| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Costner cleanup device gets high marks from BP |
| 2010-06-26 |
| Videos at link. I think I saw Costner say something to the effect of "The government won't allow it to be used because it hasn't been proven, but it can't be proven because I'm not allowed to use it." Our government pinheads in action. If I were king, I'd say "Well, it can't hurt! Give it a try. Just stay out of the way. If it works, we'll use it. We'll even help you solve technical problems if it helps." It was treated as an oddball twist in the otherwise wrenching saga of the BP oil spill when Kevin Costner stepped forward to promote a device he said could work wonders in containing the spill's damage. But as Henry Fountain explains in the New York Times, the gadget in question -- an oil-separating centrifuge -- marks a major breakthrough in spill cleanup technology. And BP, after trial runs with the device, is ordering 32 more of the Costner-endorsed centrifuges to aid the Gulf cleanup. The "Waterworld" actor has invested some $20 million and spent the past 15 years in developing the centrifuges. He helped found a manufacturing company, Ocean Therapy Solutions, to advance his brother's research in spill cleanup technology. In testimony before Congress this month, Costner walked through the device's operation--explaining how it spins oil-contaminated water at a rapid speed, so as to separate out the oil and capture it in a containment tank: The device can purportedly take in thousands of gallons of oil-tainted water and remove up to 99% of the oil from it. On Thursday, BP posted to its YouTube page a video of the news conference featuring Costner and BP Chief Operating Officer Doug Suttles announcing the news. "Doug Suttles was the first guy to step up in the oil industry," Costner said at the presser, "and I'm really happy to say when he ordered 32 machines, it's a signal to the world, to the industry, where we need to be." Suttles said the additional machines will be used to build four new deep-water systems: on two barges and two 280-foot supply boats. "We tested it in some of the toughest environments we could find, and actually what it's done -- it's quite robust," Suttles said. "This is real technology with real science behind it, and it's passed all of those tests." He added that Costner's device has proved effective at processing 128,000 barrels of water a day, which "can make a real difference to our spill response efforts." In his congressional testimony, Costner recounted his struggle to effectively market the centrifuge. He explained that although the machines are quite effective, they can still leave trace amounts of oil in the treated water that exceeds current environmental regulations. Because of that regulatory hurdle, he said, he had great difficulty getting oil industry giants interested without first having the approval of the federal government. It's true, as Fountain notes in the Times, that innovation on spill technology has been hobbled in part by the reach of federal regulation -- though Fountain also notes that oil companies have elected to devote comparatively little money for researching cleanup devices in the intensely competitive industry. Costner said that after the device was patented in 1993, he sought to overcome oil-company jitters by offering to allow U.S. oil concerns to use it on a trial basis. He'd extended the same offer to the Japanese government in 1997, he said, but got no takers there either. |
| Posted by:gorb |
| #6 It is the mechanical agitation of the oil and water either by skimmers or the natural wave action that causes the oil to go into solution with the water which allows the oil to sink below surface. The purpose of dispersants spread by aircraft is to cause the hydrocarbon molecules to disperse on the surface which allows the microbiology to surround and eat away at all sides of the hydrocarbon rather than just one. This accelerates the removal of the hydrocarbon exponentially. The whole purpose is to remove the oil before it goes into solution. I can attest to the fact that in past decades , huge volumes of dispersants such joy dish soap, were used to cause the oil to go into solution with the water. Today however those methods are strictly prohibited by law. Kevins Costners argument that a small percentage of subsurface oil is far less damaging than huge amount of oil on the surface is strongly supported by a study of the Alaska Prince William Sound released in 2009. This study claims that 20 years after the Exxon Valdez oil spill, there is very strong evidence that the overall marine biology of the area, as a whole, actually benefited more than it was harmed by the spill. I am not inferring that any method used to clean up the oil should be aborted. Only that bioremediation appears to be far superior to mechanical methods. |
| Posted by: junkiron 2010-06-26 20:17 |
| #5 I think the Dutch skimmers may have received a permit to discharge processed water back into the ocean. However all mechanical processes are far far inferior to bioremediation. People who reject the idea of bioremediation probably don't know that if they live in a large city, they are probably drinking water that has basicly been through the same bioremediation process BP uses as a dispersant. OTOH, bioremediation may work much better after there's been a first pass of mechanical separation. Currently BP's first step in the biorememdiation process is to use dispersants on the oil at depth, which keeps the oil at depth in an oxygen-depleted environment, helps deplete the oxygen there even more (read up on the Dead Zones in the gulf for more background), and keeps much of the oil away from the surface, where all the strong ultraviolet light in sunlight is. (And yes, that helps in bioremediation). |
| Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain 2010-06-26 11:37 |
| #4 Equipment almost identical to Keven Costners has been used in the oil industry for decades. I think the first system he purchased was used on the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989. The main problem is what do you do with the processed water? There is an old saying in the oil industry. "If can't drink it, you need a permit to get rid of it. And if you don't drink now, you will by the time you get the permit." I think the Dutch skimmers may have received a permit to discharge processed water back into the ocean. However all mechanical processes are far far inferior to bioremediation. People who reject the idea of bioremediation probably don't know that if they live in a large city, they are probably drinking water that has basicly been through the same bioremediation process BP uses as a dispersant. Some pretty good information about the bioremediation of hydrocarbons can be found here: http://www.princeton.edu/~chm333/2004/Bioremediation/Hydrocarbons%20bioremediation%20strategies.htm |
| Posted by: junkiron 2010-06-26 10:47 |
| #3 From Texas to Florida of thousands of people are lined up waiting to go to work cleaning up the spill. They all have the same problem. Environmental Protection Agency Regulations are preventing them from doing whatever is needed to protect the coast and clean up the oil. I think Keven Costner has every potential for becoming the new Al Gore. Whether that is a good thing or a bad thing would depend on his stance in relation to the EPA. In my opinion EPA negligence is the number one contributing factor that caused this disaster in the first place. Attempting to expose that reality in today's media brainwashed world is no more than an exercise self defeating futility. Revealing the truth is the only thing that could prevent the reoccurrence of this horrible event. In a country where the governments main purpose is to protect itself, rather than it's people, that truth will never be told. |
| Posted by: junkiron 2010-06-26 08:35 |
| #2 Not all actors are narcissistic idiots. Just most of them. BTW, this idea has been around a long time. I recall something similar was tried during the Torrey Canyon (a supertanker that ran aground off the UK coast and spilled almost all its cargo) spill in the 1960s. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2010-06-26 08:10 |
| #1 A member of our cultural elites who actually produced something useful---would wonders never cease? |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2010-06-26 05:30 |