History of Oil Companies
Video on Bioremediation
Bioremediation oil spills email addresses
Please make sure this gets to everyone and then please ask them to forward to everyone they know. THIS IS BIG!!!
Ananda Mohan Chakrabarty
EXCERPT:
from reliable sources. (September 2009)
Ananda Mohan Chakrabarty (Bengali: আনন্দমোহন চক্রবর্তী), Ph.D. is an Indian-American microbiologist, scientist, and researcher, most notable for his work in directed evolution and his role in developing a genetically engineered organism using plasmid transfer while working at GE.
Dr. Dach on GMO Food Scandal
EXCERPT:
Using Science for Piracy and Robbery:
Patents for Living Organisms Based on Erroneous Supreme Court Ruling
A patent means that the patent holder has ownership rights and the right to collect royalties. Patents on living organisms were illegal until 1980 when an unprecedented US Supreme Court decision (Diamond vs. Chakrabarty) allowed a patent for a genetically modified bacteria used to clean up oil spills. Lawyers and judges are not trained in science and have limited understanding, so it is not surprising that this Supreme Court ruling was a mistake and a result failure to understand the science. This unprecedented ruling is a disaster and should be overturned as soon as possible. Perhaps a better approach would be for Congress to pass new patent laws which clearly state unequivocally and with no exceptions, that living organisms cannot be patented.
Inalienable Right to Use the Natural World for Survival
There can be no patent for life because Life is not an invention of man, Life is an invention of the Creator given to man as an unalienable Right according to the Constitution of the United States.
The signers of the Declaration of Independence deemed it a "self evident truth" that all men are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights". Inalienable (Individual) Rights are: natural rights, among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
The term inalienable rights(or unalienable rights) refers to a set of individual human rights that by their nature cannot be taken away, violated, or transferred. They are the most fundamental set of human rights, natural means not-granted nor conditional. They are applicable only to humans, as the basic necessity of our human survival.
Food is life, so therefore, included in these inalienable rights to life is the right to sustain life by planting and harvesting crops for food. In order to fully exercise these inalienable rights, and as a basic necessity for survival, the individual has the inalienable right to the free and open use of the natural plant and aniimal world (also known as farming). Patents grant corporate ownership of seed stock and living organisms, and in essence, revokes from the individual this inalienable human right to life and grants it to multi-national corporations like Monsanto. This is unethical and immoral, and this ruling must be overturned.
CorpWatch
EXCERPT:
General Electric
by Charlie Cray, Crocodyl.org
For the latest company profile on General Electric, visit our corporate malfeasance wiki, Crocodyl.org.
General Electric Co. manufactures electrical equipment, lighting products and household appliances. It also owns the broadcasting network NBC. In terms of market capitalization, GE is the world's second largest company and also second in the BrandZ ranking. In the 1960s, aspects of U.S. tax laws and accounting practices led to a rise in the assembly of conglomerates. GE, which was a conglomerate long before the term was coined, is arguably the most successful organization of this type.
Global Fortune 500 position: 11
Ownership status: Publicly traded
Number of employees worldwide: 315,000
Chief executive officer: Jeff Immelt
Website: http://www.ge.com
Tel: 203-373-2211 Corporate accountability
Accountability overview:
Enronomics
In their 2002 report, ""Titans of the Enron Economy: The 10 Habits of Highly Defective Corporations," United for a Fair Economy gave a "special Lifetime Achievement Award" to General Electric "for scoring the highest average rank across all 10 bad habits, the only company to outrank second-place Enron. GE exceeds Enron’s score by an astonishing 45%."
Defense Contracting Fraud
On July 23, 1992, GE pled guilty in federal court to civil and criminal charges of defrauding the Pentagon and agreed to pay $69 million to the U.S. government in fines — one of the largest defense contracting fines ever. The company said in a statement that it took responsibility for the actions of a former marketing employee who, along with an Israeli Air Force General, diverted Pentagon funds to their own bank accounts and to fund Israeli military programs not authorized by the United States. Under the settlement with the Justice Department over violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, GE paid $59.5 million in civil fraud claims and $9.5 million in criminal fines.
GE’s civil and criminal transgressions stemming from the Israeli military program are by no means isolated. GE is a repeat offender when it comes to Defense Department fraud. The company has repeatedly violated the False Claims Act — a measure originally proposed by Lincoln to protect federal coffers. When the Project on Government Oversight surveyed defense contractors, it found that General Electric was responsible for 15 instances of fraudulent activity in just a four year period (1990-1994) — more than any other defense contractor.
On August 10, 1995 the U.S. Department of Justice announced (# 95-438) that GE would pay $7.1 million to settle a contract fraud suit initiated by Ian Johnson, an engineer at GE's Aircraft Engines plant in Evendale, Ohio in 1993. Johnson had alleged that GE "sold several thousand jet engines to the military that did not comply with military electrical bonding and electromagnetic interference testing requirements," according to DoJ. (Subsequently, the Air Force tested the engines and found them to be safe.) Johnson filed the suit on behalf of the United States under the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act.
On January 10, 1997, the U.S. Department of Justice announced (# 97-012) that GE would pay $950,000 to settle allegations that it fraudulently misrepresented that it had conducted certain test procedures on circuit boards for hundreds of aircraft engine controls when in fact the tests were not conducted.
GE paid $5.87 million (along with Martin Marietta) to settle a qui tam suit associated with improper sales of radar systems to Egypt.
GE paid fines between 1990 and 1994 ranging from a $20,000 criminal fine to a $24.6 million civil fine for a variety of defense contracting frauds, including: misrepresentation, money laundering, defective pricing (2 incidents), cost mischarging (3 incidents), false claims, product substitution, conspiracy/conversion of classified documents, procurement fraud and mail fraud.
On July 22, 1992, GE "... [pled] guilty to diverting some $26.5 million from the U.S. foreign military aid program used to finance General Electric's sale of F-16 jet engines and support equipment to Israel ." (United States v General Electric, Docket #90-CV-792, US DC SD OH, Cincinnati) (See: Defense Contracting: Contractor Claims for Legal Costs Associated with Stockholder Lawsuits, GAO/NSIAD-95-66 (July 1995) GE was convicted on February 3, 1990 in U.S. District Court in Philadelphia of defrauding the government out of $10 million for a battlefield computer system. GE pled guilty on May 19, 1985 to charges of fraud and falsifying 108 claims on a missile contract. GE was convicted of defrauding the Air Force out of $800,000 on the Minuteman Missile Project.
GE was convicted of bribing the Puerto Rico Water Resources Authority.
Violations of Securities Laws
On September 24, 2004, the SEC announced (# 2004-135) that it had settled charges against GE for failing to fully disclose in proxy statements issued between 1997-2002 all of the retirement benefits granted to former CEO Jack Welch.
Tax issues:
1975 Times Article
EXCERPT:
Of all industrial accidents, few are messier than oil spills. Floating booms can contain surface oil and keep it from spreading while it is picked up and recovered by giant vacuum cleaners. Straw filters can be used to pick up oil that makes its way into shallow waters. But scientists have been trying for years to develop more effective methods of dealing with spills. Now one team seems to have succeeded. General Electric announced last week that scientists at its Schenectady, N.Y., laboratories have created a microbe that can eat petroleum in quantity.
Bioremediation
EXCERPT:
Bioremediation can be defined as any process that uses microorganisms, fungi, green plants or their enzymes to return the natural environment altered by contaminants to its original condition. Bioremediation may be employed to attack specific soil contaminants, such as degradation of chlorinated hydrocarbons by bacteria. An example of a more general approach is the cleanup of oil spills by the addition of nitrate and/or sulfate fertilisers to facilitate the decomposition of crude oil by indigenous or exogenous bacteria.
Microbes that eat oil
Click the url and watch the video
Microbes That Eat Oil Spills
It’s now known our Great White Father in Washington, that is, the United States Government, and its various agencies/departments that are supposed to look out for us and the environment, has been letting Big Oil look out for us instead.
It’s now known the British Petroleum (BP) department of Big Oil did not use the most modern or safest drilling equipment or practices on its Deepwater Horizon oil rig off the Louisiana coast. It’s now known the reason BP did not use the most modern or safest drilling equipment is because that equipment’s safety device, once engaged, plugs a well instantly and permanently. Meaning, no more oil can be obtained from that rig. Meaning, no more money can be made from that rig.
It’s now generally believed BP and our Great White Father in Washington have consistently and purposefully understated the amount of oil gushing out of the seabed where BP’s Deepwater Horizon well blew up and was not sealed immediately, because it it not have the safety device that would seal it immediately, because that safety device would terminate that oil rig’s oil recovery forever.
BP and our Great White Father in Washington still have not plugged the seabed gusher, and their efforts to mitigate the oil already on the loose are pretty much not doing a very good job, to doing an awful job, all of their rhetoric to the contrary notwithstanding.
What is only just now becoming known to slow-minded people such as myself is there has been for some time now a microbe technology that is hugely successful in cleaning up oil spills on land and on water, including saltwater. BP and our Great White Father in Washington know about these microbe oil gobblers, which work a hell of a lot better and cost a hell of a lot less than the methods BP is now using. As far as is known, these oil gobbing microbes cause no collateral damage and themselves die off and become fish food after they have no more oil to gobble.
Down below is a youtube link presentation of this microbe oil gobbling technology, which State Attorney Dennis Ward forwarded to a lot of people yesterday after he received it from someone else. The microbe oil gobblers were tested by the State of Texas for oil spills. Texas then decreed oil gobbling microbes would be the first and central defense response to all oil spills in Texas, and all oil companies in Texas would make these oil gobbling microbes their first and central defense response to oil spills.
As you watch the video, ask yourself why the State of Texas hasn’t been screaming to high heaven for it to be allowed to intervene and put its oil gobbling microbes to work gobbling up this devastating oil spill Big Oil and our Great White Father in Washington have unleashed on us. Also wonder why BP and our Great White Father in Washington did not already adopt and use “the Texas solution” on this terrorist oil attack. Also wonder why Big Oil and our Great White Father Washington did not already require all oil drilling companies to incorporate the “Texas solution” as their central defense response to oil spills.
Tell your elected city and county officials about the “Texas solution.” Maybe if they scream loud enough to Tallahassee and Washington, somebody with sense and say-so will do something with it.
This entry was posted on Tuesday, May 25th, 2010 at 7:27 am and is filed under Today's Cock-A-Doodle-Doo. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Microbes that eat oil
11 March 2009
Vol. 12, No. 10
Download complete issue (PDF Version, 1643k)
Other Articles
Microbes eat oil and grease
by Lesley CraigDownload article (PDF Version)
Send to a friend
They’re too small to be seen without a microscope and they certainly don’t wear uniforms. But when they’re provided with a highly oxygenated work environment at an ambient temperature of 41°C, the micro-organisms in Bio-Circle fluid are happy to support the CF by chowing down on grease, oil and other residues.
The Air Force is exploring the possibility of using this water-based enzyme cleaner, infused with micro-organisms, to clean grease and oil from various airplane parts as an alternative to harsh chemical solvents. “The military land component is already using this system on their vehicles,” explains Ed Alvarez, the environment officer for the Director General Aerospace Equipment Program Management. “The Air Force components are more complex, though, so we have to test them carefully to make sure the cleaning fluid will not have a deleterious effect on the parts.”
The Quality Engineering Test Establishment (QETE) is doing the testing. QETE is already familiar with the product because it has replaced the use of solvents such as Varsol in several of its laboratories, including the Fluids lab and the Petroleum, Oil and Lubricants lab.
The testing process is crucial, particularly considering the consequences if the cleaning solution corrodes any of the multitude of parts that keeps the airplane in the sky. As Mr. Alvarez points out,“If a part fails on a truck, it just pulls over. If a part fails on a plane, it falls down.”
Provided it passes the tests, Bio-Circle will offer a number of advantages over traditional chemical solvents, many of which are quite flammable and can be very harsh on the user and on the environment.
The Bio-Circle system is self-contained with the cleaning solution held in a tank topped by a sink.A pump directs the solution through a hose with various brush attachments to aid in cleaning and then the fluid returns to the tank through the sink’s drain and filters. Once back in the tank, the micro-organisms produce an enzyme to “digest” the grease and oil.
This digestion process is known as bioremediation and is often used on a larger scale to help clean up oil spills that threaten the environment. As the micro-organisms digest the oil, they break down the hydrocarbons that make up the fluid to water and carbon dioxide.
With a similar process occurring inside the tank of the cleaner, any oil and grease removed from the parts will be “digested” into harmless by-products. As a result, there is very little waste produced by the process. In fact, while the cleaner solution must be topped up on occasion to make up for what is lost through evaporation, it has to be replaced only once a year, unlike chemical solvents which must be replaced much more frequently. Not only could this process reduce the amount of waste produced by the Forces, but disposing of it would be significantly easier as it is not considered hazardous waste.
“Whatever is being separated from the part, it can be disposed of properly without affecting the environment,” Mr. Alvarez says. Bio-Circle causes none of the health concerns associated with many chemical solvents, making it a safer choice for the CF as well as for the environment.
If QETE’s tests prove the Bio-Circle solution to be effective with no negative effects on airplane components, then it will be carefully phased into use. “Even once we have completed the testing,” says Mr. Alvarez, “we will start its use in a limited area so we can make sure that everything is okay.”
US regulators sued over BP's Atlantis platform
U.S. regulators sued over BP's Atlantis platform 17 May 2010 23:23:38 GMT
Source: Reuters
* Interior Secretary Salazar named in complaint
* Complaint says government regulations not enforced
* BP says claims are without substance
HOUSTON, May 17 (Reuters) - A consumer group and a whistle-blower asked a U.S. federal court on Monday to stop production at BP Plc's
The complaint filed in U.S. District Court in Houston alleges the British oil giant, who operates the ruptured well gushing oil off the Gulf Coast, lacked proper final engineering documents for key subsea equipment for Atlantis.
The Atlantis platform, a major facility operated by the British oil giant in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, is more than 150 miles south of New Orleans, in Green Canyon at a water depth of 7,070 feet (2,150 meters). The company produces oil and gas from more than 20 fields in the Gulf.
U.S. Secretary for the Interior Ken Salazar is named in the complaint, which accuses the Department of the Interior's Minerals Management Service (MMS) of failing to enforce its own regulations.
BP's nearby Deepwater Horizon platform exploded on April 20 and its Macondo well has since been spewing massive amounts of crude oil into the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, threatening the rich coastlines of four U.S. states.
"A similar spill from the BP Atlantis Facility would have a calamitous effect on marine life, endangering the public health and the economic viability plaintiffs," said the complaint filed by Food & Water Watch Inc, a nonprofit coastal environmental group, and former BP contractor Kenneth Abbott.
Abbott's efforts to bring BP into compliance with MMS regulations resulted in his termination from the company, the complaint said and alleged violation were first reported to the Inspector General for the DOI in March 2009, the lawsuit said.
BP said in a statement that it thoroughly investigated the claims when they were first made in 2009 and found them to be without substance. After a second investigation into the same allegations, the company said it made some procedural changes in its project execution plan, but those changes have no connection with the safe operation of the platform, BP said.
Representatives for the MMS were not immediately available to comment.
The Atlantis, a moored floating production platform, first began producing oil in 2007. The facility has a production capacity of 8.4 million gallons (31.8 million liters) of oil per day, and 180 million cubic feet (5 million cubic meters) of natural gas per day, according to the lawsuit.
The case is Food & Water Watch, Inc & Kenneth Abbott v Kenneth Salazar, U.S. Secretary of the Interior et al, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, No. 10-01759.
(Reporting by Anna Driver in Houston, Editing by Sandra Maler)
No comments:
Post a Comment