It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The test shown on EPA do not account for the bugs. We added bugs to Sea Brat during recent BP testing and it was the best product! First Sea Brat with microbes (I had to avoid mentioning this) is a better dispersant than show. Because the natural enzymes from the microbes act like a safe surfactant. No toxic to that aspect. Second the microbes reduce the toxicity even furthuer because the bugs eat out the small amount of chemical within that is of concern and do so within 7 to 15 days.
Recently a toxicologist/ chemist tested my Petro Clean product for the Gulf Spill. He took a slop tank full of water, added minnows and then the crude oil. The fish were killing off… then he hit it with Petro Clean with microbes, enzymes and the kill stopped and the fish began to recover. Testing will be public soon! EPA is doing more test currently to verify these findings (this week) in order to counter BP’s assessment.
BP relaize my product rocked. Beyond anything Nalco could come up with without stealing my formula. So they tried to cover it up. Because BP MUST buy Corexit only. Not just is there some connections between BP and Nalco (Corexit) but also Exxon. This is the "wizard behind the screen." Exxon invented Coexit in various forms. Exxon (so I understand still supplies the main raw materials to make the toxic dispersant.
I understand from chemical insiders that Exxon froze all sales of a product line called Norpar. A petrochemical solvant. They even called back prepaid accounts and ramped up production of this. I also understand that either Nalco or Exxon reserved up to 30 trucks a day here in Houston alone. This indicates to me the volume of product they indented to sell.
Exxon acts like a sticking distributor for the dispersant Corexit. It should be no suprise they have deals worked with other oil companies. They will all describe themselves as "partners." Take the North Slope. There are only a few companies there who really have all the control. If BP drills, Exxon piplines and transports, refines, etc. Upstream, downstream, etc. They think we (you and I) are funny for not seeing this. We scream that we suspect a conflict of interest! They know we do not instantly see that if BP stops using Corexit (Nalco) and it’s main ingredients (Exxon) that they can just charge more to BP for transport of some other product that could amount to more than the estimated oil spill clean up!
Of course that is within the context of the game they play. They make money off oil and clean up without really cleaning anything. But they didn’t expect me. I have been a monster they fed in the back yard for 20 years. BP has purchased between 30 to 80 thousand gallons of Petro Clean per year alone, at one refinery, for 15 years, here in Texas, from me, for bioremediation, tank cleaning, degassing, reducing flammable stuff, etc.
I have a few letters of recommendation and financials for this.
They (Nalco, Exxon, BP) are in a fight to the wall against my bioremediation technologies. Because if the world sees it work they not only loose sales on clean up. They have some explaining to do. They need to explain how they knew about this all along and did nothing over the decades. They need to actually clean things up.
They have been trying to steal the formulas for years. Nalco has approced us, Exxon had clean ups for us to do, etc. They typically say they need to test my products to make sure thay are safe… then ask for exact formula, CAS numbers (which identify chemicals) and the exact percentage by weight.
So they can steal formula.
This is going on now. While they were dumping Corexit my product was tied up in testing. The formulas were to be sent to… exxonmobile email addresses. The specifics were all about Nalco specification! Once they discovered my product rocked! They ordered 100,000 plus gallons then the # hit the fan! Total regulatory freeze up for me. Nothing but testing and a shipping delay. They held up payments (which for a small family biz can be crushing) and stalled. They attempted to prevent us from telling the world we could produce anymore than 15000 gallons per day when in truth 100000 per day or more or possible for anyone under the appropriate business circumstances.
My question:-
Why would they use Corexit on a spill that is so poisonous and detrimental to the enviroment (sea and Land) and biology when they could have possibly used this?edit on 7-1-2011 by jazz10 because: addedit on 7-1-2011 by jazz10 because: add
Recently a toxicologist/ chemist tested my Petro Clean product for the Gulf Spill. He took a slop tank full of water, added minnows and then the crude oil. The fish were killing off… then he hit it with Petro Clean with microbes, enzymes and the kill stopped and the fish began to recover. Testing will be public soon! EPA is doing more test currently to verify these findings (this week) in order to counter BP’s assessment.
BP relaize my product rocked. Beyond anything Nalco could come up with without stealing my formula. So they tried to cover it up. Because BP MUST buy Corexit only. Not just is there some connections between BP and Nalco (Corexit) but also Exxon. This is the "wizard behind the screen." Exxon invented Coexit in various forms. Exxon (so I understand still supplies the main raw materials to make the toxic dispersant.
What do i have to do to get this noticed!!!!!
Originally posted by jazz10
How many of you can honestly, hand on heart say that you have read all of this thread including links?
I dare say none of you because if you did you would be livid as to how this was allowed.
Please read the full OP including links word for word.
All the evidence is there.
Please all I ask, is read it all. Please.
Keep your flags and stars that's not important.
In fact take all of them I'm not bothered.
Originally posted by jazz10
I brought this topic to you all yesterday and not one reply?
This is important because why did they use an alternative that was damaging to everything?
Originally posted by jazz10
I wonder how long it is before any of you actually read this thread and realize the big picture.