The Brave New World of Genetically Modifying a ‘New Human Species’ ...

If some of the information emerging from the technology, governmental, and academic worlds are any indication, not only is the police state here; the scientificdictatorship is right around the corner. Indeed, if recent comments made by Juan Enriquez are indicative of the coming state merger between technology and genetics, we have much to be concerned about.

For those that are unfamiliar with Enriquez, he may not be the most flashy of the science superstars currently on the scene, but he is not exactly a nobody either. Enriquez was the founding director of the Harvard Business School Life Sciences Project and is currently chairman and CEO of Biotechonomy LLC., a “life sciences research and investment firm” and managing director of Excel Venture Management. He is the author of numerous books, including As The Future Catches You: How Genomics And Other Forces Are Changing Your Life, Work, Health, and Wealth and The Untied States of America: Polarization, Fracturing, and Our Future.

Enriquez also serves on the boards of Cabot Corporation, The Harvard Medical School Genetics Advisory Council, The Chairman’s International Council of the America’s Society, the Visiting Committee of Harvard’s David Rockefeller Center, Tuft University’s EPIIC, and Harvard Business School’s PAPSAC.

Enriquez is a Harvard graduate himself who has previously served as CEO of Mexico City’s Urban Development Corporation, Coordinator General of Economic Policy and Chief of Staff for Mexico’s Secretary of State. Enriquez also boasts of working closely with Craig Venter, who is generally credited with the mapping of the human genome.

Obviously, Enriquez has established quite the résumé in the academic and business worlds.  This, combined with his appearances on the very popular TED conference talks, only add to his qualifications in the field of culture creation which is most likely his role. Indeed, much like the other scientific superstars provided to the public by the culture industry, it appears Mr. Enriquez may be more talented in the area of delivering messages than making discoveries. This is why Enriquez’s comments during the interview with Technology Review’s Emily Singer are somewhat disturbing.

The interview was conducted after Enriquez’s speech at a Technology Review conference where he mentioned that, as described by Singer, “Our newfound ability to write the code of life will profoundly change the world as we know it.”  According to Enriquez, because we as humans can engineer both our environment and ourselves, humanity is now breaking the “boundaries” of our own natural existence and development which, of course, is described as “Darwinian evolution,” itself a questionable strand of ahighly suspect theory to begin with.

Nevertheless, when asked why he thought there is going to be a new human species, Enriquez responded in typical eugenicist fashion. He said,

The new human species is one that begins to engineer the evolution of viruses, plants, animals, and itself. As we do that, Darwin’s rules get significantly bent, and sometimes even broken. By taking direct and deliberate control over our evolution, we are living in a world where we are modifying stuff according to our desires.

He goes on to discuss the manner in which humans are already influencing their own “evolution.” He says:

If you turned off the electricity in the United States, you would see millions of people die quickly, because they wouldn’t have asthma medications, respirators, insulin, a whole host of things we invented to prevent people from dying. Eventually, we get to the point where evolution is guided by what we’re engineering. That’s a big deal. Today’s plastic surgery is going to seem tame compared to what’s coming.

Enriquez’s comments in this regard are a bit puzzling if the reader does not fully understand the position from which he is coming. The fact that millions of people are attached to electronic devices on which their lives depend is not a testament to guided or enhanced evolution at all. If anything, this would indicate a move in the opposite direction.

Keep in mind that Enriquez is a Darwinian Evolutionist, so he is keenly aware of the process by which Darwinian evolution allegedly progresses. For that reason, his comments may seem to be a contradiction of his own belief system to some. However, when one reads the rest of the interview, Enriquez’s statement begins to make more sense.

During the course of the short interview, Enriquez makes reference to how the new technology, as it emerges, will change virtually everything in society as we know it.

And he means everything. Not just industries. Not just economic disparity. Everything.

This includes morality itself. In fact, Enriquez even goes so far as to define this shift in morality as the “new ethics.”

Enriquez saves the best for last, however, when he explains how the “new ethics” will come into play.

He says:

The issue of [genetic variation] is a really uncomfortable question, one that for good reason, we have been avoiding since the 1930s and ’40s. A lot of the research behind the eugenics movement came out of elite universities in the U.S. It was disastrously misapplied. But you do have to ask, if there are fundamental differences in species like dogs and horses and birds, is it true that there are no significant differences in humans? We are going to have an answer to that question very quickly. If we do, we need to think through an ethical, moral framework to think about questions that go way beyond science.

This statement alone echoes the same mentality that was accepted and promoted during the early half of twentieth century to justify mass sterilization, institutionalization, social segregation, even infanticide.

Although eugenics is now allegedly abhorred by academia and the mainstream media, the fact is that it still plays as much a role in both science and government policy as it ever did. Only the names have changed.

Instead of “eugenics” and “racial hygiene,” the scientific community now promotes “social biology” and “sociobiology.” “Deficient” genes now replace the term “inferior” genes.  “Family planning” now replaces“abortion” and “sterilization.”

As quoted above, Enriquez stated that eugenics were disastrously misapplied in the 1930s and 1940s. Although he does not clarify whether he is referring to the American or the German version (or both), we can reasonably assume that he meant that the program was often race-based, as opposed to being based simply on “inferior genetics” across the board. Or, perhaps he is merely referring to the public relations issues that arose from these systems.  At this point, it is difficult to determine.

Regardless, he openly questions whether or not some humans are so different from one another that they may be considered an entirely different species. This, in and of itself, is reminiscent of a language used in eugenics campaigns in both Europe and America years ago.

Considering the fact that Enriquez is in favor of the creation of a “new ethics,” this statement alone, if his philosophy gains any traction, is quite concerning.

In light of the increase in propaganda masquerading as science and being peddled by science superstars like Enriquez, there is no doubt the world’s population is being prepped for a eugenics-based future. This time, of course, the system will be assisted by a much more sophisticated technological machine and, thus, a much more efficient system of eugenics. After years of non-stop television, media repetition, and “experts” who tout the benefits of merging man and machine, as well as the cost of inheriting “inferior” genes, there is also little doubt that the world’s population will march into this future willingly.

Although greatly improved in terms of implementation and public perception, we have seen this system before and, unfortunately, what Juan Enriquez labels a “new ethics” may not be very new at all.

Read More

Ten Ways You Can Screw Up Your Life ...

Sometimes it’s tough having your eyes wide open while nearly everybody around you remains fast asleep.  Like the protagonist in the classic H.G. Wells story, “The Country of the Blind,” instead of becoming the king, you find yourself to be a social outcast, especially if you try to tell the truth to those unwilling to hear it.  So you go through every day as if in a trance—while friends, colleagues and perhaps even family members make plans that you know are going to lead them to grief in the long run.  But you remain mum.  After all, however addicted to the truth you might be, you don’t want to become that pariah who claims to see while everyone else is blind.

Despite how few of us recognize that there was a fundamental change back in 2008, and our civilization has now crossed over from the long era of economic growth to one of permanent contraction, this fact has nevertheless turned all of the accepted wisdom of how one should manage one’s personal finances on its head.  Since Internet readers seem to love tidy little lists, I decided to put together one of my own, which I call: Ten Ways You Can Screw Up Your Life.  These are things that people still do every day because they remain firmly rooted in the business as usual mindset.  Sadly, thanks to the relentless propaganda of themainstream media, most will not recognize the folly of their actions until it is far too late.

So without further ado, here are the ten ways:

1). Take Out a Big Home Mortgage – Several professional colleagues of mine have done this one just within the past year alone.  Most people buying homes today probably think they’re getting a great deal, what with real estate prices still being very much depressed and 30-year fixed rate mortgages going for around 4% interest.  But even with all of that, prices remain WAY TOO HIGH and will no doubt fall much further in the coming years with the next big waves of job losses and government spending cutbacks.    A particular folly is buying a humungous exurban McMansion, with the half-acre yard, granite counter tops, lawyer foyer and three-car garage located 30 miles from your job.  In a few years when gasoline becomes unaffordable for most people, those ugly monstrosities will become virtually worthless, and all of your equity will vanish like a Texas fishing hole in July.

2). Buy a Large SUV, Minivan or Pick Up Truck – Is the current elevated price of gasoline putting a strain on your family budget?  Well, if so then you have no business continuing to buy the kinds of gas-guzzling behemoths the auto industry loves to push on dimwitted customers because they carry the largest profit margin.  Many parents, for example, think they need that huge vehicle with the video entertainment system in the back seat to keep their precious little snowflakes safe and entertained wherever they go.  They don’t stop to think how they are going to be able to afford to pump gas into that monstrosity when one of them loses their job or gas goes to five-dollars a gallon.

3).  Max Out Your 401K Contributions – I sympathize with people on this one.  I really do, for I myself made this stupid mistake for about 15 years, blissfully pouring the maximum amount of money into a paper asset I cannot access until I retire.  Nowadays, I just make the minimum 5% contribution it takes to get the matching payments from my employer.  Even so, I am gambling that the system will hold together for three more years until I can take early retirement and withdraw that large chunk of change—10% IRS early withdrawal penalty be damned.  Always remember that every dollar you deposit into a retirement account that you cannot access for years is at risk of being lost when the financial system does finally acknowledge reality and implodes.  The longer your money has to remain in the account before you can access it, the greater the risk you are taking.

4).  Keep Your Savings in a Big Bank – Okay, so you’ve been listening to commentators who tell you that the safest investment right now, other than precious metals, is cash.  Good on you for at least having the sense to stop playing at the rigged Wall Street casino.  So now what do you do with all that loot?  Well, if you deposit it in a savings account at one of the shaky big banks like Bank of America, Citigroup or Wells Fargo, it could also be very much at risk.  “But what about the FDIC deposit insurance?” I hear you asking.  Well, as I wrote recently on my blog, the Deposit Insurance Fund is currently carrying a positive balance of around a measly $4 billion, even though the total amount of insured deposits at those three banks alone is $1.8 trillion.  If one or all three of those banks fail, it would likely be months at a minimum before you would be able to access any money you had deposited with them, assuming you are EVER reimbursed.

5). Take Out Student Loans – On my blog, I’ve written several posts about Leslie, a 23-year-old woman with a Master’s Degree, a six-figure student loan debt, and no job prospects.  Leslie and her live-in boyfriend survive on his $10-dollar-an-hour retail job and food stamps.  She’s been participating in the Occupy Wall Street protests, but sadly, despite her opposition to America’s imperial wars, she has decided to join the military in order to pay off her debt.  By doing so she has deferred her dreams of getting married, buying a house, starting a family and planning for retirement.  Leslie’s situation is hardly unique, and it should be obvious by now that a college degree, particularly one you have to place yourself deeply in debt to obtain, is no longer a guaranteed ticket to do any of those things.

6).  Count on Your Pension to Be There When You Retire – As I have reported on my blog, the financial condition of the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC), the little known federal agency that backstops private pension plans should the companies that have them go bankrupt, is even worse than the FDIC.  The PBGC is currently running about $23 billion in the red, and yet the cumulative pension deficit of America’s largest corporations is over half-a-trillion dollars.  Worse yet, it was also reported recently that the federal government pension plan for its own retirees is underfunded by a staggering $5 trillion.  Not to be outdone, the state and local government pension plans around the country are also in a huge collective hole.  Whether you are employed in either the public or private sector, if you are more than a decade from retirement you should assume you’ll likely never see one thin dime of your promised pension.

7).  Count on Receiving Social Security Benefits – Like the FDIC and the PBGC, the Social Security Administration is effectively broke.  The alleged $2.6 trillion social security “trust fund,” supposedly built up from many years of the program running a surplus, is a cruel lie.  The trust fund contains U.S. Treasury securities, which means that any deficit in payroll tax collections has to be made up by selling those securities—directly adding to the already-insane levels of federal deficit spending.  The annual surpluses in the program have already disappeared because a large number of Baby Boomers have joined the rolls in recent years, and that was even before our so-called “leaders” decided to increase the financial strain on the system by lowering payroll taxes from 6.2% to 4.2% this year in a desperate bid to stimulate the economy.

8). Run Up Your Credit Card Bills – this one seems pretty obvious, and if you are reading this essay I gather you are probably the kind of person who is already wary of taking on debt at the usurious rates charged by the credit card companies.  Unfortunately, as working and middle class incomes have stagnated in recent years, many people have turned to the plastic to try and keep up the appearance of prosperity.  These are people who are still employed, but are finding that their incomes are not keeping up with the rapid rise in basic expenses such as food and energy.  Instead of readjusting their lifestyles to reflect reality, they use the cards to keep on buying massive amounts of stuff they don’t need because hey, they “work hard” and they “deserve it.”  It is true that credit card debit is unsecured, but if you were to become unemployed, would you really want a massive debt default on your record to be considered by future potential employers at a time when there is cutthroat competition for even the crappiest jobs?

9).  Listen to a Financial Adviser – My wife’s employer recently had a financial adviser-type come in to the office and speak to the employees about planning their financial futures.  My wife was appalled to hear the man actually repeat the tired old housing bubble-era mantra that people who pay off their mortgages early are foolish because that money would be much better off invested in the stock market.  This is someone who actually gets paid to spew such claptrap.  Ten years ago, most financial advisers would no doubt have been horrified had you told them you were going to invest in precious metals rather than the stocks.  Had you done so, you would have quadrupled your money, whereas the stock market remains mired near the levels it first attained back in 2000.

10).  Have Children While Being Unaware of What the Future Likely Holds – I am not one of those misanthropes who says that since the world is just now adding its seven billionth human that no one has any business having children.  If you are aware of the issues I’ve written about above, and you are planning to become a parent with your eyes wide open, then that is your choice and I wish you the best of luck.  Most people, however, have no idea what’s coming.  They have no clue that they are bringing their children into a world where not only are they going to be worse off than they themselves were, but they are very likely going to endure much pain and suffering at some point.  This is particularly true because most parents are raising their children to function within an economic growth model that is already dead.  It’s a zombie—the body just doesn’t know enough to stop twitching yet.  Young people who have been raised to expect that they will always possess the latest electronic gadgets, and if they dutifully attend their classes and don’t rock the boat they can go to work in some cubicle and be able to afford all of the same things that their parents had are going to be in for the rudest generational awakening ever seen in human history.

Source

Read More

Solar Powered Hybrid Airship ...

In recent times there’s been a resurgence of interest in airships for military and commercial uses as evidenced by Lockheed Martin’s High Altitude Long Endurance-Demonstrator (HALE-D) and Hybrid Air Vehicles heavy-lift variant of Northrop Grumman’s Long-Endurance Multi-Intelligence Vehicle (LEMV). Like HAV’s design, this concept from Canadian company Solar Ship is a hybrid airship that relies on aerodynamics to help provide lift, and like the HALE-D, it would have its top surface area covered insolar cells to provide energy and minimize its carbon footprint.

Although the Solar Ship aircraft would be filled with helium, under normal circumstances they would rely on the aerodynamic lift provided by their wing shape to provide more than half the lift required to get them off the ground. Additionally, the aircraft could also fly when filled with plain old air. This means the aircraft will still be able to fly – and, more importantly, land safely – if there is damage that results in helium loss.

Solar Ship says the aircraft’s electric motor can either be powered solely by the energy provided by the on board batteries, or by the solar panels covering the wing – a feat already achieved by a conventional airplane design in the form of Solar Impulse.

 

The company points out that such heavier-than-air airships provide numerous advantages over their lighter-than-air brethren. Firstly, no mooring infrastructure or ballast weight is required to keep the aircraft from floating away during loading or unloading, making them more practical for the remote locations in which they are designed to operate. Additionally, not relying on buoyancy for lift means the aircraft can be smaller than lighter-than-air aircraft carrying the same payload. They are also more structurally robust and more maneuverable and resistant to wind and weather conditions.

Small, medium, large

Solar Ship has designed three different concept aircraft, the smallest of which is the Caracal. This design has a claimed payload capacity of up to 750 kg (1,653 lb) for 2,500 km (1,553 miles) with a maximum speed of 120 km/h (75 mph).

Designed for remote areas where roads are a rarity and targeted at general, utility and ISR (Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance) markets, the Caracal can take off and land on strips as short as 50 m (164 ft) long but carrying the maximum payload requires strips of 100 m (328 ft).

Next step up in size is the mid-size Chui, which is targeted at ISR and cargo markets. Under solar power it can carry up to 2,500 kg (5,512 lb) over distances of up to 5,000 km (3,107 miles) at speeds of up to 100 km/h (62 mph). The take off and landing distances of the Chui are the same as the Caracal – 50 m (164 ft) empty and 100 m (328 ft) when fully loaded.

 

The third and largest Solar Ship class is the Nanuq, a dedicated cargo freighter designed to carry payloads of up to 30 tonnes (66,139 lb) for distances of up to 6,000 km (3,728 miles) at speeds of up to 120 km/h (75 mph). Empty the Nanuq can take off on strips 60 m (197 ft) long and land on strips 100 m (328 ft) long, while fully loaded requires a take off distance of 200 m (656 ft).

Solar Ship has already built and flown a 10 m (33 ft) prototype. The promotional video below provides a glimpse of the company’s vision for the future in which it sees a wide range of uses for its heavier-than-air aircraft, from delivery of urgent medical supplies to remote communities and disaster relief, to environmentalmonitoring and military applications.

… and with several company’s floating short take off hybrid airship platforms, this is definitely a space to watch over the next decade.

Read More

EmTech: Get Ready for a New Human Species ...

Now that we can rewrite the code of life, Darwinian evolution can’t stop us, says investor Juan Enriquez.

By Emily Singer

The ability to engineer life is going to spark a revolution that will dwarf the industrial and digital revolutions, says Juan Enriquez, a writer, investor, and managing director of Excel Venture Management. Thanks to new genomics technologies, scientists have not only been able to read organisms’ genomes faster than ever before, they can also write increasingly complex changes into those genomes, creating organismswith new capabilities.

Enriquez, who spoke at TechnologyReview‘s EmTech conference on Tuesday, says our newfound ability to write the code of life will profoundly change the world as we know it. Because we can engineer our environment and ourselves, humanity is moving beyond the constraints of Darwinian evolution. The result, he says, may be an entirely new species.

Enriquez is the author of the global bestseller As the Future Catches You: How Genomics & Other Forces Are Changing Your Life, Work, Health & Wealth. His most recent publication is an eBook, Homo Evolutis: A Short Tour of Our New Species.

Technology Review senior editor Emily Singer spoke with Enriquez after his talk.

TR: Why do you think there is going to be a new human species?

Juan Enriquez: The new human species is one that begins to engineer the evolution of viruses, plants, animals, and itself. As we do that, Darwin’s rules get significantly bent, and sometimes even broken. By taking direct and deliberate control over our evolution, we are living in a world where we are modifying stuff according to our desires.

If you turned off the electricity in the United States, you would see millions of people die quickly, because they wouldn’t have asthma medications, respirators, insulin, a whole host of things we invented to prevent people from dying. Eventually, we get to the point where evolution is guided by what we’re engineering. That’s a big deal. Today’s plastic surgery is going to seem tame compared to what’s coming.

How is this impending revolution going to shape the world?

Ninety-eight percent of data transmitted today is in a language almost no one spoke 30 years ago. We’re in a similar period now. But this revolution will be more widespread because this is software that writes its own hardware.

People think this technology will just change pharma or biotech, but it’s much bigger than that. For example, it’s already changing the chemical industry. Forty percent of Dupont’s earnings today come from the life sciences. It’s going to change everything; it will change countries, who’s rich and who’s poor. It’s going to create new ethics.

New ethics?

It will change even basic questions like sex. There used to be one way to have a baby. Now there are at least 17. We have decoupled sex from time. You can have a baby in nine months, or you can freeze sperm or a fertilized egg and implant it in 10 years or 100 years. You can create an animal from one of its cells. You can begin to alter reproductive cells. By the time you put this together, you’ve fundamentally changed how you reproduce and the rules for reproduction.

What does it take to make a new species?

We’re beginning to see that it’s an accumulation of small changes. Scientists have recently been able to compare the genomes of Neandertals and modern humans, which reveals just a .004 percent difference. Most of those changes lie in genes involved in sperm, testes, smell, and skin.

Engineering microbes alone might speciate us. When you apply sequencing technology to the microbes inhabiting the human body, it turns out to be fascinating. All of us are symbionts; we have 1,000 times more microbial cells in our bodies than human cells. You couldn’t possible digest or live without the microbial cells inside your stomach. Some people have microbes that are better at absorbing calories. Diabetics have a slightly sweeter skin, which changes the microbial fauna and makes it harder for them to cauterize wounds.

One concern about human enhancement is that only some people will have access, creating an even greater economic divide. Do you think this will be the case?

In the industrial revolution, it took a lifetime to build enough industry to double the wealth of a country. In the knowledge revolution, you can build billion-dollar companies with 20 people very quickly. The implication is that you can double the wealth of a country very quickly. In Korea in 1975, people had one-fifth of the income of Mexicans, and today they have five times more. Even the poorest places can generate wealth quickly. You see this in Bangalore, China. On the flip side, you can also become irrelevant very quickly.

Scientists are on the verge of sequencing 10,000 human genomes. You point out this might highlight significant variation among our species, and that this requires some ethical consideration. Why?

The issue of [genetic variation] is a really uncomfortable question, one that for good reason, we have been avoiding since the 1930s and ’40s. A lot of the research behind the eugenics movement came out of elite universities in the U.S. It was disastrously misapplied. But you do have to ask, if there are fundamental differences in species like dogs and horses and birds, is it true that there are no significant differences between humans? We are going to have an answer to that question very quickly. If we do, we need to think through an ethical, moral framework to think about questions that go way beyond science.

Source

Read More

US Army to fly ‘kamikaze’ drones ...

A miniature “kamikaze” drone designed to quietly hover in the sky before dive-bombing and slamming into a human target will soon be part of the US Army’s arsenal, officials say.

Dubbed the “Switchblade,” the robotic aircraft represents the latest attempt by theUnited States to refine how it takes out suspected militants.

Weighing less than two kilos, the drone is small enough to fit into a soldier’s backpack and is launched from a tube, with wings quickly folding out as it soars into the air, according to manufacturer AeroVironment.

Powered by a small electric motor, the Switchblade transmits video in real time from overhead, allowing a soldier to identify an enemy, the company said in a press release last month.

“Upon confirming the target using the live video feed, the operator then sends a command to the air vehicle to arm it and lock its trajectory onto the target,” it said.

The drone then flies into the “target,” detonating a small explosive.

The California-based firm also said the drone can be called off at the last moment, even after a kill mission has been ordered. That feature provides troops with “a level of control not available in other weapon systems,” it said.

The United States currently uses larger Predator and Reaper drones to hunt down suspected militants inPakistan and elsewhere.

The robotic planes fire powerfulHellfire missiles and drop heavy bombs that can cause civilian casualties and extensive damage, which has fueled popular anger with the United States in Pakistan.

In the war in Afghanistan, US and coalition troops fighting the the Taliban can call in artillery fire or air strikesfrom fighter jets and attack helicopters. But the heavy firepower has been blamed by Afghan leaders for claiming the lives of innocent civilians and strained US relations with Kabul.
The Switchblade, however, is touted as a way to avoid killing bystanders.

“Flying quietly at high speed the Switchblade delivers its onboard explosive payload with precision while minimizing collateral damage,” the company said.

The US Army in June approved a $4.9 million contract for AeroVironment to supply the new drones as soon as possible. Officials have not said how many Switchblade drones were ordered or when the robotic weaponswould make into the hands of US forces.

Human rights groups have raised concerns that the use of drones by the CIA has allowed the conduct of a secret assassination campaign abroad without public scrutiny and little oversight by lawmakers in Congress.

Read More

Sea Floor Unstable, Fractured In The Gulf Of Mexico Spilling Hydrocarbons ...

Oil and gas are still seeping unabated, says expert. Toxic leakage poses significant public healthrisks.

by Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda

The Gulf of Mexico disaster has not gone away. In fact, it has grown exponentially since the main stream media stopped talking about it. According to the Gulf Rescue Alliance, an organization composed of scientists, medical professionals and seafood industry professionals, among others, the problem cannot be simplified to the damage already caused by the oil spill. It is worse, much worse.

Pools of crude oil float on the surface ofGulf of Mexico waters at the site of the sunken BP/Transocean oil drill the Deepwater Horizon on April 27, 2010. Getty Images

The Real Agenda received exclusive information regarding the current state of the ongoing emergency in the Gulf of Mexico. The latest assessment performed by the Gulf Rescue Alliance reveals not only that the oil spill is still happening, but also that the Gulf of Mexico’s sea floor grew more unstable since the explosion in 2010. Additionally, analysis provided by experts like BK Lim, shows that the geohazards developed that derive from the rolling leakage of toxic matter, combined with the on-going use of the highly toxic chemical dispersant called Corexit will most likely result in the permanent decline of marine life, while posing out-of-control public health risks, just as it did after the Exxon Valdez spill where the same chemical dispersants were used resulting in a rapid decline of the marine life until, for example, the Herring industry completely collapsed and has never recovered since then.

In a letter dated 14 January, 2011 that was sent to Congressman Fred Upton, Chairman House Committee on Energy and Commerce, and Congressman John Shimkus Chairman Subcommittee on Environment and Economy,  BK Lim warned the congressmen and their committees about the current state of the sub-seabed in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM). In the document, an in-depth assessment of the emergency was provided. It explains why action must be taken immediately. The evaluation of the emergency in the Gulf conducted by Mr. Lim appears credible and is based on his 30 years of experience analyzing the geologic structure of both dry land and underwater drilling sites for major oil industry companies and leading geohazards contractors such as Fugro Geodetic (M) Sdn Bhd, TL Geohydrographics Sdn Bhd, and RPS Energy Pty Ltd.

“The vaporization of enormous amounts of methane hydrates on a scale not seen before, the release of stresses between the lower and upper crust resulting in the abnormal occurrences of low magnitude, shallow earthquakes adjacent to the New Madrid Fault, the sub-seabed underground erosion in the vicinity of the shelf edge undermining the slope stability with possible tsunami-generating, giant, submarinelandslides,” said Mr. Lim.

As we now know, the BP explosion that cost the lives of 11 workers was not an accident, but negligence at best and a conspiracy at worst. The latest assessment from the Gulf Rescue Alliance seems to reinforce the fact that BP drilled into the Macondo well with questionable regard for the damage it would cause to the well itself, the sea floor and the marine environment down below.

“There is no question that the oil seepages, gas columns, fissures and blowout craters in the seafloor around the Macondo wellhead, observed from the ROV videos, have been the direct result of indiscriminate drilling, grouting, injection of dispersant and other undisclosed recovery activities,” details the document sent to congressman Upton on January 14 of this year. The direct result of the Deepwater Horizon’s explosion was the massive destruction of life through miles of coastline. The less than adequate cleanup, which helped worsen the disaster, condemned the area to living with tons of toxic chemical dispersants that simply destroyed the eco systems and negatively affected the health of thousands of people who live nearby and millions of others who directly and indirectly depend on the fishing, tourism and natural beauty of the marine life, wildlife and environment.

A review of the documents and news articles during the days and weeks after the underwater explosion, clearly shows that BP was attempting to buy time with various delay tactics and was unwilling to reveal the truth and magnitude of the disaster. While BP was officially battling to kill well A their contractors and other vessels went about with other covert underwater operations, many of which did not seem to be in sync with the urgency of killing “a third undisclosed well which was gushing even more oil”. For example there was this video showing a ROV brushing of the name of another oil company from a new BOP brought into the vicinity of the Macondo wells. BP Clean off Co Logo on BOP – why? – on 9 June 2010.Other videos showed oil gushing from craters on the seafloor and ROV activities (blasting (demolition?), cutting and removal of well casings on the seafloor and from a hole (another well?), dismantling BOP, grouting of seafloor tens to over hundreds of meters away from well A. How could a BOP be dangling for two weeks from 3 to 16 July while BP was showing to the world’s audience the killing and capping of supposedly the only spewing well A from June till 15 July?

In fact, in early media reports animated graphics suggested 3 different leaks locations. BP admitted initially 3 leaks but conveniently reduced to only 1 later; ignoring to explain the “why, when and how”. BP had maintained from the start they had drilled only 1 well. From my analysis in early Aug 2010 I concluded BP could not have drilled only 1 well. They must have drilled 3 wells to account for all the conflicting information. See media reports here.

Videos also confirmed that even as early as May to June, oil and gas were already spewing from the seafloor as far as 7 to over 20 miles from Well A. A satellite photo on 25 May suggests a good correlation between the seabed oil spewing and with the faults and Salt Domes.

Evidently, numerous Youtube video postings not only confirm that BP and multiple federal agencies who were on the scene were not revealing all to the public, but that unknown quantities of hydrocarbons were still leaking out from the reservoir at high pressure and seeping through multiple fault lines to the seabed. “It is not possible to “cap” this oil,” reads Mr. Lim’s analysis. “Until a solution is found to seal these fissures, the hydrocarbons, including Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S), will continue to leak uncontrollably”.

WHAT IS NOW HAPPENING BELOW THE GULF’S WATERS?

The document sent to congressman Fred Upton is accompanied by photos, videos and other documentation that support the concerns expressed by the Gulf Rescue Alliance. Just as a doctor with years of experience in viewing and analyzing x-rays can immediately see a fractured bone or other ailment when a laymen would not see it or understand it’s importance, Lim has years of experience in viewing underwater videos of oil and gas seepage and can quickly see and analyze what is occurring where a laymen would not pick up on it. In his letter, Lim describes what is occurring in a series of underwater videos taken by ROV’s around and near the wellhead.

In one of the videos, Well A, as it is known, appears to be releasing clouds of methane saturated seawater, gas bubbles of methane and re-crystallized methane crystals floating close to the seabed in the vicinity of the Macondo wellhead. On top of this, says the letter, it is also possible to see new fissures and a bulging seabed developing together with an already blown crater.

A second video shows how the very rope that guides the surveying ROV disappears into a dense, darkish cloud of oily fluid. Lim’s document explains how grout materials and old drilling mud that were previously taken to higher altitudes by columns of gas in the water can be seen in the video falling back onto the sea floor. These columns of gas are coming from newly activated venting fissures formed due to sea floor instability and fragility. Viewers can also see re-crystallized methane which appears as transparent and light multicolor materials floating in the water.

The third video shows the “periodic expulsion of the gas through one of the fissures on the seabed. Like geysers, the escaping gas needs to accumulate beneath the top sediment cover until the built-up pressure exceeds the combined water-column and overburden pressure just before each periodic expulsion,” explains the report compiled by the Alliance. According to images obtained from a ROV video, there are pools of tar/oil sediment all over the seafloor which are the direct result of the oil spill.

Although it is very difficult, under the current circumstances, to obtain clear footage of what is going on at that depth, my extensive training and experience in analyzing these types of situations, combined with these footages and others which I have access to, provides proof that oil and gas are still seeping unabated from the uncontrolled leaking reservoir,” warns BK Lim on his letter sent to congressmen Upton and Shimkus on 14 January, 2011.

Independently collected video footage from places like Saint Louis Bay Beach, Pensacola Beach, Santa Rosa Beach, Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge and other places around the Gulf shows large amounts of fresh Corexit foam on the beach. As Corexit can only be used to sink fresh oil within the first couple of days of it coming up out of the ground, it is yet another indicator that there is an on-going attempt to sink fresh oil below the surface. Surficial bitumen layers (oil tarballs) that made it to the water surface as recently as September 6, due to storm surge are also coming up in massive amounts. According to sources close to the Gulf Rescue Alliance, on August 18, 2011, members of EcoRigs, went out and collected surface water samples that contained crude oil which they believed belonged to the ongoing BP oil spill. They also recorded video evidence of a heavy oil slick on Long Beach Mississippi. The water / oil samples were examined by independent laboratories and the first of those samples to return from the lab on the 28^th of September confirmed their concerns: the oil was BP’s and from the Macondo reservoir.

Water sample analysis conducted independently by EcoRigs shows a positive correlation to BP’s oil spill samples. “The presence of fresh BP MC 252 crude oil in surface waters 2 to 14 months after the well was reported to have been capped suggests that crude oil from the BP DWH MC 252 field may have found new pathways to the seafloor.” The evaluations conducted also reveal that the toxic chemical Corexit is now being applied to the subsurface leak located 1500 meters beneath the ocean’s surface at the wellhead. This is done with the intention of further decomposing the oil so that the smaller particles do not make it to the surface and the continuing oil spill can be easily kept from the public eye.

ANOTHER MISHANDLED DISASTER

Just as with Katrina, more than a year into the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, the Federal government has shown its ineptitude to adequately solving the consequences of a major disaster. In separate documents gathered by the Gulf Rescue Alliance, more revealing details are provided about how BP and the government handled the oil spill disaster. “The blown crater at the undisclosed 3rd well was spewing more than 100,000 barrels per day. (100,000 barrels estimate was based on the quantity of oil seen on the surface). Even worse the highly corrosive mix of brine, gas and oil ingresses into every crevices and permeable sections of the formation, creating new pathways to the seafloor,” says Mr. Lim. The Alliance subscribed to the standard industrial practice of conducting a detailed seafloor survey as immediately possible, to establish the extent of the seafloor damage following the well blowout. Just as an X-ray would help the surgeon in pin-pointing and planning the most appropriate surgical procedure, such a detailed seafloor and sub-seabed scan would most certainly provide the most strategic approach to stopping the release of hydrocarbons from the beleaguered well or wells. After ignoring repeated calls for such a seafloor survey since the blowout, BP and NOAA suddenly announced such a research survey using the NOAA Okeanos Explorer 15 months later. The only logical conclusion to this late survey is:

“A seafloor survey then (within the first few months) would reveal the ugly truths about the broken seafloor and precarious salt formation they were trying so hard to hide,” continued Mr. Lim. After more than a year of grouting, patching up and destroying all critical evidence in the seabed around the Macondo wells they (BP) were confident enough, the “modified seafloor” would not be incriminating to them. According to Mr. Lim, British Petroleum was very careful not to mention the fact they had drilled 3 wells. If this fact had come out, it would have caused a bomb and they could have been indicted for drilling without permission. “That is what they fear most,” says Lim. BP was also careful to isolate drilling crews away from each other, which according to Lim,  is against safety rules because drilling need to be briefed on hazardous and technical problems encountered at earlier drilling stages. Although BP may not have expected the three wells to blow up, this was an almost sure outcome due to the interconnected shallow gas formation (which was one of the main causes of their numerous problems). Further, after urgent requests for recommendations, a formal request was made to the Coast Guard on behalf of Constituent David Fakouri with the Louisiana Economic Foundation demanding seafloor survey and damage assessment be done with a 3^rd party observer, but the request was denied.

The recent seafloor survey went on to have totally different emphasis and priorities. This led geohazards expert BK Lim to conclude as follows:

“The vessel’s track history seemed to suggest higher emphasis in the south-western edges of the Biloxi Dome, the southern edged of Whiting Dome and generally south of the Macondo prospects. While there may yet be geologically valid reasons for the emphasis south of the Macondo wells, the shelf edges 6 to 8 km north-west of Macondo Wells and the badly eroded north-western edges of Whiting Dome should at least be surveyed with some grid-lines (see areas P1 and P2).

BP’s vessels had been observed working for quite some time in both areas. The 22 mile long underwater plume (first denied by BP and later confirmed by many independent research cruises), was suspected to have originated from the cracks in the seafloor at these locations. By avoiding these critical areas, can the present survey investigation be truly objective and independent in investigating the truth of the Macondo Blowout?

Almost all the oil sightings are north of the Macondo wells, not south. Why did the survey deliberately (?) avoid the shelf edges north of Macondo. In March 2011, new oil spills were suspected to have come from “leaks in the seabed” north of the Matherhorn field. The shelf edges bordering the Mississippi-Alabama Shelf, appear pretty fractured with large crevices and in potential danger of sliding into gigantic submarine landslides. Submarine landslides are more effective in generating tsunami than quakes without significant landslides. Both the 2011 Japan and 2004 Sumatra Quakes had giant tsunamis due to the accompanying large submarine mass displacement.”

During the first few weeks of the disaster, there was a struggle within BP between thosewho wanted to come clean about the reality of the situation and another group that wanted to cover it up. Apparently the latter group managed to win the struggle and they decided to use the well with the least of the problems (the first and shallowest, Well A, which was drilled to about 5,000 feet below mudline) to be the one staged for the world media as the “show capping” of an oil spill. The third and bigger leak at Well 3, which the late Matt Simmons kept asserting was “the deepest well that reached the Macondo oil resevoir”, was kept out of the public limelight.

A confidential source informed The Real Agenda that credible scientific evidence has been gathered giving high probability to allegations that oil is, in fact, still leaking and that inadequate oil spill response protocols were employed by the EPA, Coast Guard and other officials at Federal and State levels throughout the disaster. According to the source, the compilation of the scientific evidence is not just an edict of worrisome errors but criminal negligence resulting in a worsened tragedy throughout the Gulf States and Gulf of Mexico Ecosystem resulting in serious human health consequences—with EPA being at the head of that mismanagement.

The source further reports that between May 2010 and March 2011 long after the reported capping of the BP well in July of 2010 the average toxicity levels in the Gulf Region waters from Texas to Florida were persisting at unsafe levels and that, in some cases, they were thousands of times higher than EPA established safety threshold levels. It was during this same period of time that federal government agencies put out propagandasaying everything on the Gulf of Mexico was safe, including seafood, air and sea water.

It has been alleged that NOAA’s testing methods were flawed resulting in the “all is safe now in the Gulf” proclamation by responsible agencies. A separate concern is the fact that BP has a $500 million fund paying for continuing studies on the after effects of the spill and use of Corexit leading to concerns by independent scientists over the transparency and availability of this information to the public. Scientists under BP or government contracts conducting studies are not permitted to publicize or discuss any of their data until delivered to their employers. With some of these studies estimated to take several years, the public won’t know the truth until years later.

On September 13, 2011 new oil was seen close to where the original BP oil explosion occurred. Due to the fact the EPA insists on using Corexit as the only possible solution to the problem, the most important issue up to this point -the dire consequences of using Corexit- are not being addressed. Corexit not only contaminates the Gulf of Mexico and the human populations established throughout, but also is ineffective remediating the core problem: cleaning the Gulf waters as fast as possible. The only thing Corexit has proven is its effectiveness to pollute the waters and the Gulf as a whole. Why then does the EPA and the federal government insist on using it? It is interesting to note that none of the official statements by either the EPA or the oil companies state that Corexit cleans up the waters. They do, however, repeatedly state that Corexit is “effective”, which misleads the public into thinking that Corexit is cleaning up the waters. What Corexit is effective at is sinking it below the surface where it is difficult to see and quantify just how much is there, and breaking it up into small particles and spreading the contamination far and wide making the potential problems of toxic exposure to both humans and all the flora and fauna exponentially worse.

EPA ENFORCES ANTIQUATED OIL SPILL CLEAN UP PROTOCOLS

On its website, the EPA mildly agrees that using Corexit as a tool to clean the Gulf has “trade offs”. The question is, where are the positives? The oil is not being cleaned, but the waters and the complete ecosystem are being contaminated. Given the Federal Government’s line of action, it seems the task at hand is to make things worse, instead of better. Even after BP requested to test on the DWH oil already-proven, effective, non-toxic alternative oil spill cleanup technologies the EPA refused to allow those alternative technologies to be utilized.

One of the most highly regarded products suggested by scientists and environmental and conservationgroups is Oil Spill Eater II, which is not only approved by the EPA, but also listed as part of an official list of products for oil spill cleanup, called the National Contingency Plan (or NCP List) that have been tested and approved as workable for emergencies like the one now taking place in the Gulf of Mexico.

According to the Gulf Rescue Alliance, BP’s requests to use Oil Spill Eater II were denied by the EPA and regional federally controlled response team officials. The Real Agenda additionally received documents showing formal requests were made by the Governor of Louisiana Mississippi and Alabama to use or conduct trials on OSE II in their states. In June 2010, the EPA sent a letter to Louisiana Governor Jindal denying the use of bioremediation methods for the DWH oil. Per documents obtained by the Gulf Rescue Alliance, the letter had a number of inaccuracies and misleading statements in it, and showed a surprising lack of understanding of the natural process that mother nature follows to clean up an oil spill. This effectively took off the table all but one of the non-toxic products on the NCP list for use in the Gulf of Mexico blowout. The only non-toxic product which did not fit under the detailed description of why the EPA stated that bioremediation would have only limited value, unwittingly made the case for the immediate use of OSE II. When this was pointed out to the EPA in a subsequent letter by OSEI, the company that manufactures and distributes OSE II, the EPA ignored the letter. BP America’s Chief Counsel stated in a conference call with the OSEI Corporation, in September of 2011 that BP was not able to use OSE II to treat the oil disaster because “BP is bound by the government’s decision” —bound by the EPA mandate [to keep using Corexit]. Consequently, it is estimated by sources outside of BP that BP could “have saved an estimated $36 billion in clean up costs if they had deployed the EPA approved alternative to Corexit. Gulf Rescue Alliance membersstate that it is in possession of voluminous documentation that indicates the EPA arbitrarily blocks any attempt to use environmentally friendly methods to clean the Gulf and instead prefers to use Corexit with no regard for the marine life and public’s health from the now proven to be fatally toxic chemical dispersant.

The use of friendlier technologies could not have only saved the Gulf’s ecosystem in the earlier stages of the disaster, but it would have also reduced the costs of the clean-up process for both the federal government and BP itself and prevented untold damage. Instead, the disaster in the Gulf continues to endanger everything and everyone as the toxic contamination spreads, and the costs of the clean-up process -which are now estimated in the tens of billions of dollars- continue to skyrocket.

Given the EPA’s decision not to help resolve the oil spill disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, community organizations such as the Surfrider Foundation and the Center for Biological Diversity have filed lawsuitsthat ask the EPA to conduct long-term studies that evaluate the impacts of Corexit on the environment and endangered species. It is expected that these lawsuits will act as a wake-up call to the EPA, NOAA and the U.S. Coast Guard, which appear to have made a conscious effort to block all alternatives directed towards the use of OSE II or any other environmentally friendly and truly effective technologies or techniques to clean the Gulf swiftly and effectively.

Read More