PDA

View Full Version : Environment Costner's device works.


Taco John
06-28-2010, 02:17 PM
Costner Cleanup Device Gets High Marks From BP


Fri Jun 25, 5:57 pm ET

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.


Read more:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts2851

chiefsnorth
06-28-2010, 02:30 PM
Sweet... we'll have this all cleaned up in 5,000 years or so

Bowser
06-28-2010, 02:35 PM
We still don't forgive him for Waterworld.

Sweet Daddy Hate
06-28-2010, 02:38 PM
He went full-"Water World Piss Converter" on us!

mlyonsd
06-28-2010, 02:50 PM
We still don't forgive him for Waterworld.

Bet he makes all the money backed he forked over out of his own pocket for that movie on this deal.

Awesome news. When they were talking about this a couple weeks ago I can't remember how much it could extract but the number seemed pretty high to me.

Costner is the new Howard Hughs of Hollywood.

Fat Elvis
06-28-2010, 02:53 PM
Wooo! 32 of those bad boys will make a HUGE difference.


There is a bit more than a trillion gallons of water in a cubic mile.

Taco John
06-28-2010, 03:18 PM
Bet he makes all the money backed he forked over out of his own pocket for that movie on this deal.

Awesome news. When they were talking about this a couple weeks ago I can't remember how much it could extract but the number seemed pretty high to me.

Costner is the new Howard Hughs of Hollywood.

"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."

Taco John
06-28-2010, 03:19 PM
Apparently it's been ready for years, but government regulations has slowed it down:


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.

Fat Elvis
06-28-2010, 03:24 PM
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."

Kick ass!

That is only 560 years for one of those wundermachines to process a cubic mile of water.

Sweet Daddy Hate
06-28-2010, 03:27 PM
Kick ass!

That is only 560 years for one of those wundermachines to process a cubic mile of water.

Or we could just do nothing! Yes!

Fat Elvis
06-28-2010, 03:29 PM
Or we could just do nothing! Yes!

Giving the public a placebo is good policy.

Sweet Daddy Hate
06-28-2010, 03:32 PM
Giving the public a placebo is good policy.

Lets hire Halliburton to do it!

Chiefspants
06-28-2010, 03:33 PM
Kick ass!

That is only 560 years for one of those wundermachines to process a cubic mile of water.

Considering that 5-40,000 barrels of oil are being spilled every day, it seems like they could at least take care of some of the problem.

Bootlegged
06-28-2010, 03:35 PM
Fk the gov't in the arse. Deep, deep in the arse until it hits the lower intestine.

Delaying Crash Davis' shit.

petegz28
06-28-2010, 03:46 PM
His device does work and should have been used from the beginning. Every little bit helps. And think of all the jobs Obama would create by giving Costner such a contract! :P

Taco John
06-28-2010, 03:56 PM
Kick ass!

That is only 560 years for one of those wundermachines to process a cubic mile of water.

You were hoping for a silver bullet?

Sofa King
06-28-2010, 04:23 PM
Hit a homer Crush!

Los Pollos Hermanos
06-28-2010, 04:43 PM
What does the amount of water in a cubic mile have to do with anything? Isn't most fo the oil floating toward the surface?

mlyonsd
06-28-2010, 05:23 PM
Apparently it's been ready for years, but government regulations has slowed it down:


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.

Oh bull shit. We've been hearing from the left for two months now Bush completely deregulated the oil industry and the gulf became a billionaires wild west.

Just ask Obama how much BP money he took during his campaign.

Calcountry
06-28-2010, 06:03 PM
Wooo! 32 of those bad boys will make a HUGE difference.


There is a bit more than a trillion gallons of water in a cubic mile.I wonder if those 32 vessals will be powered by diesel fuel, or solar and wind?

Calcountry
06-28-2010, 06:04 PM
What does the amount of water in a cubic mile have to do with anything? Isn't most fo the oil floating toward the surface?yes.

alnorth
06-28-2010, 07:21 PM
Kick ass!

That is only 560 years for one of those wundermachines to process a cubic mile of water.

Given that we need to clean the top... oh, 1 inch or so of water, how far does your cubic mile spread? (about 63,360 square miles, or about half the ocean surface of the entire earth) You can pour 1 little gallon out in your kitchen and it'll cover your whole floor.

Fat Elvis
06-29-2010, 08:37 AM
Given that we need to clean the top... oh, 1 inch or so of water, how far does your cubic mile spread? (about 63,360 square miles, or about half the ocean surface of the entire earth) You can pour 1 little gallon out in your kitchen and it'll cover your whole floor.

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.bloggingstocks.com/media/2007/07/baghdad_bob_1.jpg

My name is alnorth, and I would like to assure you that there are no underwater oil plumes in the Gulf of Mexico because, as you can see from this map of the world behind me, there is, in fact, no Gulf of Mexico.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/09/us/09spill.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/02/gulf-oil-spill-new-plumes_n_597872.html

Radar Chief
06-29-2010, 08:51 AM
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.bloggingstocks.com/media/2007/07/baghdad_bob_1.jpg

My name is alnorth, and I would like to assure you that there are no underwater oil plumes in the Gulf of Mexico because, as you can see from this map of the world behind me, there is, in fact, no Gulf of Mexico.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/09/us/09spill.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/02/gulf-oil-spill-new-plumes_n_597872.html

Sorry, I got completely distracted by this at your HuffPo link.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/27/katy-perry-topless-strips_n_626848.html

"Katy Perry Topless: Strips For Esquire UK (PHOTO)" :eek::drool:

You were saying something?

Los Pollos Hermanos
06-29-2010, 09:36 AM
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.bloggingstocks.com/media/2007/07/baghdad_bob_1.jpg

My name is alnorth, and I would like to assure you that there are no underwater oil plumes in the Gulf of Mexico because, as you can see from this map of the world behind me, there is, in fact, no Gulf of Mexico.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/09/us/09spill.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/02/gulf-oil-spill-new-plumes_n_597872.html

Won't those plumes eventually find there way to the surface?

alnorth
06-29-2010, 09:43 AM
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.bloggingstocks.com/media/2007/07/baghdad_bob_1.jpg

My name is alnorth, and I would like to assure you that there are no underwater oil plumes in the Gulf of Mexico because, as you can see from this map of the world behind me, there is, in fact, no Gulf of Mexico.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/09/us/09spill.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/02/gulf-oil-spill-new-plumes_n_597872.html

Well, this is an incredibly ignorant response. I know about underwater plumes, smartass.

In no way, whatsoever, did I say, hint, or imply that Costner's magic machines will solve the problem. What I was pointing out, is that the argument that these machines will be next to useless, is wrong. Thats it, nothing more, nothing less. Saying "it will take 500+ years to clean 1 cubic mile!" is dumb, given the vast majority of the oil is floating on the surface.

alnorth
06-29-2010, 09:49 AM
Won't those plumes eventually find there way to the surface?

Of course not. As we have learned in this thread, any oil that leaks will be dispersed in a 100% uniform fashion throughout the ocean. A water sample from the bottom, middle, and top layer of the ocean near the spill will contain the exact same amount of oil in identical concentrations. Therefore, we need to clean the whole ocean, therefore these machines are useless.

chiefsnorth
06-29-2010, 10:13 AM
What does the amount of water in a cubic mile have to do with anything? Isn't most fo the oil floating toward the surface?

Much of it, but BP is using dispersants to break it up into smaller drops versus a huge slick. These drops, as well as the rest over time, will sink or remain suspended in deeper water.

It's good in the sense that dispersed oil is more easily broken down further by the sea. But the oil over time will collect on the seabed.

The idea that Costner and his boat can vaccuum this stuff up is silly. Yes every little bit helps, like it would have helped passengers on the Edmund Fitzgerald to have bailing buckets.

It would be further helped if the goverment were speading booms out to contain the oil, but we're in "shakedown for political damage control" mode rather than "let's do something meaningful about it". In my opinion.

This might be useful around the shoreline in limited ways but it's not going to fix the ecological damage to the Gulf which is the actual problem, not some oily bird on the Today show

chiefsnorth
06-29-2010, 10:32 AM
i must also add that I am just repeating things I have heard from the media. No expertise here.

Fat Elvis
06-29-2010, 11:31 AM
Well, this is an incredibly ignorant response. I know about underwater plumes, smartass.

In no way, whatsoever, did I say, hint, or imply that Costner's magic machines will solve the problem. What I was pointing out, is that the argument that these machines will be next to useless, is wrong. Thats it, nothing more, nothing less. Saying "it will take 500+ years to clean 1 cubic mile!" is dumb, given the vast majority of the oil is floating on the surface.

Let me get this straight....

Let's assume you are right and most of the oil is on the surface (yeah, ok, because it acts just like oil and water in your salad dressing). Costner's super aquatic Dyson can process 128K barrels of H2O a day. That eqates to ~5.376M gallons/day. That's a lot, huh?

How much is 5M gallons a day, you ask? Let's put it in perspective:

Wichita loses nearly 5 million gallons of water a day to leaky pipes, busted mains, generous metering, firefighting and crafty thieves.



http://www.kansas.com/2010/06/20/1368609/wichitas-5-million-gallons-of.html

So Costner's Whiz-Bang Machine can process Wichita's leaky pipe problem--not their daily water usage, just leaky pipes? That is a solution?

I don't think you comprehend the magnitude of the problem.

There is a small difference in scale between this:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/05/01/us/20100501-oil-spill-tracker.html

and Wichita's leaky pipes.

Yeah. I still stand by my assertion that Costner's machines are next to useless-especially when you consider that they are deploying-woo 32 of them. They are little more than a propaganda tool.

Would they work on a small spill? Maybe, if not probably, and only they were deployed immediately.

Using Costner's toys now is kind of like pissing on the fire that is burning your house down and calling yourself a firefighter.

alnorth
06-29-2010, 12:30 PM
Cool, a good-faith effort to discuss the issue rather than snarky insults.

My understanding is that these machines are not necessarily intended to clean the whole spill. Some might be out there, but thats too big of a job. The biggest problem are the Louisiana marshes. Everything else can eventually be cleaned over time, but the oil has the potential to kill the marshes basically forever (in our lifespan). So, most of the effort (booms, these machines, skimmers, etc) is focused on protecting what is most vulnerable near the shoreline. The rest of the gulf will eventually more or less survive this.

edit: you are still responding as if these devices are randomly deployed in the hope they might accidentally suck out some oil. The oil is not distributed uniformly, quite a bit of it is on the surface in concentrated patches, and if you focus on the patches headed to the most vulnerable areas of the coast, yes it can make a dent in that limited but important context.

cdcox
06-29-2010, 01:19 PM
BP at one time stated a goal of capturing 80,000 bbls per day. At that time, I estimated that having a couple hundred of these machines would allow them to meet that goal, as long as they were always able to deploy the machine on relatively contaminated water. 32 could make a small difference. Maybe tht is as many units as the company can effectively deliver at this time. Maybe that is all that they can effectively deploy. Over time, the oil gets more and more dispersed, the weathered oil starts to sink, and this type of technology become less and less effective because you simply cannot find the contaminated water with high enough oil concentrations to make this worth while. There are not enough facts to really judge whether this is a good faith effort or not.

go bowe
06-29-2010, 09:13 PM
Much of it, but BP is using dispersants to break it up into smaller drops versus a huge slick. These drops, as well as the rest over time, will sink or remain suspended in deeper water.

It's good in the sense that dispersed oil is more easily broken down further by the sea. But the oil over time will collect on the seabed.

The idea that Costner and his boat can vaccuum this stuff up is silly. Yes every little bit helps, like it would have helped passengers on the Edmund Fitzgerald to have bailing buckets.

It would be further helped if the goverment were speading booms out to contain the oil, but we're in "shakedown for political damage control" mode rather than "let's do something meaningful about it". In my opinion.

This might be useful around the shoreline in limited ways but it's not going to fix the ecological damage to the Gulf which is the actual problem, not some oily bird on the Today showi agree that its the damage to the ecosystem of the entire gulf that is really the issue, and not the birds on the nightly news...

but the costner dealios should be of great use near the wetlands and other breeding grounds along the gulf...

i think its great that they work and that they are going to be put to use...

googlegoogle
06-29-2010, 09:41 PM
wish we could just burn it. lol

Taco John
06-29-2010, 09:44 PM
I don't understand the animosity and skepticism in this thread. If it works, it works. I don't think anybody claimed that it was going to suck up every last drop, but putting these things along the coast to suck up some of the surface stuff and keep it off the beach should be welcomed as good news and a positive development.

teedubya
06-30-2010, 12:29 AM
This is great... I hope they get deployed in time. Much props to Costner.