You don't appear to understand. According to the article mercury is a driver for the remediation. Bioremediation is targeted at organic contamination, not inorganic contaminants such as mercury. Furthermore, sediment is anaerobic, and petroleum hydrocarbon degradation such as that in the advertisement you've posted is an aerobic process. The two are incompatible.
Bioremediation does work, and quite effectively in some cases, but it is not a cure-all and it needs to be carefully tailored to the situation at hand.
Where did the article imply that? From the article linked in comment# 1:
"Much of the pollution was caused by Allied-Signal, a former chemical company that manufactured caustic soda, soda ash, chlorinated benzenes, and other products at a site near the lake from 1917 through 1986. The company's operations released mercury, solvents, calcium and other pollutants into nearby streams and soil as well as Onondaga Lake."
--snip--
"An investigation into the extent of the contamination was completed in 2002 and found mercury contamination throughout the 4.6-square mile lake, as well as elevated levels of benzene, toluene, PCBs and polychlorinated dioxins."
The thread of that link had comments mentioning the proposed dredging of the Hudson River for PCB remediation.
Bioremediation is targeted at organic contamination, not inorganic contaminants such as mercury. Furthermore, sediment is anaerobic, and petroleum hydrocarbon degradation such as that in the advertisement you've posted is an aerobic process. The two are incompatible.
The news release doesn't mention what type of bacteria is/are being used "in the removal of petroleum hydrocarbons and chlorinated solvents from soil and water."
If you want to reply with professional references, I would appreciate it.