Who is doing technical review of solutions for the oil spill?

As far as I know technical ideas or solutions for the cessation of oil flow or the required clean up are submitted to  BP at the following web address horizonsupport@oegllc.com. I have seen and heard that BP has received thousands of ideas from many sources. My understanding is that BP controls all this. I sent my own initial ideas roughly a month ago and had some vague reply a few days ago. I have heard others say they have had no response at all from BP on their ideas. Who is coordinating the ideas and solutions? There needs to be one solution center that fields all the ideas and solutions. This does not appear to be the case. There needs to be timely responses to peoples submissions. As an engineer I believe all these solutions need to pass by a technical committee with credentials that would justify review of ideas. Who is currently reviewing the ideas? Should the technical review committee consist of BP employees only? What are the credentials of those reviewing ideas? There should be a daily review based on metrics or guidelines. Are those currently in place? Are any news organizations looking at covering how the submitted ideas are being handled? I believe the whole process if there is one needs to be reviewed. There needs to be a list of which ideas warrant technical merit. Those ideas need to be categorized in terms of urgency and available resources to name a few. There needs to be a media interface that is updating the public as to what ideas will be implemented immediately and which ideas warrant further review. We are at a critical juncture and need the implementation of good ideas immediately to solve this problem. Our total focus needs to be on viable solutions to either cap the flow or clean up the oil mess created by BP, the government and others. We've had way to much focus on who to blame and who is liable. We can do that later. We need to focus our attention on solutions. The best way to do that is to go back and review all the solutions and ideas submitted to date. This needs to be a daily process and needs to have a lot of transparency. Transparency should not hamper the technical reviewer’s job. I believe there are viable solutions that have all ready been submitted that may have been rejected for no good reason or simply not looked at because there were not enough competent technical reviewers to look at the ideas. In that case more resources need to be focused towards providing enough qualified reviewers CNN has posted a number of good ideas on their iRepot site. Has BP reviewed any of those ideas? I believe that BP needs to offer a monetary incentive to the technical community for ideas to solve the oil flow issue and the cleanup. They are receiving a lot of ideas from the public and technical community at no cost to them. They or others should not be allowed to claim any of these ideas as their own IP as they ideas submitted to date are in the public domain