Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Cease and desist email to Sam Coleman

Cease and desist email to Sam Coleman

Ratings: (0)|Views: 208|Likes:
Published by oseicorp

More info:

Published by: oseicorp on Mar 01, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





 This is a Cease and desist email to Sam Coleman/EPA and NOAA  To coleman.sam@epa.gov, carroll.craig@epa.gov, Dana Tulis EPA,jackson.lisap@epa.gov, Jane Lubchenco NOAA Administrator, Charlie HenryNOAA, Ed Levine Noaa, Dr Overton LSU, sanford Phillips La DEQ, Nancy JonesEPA, rportie@lsu.edu, agc@agcrowe.com, Bobby Jindal La Governor,tgollot@senate.ms.gov, stevenosei@msn.com, wilfred aghoghovbia, DennisMarketic, David Fakouri, Kevin Barteir, Carl McCool Rep, Mark Rettig associate,Jason Patrick Florida, Serena Rep for OSEI world associations, StevenHabermacher Ca, Vince California rep, Hardy Jones, Jeanette Pennington, TerryMoran OSEI Corp Representative Mississippi, T.Kathryn O'Shannahan-HylandOntario Canada, Jason Adam Adams of Adams and Nichols ecological co, RandyHutto OSEI, Roger Campos, Antonio Romeo of Oralogic, Barbara Wiseman earthInter org pres, Gail Ray, Susan Ballarini activist, Ruth Sebastian Renegadelawyer, northwoodshermit, dianesue@san.rr.com, Riki Ott Alaska,gulfcrusade@hotmail.com, Denise Rednour Activist, Dr. Tom, Geoff,chiefcarld@verizon.net, scaparotta@wafb.com, Jeff Ball Wall street Journal,spencersmith87@msn.com, Chace Smith, griffinpedigo@msn.com, mike pedigo     
Dear Sam Coleman, Dana Tulis, Lisa Jackson et al,I am hereby requesting that you and or any EPA/Federal Governmentofficial, employee, consultant, to hereby cease and desist in themischaracterization, misleading, leading, incomplete, or arbitraryinferences and potentially defaming statements, towards or in regards to,OSE II (Oil Spill Eater II) either verbally, or in writing, or through anyother communication form to anyone. I now feel compelled to address themisinformation and mischaracterization, leading, incomplete, and arbitrarypotentially defaming communication towards OSE II. I have not, to thispoint addressed these communications, since I know all of you are themessengers, and you are doing, and carrying out what you are paid to do.This does not however make your actions, statements andcommunications, in regards to OSE II corrector acceptable.Mr. Coleman originally told the Coast Guard OSE II was not on the NCPlist, then had to recant the statement. Mr. Coleman as well as others in theEPA have stated that since OSE II is a bioremediation product, it is afinishing up or polishing up product, which is incorrect as well. OSE II isthe worlds only first response bioremediation product, which means OSE II
can be utilized in almost any hydrocarbon spill scenario, and has beenused as such. Mr. Coleman originally denied the testing of OSE II with theBP BCS team in the marsh, since he was worried OSE II would sink oil intothe sediments. Keep in mind Sam Coleman and the EPA authorized theextremely toxic corexit dispersants, who's mechanism is to sink oil, whichcorexit has proven it does. Even after EPA notified BP to stop using corexit9527A, and back off the volume of application of corexit, the federalgovernment through an executive order from the President for the use of aC130, disregarded their own request and continued applying corexitseemingly for BP. This spill has proven corexit only sinks oil, it increasesthe toxicity of the oil, acts as a biocide, which was proven in the earlynineties (NETAC TESTING), has proven to act with genotoxic, andmutagenic response to phytoplankton, and does not readily degrade ordegrade at all, based on last weeks Woods Hole tests report, and my letterto Charlie Henry of NOAA copied to all of you at the EPA named above.The EPA understood in 1996 that OSE II does not sink oil, since DavidLopez forced the OSEI Corporation to perform a dispersant test to showOSE II is not a dispersant, since OSE II contains surfactants that areconverted to bio surfactants through our manufacturing process. As youprobably already know through correspondence with Dr. David Tsao of BP's BCS team, the dispersant test on OSE II showed OSE II has a zeropercent effectiveness as a dispersant, and actually produced a negativenumber which means OSE II causes oil to float. I pointed out to Dr. Tsaothe numerous clean up, photographs showing OSE II causing oil to float,which remains on the surface until the oil is remediated to CO2 and water;including the Osage Indian Reservation. The Osage Indian reservationclean up was an EPA approved clean up, with rocky, sandy, mud and grassintertidal zone, this clean up of crude oil on US navigable waters wascompleted successfully with OSE II. The photographs on our web site,shows the oil lifting off the rocks and grass, until the clean up wassuccessful below the state of Oklahoma's acceptable standards. Youprobably now know through Dr. Tsao that NOAA representatives witnessedthe demonstration of OSE II at Mo Hang Harbor South Korea, whereBunker C oil, one of the heaviest oils in the world, was poured onto thesurface of a test vessel, this oil floated until it diminished to nothing butCO2 and water.  At the end of the test the Koreans discovered small littlecrabs living in the bottom of the container. OSE II converts the oil to CO2and water through the enhancement of bacteria. As the bacteria alsoproduce food for lower species, which is how the crabs survived for theduration of the test. Had this vessel utilized corexit, the crabs would bedead, the oil would have sunk to the bottom of the test vessel, the water
would have become a hazardous waste, that would require specialhandling procedures, and the oil would have not degraded, what acomparison!Sam Coleman probably has been notified by Dr. Tsao, that on our website (www.osei.us) you can see videos of OSE II causing oil to float fromseveral clean ups and demonstrations. Most of you, seem to know of thesuccessful demonstration, of which I was told, I had to attend withSenator Gollot of Mississippi at Waveland beach. I know, you know, since Ihave had Coast Guard and EPA enquire to how this demonstration cameabout. It surprised me that EPA did not ask the RRT IV EPA guys, whoactually asked to see the demonstration after asking me a few questions atWaveland beach. What the EPA RRT IV witnessed is the fact, that OSE IIlifted the BP dispersed oil off the sand in a couple of minutes afterapplication of OSE II, and OSE II caused the oil to break up and startfloating, which the oil floated inside a boomed area, until it wasremediated to CO2 and water. Next OSE II was applied to the marsh grassand the oil lifted off the grass, and was caused to float inside the boomedarea until the oil was converted to CO2 and water. The stain from thecarbon black did not come off the grass, however the grass did not sufferany distress and was not impacted, or destroyed as was the case for themarsh grass on the outside side of the boom. OSE II has alreadysuccessfully demonstrated its positive safe non toxic ability to clean up theBP dispersed oil, with over 50 witnesses, including RRT IV. The Wavelandbeach clean up is irrefutable, as is the Osage Indian reservation clean up,which is two EPA witnessed clean ups.I will also point out to you, EPA et al, that the US Navy used OSE II onhundreds of spills in San Diego bay at the Point Loma Fuel farm for threeand a half years. Mr. Nick Nichols, Ms Debra Dietrich of EPA, along withYvonne Addasi of California region IX, all met Admiral Lively and myself inSan Diego, and listened to Steve Fry of the Navy explain the large numberof spill clean ups the Navy had performed with OSE II, with whales anddolphins nearby, with out any adverse effects from OSE II on the marinelife or the environment, while reducing their clean up costs over 80%. TheUS EPA has approved, witnessed, or been notified, the use OSE II for thislarge number of spill clean ups on US Navigable waters. This informationalong with our 4 tests utilizing the NCP test method for bioremediationproducts, 2 for 21 days and 2 for 28 days which all proved the greatefficacy of OSE II, proves there is no legitimate reason not to use OSE II.OSE II gets better!  We have supplied several toxicity tests in ourtechnical library on fresh and salt water that shows OSE II to be virtuallynon toxic, and no where near as toxic as either corexit. We do in fact have

Activity (2)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->