Call me crazy, but I just can't understand the wierd, complacent quotes and media hit against new oil-skimming technology in this article.
Let's say you had a huge problem on your hands, like maybe the greatest environmental catastrophe in United States history. Oil is destroying fragile wetlands in Louisiana and beaches from Mississippi to Florida. It is killing all sorts of wildlife in horrible ways. It's bad, and your efforts to clean it up aren't getting the job done quickly enough. Things are so bad, you've ordered extra machines designed by Kevin Costner, because you want to use every working method at your disposal.
Then somebody shows up with a supertanker designed to suck up 500,000 gallons of oily water a day and seperate the oil from the water. It may not work, that's the risk of something new, but if it does...500,000 gallons a day.
And you're like, "Oh, well, park it over there with the rest of the stuff we aren't using. We'll get back to you." After that, you tell the media "we don't think this will have a big impact at all, we're still just screwed so we might as well accept that fact and move on."
Then the media does a front page article full of disappointing quotes and investigates the vessel owners' risk/reward motives?
I can understand if no one wants to kiss this company's ass (if only they were an oil company, right?) before we know if the tech will work, but what is up with the hit before we've even seen it in action?