Article

2010-06-26 Home Front: Politix

Costner cleanup device gets high marks from BP

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by gorb 2010-06-26 02:26|| || Front Page|| [11134 views ] Top

#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|| 2010-06-26 05:30|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2010-06-26 08:10|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2010-06-26 08:35|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2010-06-26 10:47|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2010-06-26 11:37|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2010-06-26 20:17|| Front Page Top

00:09 Dash Riprock
23:40 Dash Riprock
23:29 Asymmetrical
23:29 gorb
23:26 trailing wife
23:23 trailing wife
23:18 gorb
23:15 gorb
23:10 gorb
22:58 logi_cal
22:56 logi_cal
22:53 junkiron
22:30 Eric Jablow
21:44 Asymmetrical
21:24 phil_b
20:58 Lumpy Anguting2786
20:17 junkiron
20:14 gorb
20:04 gorb
19:49 Cornsilk Blondie
19:40 DMFD
19:39 Matt
19:34 Barbara Skolaut
19:02 Skunky Glins****