Dear U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

I am writing this letter about the oil spill that was made after the well
from British Petroleum (BP) exploded. After the oil spill was made, BP
sprayed Corexit over the oil spill causing some negative effects. I advise that
British Petroleum discontinues its use of the Corexit dispersants to clean up
the oil.
After the oil spill was made, BP treated the oil with the Corexit. The oil
was treated by Corexit, typically by aerial spraying. The Corexit breaks down
the oil and quickly spread across the surface and down the water column.
After that, beads of tiny goo begin to sink underwater. This goo can be
harmful to the marine life.
Critics argued against BP spraying the dispersant into the oil spill. They
said that crude oil is not only toxic to marine life on its own, but when it is
combined with the Corexit, the mixtures become several times more toxic
than oil or dispersant alone. BP says that the Corexit is harmless to the
marine life and that you couldnt find any data on how the dispersant
negatively affects the marine life. However, there is proof that the dispersant
does harm the marine life.
The Louisiana State Universitys Department of Oceanography and
Coastal Sciences found lesions, abnormalities in the tissue, and extremely
unusual deformities under the sea including millions of shrimp without eyes
and crabs without eyes or claws. The oil and dispersant could be linked with
the findings from the university. Studies from the University of South Florida
found that a wide amount of oil underwater, dispersed with the Corexit,
produced a massive decrease of foraminifera, a microscopic organism, at the
base of the food chain. They are important for large animals and others that
eat a specific type of foraminifera. The Corexit affects not only the marine
life, but people too. After the oil was dispersed with Corexit, countless of Gulf
of Mexico residents became sick with symptoms including bleeding at the
nose, ears, breasts, and even the anus. There was even man who could not
move or speak for a temporary amount of time. This happened when the
Corexit came in direct contact with the human body. It broke down the
protective layer of the skin, letting the toxin into the bloodstream.
There are other methods that BP can do to get rid of the oil without the
use of Corexit. My first suggestion is to leave the oil alone so that it can
break down over time by natural means. However, this work best if the oil
will not pollute the coastal regions or marine industries. The second
suggestion is to contain the spill with booms and collect it from the water
surface using skimmer equipment. We can use the boom to surround and

isolate the oil, or to block the passage of the oil to vulnerable areas. Then we
float the skimmers across the oil slick contained within the booms. The
skimmer will suck or scoop the oil into the storage tanks on nearby vessels
or on the shore. However, it is less effective when deployed in high winds
and seas. The third suggestion is to introduce the biological agents, like
bacteria and other microorganisms, to the spill to hasten biodegradation. The
natural process can be sped up by adding nutrients like Nitrogen and
Phosphorous, which control the growth of the microorganisms. However, the
effectiveness of this technique depends on the factors on solute and solvent.
Since the Corexit has a negative effects on the marine life and
humans, I advise that BP should discontinue the use of Corexit and use
different methods of cleaning the oil leftover from the spill. If not, the
negative effects of the Corexit will still continue.

Sincerely,
Ernest Ringoringo