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:
BP shipped in workers for president's visit
Started by Gomer Pyle, May 29 2010 04:55 PM
42 replies to this topic
#32
Gomer Pyle
-
- Members
-
- 595 posts
Members
Posted 25 June 2010 - 10:07 PM
Yeah the Costner chapter to this saga has been one of the only bright spots. Dude deserves massive kudos if that contraption somehow plays a role in effectively cleaning up this cluster fuck.
Surprise, surprise, surprise!
#33
Macker
-
- Members
-
- 3,397 posts
Advanced Member
Posted 25 June 2010 - 11:39 PM
Hey at this point, you use what ever is available and seems to help. Fuck Govt., if a some dude a known or unknown, has an idea; give it a look.....It's common sense. BTW the Govt. should see this as well and just let it fly... Who at this point cares about politics, except real ideological assholes. It's a bad deal and if anyone can help, be my guest. I'll help you regardless.
You never ask a navy man if he'll have another drink, because it's nobody's goddamned business how much he's had already.
#34
freedom78
-
- TFHL Peep
-
- 6,667 posts
Advanced Member
- LocationIndiana
Posted 26 June 2010 - 08:56 AM
Yeah the Costner chapter to this saga has been one of the only bright spots. Dude deserves massive kudos if that contraption somehow plays a role in effectively cleaning up this cluster fuck.
This could almost redeem Waterworld, or his accent-less Robin Hood.
Sister burn the temple
And stand beneath the moon
The sound of the ocean is dead
It's just the echo of the blood in your head
#36
freedom78
-
- TFHL Peep
-
- 6,667 posts
Advanced Member
- LocationIndiana
Posted 26 June 2010 - 11:20 AM
though still not good enough to redeem him for Mr.Brooks.
Yeah, it isn't worthy of forgetting his entire career. I think he could cash in all his oil cleanup chips and we could all pretend that The Postman was never made. But not all of 'em.
Sister burn the temple
And stand beneath the moon
The sound of the ocean is dead
It's just the echo of the blood in your head
#38
cousin it
-
- Members
-
- 3,863 posts
Members
Posted 27 June 2010 - 06:47 AM
This pisses me off so much!!!
It should have never happened, and the fucking pencil pushers that caused should rot in jail! But, a dirty beach? Check this out:
http://ocean.si.edu/...you-do-not-see/
http://echinoblog.bl...gulf-kills.html
#39
cousin it
-
- Members
-
- 3,863 posts
Members
Posted 27 June 2010 - 06:53 AM
I posted this on the Smithsonian blog:
The rig belonged to Transocean Ltm., but it was BP that submitted, and then altered, the design of the well that led to the blowout. It was BP that chose the risky option of using only 6 centralizers on the final string of casing when their own analysis demonstrated that channels would be created in the final cementing of that casement.
It was BP that told the Schlumberger crew that a cement-bond log on that final cement job was unnecessary even though it was clear that the practice was standard operation in the completion of wells, and would have found some of the flaws inherent in the design that led to the blowout.
It was BP that chose to ignore industry standards when it chose not to fully circulate the drilling mud which would have given indication of dangerous levels of formation fluids in the mud.
It is BP that chose to not install a lock down sleeve that would have provided another redundancy against communication of formation fluids through the well head.
It seems apparent that BP chose a sub-standard design that ignored standard protocol in an attempt to save a couple of days on-site. Their attempt, if successful, would have saved only a fraction of the total cost of the well bore, and in relation to the profits that the reservoir hold, not even a mere pittance.
No one that I am aware of is angry at the British people, but we are furious at the criminal neglect of a company that has long flouted industry standards, and chooses people over profits... going all the way back to its days as the Anglo Iranian Oil Company.
Submitted by Anonymous on Wed, 06/16/2010 - 12:52pm.
The rig belonged to Transocean Ltm., but it was BP that submitted, and then altered, the design of the well that led to the blowout. It was BP that chose the risky option of using only 6 centralizers on the final string of casing when their own analysis demonstrated that channels would be created in the final cementing of that casement.
It was BP that told the Schlumberger crew that a cement-bond log on that final cement job was unnecessary even though it was clear that the practice was standard operation in the completion of wells, and would have found some of the flaws inherent in the design that led to the blowout.
It was BP that chose to ignore industry standards when it chose not to fully circulate the drilling mud which would have given indication of dangerous levels of formation fluids in the mud.
It is BP that chose to not install a lock down sleeve that would have provided another redundancy against communication of formation fluids through the well head.
It seems apparent that BP chose a sub-standard design that ignored standard protocol in an attempt to save a couple of days on-site. Their attempt, if successful, would have saved only a fraction of the total cost of the well bore, and in relation to the profits that the reservoir hold, not even a mere pittance.
No one that I am aware of is angry at the British people, but we are furious at the criminal neglect of a company that has long flouted industry standards, and chooses people over profits... going all the way back to its days as the Anglo Iranian Oil Company.
Submitted by Anonymous on Wed, 06/16/2010 - 12:52pm.
#41
Mr. Roboto
-
- Admin
-
- 6,723 posts
Administrators
- LocationProvo Spain
Posted 01 July 2010 - 11:02 AM
Man these GOP mofos never stop lying, it seems to be all they ever do.
******
GOP's false talking point: Jones Act blocks Gulf help
WASHINGTON — From former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to Arizona Sen. John McCain to junior members of the House of Representatives, conservative Republicans have accused President Barack Obama of failing to do all he can to help clean up the Gulf of Mexico oil spill because he hasn't waived a U.S. maritime law called the Jones Act.
That statute, established in 1920, requires that all goods transported between U.S. ports be carried on U.S.-flagged, U.S.-built and U.S.-owned ships crewed by U.S. citizens or permanent residents. Critics say that's needlessly excluded foreign-flagged vessels that could have helped.
"It's a little shocking to me that a president that has such a multinational orientation as this president didn't immediately see the benefits of waiving the Jones Act and allowing all of these resources to come in," former House Majority Leader Richard Armey, R-Texas, said in remarks to Newsmax.com, a conservative website.
Armey and the other Republican critics are wrong. Maritime law experts, government officials and independent researchers say that the claim is false. The Jones Act isn't an impediment at all, they say, and it hasn't blocked anything.
"Totally not true," said Mark Ruge, counsel to the Maritime Cabotage Task Force, a coalition of U.S. shipbuilders, operators and labor unions. "It is simply an urban myth that the Jones Act is the problem."
In a news briefing last week, Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen said he'd received "no requests for Jones Act waivers" from foreign vessels or countries. "If the vessels are operating outside state waters, which is three miles and beyond, they don't require a waiver," he said.
On Tuesday the State Department announced that new offers of aid would be accepted from 12 foreign countries and international organizations, but spokesman P.J. Crowley noted that booms donated by Mexico, Norway and Brazil had been in use since May 11,and that 24 foreign vessels from nine foreign countries already have been helping with the cleanup.
FactCheck.org, a nonprofit website operated by the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg Public Policy Center, analyzed claims that failure to waive the Jones Act is blocking foreign-flagged vessels from assisting in the Gulf. It concluded last week that "In reality, the Jones Act has yet to be an issue in the response efforts."
The Deepwater Horizon response team reported in a news release June 15 that 15 foreign-flagged ships were participating in the oil spill cleanup, FactCheck.org said. "None of them needed a waiver because the Jones Act does not apply," it said.
That hasn't stopped conservatives from making the act a talking point to criticize Obama. Joseph Carafano, a foreign policy analyst for the Heritage Foundation, a conservative policy-research center, suggested on Fox News that labor unions are pressuring the Obama administration not to waive the act.
"They hate it when the Jones Act gets waived, and they pound politicians when they do that," Carafano said. "So is this a question of we're giving in to unions and not doing everything we can or is there some kind of impediment we don't know about?"
Michael Sacco, the president of the 80,000-member Seafarers International Union, called claims of organized-labor interference in the cleanup efforts "ridiculous."
"It is offensive for anyone to suggest that American maritime labor would hinder cleanup operations in the Gulf, in any way, shape or form," Sacco said in a statement on the union's website. "Speaking with one voice, U.S maritime labor and management have said that we wouldn't try to stand in the way of using foreign-flag assistance if no qualified, viable American-flag tonnage was available."
Some Democrats and union officials say that Republicans are trying to use the Gulf spill to kill what conservatives consider a protectionist law that hurts businesses. McCain introduced a bill last week to repeal the Jones Act, noting the emergency in the Gulf. He also touted the economic benefits of doing away with the act.
"The best course of action is to permanently repeal the Jones Act in order to boost the economy, saving consumers hundreds of millions of dollars," McCain said. "I hope my colleagues will join me in this effort to repeal this unnecessary, antiquated legislation in order to spur job creation and promote free trade."
Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, said the attacks on the Jones Act smacked more of "pushing a political agenda than any genuine interest in helping Gulf coast communities with their cleanup. We are already at the mercy of foreign competitors when it comes to oil; we should not add shipping to that list," he said two weeks ago.
Read more: http://www.mcclatchy...r#ixzz0sRmgl1NA
******
GOP's false talking point: Jones Act blocks Gulf help
WASHINGTON — From former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to Arizona Sen. John McCain to junior members of the House of Representatives, conservative Republicans have accused President Barack Obama of failing to do all he can to help clean up the Gulf of Mexico oil spill because he hasn't waived a U.S. maritime law called the Jones Act.
That statute, established in 1920, requires that all goods transported between U.S. ports be carried on U.S.-flagged, U.S.-built and U.S.-owned ships crewed by U.S. citizens or permanent residents. Critics say that's needlessly excluded foreign-flagged vessels that could have helped.
"It's a little shocking to me that a president that has such a multinational orientation as this president didn't immediately see the benefits of waiving the Jones Act and allowing all of these resources to come in," former House Majority Leader Richard Armey, R-Texas, said in remarks to Newsmax.com, a conservative website.
Armey and the other Republican critics are wrong. Maritime law experts, government officials and independent researchers say that the claim is false. The Jones Act isn't an impediment at all, they say, and it hasn't blocked anything.
"Totally not true," said Mark Ruge, counsel to the Maritime Cabotage Task Force, a coalition of U.S. shipbuilders, operators and labor unions. "It is simply an urban myth that the Jones Act is the problem."
In a news briefing last week, Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen said he'd received "no requests for Jones Act waivers" from foreign vessels or countries. "If the vessels are operating outside state waters, which is three miles and beyond, they don't require a waiver," he said.
On Tuesday the State Department announced that new offers of aid would be accepted from 12 foreign countries and international organizations, but spokesman P.J. Crowley noted that booms donated by Mexico, Norway and Brazil had been in use since May 11,and that 24 foreign vessels from nine foreign countries already have been helping with the cleanup.
FactCheck.org, a nonprofit website operated by the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg Public Policy Center, analyzed claims that failure to waive the Jones Act is blocking foreign-flagged vessels from assisting in the Gulf. It concluded last week that "In reality, the Jones Act has yet to be an issue in the response efforts."
The Deepwater Horizon response team reported in a news release June 15 that 15 foreign-flagged ships were participating in the oil spill cleanup, FactCheck.org said. "None of them needed a waiver because the Jones Act does not apply," it said.
That hasn't stopped conservatives from making the act a talking point to criticize Obama. Joseph Carafano, a foreign policy analyst for the Heritage Foundation, a conservative policy-research center, suggested on Fox News that labor unions are pressuring the Obama administration not to waive the act.
"They hate it when the Jones Act gets waived, and they pound politicians when they do that," Carafano said. "So is this a question of we're giving in to unions and not doing everything we can or is there some kind of impediment we don't know about?"
Michael Sacco, the president of the 80,000-member Seafarers International Union, called claims of organized-labor interference in the cleanup efforts "ridiculous."
"It is offensive for anyone to suggest that American maritime labor would hinder cleanup operations in the Gulf, in any way, shape or form," Sacco said in a statement on the union's website. "Speaking with one voice, U.S maritime labor and management have said that we wouldn't try to stand in the way of using foreign-flag assistance if no qualified, viable American-flag tonnage was available."
Some Democrats and union officials say that Republicans are trying to use the Gulf spill to kill what conservatives consider a protectionist law that hurts businesses. McCain introduced a bill last week to repeal the Jones Act, noting the emergency in the Gulf. He also touted the economic benefits of doing away with the act.
"The best course of action is to permanently repeal the Jones Act in order to boost the economy, saving consumers hundreds of millions of dollars," McCain said. "I hope my colleagues will join me in this effort to repeal this unnecessary, antiquated legislation in order to spur job creation and promote free trade."
Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, said the attacks on the Jones Act smacked more of "pushing a political agenda than any genuine interest in helping Gulf coast communities with their cleanup. We are already at the mercy of foreign competitors when it comes to oil; we should not add shipping to that list," he said two weeks ago.
Read more: http://www.mcclatchy...r#ixzz0sRmgl1NA
"It was like I was in high school again, but fatter."
#42
Gomer Pyle
-
- Members
-
- 595 posts
Members
Posted 02 July 2010 - 10:36 PM
I agree that Obama needs to be doing much more, but they are definitely reaching using that angle.
This is one of the reasons I hate all the partisan crap. There are legitimate complaints that can be thrown at him, but instead they use gutter tactics and make themselves look even worse than he does.
Surprise, surprise, surprise!
#43
freedom78
-
- TFHL Peep
-
- 6,667 posts
Advanced Member
- LocationIndiana
Posted 29 September 2010 - 06:46 PM
I found this BP propaganda piece interesting, for a particular reason:
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3tC-pBp2I4[/url]
Anyone else catch it?
Listen carefully at 0:11 and 0:31. When she talks about "the spill", tell me it doesn't sound exactly like she instead is saying "this bill", which would then lead viewers (i.e. idiots) to think not in terms of corporate negligence but in terms of government culpability. I suppose there's a possibility that this is just coincidence. But my wife caught it too, so I know I'm not crazy (unless it comes from an atmospheric contaminant affecting us both). It would be easier to tell if she said "the OIL spill" or perhaps didn't rush the phrasing...but I guess that's probably the point, isn't it? Granted, most people won't notice or will know enough to blame BP, but in this political climate...
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3tC-pBp2I4[/url]
Anyone else catch it?
Listen carefully at 0:11 and 0:31. When she talks about "the spill", tell me it doesn't sound exactly like she instead is saying "this bill", which would then lead viewers (i.e. idiots) to think not in terms of corporate negligence but in terms of government culpability. I suppose there's a possibility that this is just coincidence. But my wife caught it too, so I know I'm not crazy (unless it comes from an atmospheric contaminant affecting us both). It would be easier to tell if she said "the OIL spill" or perhaps didn't rush the phrasing...but I guess that's probably the point, isn't it? Granted, most people won't notice or will know enough to blame BP, but in this political climate...
Sister burn the temple
And stand beneath the moon
The sound of the ocean is dead
It's just the echo of the blood in your head
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
