A Reader Question

Question: Should we call the X CHALLENGE and protest MOP's exclusion?

Jim S.

A grassroots effort like this is built on people working together but also taking affirmative action on their own. We are not trying to control how people react to the problems with the X CHALLENGE but we also recognize that our efforts are better directed at the media, spreading the word among nonprofit groups and our friends.

X CHALLENGE is not going to change their minds, we made every effort to educate them on this. Now we are pursuing a parallel track to demonstrate another way. We are seeking to shift the paradigm. It is clear that they will not make that shift. It's up to us to make them and arguing with them is probably of little value.

Thanks for your question Jim.

MOPN CHALLENGE to the X CHALLENGE

April 13, 2011

In July of 2010, the X_PRIZE Foundation announced the Wendy Schmidt Oil Spill Cleanup X CHALLENGE, with the following goals as excerpted from the guidelines:

The goal of the Competition is to inspire a new generation of oil spill cleanup technologies that enable a more rapid pace of cleanup, and broaden the environmental conditions under which oil spill cleanup can take place.”

MOP Environmental was among the first companies to register and pay our filing fee of $3,500 to participate, submitted on Feb 14, 2011. We did so with a great deal of enthusiasm because it seemed, after months of frustration, watching the Deepwater Horizon spill turn into an environmental nightmare, while knowing full well that our product, indeed, held the answer to a manageable solution. With the X Challenge we believed that finally there would be an open-minded search for the truth. This would provide the opportunity for MOP Maximum Oil Pickup to compete against all current technologies on a level playing field, with a very good likelihood to win plus the benefit of publicity from our participation.

This letter is written to explain why MOP - in order to go public to protest the inequities of the X CHALLENGE - has found it necessary to withdraw from the competition.

To follow is a description of what actions we plan to take in light of our withdrawal and the advantages of so doing.

From the beginning, our nondisclosure agreement with the X CHALLENGE prohibited MOP Environmental from disclosing our participation. But, by withdrawing from the competition, we are no longer subject to the constraints of the nondisclosure agreement. We believe this offers many added benefits over a failure to withdraw.

As previously stated, the original promotional literature about the competition laid out the laudable goals of the competition and led us to believe that we would be a very strong contender for the X-PRIZE.

Upon review of the March 21, 2011 guidelines, we opened a dialogue with the technical director, Jeff Skipper. We asked Mr. Skipper to explain how they developed the guidelines and he stated that “Shell Oil representatives had provided them with the technical expertise to write the guidelines, because we just don’t have the expertise on staff.” This shocking admission probably reflects the fact that Mr. Skipper was not prepared to be asked this question and was unaware that it might be viewed as inappropriate for an oil company to be drafting the guidelines for an Oil Spill cleanup contest.

Ironically, the US EPA was not involved in drafting the guidelines and they have not been included in any phase of the competition. Mr. Skipper proudly stated that EPA was not included because the administrators did not want to have the environmental agency prejudice the process. For over 20 years, EPA has consistently been the most fair-minded agency in the process of analyzing methodologies for spill cleanup based on science and not politics.

As we described our technology to Jeff, his enthusiasm was evident. “This seems like exactly what we are looking for,” he said. Jeff indicated that there was flexibility within the guidelines and that revisions had already been made on a number of occasions. He asked us to write up a request for a change in the guidelines and stated that he would have it reviewed by the “prejudging panel technical team” and be back to us in two days. We then sent our letter (letter #1) to Jeff Skipper.

When Jeff Skipper had not called us four days later, we began calling him. When we finally reached him, there was a more subdued reaction with Jeff stating, it was not likely that they would accept our request for a change to the guidelines.

Though we were discouraged with our first attempt, Charlie was not ready to give up yet and he convinced Mr. Skipper to allow us to present the basis of our entry ahead of schedule to the X CHALLENGE Administrators in a last effort to convince them to open up the contest to a fair competition representing all the available environmentally sustainable technology. He (Skipper) gave us his word that they would look it over and get back to us within a few days.

The second letter also included a comparable methodology for measuring the sorbent performance for direct basis of comparison to that of skimmer technology:

Sorbent performance measurement methodology, stated briefly:

We would calculate the Oil Recovery Rate (ORR) by dividing the volume of oil removed by the total time required for the MOP deployment and retrieval. The measured time span would commence with deployment of MOP and end with the liftoff of the oil saturated MOP from the surface of the water.

We would calculate the Oil Recovery Efficiency (ORE) by dividing the volume of the oil extracted from the sorbent by the volume of the oil and water extracted from the sorbent times 100 to yield the percentage ORE. The extraction process would be accomplished using a high-speed screw press similar to what is used to extract cottonseed oil from cottonseed or rape seed oil from rapeseed.

All other Judging Criteria would remain the same i.e. exactly as stated in section 4.2 Phase 1 of the competition guidelines.

Five days later, during a conference call with other participants and the administrators of the X Challenge, we learned, to our surprise, that they would not re-consider the ban on sorbents. There was never any attempt made to explain their reasoning and they refused to respond to questions regarding their rationale.

On April 4, 2011, we withdrew from the contest under protest. MOP sent a letter to the administrators of the Wendy Schmidt Oil Spill Cleanup X Challenge.

The X Challenge was created in the wake of the failure of skimmers, booms and burning and an often ignored government mandate to prohibit the use of toxic dispersants (that severely endanger the oceans' aquatic life). These failed and ineffective methods of response prompted the X Challenge to search for the most environmentally safe answer to oil spills.

We believe MOP Maximum Oil Pickup uniquely satisfies all the prerequisite objectives of this initiative. The X Challenge, however, has arbitrarily and without good reason, categorically excluded our approach.

Our response

The X Challenge is scheduled to take place at the government approved test facility, referred to as Ohmsett, located in New Jersey.

We have contacted the Ohmsett facility to schedule a test of our MOP Maximum Oil Pickup to take place before to the X Challenge competition. It is our intent to prove that our product MOP Maximum Oil Pickup will outperform all the competition entered into the X Challenge in a true and fair head to head competition.

We expect to have an answer from the Ohmsett facility by this Friday, April 15.

This will be publicized as our Challenge to the Wendy Schmidt X Challenge.

It is our hope to call upon reporters and news agencies to deliver a story and to provide regular updates and details on our website and news blog.

Some of the issues that we will address are as follows:

1. Our MOP Maximum Oil Pickup, is capable of capturing up to 99% of the spilled oil (with an oil cleanup rate of up to 95% of the spilled oil for reuse) yet is prevented from entry and excluded from consideration. Why does the X Challenge competition set the extremeley low criteria of only 70% removal of oil (which favors skimmers)?

2. Our MOP Maximum Oil Pickup can be blown under an oil spill to operate under all weather conditions to irrespective of wave height, so why does the X Challenge provide for only 1 foot waves which are not a realistic typical ocean condition that would only favor skimmer technology, (please note, calm waters up to one foot waves favor skimmers)?

3. Our MOP Maximum Oil Pickup will operate irrespective of the thickness of the oil film on water so why does the X Challenge only choose a 1 inch thickness of oil which is again an unrealistic condition typically only used for a comparison of oil skimmers? (Oil skimmers will not operate under normal ocean conditions where the oil spreads into a thin film causing the skimmer to primarily pickup water.)

These, and other questions, will be addressed and brought to light explaining why our MOP Maximum Oil Pickup is the true technology that can accomplish all the real-life objectives of oil spill response.

Sincerely,

Charles M. Diamond

President

Suggested Questions for the Media

We suggest that you bookmark this page as we will add more questions between now and the April 20 announcement of the finalists.

1. Why are sorbents steadfastly prevented from entry and excluded from consideration, even ones certified through the EPA's National Contingency Plan as safe for use on open water?

2. How can the Challenge be a fair opportunity to obtain the fastest, safest, and most efficient environmentally sustainable approach to oil spill cleanup with rules that prohibit promising alternatives to the status quo?

3. Your guidelines expressly acknowledge that skimmers always leave a substantial amount of oil in the water. The test criteria conveniently create a low recovery threshold of 70 % for qualification (dismissing sorbents known to have 99% recovery). Is the X Challenge intentionally lowering all expectations? How far below 99% is the X Challenge willing to accept as a “winner?”

March 11, 2011 Letter to Jeff Skipper

Text of Letter

Mr. Jeff Skipper

Technical Advisor

Wendy Schmidt X-Challenge

Dear Jeff,

Thank you for taking the time to speak with us on Wednesday.

We wish to make the case that, to fairly and thoroughly address the goals of the X-Challenge and the Schmidt Family Foundation, the X-Challenge competition should allow any product and method that fulfills the following:

1. Has absolutely no negative impact on the environment with or without retrieval.

2. Is virtually 100% retrievable after deployment in open waters, even under high wave conditions, (with effective oil captrure and retrieval in any waves of navigable height, not just the minimal one foot waves of the Ohmsett simulation) and deployable in all adverse weather conditions where skimmers are otherwise not at all effective.

3. Allows recovery of 95% of the oil for reuse, as clean, or cleaner than before spilled.

4. Offers faster and more complete retrieval of oil than the highest presently known retrieval method for recovery of spilled oil.

5. Has the potential to be recognized as the ultimate first response method, since its mere deployment immediately neutralizes all the potential harmful effects of an oil spill.

6. Is safe to all aquatic life, animals, humans and plant life and once deployed prevents any pickup of oil by birds (and incidentally, also can safely clean oil from any birds or animals that were otherwise contaminated by oil due to this product not having been used as a first response).

7. Arguably has superior advantages over all known alternatives, to be recognized as the ultimate method of response to oil spills.

8. Is incidentally a product whose method of use on land has just been patented, (in December 2010).

9. Is incidentally, an equally effective method for removal of oil spills on land or water, in all weather conditions, in all temperatures, that works in rain, sleet, and snow, and on all surfaces such as ice, snow, and all soils such as heavily organic, as in rain forests (where it is currently in use in Ecuador), where the oil saturated soil problem has resisted a suitable answer for decades.

10. Is a product and method even capable of rapidly cleaning the 21 year old oil spill that remains from the infamous EXXON Valdez where, to this day, the oil still remains on the beaches.

11. Is a product and method for which there is no other comparable alternative.

Consistent with the objectives of the X-Challenge, it only makes sense that this patented product and method of its deployment and retrieval, be allowed to be demonstrated and to thereby compete againt all alternatives, for recognition of its ultimate superiority as the current best answer for the retrieval of oil spills.

Please take these things into consideration by allowing it to compete in the X-Challenge.

Attached is a preliminary summary of our product and methods. Our team is providing this information to facilitate a revision to the WSOSXC Guidelines and its description of “allowable” methods. Currently those guidelines prohibit the use of sorbents on the water surface.

Our objection is not as a company marketing a product. Our objection is based on our view that the restriction is contrary to the goals of the X-Challenge and the Schmidt Family Foundation. The decision to eliminate our product and method because it happens to include a sorbent, runs contrary to the goals of the X-Challenge and all the historic data since 1971 regarding EPA approved sorbents.

Further, we contend that the decision to disallow loose sorbents in the Gulf of Mexico spill was the precipitating event in a process that turned a manageable spill into an environmental disaster.

It is easy to trace the cause of this ill advised decision due to the fact that the most common loose sorbent is polypropylene pulp. Rather than making a distinction between hundreds of different sorbents - all sorbents have been lumped into one category and erroneously summarily dismissed under the belief that every loose sorbent must be the most commonly known loose sorbent which is polypropylene, a plastic not allowed by the EPA for deployment into open waterways in accordance with the EPA's absolute mandate of “no plastics overboard.”

This, despite the fact that some sorbents have been created through a process of scientific inquiry every bit as rigorous as any other high tech solution. Furthermore, the use of environmentally benign sorbents is the method of choice in the European Union where dispersants are banned entirely. While we are not making the case that the European Union’s approach is the only approach, we are making the case that their preferential use of environmentally benign sorbents strengthens the case that they should at the very least should be allowed where, in accordance with the EPA guidelines, the absorbent contains absolutely no ingredients that are harmful to the environment, (such as plastics and polypropylene).

Our EPA reviewed product is a surface modified cellulose that will not absorb water, floats, and aggressively captures oil at a ratio of 30 times its weight. Our MOP product has been submitted to the EPA wherein the EPA has declared our product, is not in any way restricted for deployment in open waterways. It is as benign to the environment as a leaf falling from a tree.

Our product MOP is quickly, easily and fully retrievable from the waterway, where up to 95% of the absorbed oil from our product is then easily separated, extracted, and thereby recovered for reuse and thereby has all the obvious prerequisites to be qualified and allowed to compete within the X-Challenge guidelines.

During the Gulf of Mexico spill last summer, any idea that did not fit the “boom, burn and disperse” mentality was dismissed automatically, resulting in their inability to avert a national disaster and the need for the X-Challenge to step forward with a competition to resolve this issue once and for all.

Without an exigent emergency there would be no excuse for not giving fair consideration to environmentally benign sorbents in general and MOP Maximum Oil Pickup in particular. The WSOSXC can put the question simply, and demand a simple answer---“What is the safest, fastest, and best method for recovering oil from an oil spill in water?” It would be a tragic irony if the competition which sought to encourage solutions beyond the status quo of the GOM, only served to reinforce the inappropriate exclusion of an environmentally sustainable solution with extremely effective and efficient results.

Our sense of your concern about sorbents is that they may be difficult to remove from the water. Quite naturally, nobody wants to risk adding another problem to an already bad situation by putting an uncontrolled substance on top of mishandled oil. There are three answers which should remove any fear or doubt: 1) We have the technology 2) MOP with or without removal is safe and 3) Profit encourages effort.

Quite simply, MOP is easy to collect. It floats and will not sink even when fully saturated. Its affinity to cling to itself is nearly as strong as its oleophilic and hydrophobic qualities. MOP draws in oil, repels water and inherently sticks together. MOP can be deployed even more rapidly than an oil spill develops. It can even preempt the release of oil thereby staying ahead of the problem. Which, in real world conditions, is an answer that no mechanical system or skimmer can equal. MOP is deployed rapidly at over 150 mph by our MOP CANNON. MOP is retrieved rapidly using fishing nets that cover a much larger area, in swaths up to 200 feet wide that are larger and more efficient than any known skimmer.

Depending on the size of the spill and the amount of MOP to be used, broadcast of the MOP sorbent and the collection of the saturated MOP is easily tailored to the task at hand and imminently scaleable. Our MOP product is in use in Ecuador where it has been extensively tested in comparison with all alternatives. The result is a discovery that for oil spills in water; what can be recovered “by hand” in less than one hour had previously taken more than two days to accomplish the same result with any known or attempted alternative. Larger spills, like those from a tanker, can be controlled with mechanical distribution directly into the spill or into nets trolling with MOP through the oil plume. Again, depending upon the size of the spill and the amount of MOP, the methodology for collecting the sorbent may range from collection by harvesters such as those used for harvesting weeds or using standard fishing nets, where the process far exceeds the rates of oil recovery otherwise attainable by skimmers.

Even if you assume, for the sake of argument, that unused or oil-saturated MOP is not recovered as timely as planned, there is no threat to the environment. MOP is completely safe before and after oil saturation and the oil will not be released until it is squeezed for purposeful extraction of up to 95% of the captured oil, actually cleaner than before it was spilled and thereby the oil is recovered for reuse. The MOP sorbent is all natural, nontoxic, biodegradable and completely safe. In fact, the MOP components are so safe that they could meet or exceed food packaging requirements! In large or small quantities, MOP does not harm the environment. Even unskilled deployment and use of MOP will not cause harm to the environment. Oil saturated MOP floats and is immediately available for collection or even weeks later, if necessary without degradation. Although our team does not favor it, MOP is combustible thus even the undesirable in situ burning is not hampered.

The low-cost and highly efficient use of MOP even allows for a profit potential from the value of the oil retrieved by the MOP recovery method.

Our MOP-PET (Petroleum Extraction Tool) allows reuse/resale of the oil which is now trading above $100/barrel. In light of rising demand and dramatic price increases, this MOP feature allows the power of a profit motive to be harnessed in favor of a cleaner environment. Make no mistake, MOP is both effective and efficient ---add to that an opportunity to cheaply and easily extract the oil for additional revenue and the MOP answer shows significant advantages over alternatives. Oil producers, handlers, and response companies are encouraged to maximize their cleaning efforts and maximize sustainability with a measurable offset effect on their costs.

We were very gratified by your receptiveness to our concerns. We respectfully request that the line restricting the use of sorbents on page 8 of the guidelines be removed. Short of this, a process for exempting a sorbent that can demonstrate its benign characteristics and a methodology for its removal plus recovery would also be a fair method for resolution. We have attempted to address what appears to be WSOSCXC (and the historical) objection to sorbents—ensuring recovery of the sorbent. The MOP Team is continually trying to answer the need for a sustainable solution to this issue and we are pleased to present this preliminary look at our proposal. Within our completed submission you'll see the full development of the techniques that we will be using to provide an effective demonstration of the capabilities and advantages of MOP Maximum Oil Pickup.

Thank you.

Charles M. Diamond 603-747-2200 cd@fsinh.com

Wayne D. King 603-515-6001 waynedking9278@gmail.com

Andrew Bronson 603-747-2200 andrew@mopenvironmental.com

March 21, 2011 Letter to Jeff Skipper

Text of Second Letter

Mr. Jeff Skipper

Technical Advisor

Wendy Schmidt X-Challenge

Dear Jeff,

In our original telephone discussion we were looking for clarification regarding the admissibility of our MOP technology to determine if we qualified as a participant in the X CHALLENGE.

Your response, to paraphrase, was as follows:

“We should provide a brief description of our oil retrieval methodology. You in turn would run it through your Prejudging Panel Technical Team who would look at it and be able to tell us right off whether we can or cannot enter using our technology.”

We submitted our first reply on March 11 (attached).

In my most recent telephone conversation of today March 25, as you are aware, we both revisited the above issues once again. You stated you would give me a clear determination, within two workdays into this coming week, one way or the other. You also stated you have been running into similar sorbent parameter measurement issues with others potential competitors.

MOP Maximum Oil Pickup's retrieval methodology, stated briefly:

Our MOP sorbent is deployed both above and below the oil spill to capture the oil from both above and below the waterline while being followed with a trawling net to retrieve the oil laden MOP sorbent over a height span that simultaneously covers from 2 to 3 feet below the water to 2 to 3 feet above the water thereby capturing all of the oil laden sorbent. For the OHMSETT facility we will be using an analogous approach with a vertical net for removal thereby capturing more oil per unit time. In real-life conditions this offers significant advantages of being able to function effectively, irrespective of the wave height or prevailing weather.

Our MOP sorbent captures up to 99% of the spilled oil (whether it is a thin slick or a very thick spill) and agglomerates it together at the surface. Once MOP makes contact with oil it completely neutralizes all the potential harmful effects of the oil spill and will not release the oil to the environment. Our MOP sorbent is safe to humans, aquatic life, birds, plants and wildlife. Our MOP sorbent is comprised of cellulose but unlike other cellulose sorbents it rejects water (like a duck feather on steroids, will not absorb water), our MOP sorbent only captures oil. Our MOP sorbent will not sink and is as safe to the environment as a leaf falling from a tree.

Upon retrieval even if our MOP sorbent is saturated as little as 15%, it can be squeezed to recover up to 95% of the sorbed oil, and the oil is reusable, free of water. The MOP recovered oil is as clean or cleaner than before it was spilled.

Sorbent performance measurement methodology, stated briefly:

We would calculate the Oil Recovery Rate (ORR) by dividing the volume of oil removed by the total time required for the MOP deployment and retrieval. The measured time span would commence with deployment of MOP and end with the liftoff of the oil saturated MOP from the surface of the water.

We would calculate the Oil Recovery Efficiency (ORE) by dividing the volume of the oil extracted from the sorbent by the volume of the oil and water extracted from the sorbent times 100 to yield the percentage ORE. The extraction process would be accomplished using a high-speed screw press similar to what is used to extract cottonseed oil from cottonseed or rape seed oil from rapeseed.

All other Judging Criteria would remain the same i.e. exactly as stated in section 4.2 Phase 1 of the competition guidelines.

In support of this submission we have attached with this letter the following five documents

1. EPA Certification Letter from MOP and EPA Certification qualification letter from EPA
2. MOP as a First Response: A comprehensive look at MOP sorbent as the first response to an oil spill.
3. The MOP Field Manual, from which the above two documents have been taken.
4. A copy of my letter to you of March 11, 2011 is appended below.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Letter of Withdrawal to X-CHALLENGE Committee April 4, 2011

Text of Letter to David Locke

David Locke

Wendy Schmidt Oil Cleanup X CHALLENGE

X PRIZE Foundation

5510 Lincoln Blvd. Suite 100

Playa Vista, CA 90094-2034

U.S.A

Dear David:

On July 29, 2010, the X PRIZE Foundation announced their newest challenge, promising, in their guidelines, to seek “bold new creative approaches, needed to make breakthrough oil spill technology commercially available.”

As stated: “The goal is to inspire a new generation of oil spill cleanup technologies that enable a more rapid pace of cleanup, and broaden the environmental conditions under which oil spill cleanup can take place.”

Contrary to these stated goals and objectives all solutions that involve sorbents have been eliminated irrespective of their merit and their adherence to the goals and objectives of the competition.

Nothing in the original Overview or the goals eliminated the use of sorbent technology. However, on March 29, 2011, during a Webinar called to discuss completing the required forms, Cristin Dorgelo Lindsay made it clear that a final judgement had been made to eliminate sorbent technologies.

Instead of allowing all reasonable solutions, she stressed that sorbent technologies would be “prohibited”. In reference to the use of sorbents, she warned that “if you intend to utilize that (sorbents) as part of your solution . . . you will not be moving forward as a Finalist Team - as those solutions are not eligible for this competition.”

With the prohibition on sorbents, we therefore withdraw ourselves from what has become an unfair, biased and profoundly flawed process, inconsistent with the X CHALLENGE’S goals and objectives. We earnestly challenge you to answer these simple questions:

1. Why are environmentally benign sorbents prevented from entry and excluded from consideration?

2. How can the Challenge be a fair opportunity to obtain the fastest, safest, and most efficient environmentally sustainable approach to oil spill cleanup with rules that prohibit potentially the best alternatives?

3. The test criteria conveniently create a low recovery threshold of 70 % for qualification (creating a bias toward skimmers that always leave a substantial percentage of oil in the water), yet disallows sorbents like MOP 201 that are known to have a 99% oil recovery rate. Is the X CHALLENGE intentionally lowering expectations?

Unfortunately, the Oil Cleanup X CHALLENGE, with its minimal recovery expectations, guarantees that the catastrophic failure of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill response will likely be repeated.

Introducing MOP Maximum Oil Pickup