Removing oil left behind in 2.5B gallons of produced water every day in U.S.(purdue.edu)
purdue.edu
Removing oil left behind in 2.5B gallons of produced water every day in U.S.
https://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases/2019/Q1/what-oil-leaves-behind-in-2.5-billion-gallons-of-water-every-day-in-u.s..html
48 comments
It's a fairly natural outgrowth of the pressure (since 80s) to run (public) universities "more like a business". Funding was cut and restructured, a professional class of management moved in, and universities were encourages/mandated to look for new sources of revenue. One of the common variants of this was to develop fairly aggressive "technology transfer" offices. The idea being that IP was being developed, but not monetized. It hasn't been super successful, for a bunch of reasons.
Do you have any sources one could read into?
Look up the history of the Bayh-Dole act.
Cheers mate, I love reading about history.
What is unpalatable is the extractive industry thinking they can get by on goodwill.
Why don't we force mining and oil companies to pay for the externalities of their profit and pollution-generating enterprise, and let that money flow to institutions that do the research to clean it up?
Why don't we force mining and oil companies to pay for the externalities of their profit and pollution-generating enterprise, and let that money flow to institutions that do the research to clean it up?
I agree with you that we force the mining and oil companies to pay for the externalities of their process. What I disagree with is then adding on an additional cost just to pad the pockets of the University.
I would be totally cool if the EPA said, "This works great, all extractive industries creating 'produced water' must use this process to clean up that water to safe water standards."
But what Purdue wants is to have these companies to both have to do this, and have to pay Purdue a 'tax' on the process just because one of their graduate students and a professor there thought it up. That 'rent seeking' model takes good ideas an kills them. Digital cash which could have taken off in the 90s was completely killed by patent holders unwilling to license patents for less than extortionate rates. The RSA algorithm, similarly held hostage.
Purdue would get much more goodwill if they did not patent the process, and it would be easier for the EPA to mandate it because doing so would not disproportionately benefit a third party economically.
I would be totally cool if the EPA said, "This works great, all extractive industries creating 'produced water' must use this process to clean up that water to safe water standards."
But what Purdue wants is to have these companies to both have to do this, and have to pay Purdue a 'tax' on the process just because one of their graduate students and a professor there thought it up. That 'rent seeking' model takes good ideas an kills them. Digital cash which could have taken off in the 90s was completely killed by patent holders unwilling to license patents for less than extortionate rates. The RSA algorithm, similarly held hostage.
Purdue would get much more goodwill if they did not patent the process, and it would be easier for the EPA to mandate it because doing so would not disproportionately benefit a third party economically.
I disagree. I think they should patent it & make a profit. I also think the government should get a cut of that revenue if they provided any kind of grant. That rewards tax payers for supporting policies that invest in fundamental research.
The government can, if necessary, use that revenue for incentives to encourage deployment; for example to drop the upfront cost in the short-term to incentivize adoption. Use market-based solutions with aligned incentives instead of trying to pretend there is no market or that incentives aren't misaligned.
The government can, if necessary, use that revenue for incentives to encourage deployment; for example to drop the upfront cost in the short-term to incentivize adoption. Use market-based solutions with aligned incentives instead of trying to pretend there is no market or that incentives aren't misaligned.
As a thought exercise, compare how much you have benefited from the gcc tools suite being "free and unpatented" versus having it cost you every time you used it.
This isn't as a bad a comparison as you might imagine. There are "rewards" and there are "rewards." It is in the governments interest to spend tax dollars to make the country better for everyone. If they give Purdue grant money to do the research and this process results, then they make it both free to implement and required, then the result is a "reward" where there is less polluted water out there, everywhere.
Similarly when someone spends their time making gcc better and giving way that investment, everyone gets a better compiler. So they have invested a bit of their time and the community as a whole has benefited.
Because they are pursuing a patent on this process, I predict it will never be used for the next 20 years because it doesn't add any "value" for the people who should use it.
This isn't as a bad a comparison as you might imagine. There are "rewards" and there are "rewards." It is in the governments interest to spend tax dollars to make the country better for everyone. If they give Purdue grant money to do the research and this process results, then they make it both free to implement and required, then the result is a "reward" where there is less polluted water out there, everywhere.
Similarly when someone spends their time making gcc better and giving way that investment, everyone gets a better compiler. So they have invested a bit of their time and the community as a whole has benefited.
Because they are pursuing a patent on this process, I predict it will never be used for the next 20 years because it doesn't add any "value" for the people who should use it.
>If they give Purdue grant money to do the research and this process results, then they make it both free to implement and required, then the result is a "reward" where there is less polluted water out there, everywhere.
This is pure fantasy. Grant money is scarce and drying up everywhere. Not two weeks ago, this administration put a $1 billion dollar cut to the National Science Foundation[1] on the table.
Because they are pursuing a patent on this process, revenue generated by the licensure of this product will flow to the institutions supporting that research. Companies can then be incentivized to pursue licensure.
The scientist that discovered insulin, Sir Frederick Banting, forfeited his right to profit from the patenting of his discovery[2], and yet we have companies to this day restricting supply to wring hundreds of dollars per dose out of patients that depend on the drug. The patent isn't the problem.
> As a thought exercise, compare how much you have benefited from the gcc tools suite being "free and unpatented" versus having it cost you every time you used it.
You present a false dichotomy: that GCC tools be free/unpatented vs having them cost every person on every usage. Just yesterday we saw posts on HN describing the struggle of open source community sustainability and undue burdens on maintainers of free software.
When multi-billion dollar corporations depend on free and open source software, they should be made to contribute in some way.
1. https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/433507-trump-pro...
2. http://www.cdnmedhall.org/inductees/sir-frederick-banting
This is pure fantasy. Grant money is scarce and drying up everywhere. Not two weeks ago, this administration put a $1 billion dollar cut to the National Science Foundation[1] on the table.
Because they are pursuing a patent on this process, revenue generated by the licensure of this product will flow to the institutions supporting that research. Companies can then be incentivized to pursue licensure.
The scientist that discovered insulin, Sir Frederick Banting, forfeited his right to profit from the patenting of his discovery[2], and yet we have companies to this day restricting supply to wring hundreds of dollars per dose out of patients that depend on the drug. The patent isn't the problem.
> As a thought exercise, compare how much you have benefited from the gcc tools suite being "free and unpatented" versus having it cost you every time you used it.
You present a false dichotomy: that GCC tools be free/unpatented vs having them cost every person on every usage. Just yesterday we saw posts on HN describing the struggle of open source community sustainability and undue burdens on maintainers of free software.
When multi-billion dollar corporations depend on free and open source software, they should be made to contribute in some way.
1. https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/433507-trump-pro...
2. http://www.cdnmedhall.org/inductees/sir-frederick-banting
> The patent isn't the problem.
what in your opinion is the root problem?
[edit] formatting
what in your opinion is the root problem?
[edit] formatting
Lack of social shame/absence of moral pressure.
I'd likely contribute something to gcc, so I'd be getting some money back when everyone else uses it.
You could likely fund openSSL properly if people had to pay some minimal tax on it, that could be offset by contributing
You could likely fund openSSL properly if people had to pay some minimal tax on it, that could be offset by contributing
I don't like it either, because as you say it locks up useful tech. But I'm not sure it's any more rent seeking than private research. Purdue is public yes, but in most states even public universities receive much less than 50% of their funding from state and federal sources.
I still believe in some of the benefits of patents too though. What I'd like to see are compulsory licensing rules w/ ceilings imposed on the fees. And some sort of "public good" exemption for things like this that limit patent length even further.
I still believe in some of the benefits of patents too though. What I'd like to see are compulsory licensing rules w/ ceilings imposed on the fees. And some sort of "public good" exemption for things like this that limit patent length even further.
> What I disagree with is then adding on an additional cost just to pad the pockets of the University.
Reminder that Universities like Purdue are non-profits. While this doesn't mean they spend all their money wisely, it isn't just going to some billionaire CEO, and a very large portion is funding additional research.
Reminder that Universities like Purdue are non-profits. While this doesn't mean they spend all their money wisely, it isn't just going to some billionaire CEO, and a very large portion is funding additional research.
Assuming this works and is scalable, it's potentially a game-changer for Saudi Arabia.
All wells produce water along with the oil. Great background from the old theoildrum blog: http://theoildrum.com/node/6052 and http://theoildrum.com/node/9045
The "water cut" is the percentage of water in the fluid coming out of the drill hole. Normally this is a disposal problem. If it's drinkable (and not saline!), Saudi no longer need to desalinate quite so much water, they can just use the water from the oil wells.
All wells produce water along with the oil. Great background from the old theoildrum blog: http://theoildrum.com/node/6052 and http://theoildrum.com/node/9045
The "water cut" is the percentage of water in the fluid coming out of the drill hole. Normally this is a disposal problem. If it's drinkable (and not saline!), Saudi no longer need to desalinate quite so much water, they can just use the water from the oil wells.
It is highly saline, according to the first article, more so than seawater.
You could say water from the depth of most petroleum reservoirs underground is naturally polluted. It can be more than just saline polluted. Pretty much anything that can be in the earth and can mix with water.
There are cases of shallower reservoirs where the petroleum is mixed with otherwise potable water. If it is within an agricultural area, like Bakersfield, it may be treated and used for irrigation. The treatment is mostly just multiple steps of skimming off petroleum.
There are cases of shallower reservoirs where the petroleum is mixed with otherwise potable water. If it is within an agricultural area, like Bakersfield, it may be treated and used for irrigation. The treatment is mostly just multiple steps of skimming off petroleum.
While I don't necessarily disagree with your first statement, your second statement seems to put things in the wrong light.
> It can be more than just saline polluted. Pretty much anything that can be in the earth and can mix with water.
Most water we drink is rain filtered through many different layers of earth. It's the cleanest source of freshwater we have. Minerals only mix to a very small percentage with the water during this process and this "pollution" is actually wanted to a certain degree, i.e. mineral water.
> It can be more than just saline polluted. Pretty much anything that can be in the earth and can mix with water.
Most water we drink is rain filtered through many different layers of earth. It's the cleanest source of freshwater we have. Minerals only mix to a very small percentage with the water during this process and this "pollution" is actually wanted to a certain degree, i.e. mineral water.
Rock layers on the surface of the earth that have water running through them that are drinkable have had rain water removing the elements and chemicals harmful to life for, generally, millions of years. The best water often comes from rock that was actually created by life (limestones, dolomites, etc), so that it had almost no harmful chemicals in it to begin with.
The poster you are disagreeing with is correct. The deep earth is full of really toxic stuff. Arsenic, lead, sulfur, radon, etc. Then there is the deep oil and gas, salt domes, asbestos. Huge volcanic eruptions called flood basalts are likely the cause of many mass extinctions due to the chemistry of the eruptions, not the ash. The mother Earth we all love is just the little skin on top of a cauldron of death.
The poster you are disagreeing with is correct. The deep earth is full of really toxic stuff. Arsenic, lead, sulfur, radon, etc. Then there is the deep oil and gas, salt domes, asbestos. Huge volcanic eruptions called flood basalts are likely the cause of many mass extinctions due to the chemistry of the eruptions, not the ash. The mother Earth we all love is just the little skin on top of a cauldron of death.
Except the earth includes minerals we probably don’t want to drink like asbestos, arsenic, radioactive isotopes, etc. The concentrations are going to vary wildly. Basically I’m sure deep well water and water from the surface will be exposed to vastly different things. I know, as a lifelong desert dweller who's almost exclusively lived off well water, that well water quality needs to be monitored and treated. My alma mater’s town had to stop using one well when arsenic tolerances were decreased, for instance.
This is super weird but just a few days ago Mike Patey (guy behind the draco bushplane [1]) posted a video [2] about his next airplane build and briefly showed a huge evap tower that he described as being for separating water produced in the petroleum industry. Oil water separation doesn't exactly sound like a millennium challenge problem so I wonder if there's some sort of grant competition right now.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17743960
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9MNWh8kkIM
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17743960
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9MNWh8kkIM
Oil water separation is actually really hard, it's been a huge problem for over a century. There's a lot of research being done on the topic, dozens of teams from top universities around the world working on it; just look through recent issues of Energy & Fuels, for instance.
Luckily for the environment, it is one of those cases where "more oil emitted into waterways = less money earned", through less amount of product, or less valuable product - cleaning up the oil and cleaning up the water often go hand in hand.
Luckily for the environment, it is one of those cases where "more oil emitted into waterways = less money earned", through less amount of product, or less valuable product - cleaning up the oil and cleaning up the water often go hand in hand.
I imagine it still isn't household use ready after this since 5% of the contaminants are still there. However if they can reuse for their own internal purposes, that would be great.
> since 5% of the contaminants are still there
I think you are referring to the statement
> The Purdue researchers were able to recover up to 95 percent of the oil that was absorbed.
This is not referring to the amount of contaminants removed from the water. Its referring to recovering the oil from the activated carbon filter.
I think you are referring to the statement
> The Purdue researchers were able to recover up to 95 percent of the oil that was absorbed.
This is not referring to the amount of contaminants removed from the water. Its referring to recovering the oil from the activated carbon filter.
It doesn't say 5% of contaminants are left, it says 5% of oil. this makes me wonder if there's anything else in this water that should be of concern.
If they were 20x over the limit, then they're now right at the limit.
Directly it isn't, but because it now meets the EPA standards for clean water from industrial sources it can be discharged into regular water sources where it dilutes and can be drawn from and further filtered by conventional water works, which helps lesson the impact of it's water usage a lot.
This is something I never understood. When everybody is polluting waterways and ground water, it doesn't really get diluted. These companies should be forced to operate responsibly are cease operations. Everyone is for capitalism until we start trying to hold them responsible. If we held them responsible, they'll either adapt or they'll go under and a competitor that is able to operate responsibly will appear.
It can still dilute if everybody is releasing different pollutants; it's only a problem in clusters of similar industry that overwhelms intake filtering.
As to your second argument, the EPA's literal purpose is to force citizens to operate their life/business responsibly; if you think their standards are too lenient than take it up with your elected representative. One of my biggest frustrations I see here are people pushing to overthrowing everything for grand new systems, completely ignore the implementation details for such a system, and then get frustrated when the system fails because of the details. The system to accomplish your goals is already fucking there, use it.
As to your second argument, the EPA's literal purpose is to force citizens to operate their life/business responsibly; if you think their standards are too lenient than take it up with your elected representative. One of my biggest frustrations I see here are people pushing to overthrowing everything for grand new systems, completely ignore the implementation details for such a system, and then get frustrated when the system fails because of the details. The system to accomplish your goals is already fucking there, use it.
> take it up with your elected representative.
One of my biggest frustrations I see here are people suggesting that you take things up with your representatives as if big corporations don't control the government.
One of my biggest frustrations I see here are people suggesting that you take things up with your representatives as if big corporations don't control the government.
Oh so a corporate subsidy basically
Isn't DAF and skimmer already solved this ? The article does not goes in to details, but I reckon it's a oliophilic foam material instead of a rope or belt that we usually use, thus increase contact area ?
Edit: my bad, this article is about using nanoparticles to increase solar distillation efficiency.
Edit: my bad, this article is about using nanoparticles to increase solar distillation efficiency.
Article didn't link or cite a relevant paper[1]. It's from 2018...anything newer?
[1] https://doi.org/10.1115/IMECE2018-86906
[1] https://doi.org/10.1115/IMECE2018-86906
Is this water really being "held"? For how long? It's pretty tough to sequester water on that scale.
I appreciate it when smart people solve problems I don't even know about.
The title is a little hard to parse; this paragraph cleared it up for me:
> Handling that water is a major challenge in the oil refinery industry, particularly because it is deemed unusable for household and commercial use by the Environmental Protection Agency because of remaining contaminants. Several commercial treatments are available, but they are expensive, do not remove all traces of contaminants from water and can be energy-intensive.
> Handling that water is a major challenge in the oil refinery industry, particularly because it is deemed unusable for household and commercial use by the Environmental Protection Agency because of remaining contaminants. Several commercial treatments are available, but they are expensive, do not remove all traces of contaminants from water and can be energy-intensive.
Thanks, I fixed up the title
I still don’t get it...
EDIT: the first paragraph in the linked article was very insightful
Purdue University researchers have developed a process to remove nearly all traces of oil in produced water.
EDIT: the first paragraph in the linked article was very insightful
Purdue University researchers have developed a process to remove nearly all traces of oil in produced water.
It may be helpful to quote "produced water" as it is a confusing and unfamiliar term for those outside of the industry.
I think it's fair to say that it's outright misleading - the water is not produced in any reasonable sense of the word.
I get how it may be misleading, and given that produced water should be in quotes to mark it as an industry term, it is still the only useful term for said water. Within the industry it is very well defined and easily understood. If you use another term like "obtained water" it would be up to interpretation by each individual including industry individuals. It's like contract law, they figured out a while ago that when dealing with technical issues, technical words should be used and taken to have their normal industry meaning, otherwise it breeds more confusion.
[deleted]
From the article -- Researchers are working with the Purdue Research Foundation Office of Technology Commercialization to patent the innovation, and they are looking for partners to continue developing it.
What is the public good of patenting a process that would make usable water more available? Doesn't this graduate student get what they paid for? An advanced degree in chemical engineering from a prestigious school? Doesn't the school get what it wants from this, a reputation for doing solid research into big problems and coming up with good answers?
And then they want to take the idea out of considering by applying a 'tax' to it so that the university can extract some rent on work they have already been paid for. I find that so unpalatable.