[dolanbaker]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10718310

BP admits altering oil spill response centre image Three of these screens were blank in the unaltered photo


Oil firm BP has admitted posting an altered image of its Gulf of Mexico oil spill response centre on its website.

The picture, posted over the weekend, shows workers in front of a bank of big screens displaying images of its damaged well on the sea floor.

BP spokesman Scott Dean said that three screens were blank in the original photo and Photoshop software had been used to add images.

The altered image was replaced with the original after a US blogger spotted it.

Mr Dean said the photographer who took the photo was displaying his skills with Photoshop software and there was no ill intent.

This is the original photo "Normally we only use Photoshop for the typical purposes of colour correction and cropping," the Washington Post quoted Mr Dean as saying.

"We've instructed our post-production team to refrain from doing this in the future."

Blogger John Aravosis drew attention to the altered image in his Americablog.com.

He said: "I guess if you're doing fake crisis response, you might as well fake a photo of the crisis response centre."

He pointed out that the altered image contains jagged crops around one of the worker's heads and that the images of the well inserted into the blank screens do not properly fit the space.

A cap placed on the leaking well last week has stopped oil gushing from it for the first time since an explosion on the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig on 20 April caused the disaster.

[mcgowanjm]

I remember this scene. But there weren't various videos.

There was a map with the bop at zero point.

There was an arrow box at a location away from the arrow
points on the map.

I believe they were looking at this:

Simmons, who in all his recent interviews keeps omitting this point, keeps saying that there is a big hole, and an oil lake, and the BOP was blown away, without giving the dates, or mentioning DWH was doing the drilling at Well #A. It seems to square easily that DWH was able to disconnect from drilling before the main #A blowout event on 13FEN2010. THAT BOP worked. If Simmons' is correct, the BOP was sealed, providing DWH time to disconnect. The pent-up pressure blew the BOP.

It would follow that DHW then moved to or near Site #B, and commenced drilling a Relief Well.

The DWH "Well #B" location is ~7-10 miles west south west of Site #A.

It blew-out on 20APR2010.

[MD]

It's a fake fake. Fake out!

Then again my claim might be fake, just to add more confusion.

[mcgowanjm]

My claim's not fake.

http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/

growing list of evidence of deliberate misinformation being told to the public by BP and the Government. That list includes:

1. On April 23rd, two days after the well had exploded, the Federal Government said there was no oil leak at all.

2. The Federal Government then admitted that was indeed a leak and claimed that only 1,000 barrels per day was leaking.

3. On April 29th, after being challenged by SkyTruth and FSU Professor Ian MacDonald , NOAA then upped their leak estimate to 5,000 barrels per day.

4. NOAA and BP then claimed for weeks there was only 5,000 barrels of oil per day leaking into the Gulf. Thanks to my blog, and others like SkyTruth, NPR busted that myth when they had independent scientists estimate the flow of oil could be as high as 100,000 barrels per day.

And STILL, to this Day 94, the US/bp refuse to acknowledge that there are TWO WELLS drilled by bp 10 miles apart.

Question:

How do we know the ROV cameras are on which well?

How do we know that we're watching the Deepwater Horizon
Disaster 1 or Disaster 2.

Question:

When will it be acknowledged that so far Matt Simmons has
not varied his story, as opposed to which story the US/bp are deciding to tell today. BTW-Is Vidrine still sick?

http://www.subseaiq.com/data/Project.as ... ect_id=562

BP Seeks MMS Approval for Exploration of Macondo Prospect
Type: Status Update

Mar. 2009 - BP submitted an Initial Exploration Plan to MMS for its Macondo prospect in the GOM to drill and temporarily abandon two exploration wells (A & B). The company plans to use a semisubmersible, possibly Transocean's Marianas, to spud the wells in April 2009. BP wholly owns and operates the prospect, which was acquired at the MMS Lease Sale #206 in March 2008.

Furthermore most officials and business owners say they have never even seen the Government testing on the shrimp or crabbing boats, on the docks or in the processing plants and that the Federal Government refused to answer questions about how and where seafood was being tested.

What constitutes the unexpected? Did anyone bother to look at the video of the flow coming out of the ground from a few days ago? How unexpected is this going to be? I can't wait to hear Alcor shift balme again from the cowboy mentality of America to the U.S. governrment for approving this insane request. I have done a LOT of well testing as well as BHP surveys & I can tell you that this well still having slow formation build up at this time is NOT normal for this well. This isn't some west texas scrub well with 2 3/8" tubing that has super low perm & makes 300mcfd. This well by its very character has shown it should have reached maximum surface pressure within a couple of hours if not minutes.
I would also ask of Thad "dumbass" Allen, if it is true that as you say another "well" 2 miles away is leaking, does this not concern you? Is it normal for wells in the GOM to leak after abandonement?

[mcgowanjm]

And I remember the non photoshopped pic.

Because I remember the 'we're fucked' look on that guy's face closest to the screen, looking at the photographer.

Behind him was a location map.
With the bop at zero point.
An anomaly was at the bottom of the screen away from 'all
of the action' in the middle.

I say the photo was doctored because it showed Well "A".
Or Well "B" if what we're looking at now is Well "A".

http://www.americablog.com/2010/07/bps- ... versy.html

NOTE FROM JOHN: BP's answer is more disturbing than it may appear. It is difficult to believe that the photographer, who is a professional with over 10,000 photos online, could have done the photoshop job himself. It's just so badly done that I can't believe any professional photographer could have ever sanctioned, let alone done, that kind of shoddy work. It's difficult to explain, if you don't know Photoshop, but the job was the quality of that done by a kid, at best. BP's flippant answer suggests that there's more to the story that BP isn't telling us. Who approved of the photoshopping, who did it, and why? But a professional photographer was 'showing off' by doing an incredibly poor sophomoric job of photoshopping? Come on.

Note not a word about either the photoshopping or Wells
"A" and "B" by anyone in the MSM.

[EnergyUnlimited]

Anyway, taking all up to date performance of BP and .gov in regard of this spill it is safe to assume that anyone who believes in their stories is a moron.

They have solved nothing.
Gusher (or possibly gushers) are still well and alive.
They cannot stop it, relief wells are not going to work due to down hole troubles and reservoir has to empty by natural course of events.

Coming lies from oil industry and .gov will rely on observation that so much oil is already in waters of GOM that it may be difficult to notice increasing amounts released.

[diemos]

The reaction to this is just fascinating.

Having done my time in corporate america let me tell you my guess at what happened. There's a person in the PR department whose job it is to touch up publicity photos before they're released. She took one look at the original, said "those blank screens aren't very impressive" and photoshopped visuals over them.

That's it.

But people are reacting as if the board of BP was huddled over the photo in some smoke filled back room, anguishing over how they were going to hoodwink the american people into never knowing that a couple of the screens in the response room weren't showing anything when the picture was taken.

Who cares?

[Carlhole]

Who cares?

BP admits it 'Photoshopped' official images as oil spill 'cut and paste' row escalates

BP has ordered staff to stop manipulating photographs of its Gulf of Mexico oil spill response, as the row over its public relations campaign intensifies.

For the second time in two days, the company was identified to have doctored images posted on its official website that were supposed to show how it was responding to the oil crisis in America.
In the latest image, a photo taken inside a company helicopter appeared to show it flying off the coast near the damaged Deepwater Horizon rig.
But it was later shown to be faked after internet bloggers identified several problems with the poorly produced image that contradicted the appearance that it was flying.
Among the problems identified included part of a control tower appearing in the top of the top left of the picture, different shades of colours, its pilot holding a pre-flight checklist and its control gauges showing the helicopter’s door and ramp open and its parking brake engaged.

[diemos]

LOL.

An actual photo like that is pretty much impossible due to the difference in light levels between the interior of the cockpit and the exterior. So they take a photo of the interior before it takes off and an exterior photo at the site and merge the two.

Why?

Because that shot "looks cool" compared to just a plain shot of the site.

It's pretty much standard practice in real estate photos these day where you see a brightly lit view out the window with a perfectly illuminated interior.

[dissident]

The reaction is all about the bloody hypocrisy. When some "unfriendly" country fakes an image there are howls of outrage and indignation in the "friendly" media. Why the f*ck does the original image need to be "touched up"? I don't buy this low ranking drone made the final decision BS. Low ranking drones get fired for less.

[Outcast_Searcher]

Who cares?

Well, folks would like to be honestly told what is actually happening.

When BP, which has already racked up a record of, at a minimum, corporate bungling that would make the "Three Stooges" look competent, and more likely shows a certain amount of criminal activity (cover-ups, dangerous shortcuts, etc) - I would think that almost everybody would "care".

At a minimum, this as to be an outlandishly stupid P.R. move. It begs the question "why do they want to cover something up"? Which leads to "What else are they covering up"? Even if they are totally innocent (which I very much doubt -- I think their only "real" goal is maximizing long-term profit).

[lper100km]

The way the paranoia is building, if BP had left the screens dark, someone would have developed a ct about information being deliberately obscured. Now they add in a couple of visuals and it’s still a conspiracy, though one of commission, not omission. Go with the simplest explanation – it’s just the art dept preparing copy for release.

[dolanbaker]

The reaction is all about the bloody hypocrisy. When some "unfriendly" country fakes an image there are howls of outrage and indignation in the "friendly" media. Why the f*ck does the original image need to be "touched up"? I don't buy this low ranking drone made the final decision BS. Low ranking drones get fired for less.

Well here is an example of an image that hasn't been touched up!

[diemos]

Well, folks would like to be honestly told what is actually happening.

Indeed. And what lie is BP trying to tell using these photos?

That there are always as many active cameras on the sea floor as there are monitors in the control room?

[diemos]

What I especially find amusing is the reaction of, "Ha! Now we've got you you sons of bitches! This proves that everything you've ever said is a lie! You were probably even lying about having drilled a well in the gulf! (But wait, then where did the spilled oil come from?)"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuYbDP2kDfg

[jbrovont]

BP could have simply taken a picture of their command center and released it untouched, or even not released a photo at all. Instead they release an obvious fraud with the effect of focusing the blogosphere's attention.

Perhapse the question is, while we're busy looking at this, what are we missing?

Well, folks would like to be honestly told what is actually happening.

Indeed. And what lie is BP trying to tell using these photos?
...

[IslandCrow]

This is a development of some old news. I guess with everything else going on BP had to agree to make some movement on this old problem:

BP has agreed to pay a record $50.6m (£32.5m) fine for failing to correct safety hazards at its Texas City plant.

The first part cited 270 violations that BP had failed to correct after the explosion, totalling $56.7m, later corrected to $50.6m, which BP has now agreed to pay.
The remaining part of the fine, of more than $30m, is for 439 "new wilful violations". BP continues to contest it.

BBC

[IslandCrow]

The news in this is that it has been confirmed by US officials. Let the blame game continue:

The firms drilling a BP Gulf of Mexico oil well had tests showing cement used to seal it before it blew out was unstable, US investigators have found.
The findings conflict with statements by US oil contractor Halliburton, which supplied the cement and has said tests showed it was stable.... Fred Bartlit said that BP and Halliburton both had test results showing the cement mix used to seal the well before the blowout would be unstable.

Halliburton, which ran the tests, provided some of that data to BP, but investigators found no indication the company had flagged the unfavourable test results to BP or that BP had raised any questions about them. "Neither acted upon that data," Mr Bartlit wrote.

Halliburton also appears to have kept other test data to itself - one set of results showing once again the cement mix was unstable, and one showing it would hold, investigators found.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11648354

[Aging gypsy]

Oh dear oh dear, mankind playing god again, when will we learn?:

BP Genetically Modifying the Gulf of Mexico
http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/201...ulf-of-mexico/

Evidence that BP used synthetic microorganisms to clean up the oil in the Gulf of Mexico indicates that the genetically modified bacteria are altering the DNA of species throughout the food chain impacting all biota, including humans, writes Michael Edward.


The Perfect Genetic Storm: Synthetic DNA and the Gulf Blue Plague
There’s a new proprietary recipe being force-fed to all of us here on the Gulf of Mexico that is now becoming available worldwide. Although this recipe has been closely guarded for 8 months, we were able to break it down after examining the plentiful supply us “Gulf Coasters” have available here. The ingredients are abundantly available while both the recipe and the brewing process are not as secret as everyone had thought.

THE GULF BLUE PLATE (BP) SPECIAL

Fill a large bowl with saline ocean water, add a generous proportion of thick crude oil, then pour in a cup of liquid Correct-it (available from Nalco under the brand name Corexit) making sure you don’t spill any on yourself, stir gently, and then let it sit for a day or two. As the newly thinned oil mixture begins to sink to the bottom of the bowl, make sure the resulting gasses are allowed to ever-so-slightly bubble in orange foam on the surface. This will let you know you’re ready for the next and most important step.

Quickly add Syn-Bio (available from JCVI, SGI, and other private companies) along with a colloidal mixture containing iron, copper, and other natural elements to begin the interactive brewing process. Let it sit for no less than 6-9 months making sure nothing is allowed to disturb it. When there is no more gas coming to the surface and the mixture on the bottom turns into a gelatinous black goo, the first stage of the recipe is finished.

The amazing thing about this new state-of-the-art recipe is what it becomes after the initial first stage brewing process is finished. No-one knows! It’s no wonder some have begun to refer to it as The Blue Plate (BP) Special. You can be assured that once the second stage of this concoction begins to release its mutated biological ingredients, as it appears to have done so already, the rest of the world will abruptly notice.

OIL SPILL OR OIL FLOW?

There was never a BP Gulf of Mexico oil spill in 2010. When you fill a glass with water, bump into something while holding it in your hand, and then some of the water splashes out, that’s a spill. When you turn on a water faucet and allow a continual flow to fill the glass so that it’s constantly overflowing, that’s not a spill. Because the multiple BP drilling operations that began at Mississippi Canyon 252 in 2009 fractured the floor of the Gulf of Mexico sometime before April 22, 2010, there is a continuous flow of crude oil and, especially, oil derived gasses such as methane. That’s called an oil and gas flow.

Since the Gulf has a steady flow of toxic crude oil and gasses, then how do you stop it? You can’t. The only solution to the problem is to find a way to eliminate it before it has a chance to surface en mass. This is exactly what has, is, and will continue to occur in the Gulf of Mexico.

SYNTHETIC GENOME BIOREMEDIATION

Toxic crude oil and gas can be changed, altered, or eliminated by microbes. Natural microorganisms in all the oceans, such as bacteria, have been known to do this over time, usually lasting decades and beyond. It’s a slow natural process. Yes, natural biology can do the job, but under continual flow conditions there is no possible way all the hydrocarbon-hungry microbes in the entire world can eliminate that much oil and gas fast enough. Time is the critical factor.

For the past decade, synthetic biology has been the new science realm. We now have engineered genetic biology that synthetically creates RNA and DNA sequences for both viruses and bacteria.

In the 1980’s, the fad was designer jeans. Now, we have designer genes.

Soon after the Deepwater Horizon inferno, U.S. government scientists – with grant funds supplied by British Petroleum – started giving us solid clues as to what they were doing with all that crude oil and gas. In May 2010, National Geographic quoted Dr. Terry Hazen from the U.S. government’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory who said:

“…we could introduce a genetic material into indigenous bugs via a bacteriophage – a virus that infects bacteria – to give local microbes DNA that would allow them to break down oil. Either that, he said, or a lab could create a completely new organism that thrives in the ocean, eats oil, and needs a certain stimulant to live…”

There were two possible solutions according to Dr. Hazen, who is considered to be the foremost crude oil bioremediation expert in the world. Either use synthetically engineered viruses called bacteriophages, or ‘phages’, to infect and alter the genetics of indigenous Gulf bacteria; or, synthetically create an entirely new organism, i.e. a new species of bacteria, to eat up the oil and/or gas and introduce it into the Gulf of Mexico.

In September 2010, Duke University gave us another confirmation as to what was going on in the Gulf:

“In a paper published in the journal Science, Terry Hazen and his colleagues at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory discovered in late May through early June 2010 that a previously unknown species of cold-water hydrocarbon-eating bacteria have been feasting on the underwater oil plumes degrading them at accelerated rates.”

Natural microorganisms are well known to biologists and their genetic sequences are catalogued in a worldwide library. The public can even access the entire genetic library on the internet. But here we have a new and never before identified species of bacteria that suddenly “appears” in the Gulf of Mexico, and it’s eating up the oil at a much faster speed than any natural bacteria possibly could or ever has.

In August 2010, Science Magazine reported about bacteria that were gobbling up the Gulf oil and how it was being done by microorganisms that were not typical:

“Hazen’s team found that microbes inside the plume samples were packed more than twice as densely as microbes outside it. Even more encouraging, the genes specifically geared to degrade hydrocarbons were more common in the plume as well, implying that it’s not just general bacteria that are taking on the plume.”

Terry Hazen had described how the genes of a certain microbe that were “geared” (created) to eat-up crude oil were not just thriving within the oil plume, but were rapidly duplicating more than twice as fast as those same microbes outside the oil plume. He reveals that indigenous “general” or natural bacteria in the Gulf are not responsible for this amazing outcome. Obviously, he knows exactly what’s doing the job at such an accelerated rate: Synthetic genome bacteria created specifically to consume hydrocarbons, crude oil.

Dr. Terry Hazen is just one source, so I don’t expect you to believe synthetically engineered organisms are being used in the Gulf based solely on what he has said, even though he’s an absolute expert scientist in his field. What if I were to tell you that British Petroleum has admitted to using synthetic designer gene organisms in the Gulf? Would that help convince you?

In September 2010, reporter Stephen Fry of the UK’s BBC was granted a video interview with Mike Utsler, the Chief Operating Officer of BP’s Gulf Coast Restoration. Here’s what Mr. Utsler publicly admitted on camera:

“There is a new form of microbiology that is attacking this (oil) plume and using it as a food source”.”

You can view him saying this on our YouTube Channel or on our Gulf Blue Plague internet blog at BP Admits Using Synthetic Microbes in Gulf of Mexico. This 17 second video snippet is taken from a November 7, 2010 broadcast entitled Has the Oil Really Gone? which is available for viewing at BBC TWO.* Note how Utsler is cut off by his own people at BP immediately after stating this and the interview was abruptly ended.

* It appears that the BBC has now restricted this video so that it can no longer be viewed from within the US.

A NEW FORM OF MICROBIOLOGY

A “new form of microbiology” is not a natural biological organism. Genome scientist J. Craig Venter, PhD, the founder of Synthetic Genomics Inc. and JCVI, clearly defined this new biological structure on May 27, 2010 in his prepared testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce:

“One of the major advantages of synthetic genomics is that there is no need to have access to a physical supply of a particular DNA sequence. Sequence fragments are simply created de novo by chemical synthesis and assembled into entire chromosomes and organisms. This ability to synthesize (write) DNA and use it in the construction of new cells can catalyze a major change in what organisms can be engineered to do.

“…these [synthetic genome] technologies could be used to produce bioremediation techniques.

“In 2003, JCVI successfully synthesized a small virus, approximately six thousand base pairs long, that infects bacteria. By 2008, the JCVI team was able to synthesize a small bacterial genome.”

Now it’s easy to understand exactly what Terry Hazen, PhD, and BP’s Mike Utsler were revealing with regards to the creation of new genetically engineered microorganisms – either viruses that attack bacteria or bacteria themselves – within the Gulf of Mexico.

AN OBSCURE FAMILY OF SUPERHUMAN MICROBES

The latest development in the Gulf is how an incomprehensible bacterium is remarkably eating up the methane gas. It appears that engineered designer genes have also been used to remove the gas just as they have been used to consume the oil. The common denominator is that neither of these microbes are natural microorganisms. This should come as no surprise.
Microbiologist David Valentine at the University of California at Santa Barbara stated, “Within a matter of months, the bacteria completely removed that methane. The bacteria kicked on more effectively than we expected.”

It sounds to me that this created synthetic genome microbe far exceeded the engineering and programming expectations.

According to a Fox Business report, “This discovery offered a rare glimpse into the remarkable abilities of an obscure family of microbes in the depths of the Gulf.”

I agree. It is scientifically incomprehensible that any natural microorganism could do this and synthetically engineered microbes are definitely obscure by comparison.

University of Georgia microbiologist Samantha Joye, who has been independently analyzing methane from the Gulf of Mexico, also agrees with me. She said, “It would take a superhuman microbe to do what they are claiming.”

So it has, Samantha. It was specifically engineered and its “superhuman” genetics were created synthetically.

In a January 7, 2011 article, the UK Register wrote how the scientists were particularly “surprised at the speed with which the bacteria consumed their enormous meal”.

They also brought up the fact that earlier studies elsewhere in the world suggested methane levels around Deepwater Horizon would be well above normal for years ahead. It’s remarkable what highly engineered designer genes can do.

On January 6, 2011, the Christian Science Monitor reported how the study’s leaders boldly stated that rates of methane decomposition after the Gulf oil spill “were faster than had ever been recorded in any other place on the planet.”

That’s because these are not natural microbes. You can’t compare apples to grapefruit.

TRACE ELEMENTS ADDED TO THE GULF

In the same CS Monitor report, University of Georgia microbiologist Samantha Joye stated how:

“[The Gulf] is not well stocked with trace elements the bacteria need to survive – among them, copper, which bacteria specifically use to deal with the methane. Shortages of copper, as well as other trace elements, likely would have slammed the brakes on the exponential growth in bacterial populations needed to get rid of the methane in fewer than four months.”

The same applies to hydrocarbon-eating bacteria that consume oil, except that iron is needed more than the other trace elements. Since copper and iron are not prevalent mineral elements normally found in the Gulf of Mexico, the synthetic bacterium eating both the oil and the methane would not be able to do so at the remarkable speed they have without such essential earth elements. The only possible way these synthetic bacterium could have done this is by adding the required elements to the Gulf. Spraying a highly dissolved or colloidal mixture of trace elements onto and into the Gulf of Mexico would be absolutely required to accomplish this.

In our October 21, 2010 research article The Gulf BLUE PLAGUE (BP): It’s Not Wise To Fool Mother Nature, we had revealed the abnormally high amounts of elements found in the Gulf and that it was being sprayed along with or separately from the oil dispersants. In August 2010, rain water samples were tested by the Coastal Heritage Society of Louisiana where rain coming directly from the Gulf had unusually high concentrations of iron, copper, nickel, aluminum, manganese, and arsenic.

Without a doubt, the synthetically created bacterium introduced into the Gulf of Mexico to consume the oil and gasses were – and continue to be – fed these essential trace elements. Otherwise, they could not have thrived or reproduced at the accelerated rate they have. The continued spraying in the Gulf by aircraft and by boat is not Corexit or other oil dispersal chemicals. Consider the current spraying to have the same effect of adding liquid fertilizer to your crops.

SYNTHETIC MICROBES MUTATING NATURAL MICROORGANISMS

In early December, 2010 the research vessel WeatherBird II, owned by the University of Southern Florida (USF), went back to the Gulf of Mexico for follow-up water and core samples. As reported by Naomi Klein on January 13, 2011 in Hunting the Ocean for BP’s Missing Millions of Barrels of Oil:

“…these veteran scientists have seen things that they describe as unprecedented … evidence of bizarre sickness in the phytoplankton and bacterial communities…”

This “bizarre sickness” in the indigenous Gulf microorganisms is the direct result of the synthetic microbes that are still creating genetic sicknesses by mutating the DNA of the natural microbes. We had alerted our readers to this in DNA Mutations Confirmed in Gulf of Mexico on September 28, 2010 when we stated:

“DNA mutations are occurring within the Gulf of Mexico at a microscopic cellular level. The obvious effect this has on marine life as well as humans is a Pandora Box of unknowns.”

Tampa Bay Online gave further insight to this in an interview with Dr. John Paul, an oceanography biology professor at USF, regarding the oil plume they had discovered 40 miles off the Florida Panhandle:

“It was found to be toxic to microscopic sea organisms, causing mutations to their DNA. If this plankton at the base of the marine food chain is contaminated, it could affect the whole ecosystem of the Gulf.

“’The problem with mutant DNA is that it can be passed on and we don’t how this will affect fish or other marine life,” he says, adding that the effects could last for decades.’”

In Naomi Klein’s article, she describes how Paul introduced healthy bacteria and phytoplankton to Gulf water samples and what happened shocked him. The responses of the organisms “were genotoxic or mutagenic”. According to Paul, what was so “scary” about these results is that such genetic damage was “heritable,” meaning the mutations can be passed on.

Genotoxins pass on genetic changes to successors who have never been exposed to the original gene. Healthy microorganisms are then genetically changed and will pass on their DNA mutations to their descendants. This is a genetic chain-reaction as each mutated microbe interacts with and affects other microorganisms, especially with regards to the food chain:

“…the phytoplankton, the bacteria, and the [microorganisms] that graze on them – the zooplankton – seem to be the most potentially impacted.” – Dr. David Hollander, USF Marine Geochemist: December 6, 2010: Video interview on WeatherBird II.

THE PERFECT GENETIC STORM

In a Bridging The Gap radio interview with Dr. John Waterman on September 9, 2010, he stated:

“Microbes can morph, they can change. Viruses can turn into bacteria and bacteria can turn into fungi. In the Gulf we have bacteria that can morph. It can morph [mutate] because it’s attacked by a virus. The virus can change the genetics of the bacteria so that it morphs [mutates] into something very deadly.

“Some of these changed bacteria can become deadly, Ebola deadly. When you have a morphed bacterium that gets airborne, now you’re going to see it go from person to person.

“We’re on the verge of something that can become a deadly pandemic. They had to know that was the case. All it has to do is enter the human host… and once it gets started, it’s going to be impossible to stop.”

In October, 2010, I was contacted by Riki Ott, PhD who had written a book on the effects of the Exxon Valdez tanker spill in Alaska. Her Master’s Science degree is in marine biology with emphasis on the effects oil has on zooplankton. She had just read my It’s Not Wise To Fool Mother Nature article and wanted to talk. So far, she is the only U.S. based scientist who has agreed with me that there were genetically bio-engineered bacteria eating the oil in the Gulf.

In an article she published while in Ocean Springs, Mississippi, entitled Bio-Remediation or Bio-Hazard? Dispersants, Bacteria & Illness in the Gulf, she recounts how comments made by a local grandmother made her re-evaluate her thoughts on crude oil bio-remediation. That grandmother said she felt the oil-eating bacteria were “running amok and causing skin rashes.” Here’s part of what Dr. Ott wrote:

“To make things a little scarier, some of the oil-eating bacteria have been genetically modified, or otherwise bio-engineered, to better eat the oil – including Alcanivorax borkumensis and some of the Pseudomonas.”

Pseudomonas alcaligenes is a Gram-negative aerobic bacterium used for bio-remediation purposes because it can degrade aromatic hydrocarbons such as benzene or methane. Alcanivorax borkumensis is also a Gram-negative bacterium used for bio-remediation purposes because it can degrade oil hydrocarbons. There we have it. Confirmation once again that synthetic designer genes are the reason the oil and gas are being eaten up at alarming rates within the Gulf.

But why are these Gram-negative bacteria so important? Because, as Riki Ott said,

“Oil-eating bacteria produce bio-films. Studies have found that bio-films are rapidly colonized by other Gram-negative bacteria – including those known to infect humans.”

A nurse Riki Ott was working with in the Gulf, Nurse Schmidt, put it this way:

“This is like a major bacterial storm. It could be the reason we are seeing a variance of symptoms in different individuals. In some people, we see respiratory complications, while in others we see skin or GI symptoms. I think it is due to a multitude of colonized bacteria.”

But this is not just a typical bacterial storm. In this instance, there are synthetically created bio-remediation bacteria that have mutated untold species of natural organisms in the Gulf water and in the air. As different colonies begin to grow and colonize, you are witnessing the perfect genetic storm.

SYNTHETIC DNA CREATED THE GULF BLUE PLAGUE

I’ve written numerous articles in various forums since July, 2010 trying my best to warn not only my own family and friends, but the entire world with what has been evolving in the Gulf of Mexico. I’ve described in detail precisely how it was and is still evolving. For the record, I’ve researched and published these findings in the World Vision Portal forum, WVP’s YouTube channel, in the Blue Plague blog, and in weekly radio broadcasts on the Living Light Network. In August, I appropriately named the ensuing pandemic The Gulf Blue Plague.

To my frustration, few have cared to listen. I’ve been ignored and shunned on most internet sites owned and controlled by those who purportedly claim to be representing those of us living along the Gulf coast. Many of them simply don’t represent us at all. They exist for their own agendas, such as to find clients for their attorney practices. Some have exploited Gulf victims to only make a name for themselves. Some simply disappeared when BP and government agencies said the Gulf oil disaster was finished. The truth of the matter is that it’s not finished in the least. The worst part is yet to come this spring and summer as the warmer water and air accelerates the growth of the synthetically mutated viruses and bacteria.

What’s taking place in the Gulf of Mexico is not a regional problem just for those of us who live here. It’s a worldwide problem. Subtle viral and bacterial signs are beginning to show up everywhere. Mysterious unexplained diseases affecting fish, sea mammals, animals, fowl, trees, plants and mankind are occurring because of the synthetic genomes that are changing and mutating the natural organisms in the oceans and in the air.

I’ve been constantly interviewing both family members and friends who are physicians, scientists, Registered Nurses, ship captains, shrimpers, and fishermen. All of them agree that the scientifically confirmed mutated organisms – directly caused by synthetically engineered genomes interjected into the Gulf – can and most assuredly will become a pandemic or even multiple pandemics. As my RN friend with over 30 years of trauma and clinical experience in Louisiana put it:

“This is like an opera where the main characters are Frankenstein and King Neptune. When the fat lady of the Gulf finally sings in the last act, there may not be much of an audience left to hear her.”

In summary, all I can say is what I’ve been saying for months now….
“Wherever the Gulf wind blows and the Gulf water flows…”

NOTES & ADDENDUM
From The Gulf Blue Plague is Evolving – Part II

VIRUSES

Bacteriophages are viruses that change the DNA of bacteria. Many types of bacteriophages exist. Some simply infect the host bacteria while others insert into and alter the bacterial chromosome.

Some of the viruses donate their DNA materials to the host cell and cause alteration in the genetic code. Some bacteriophages can enter the host cell, but instead of immediately making new viral material the bacteriophages DNA will integrate into the chromosome of the bacteria.

BACTERIA

Bacteria are a large group of single cell microorganisms that grow to a fixed size and then reproduce through a form of asexual reproduction. Under optimal conditions, bacteria can grow and divide rapidly and some bacterial populations can double as quickly as every 9.8 minutes. Most bacteria have a single circular chromosome and inherit identical copies of their parent’s genes (they clone themselves).

However, all bacteria can evolve through changes made to their genetic material DNA caused by mutations. Mutations come from errors made during the replication of DNA or from exposure to mutagens (mutating agents), such as certain chemicals or bacteriophages (viruses). Mutations are changes in the DNA or RNA sequence of a virus. It can occur at both a Gene level – called a Gene Mutation – and at a Chromosome level – called a Chromosome Mutation. This process of change is called Mutagenesis. The result is a mutated virus that quickly duplicates itself, develops into maturity, and then discharges itself into the environment. A water environment discharge will become airborne due to high temperatures or as a result of storms.

Despite their apparent simplicity, bacteria can also form complex associations with other organisms. If bacteria form a parasitic association, they are classed as pathogens. Pathogenic bacteria are a major cause of human death and disease. MRSA and other flesh eating bacterium are pathogenic.

REFERENCES

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...leanup-future/

Lawrence Berkeley National Lab http://www.lbl.gov

http://www.nicholas.duke.edu/thegreengrok/microbes-0910

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceno...il.html?ref=hp

The Gulf Blue Plague http://blueplague.org http://blueplague.net


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuDO0l8K90I




http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00vy7f9#broadcasts

http://worldvisionportal.org/wvpforu...hp?f=55&t=1115

http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2...ll-study-says/

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/01...tane_bacteria/

http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment...n-three-months

http://chsl.webs.com/testresults.htm

http://www.alternet.org/environment/...l/?page=entire

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2010/sep...al/news-metro/


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tReP9bppy4Q




http://www.huffingtonpost.com/riki-o..._b_720461.html


Self regulation = NO regulation!

http://www.fairwarning.org/2010/12/pane ... ogy-field/

[Graeme]

BP says biofuels growth will outpace oil in 2011-2030 period

In the UK, BP published for the first time a summary of its forward-looking analyses. In Energy Outlook 2030, BP projects that primary energy use will grow by nearly 40% over the next twenty years, with 93% of the growth coming from non-OECD (Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development) countries. Non-OECD countries are seen to rapidly increase their share of overall energy demand from just over half currently to two-thirds. The report projects that, between 2010 to 2030, the contribution to energy growth of renewables (solar, wind, geothermal and biofuels) is seen to increase from 5% to 18%.

Global liquids demand is forecast to reach 102.4 million barrels per day (mmbpd) in 2030. The net growth of 16.5 mmbpd over the next 20 years comes exclusively from the emerging economies of the non-OECD. Biofuels production is expected to reach 6.7 mmbpd by 2030 from 1.8 mmbpd in 2010 and will contribute 125% of net non-OPEC supply growth over the next 20 years. Continued policy support, high oil prices, and continued technological innovations all contribute to the rapid expansion. The US and Brazil will continue to dominate biofuel production with 76% of total output in 2010 but falling to 68% in 2030 as output from Asia-Pacific begins to rise.

The complete BP Energy Outlook 2030 can be downloaded here.

biofuelsdigest