I make Sea Brat. The thing that has been tricky to explain is that all of our products were made for bioremediation. We mix a liquid blend of enzymes and oil eating microbes. These microbes are formulated just for these hydrocarbons. They are basically typical, natural microbes or psudomonas. They are aerobic meaning they use oxygen. These are basically fed only hydrocarbon chains until they develop the enzymes necessary to metabolize the hydrocarbon. But this has been tricky…
First the EPA has a system set up where after testing (expensive for small companies like us) a product can only be classified within 1 of the product catagories. There are 4 catagories. (Dispersant, Surface Cleaning Agent, Bioremediation, Miscellaneous which is typicaly booms, absorbants or silly trick products). However, EPA will only allow a product to be within 1 catagory at a time. So if I have a qualified bioremediation product it would be in that catagory. Which means I can not be in the "dispersant" catagory. Therefore I can not be used in this event.
This in my opinion is more about competition. Anyway, Sea Brat and my other major product Petro Clean are not in the biormediation catagory.
I needed a "dispersant" in order to provide for an oceanic oil spill. So they ignore or disallow me to advertise the microbial aspect. Same with Petro Clean. Petro Clean was designed to render flammable spills non flammable. Firemen are my main customers with PC. However, PC was designed specifically to bioremediate the contamination. You have a gasoline or diesel spill and PC prevents fire and explosion AND treats the washed off contamination. But EPA does not allow me to directly advertise this.
So if I added these in the EPA "bioremediation" catagory I would not be able to use them on anything but soil cleanup. ???
We wanted to offer a "solution to pollution" but needed to list my products within the catagories most useful. So Sea Brat dispersant is not only an environmentally friendly alternative BUT it has lots of real oil eating bugs within that will actually eat the slight toxic out of my own product. It basically mixes with the oil and self distructs into harmless natural biproducts like carbon dioxide, salts, fatty acids, etc.
I was never a petrochemical company trying to make a product for the environment. I am a environmental company trying to make a product for the petrochemical pollution. I admit that in a super mega volume anything is an issue. But my product will act more like fertilizer for a garden than anything.
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 shit 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.
They were discovered by CNN and now mad at us. They had a confidentiality clause within the purchase order. But thier own COO anounce it to the press when drilled about toxic dispersants. Then CNN showed the month old hidden pile of Sea Brat! Now they want to hide it in a warehouse. They told us this. They said it would be put in storage, asked if we knew anyone who would buy it, then said they would pour it down the drain before they used it.
Now they are still using Corexit, the EPA is retesting my product, and BP is trying to close an oil volcano by shooting spitwads at it. All the while the press, government, public thinks throwing diapers at the spill and pouring trash into the oil gushers is an option.
Meanwhile every 5th grader out there know about bioremediation and wonders why the grownups can get it together.
John
PS you can contact me anytime at my website email.
http://trueslant.com/allisonkilkenny/2010/05/25/bp-using-toxic-dispersants-despite-availability-of-safer-alternatives/




26 Comments

recommended, tweeted, and facebooked
Great diary – thanks very much. Recommended.
Excellent. Recommended.
Keep them coming.
Thanks for writing this up.
Looking forward to further reports. Don’t be a stranger, please.
More from the author, a comment left on another thread:
Thank you! We need to get this out in the public. Do you have a facebook account?
Sorry to hear this, hopefully the EPA will okay it and BP will be seized or marginalized.
Corexit needs to be dumped down Nalco/BP exec’s throats…! 8-(
This is how revolutions by the people, of the people, for the people, begin.
GREAT diary. Thanks!
Rccd of course!
thanks for the diary! rec’d.
Thanks so much for this information, Johnny. Have you tried the route of contacting your Congressperson or a Senator to get involved? Given the current situation, they just might be able to get some action for Sea Brat getting more fair treatment in consideration of what will work.
How close can anyone get to the spill?
Have you tried contacting Green Peace?
We need someone to launch a boat (or two) and start dumping Sea Brat!
Greepeace tried and were blocked by the armed forces of USBP.
My family read about your product a few years ago in the Economist and then again on CNN.
My oldest thought what a great product and wondered about how to expand the technology for many forms of pollution.
Then the Gulf Spill happened. He’s been asking me why they haven’t used your product. I had no answers.
Now we know.
It will be interesting when well informed youth start asking why their future has been so impacted by the failure to use effective technologies.
Seconding Jim White’s recommendation!
Here we go again. Alaska, again. BP again.
Salazar/Obama’s idea of strict oversight.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64P04U20100526?source=email
Okay here is a long shot. With James Carville coming out so strongly against the O Administration today, and HE has a personal connection with this environmental disaster. He may be able to make some political connections that can at least give this chemical some attention. Here is his email website at Tulane University where he teaches Political Science. It is as follows: carville@tulane.edu. His phone number is unlisted but here is the general university phone number where the operator may be aable to connect you to his voicemail it is (504) 865-5000. Tulane University, Louisiana.
Wow, johnnydiamond!
I’m posting this entire essay over at my place. I’d heard about your product from Riki Ott or Rick Steiner or Bill Black some time ago, but had forgotten about it.
I was going to suggest the same thing. I never imagined that I would rely on Carville for anything.
oops…
Somebody call Keith Olbermann. . . quick!
From Abalaster Corp website…
Additionally Alabaster Corporation is listed in the United States Department of Defense Central Contractor Registration list with a standing BPA or (Blanket Purchase Approval) for our bioremediation, dispersant and surface washing products. Alabaster Bioremediation Products are used in a wide variety of applications from large-scale waste site or environmental pollution clean up to smaller scale uses in various industries. Alabaster has furnished microbic chemicals and solutions to the Panama Canal Commission, The U.S. Navy (Norfolk Naval Station), The U.S. Air Force (Langley Air Force Base) under the Alabaster label.
When Uncle Sam means business, the Pentagon does the talking and it claims exemption from environmental regulations all the time. Between Navy or the Air Force, I bet there’s a flag officer or two willing to draft and present a plan for Dod-led remeditation effort (billed back to BP eventually) that includes utilizing the standing BPA (perhaps modified to include Sea Brat if its not on the list already).
I do think the Navy in particular would be interested in this (they could run it out of the big Seabee base in Gullport). For one thing, they’ll appreciate having an option to present the SecDef other than Operation Wigwam II. :o)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRm32sv9mys
Sorry, The Naval Construction Battalion Center is in fact in Gulfport and NOT “Gullport”. :o)
According to CNN, BP says that Sea Brat contains a small amount of a chemical that may degrade to a nonylphenol, an organic chemical that is toxic to aquatic life and may persist in the environment for years. What’s up with that?
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/05/22/gulf.oil.spill/index.html
The poster seems to refer to this (search for the first two occurrences of the word ‘toxic’) when claiming that the action of the microbes gets rid of the material (presumably before such degradation occurs). Comment 5 above contains the additional assertion that even without such toxin precursors Corexit creates lethal conditions for fish.
While corroboration would be nice, it certainly sounds promising.
Thanks for all the support. Currently EPA has multiple samples of my product Sea Brat going to several different labs so the samples do not get corrupted. However, recently we’ve had sucessful tests with Petro Clean. Our phd chemist tested a large slop tank with oil, water, fish. The fish of course were dying until he added PC. Then total turn around. This morning he finished a larger project in LA marshes. They washed the oil off the reeds, made the oil and the red (parafins)disappear and fish recovery (coming back into the marshes. The documentation should be coming soon with EPA witness letter signed.
Will update.
Check out the high test for toxicity for Petro Clean. Then notice that it actually get’s better (goes up) when mixed with the oil at 96 hours. This is because the microbes start working by then.
http://www.epa.gov/OEM/content/ncp/products/petrocle.htm