao wrote “After nearly one year since the Deepwater Horizon spill, residual weathered oil remains in many locations. The need for a field trial to establish operational criteria for final bioremediation work plans should be initiated before early Spring 2011.”
The OSEI Corporation after over 16,000 spill clean ups in the past 21½ years, stated the logistics in regard to the successful application of OSE II were worked out some time ago.
The remediation of the PAH’s also verifies that OSE II is an effective first response bioremediation product, and has benefits:
) causes the oil to float which limits the negative toxic impact to the water column or ocean floor of the oil and dispersant
) reduction of the adhesion properties so the oil cannot stick to birds, grass, rock or sand on shorelines
) elimination of fire hazard
) proven non-toxic by the numerous toxicity tests, you can safely wash your hands with it, the TV news program in which Retired Rear Admiral Lively drank some of it
) OSE II causes the oil to float, because of the method in which it goes to work on the oil, it is still very difficult to see
) defined end point of turning the oil into water and CO2
OSE II is the best and only needed oil spill response that will, even at this late date, remediate oil and dispersant currently in the Gulf.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere was a non toxic Alternative to clean up the spill that has been successfully tested by BP after 10 months of spill damages. The Coast Guard sent a letter from headquarters stating to the FOSC to take action with OSE II, and the EPA, Lisa Jackson stopped the Coast Guard from allowing BP from implementing OSE II. In fact the EPA stopped the application of OSE II 11 times denying State Senators direct request for use of OSE II from Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. La Department of environmental requested the use of OSE II as well, EPA's Sam Coleman denied their request without reason. Governor Jindal tried to get OSE II demonstrated on the Chandelier Islands on May 6, 2010, and the EPA stopped the Governor as well. The EPA in fact stopped the use of OSE II 11 times, without a reason given. Had the EPA allowed Governor Jindal to allow the demonstration of OSE II on May 6, 2010, it is possible a significant portion of the environmental damages, including the shorelines and the seafood industry would have been spared. The toxicty test comparison between OSE II and corexit really cannot be compared since with corexit, the label states it can cause red blood cells to burst, kidney, and liver problems if a chemical suit and respirator are not worn. OSE II in contrast can be used to wash your hands and is non toxic. The BP Deep Horizon spill has proven that corexit only sinks oil and causes the same oil to be addressed a second time when it comes ashore as under water plumes, or tar balls, while OSE II has a substantiated end point of converting oil to CO2 and water. See Coast Guard letter below
U. S. Department
of Homeland Security
United States
Coast Guard
Commanding Officer 1 Chelsea Street
U. S. Coast Guard New London, CT 06320
Research and Development Center Staff Symbol: Contracting Office
Phone: (860) 271-2807
July 10, 2010
OSEI Corporation
P.O. Box 515429
Dallas, TX 75251
Attn: Steven Pedigo, President/Owner
DEEPWATER HORIZON RESPONSE BAA HSCG32-10-R-R00019, TRACKING #2003954
We are pleased to inform you that the initial screening of your White Paper submitted under Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) HSCG32-10-R-R00019 has been completed. It has been determined that your White Paper submission has a potential for benefit to the spill response effort.
Your White Paper has been forwarded to the Deepwater Horizon Response Federal On-Scene Coordinator (FOSC) for further action under its authority. Subject to the constraints and needs of the ongoing oil spill response, you may be contacted by the FOSC or the responsible party.
We appreciate your interest in supporting the Deepwater Horizon Response effort.
Contracting Officer /s/
USCG R&D Center
OSE II is listed on the US EPA NCP list and has been successfully used by the US EPA in a river spill in the US. The US EPA also visited the US Navy in San Diego to hear first hand the hundreds of spills the US Navy cleaned up in San Diego Bay. The Navy stated during their clean ups there were whales and dolphins nearby and there was never any adverse impact to any species, or the environment. The Navy acknowledged the fact that OSE II breaks oil up and causes it to float until it is detoxified, and converted to CO 2 and water. The Navy stated causing the oil to float is preferable since this keeps a spill out of the water column where 60% of marine species thrive. The fact that OSE II rapidly diminishes the spills adhesion properties prevented their spills from adhering to grass, sand, or man made structures leaving everything in pre spill conditions. OSE II is the safe non toxic first response, and toxicity testing that has been performed by the US EPA verifies the safety of OSE II for marine species and responders.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOil Spill Eater II
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTesting of OSE II by Dr. Tsao of British Petroleum
BioChem Strike Team Leader
Regarding the Effectiveness of OSE II Remediating Oil from Deepwater Horizon, Blow Out, Gulf of Mexico
British Petroleum tested Oil Spill Eater II at Louisiana State University. Relevant sections of BP’s BCST (Bio Chem Strike Team) test results are posted.
British Petroleum formed the Bio Chem Strike Team (BCST). Under the direction of Dr. Tsao, BCST was established in response to the Deepwater Horizon incident by the Alternative Response Technology (ART) program. The BCST consisted of experts from BP, LSU, LDEQ (Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality), USCG (U.S. Coast Guard), OSPR (California), SCAT, and highly experienced oil spill response consultants. Furthermore, BCST operated in conjunction EPA and NOAA.
OSE II showed a great ability to remediate PAH’s, and Alkanes. By the conclusion of the testing time frame, OSE II remediated 80% of both components of the oil. Based on total concentration levels of the PAH’s OSE II actually remediated 200 %of the PAH’s or 162% of the total of both oil fractions.
BP has now successfully tested OSE II on their spill in the Gulf of Mexico which is over 600,000,000 gallons of oil spilled.
Dr. Tsao wrote “After nearly one year since the Deepwater Horizon spill, residual weathered oil remains in many locations. Final bioremediation work plans should be initiated before Spring 2011.”
The OSEI Corporation after over 16,000 spill clean ups in the past 21½ years, stated the logistics in regard to the successful application of OSE II were worked out some time ago.
The remediation of the PAH’s also verifies that OSE II is an effective first response bioremediation product, and has benefits:
) causes the oil to float which limits the negative toxic impact to the water column or ocean floor of the oil and dispersant
) reduction of the adhesion properties so the oil cannot stick to birds, grass, rock or sand on shorelines
) elimination of fire hazard
) proven non-toxic by the numerous toxicity tests, you can safely wash your hands with it, the TV news program in which Retired Rear Admiral Lively drank some of it
) OSE II causes the oil to float, because of the method in which it goes to work on the oil, it is still very difficult to see
) defined end point of turning the oil into water and CO2
OSE II is the best and only needed oil spill response that will, even at this late date, remediate oil and dispersant currently in the Gulf.
The bottom line seems to be we have to rely on the very environment we are destroying to save ourselves. Yeah, that will last......
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishow about an update on the situation? I get more and more alarming news from other people about the situation going from worse to really bad. The interaction between oil and the new detergents is apparently killing off the immune system of everything in and near the sea, including the people who live there. People start dying from the consequences of the "clean-up", a major catastrophy is becoming more obvious by the day and will kill off the whole area but for some unfathomable reason nobody talks about it anymore. Polluter and admin prefer it that way and the others have resignated it seems. An update would be most appreciated.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this