Slashdot Mirror


Cloth Successfully Separates Oil From Gulf Water

Chinobi writes "Di Gao, an assistant professor at the Department of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering at the University of Pittsburgh, has developed a method of separating oil from water within just seconds using a cotton cloth coated in a chemical polymer that makes it both hydrophilic (it bonds with the hydrogen atoms in water) and oleophobic (oil-repelling), making it absolutely perfect for blocking oil and letting water pass through. Gao tested his filter successfully on Gulf Oil water and oil and has an impressive video to demonstrate the results." This is a laboratory demonstration; the technology hasn't been tested at scale.

23 of 327 comments (clear)

  1. Too late probably, but... by alfredos · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...Unfortunately there will be a next time.

    1. Re:Too late probably, but... by Bemopolis · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How were oil companies even given permission to drill before they demonstrated reliable containment and recovery plans with the necessary materials/products already stockpiled?

      I'm shocked too — especially considering the last administration was literally packed with members of the oil and gas industry! Hmmm, waitasec...

      --
      "I guess the moral of the story is, don't paint your airship with rocket fuel." -- Addison Bain
  2. Doing in a lab is one thing by gyrogeerloose · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Doing it on a massive scale in the Gulf of Mexico is something else entirely.

    While this might prove useful in future spills, it would seem to me to be very unlikely that it could be brought up to scale fast enough to help with the current problem

    --
    This ain't rocket surgery.
    1. Re:Doing in a lab is one thing by pianoman113 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      9 years ago, a great deal of military technology went from lab to massive scale rather quickly for new bombs to wreak havoc in cave strongholds. Why is BP or some other interested party with deep pockets unable to do the same here?

      We have an existing crisis and a potential solution. Somebody pony up the cash and start producing this. Its a risk, but if effective there is a great deal of profit to be made in the event of another oil spill.

      Calling any entrepreneurs...

      --

      Free as in speech, free as in beer, or free as in lunch?
    2. Re:Doing in a lab is one thing by aplusjimages · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Clean up is going to take years, so there's time.

      --
      Can I bum a sig?
    3. Re:Doing in a lab is one thing by schon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      a great deal of military technology went from lab to massive scale rather quickly for new bombs to wreak havoc in cave strongholds. Why is BP or some other interested party with deep pockets unable to do the same here?

      Because there's no money in cleaning it up, and a lot of expense.

      We have an existing crisis and a potential solution. Somebody pony up the cash and start producing this. Its a risk, but if effective there is a great deal of profit to be made in the event of another oil spill.

      Therein lies the problem. BP estimated the likelihood of the current spill as "so close to zero that it doesn't matter". Ask any oil company what the chances are of another spill, and you'll get "so close to zero that it doesn't matter." So why should they spend all this money on something that will never happen?

      Environmental issues are externalities - and it would be socialism to force companies to deal with externalities. After all, we're all responsible for the Gulf spill, because of our demand for oil. And anyway, if you tried to enact a law, they would just shut down and open up under a different name. Let the invisible market fairy handle this, she will make it all go away!

  3. But we don't want a fix! by BenEnglishAtHome · · Score: 5, Funny

    If it's fixed, we won't be able to get rich quick turning tarballs into, basically, gold!

  4. Re:Great for filtering, but - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    How do you clean and reuse your cloth? This guy: just pour the oil off the cloth and repeat. Yours only allows for a small amount to be collected before some kind of complicated rinse has to be done.

  5. Re:Great for filtering, but - by dmatos · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You could potentially use big trawling nets of this stuff to sieve the oil out of the gulf, just like fishermen use trawling nets to sieve fish out of the water. Scoop up a big bucket of oil+water, wait for the water to drain out, then pour the oil into a reservoir on the boat. Repeat.

    --

    It may look like I'm doing nothing, but I'm actively waiting for my problems to go away.
    --Scott Adams
  6. Re:Great for filtering, but - by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I would think what you want for an oil cleanup is a material that is oleophilic but hydrophobic,IOW, just the opposite.

    It's probably the difference between having a mop (your proposal) and a strainer (his creation). Depending on a variety of factors either one might be preferable for cleanup.

  7. Re:Great for filtering, but - by AdmiralXyz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    With this (assuming it works at scale) you can "push" the oil to where you want it to go, meaning that if they deployed large ones on the surface they could gradually "herd" all the oil into one place to be siphoned off... or rather, they could, if BP hadn't injected all those dispersants making it end up god-knows-where.

    --
    Dislike the Electoral College? Lobby your state to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
  8. Re:Nothing new here by Tisha_AH · · Score: 4, Informative
    --
    Tisha Hayes
  9. Re:Nothing new here by Bakkster · · Score: 5, Informative

    You have it backwards. Booms and diapers absorb the oil, this cloth does not absorb oil. It does the opposite, allowing water to pass through while the oil pools on top or in front.

    In other words, booms and diapers act like sponges, while this cloth acts like a filter.

    --
    Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
  10. Bigger? by warchildx · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I wouldn't want to pour the entire gulf of mexico worth of water through that small glass jar. reminds me of those pur water filters, where you pour some water in, and have to wait for it to *seep* through the filter material before you can put more in.

    Maybe something more along the lines of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-W8_GpMz9nI

  11. Re:A net? by bugs2squash · · Score: 4, Funny

    Those life forms will be considered crude oil eventually. This just speeds up the classification process.

    --
    Nullius in verba
  12. So, if the floating oil is considered salvage... by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Then theoretically, any enterprising shrimp boat captain with this filter and a floating storage tank could sop up the stuff and sell it at spot price to a competitor of BP (Insert evil grin here).

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
  13. Re:Great for filtering, but - by badboy_tw2002 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Prepped and ready for deep frying?

  14. Re:Great for filtering, but - by wonkavader · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Here's a very unpleasant answer:

    Shrimp, fish, squid, etc -- If they were in the oily water, they were dead anyway. They "breath" by pulling that water through gills or similar arrangements. Such surfaces will be clogged with oil and the animals will die.

    Mammals and birds have a better chance, and it seems like a skimmer like this gets them into the boat and gives rescuers a chance to wash them. They're probably better off in the boat than out of it.

  15. Market solution by z4ce · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I wonder why BP doesn't offer a bounty for the leaking oil. $500/bbl. My guess if you did that, you'd see an awful lot of creative ways to retrieve that oil.

  16. Re:Well, just you just keep on driving by Vancorps · · Score: 5, Informative

    Wow... simply wow... Ixtoc 1 would beg to differ. That was in 160 feet of water and it took them 9 months to cap it. I know you wanna blame the liberal environmentalists but that is simply not the reason oil is being moved offshore. You ever wonder why the current rig we are dealing with is licensed in a foreign country? The Marshal Islands is home-base for the revenue which is conveniently not taxed.

    Given that Ixtoc 1 happened 30 years ago and they are using the same exact techniques to deal with it I have zero faith that it would have been resolved by now if this spill were in 500 feet or less of water.

    It's amazing the depths of rationalization going on in BPs favor. They have a history of bad behavior and somehow you come to the conclusion that it's the environmentalists forcing them to take risks? Just four years ago BP was shown to be negligent in many of the same ways. It appears little has changed from what should have been a dramatic wake-up call. Regulations for offshore drilling exist for a reason and it's not to make drilling near shore expensive.

  17. Re:Well, just you just keep on driving by pluther · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yay!!

    I knew somebody would figure out a way of making this the "liberals" fault!

    All hail the mighty Spin!

    --
    If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
  18. Re:Well, just you just keep on driving by SystemicPlural · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Wrong. They would be drilling in both.

  19. Re:Great for filtering, but - by winomonkey · · Score: 4, Informative

    I am speaking as the son of a commercial fisherman who still typically takes some vacation time from the office life to work the black cod fishery here in Alaska, and as a person who has gone through the SERV's training to get my HAZWOPER Tier 1 certification (basically, taught how to do crude recovery on open water and near-shore operations). I have spent time both in the class and on the water drilling emergency response up here.

    One of the things discussed during our breaks was that the survival rate of rescued birds and mammals was somewhere around 10% during the Exxon disaster. That does not include all of the wildlife that was missed ... these were the lucky ones. Not to say that saving 10% of the recovered birds (at a very high individual cost) is a bad thing, mind you.

    Perhaps the best quote of the day on this topic basically boiled down to "pictures of people scrubbing ducks is just good PR."

    The whole process of what you described as "skimming" (which is very different in the recovery lingo - means using a floating pump system to recover oil, not dragging stuff through the water) would likely kill all animals that were captured. Critters would be submerged within a cloth net of oil and gunk. Regular trawling is damaging enough to them ... surface trawling with this would only make it that much worse. That said, it would be a great way to do animal body recovery, getting the toxin-laden animals out of the food system and away from the scavengers that would eat their remains.