Breakthrough or bogus? I ask readers to help sort it out.
Every once in awhile something comes along that gives us a wow factor. This is one of those times.
What you see below is a frame from a video that shows a magnet pulling oil out of that water using a reusable binding agent called NAIMOR. I had to watch this several times, because I kept looking for the “trick”. I couldn’t find any. If there is a trick, it is way better than “Mike’s Nature Trick” because surely this stuff is tricking out nature to do what seems impossible.
This morning, my inbox contained a letter from Dr. Ivano Aglietto, which begins:
Dear Sir,
Through the columns of your esteemed blog I would like to bring to the notice of all the environmental groups, the development of a new eco-friendly nanostructure material for oil spill recovery.
Mind you, from the firehose that is my inbox, I get emails of all sorts every day with all kinds of nutty requests, and this one could have easily gone into the bit bucket, but I can’t quite get over the image of a magnet pulling oil out of the water, since it goes against everything I’ve ever known about the properties of hydrocarbons. At the same time the maxim “if it seems too good to be true, it probably is” comes to mind. I’ll let readers be the judge.
Here is the pitch on Indiegogo:
Environmental oil spill disasters such as the BP’s Deepwater Horizon oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico may recur unexpectedly. The outcome of such disasters are enormous leading to the killing of marine creatures and contamination of natural water streams, storm water systems or even water supplies. We must be ready to confront such turbulences with effective and eco-friendly solutions to minimize the short term or long term issues.
There are many ineffective and costlier conventional technologies for the remedy of oil spills like using of dispersants, oil skimmers, sand barrier berms, oil containment booms, by controlled burning of surface oil, bioremediation and natural degradation.
A cost effective solution RECAM® – REactive Carbon Material, is developed for oil spill recovery but having some limitations in usage because of its structure and features. RECAM® comes in powder form and not effective for excessive usage in oil recovery.
To overcome the issues in RECAM®, a new revolutionary solution NAIMOR® – NAnostructure Innovative Material for Oil Recovery, was proposed. It is a three dimensional, nanostructure carbon material and can be produced in different shapes, dimensions. Highly hydrophobic and can absorb a quantity of oil around 150 times its weight. Light, strong, flexible and can be reused many times without losing its absorption capacity. Campaign video showcases the RECAM® and the new proposed concept NAIMOR® which needs your SUPPORT for becoming a reality.
…
NAIMOR® (NAnostructure Innovative Material for Oil Recovery) is a nanostructure material that can be produced in different shapes and dimensions with an incredible efficiency for oil recovery.
Main Characteristics and Properties
- Can absorb quantity of oil 150 times its weight.
- Inert, made of pure carbon, environmental friendly and no chemicals involved.
- Highly hydrophobic and the absorbed oil does not contain any water.
- Regenerable and can be used several times without producing any wastes.
- It is a three dimensional nanostructure and can be produced in different shapes, dimensions.
- Capable of recovering gallons of oil depending on the shape and dimensions of the carpet.
The video was a bit stereotypical for oil spills, using the same kinds of footage of oil soaked animals that tugs at your heartstrings and are the tools of the enviros to motivate people. But, like the fascinating magnetic recovery, then the guy drinks the water that has been cleaned of oil. It has all the makings of a snake oil scam, OTOH it has all the makings of a breakthrough done independently on a shoestring. We have many readers far more familiar with oil recovery than I, perhaps they can help sort out which it is.
Note: the solar panel on the boat can’t possibly provide enough power to do the job, so I’m skeptical of the entire claim. The pelican didn’t help either.
==============================================================
Since running an electromagnet over the ocean would be rather energy intensive and probably a bit slow on recovery, the simple solution proposed is to manufacture the stuff into carpets, put the carpets on the oil spill, pull them in, and then squeeze the oil out of the carpets using a roller, like the old ringer/roller washing machines would squeeze water out of wet clothing:
Is this a pie in the sky idea? Is it practical? I have no idea, but for the mere pittance the inventor is asking for, $55,000, it’s probably worth finding out.
More here if you want to help back the project: http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/naimor-nanostructure-innovative-material-for-oil-recovery
Related articles
- Nanotechnology crowdfunding: Nanostructured material for oil spill remediation (w/video) (nanowerk.com)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The inventor forgot to mention one thing: if this process is used, it will prevent Global Warming.
Should see the grant money come flooding in as soon as he points that out.
I am Ivano Aglietto, and I would like to reply here into details. There are many points that have been under your discussion. First of all thanks to share and to all your comments, positive or negative does not matter, all ones are always welcome. Here is the list of answers and clarifications:
A) about the electromagntic properties of RECAM: as you can see in the video there are different types of RECAM. The RECAM that moves under the electromagnetic field is of the type RE.40 that contains inside the nanostructure a cover of magnetite. Of course carbon and hydrocarbons cannot move under a magnetic fiels, it is against any phisical law. NAIMOR does not contain magnetite, in fact we do not move with magnetic fields
B) The solar panel on the boat: I agree it is not enough for all system, in fact there is also a battery. Anway this is just a caonceptual model. We are workining on the engineering of the boat and we will introduce a first model end of Jannuary
C) Is it just an idea or has been developed already? RECAM is a material already in the industrialm phase with several treatment plants installed for filtration of arsenic, groundwater remediation and many other applications. The effiiciency of RECAM has been certified by several international Institute, used an tested by several companies (ENI, REPSOL, LGH, etc.). A Life Project has been approved by European Community to test RECAM in the Water Treatment Plant of the City of Barcelona, in Spain. RECAM has been classified like one if the 30 most interesting nanomaterials that have real commercial applications by an independent study of the European Community, DGXII, you can find this report in the website of the European Community to this link:
http://ec.europa.eu/research/industrial_technologies/pdf/how-to-convert-research-into-commercial-story-part2_en.pdf) at paga 179-180. NAIMOR has been produced in small carpets, and this what I did till now. The full development will be next year. The drone boat it is in a stage of engineering development.
D) I have to disagree with Mr. Rud Istvan, RECAM and also NAIMOR are hydrophobic nanostructure materials, like proved and certified. It is nothing strange or impressive, it is normal because, like graphene nanoplatelets are hydrophobic. To be more specific the contact angle is > 115 degree. One more point: it is not possible to make a comparison with activated carbon. RECAM is a mseoporous carbon quite different from the concept of activated carbon.
E) Why I ask for the money to get only 55.000 dollars? Well, with 55.000 dollars you cannot develope sucj kind of materials, but with a campaign in Indiegogo you can get attention of buyers and investors and you can have the result that people speak about the product. All the questions of this blog is a demonstration that the money spent for the video are well invested in promotion.
F) Removal of radioactive contaminants: it has been certified with efficiency higher to 99,9% I just posted the official resulta in my campaign. The material has been proposed alreadz for the remediation of water in Fukushima, but we will see. Filtraion with resin, Ion exchange units have failed already in Fukushima.
G) Is it cost effective? The cost of one kg of RECAM is 35 Euro. Try to calculate how much oil you can recover and you have the answer by yourself
H) Conference in Miami: yes there is mistake, I confirm it is in Miami not Los Angeles, but this mistake will ask to Indiegogo to review.
I) To be more realistic, to show that RECAM is industrial product and not “an idea”, to proove the results of RECAM, the certifications and all other documents you need, you can download all documents, certifications and have all references and even if you want to contact clients that are already using the technology or that they tested. Here is a comprehensive documentation about my nanostructure materials:
http://www.slideshare.net/Innasmat/sa-envitech-corporate-presentation-2013
here you can download the certifications:
http://www.wuala.com/SA%20-%20Presentation%20and%20technical%20documents/
Finally, I am sure I had not answer to all you questions and doubts, but I tried to give some more explanations with some documents, numbers and result certified. All the rest are words.
I accept all kind of opinions. Any technology can be accepted or not, can be better or worse of others, but the word “scam” it is not the right term to use.
About me: here is my profile: cz.linkedin.com/in/ivanoaglietto/
I would like to thank the owner of this website and I offer him a free sample to test. In case he will not be able to do what I showed in the video he is the owner of the site and he will have to possibility to tell all of you the result.
Thanks and please feel free to ask me any more information if you are interested.
Ivano Aglietto
My opinion. There is probably something to this invention, but the use of “buzz words” seriously decreases the credibility of the inventor IMHO. “Nanotechnology” = chemistry. Any reaction be it a physical interaction, surface chemical or simply chemical at a “nano” scale is all still just chemistry. When you throw in the word “nanotechnology” or “nano-(anything)”, you are just trying to stay ahead of the wow factor in your grant request since the 1990s and 2000s were all about “microtechnology” and “micro-(fill in your word here)”.
So what is my take on this. First of all there are molecules that are routinely used in our everyday lives that are capable of taking up water and appearing to convert it to a semi-solid. These molecules are called water absorbing polymers. An example of one of the most widely used one is polyvinyl alcohol – PVA. It is used to pull moisture away from a surface such as in a disposable baby diaper. (see this link to get a better understanding of how they work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superabsorbent_polymer) If you want to watch a video of water bouncing (the beads in this video are over 90% water) watch this video:
Anyone who has ever eaten jello has eaten a water absorbing polymer.
So the way these polymers work is that they have incredibly high internal surface area that is especially hydrophyllic. They are especially susceptible to the ionic strength of the water solution since the initial attraction and partitioning of water into the polymer is ionically driven. In the bouncing bead video it would have been more interesting if the fellow had simply sprinkled some salt on one of his water swelled beads. It would have appeared to “sweat” and the bead would have shrunk away/deformed away from the salty surface.
I suspect that what this fellow has invented is something similar that works in a similar manner, only he has focussed on highly oliophyllic polymers. I suspect that if you create a polymeric structure that has very high internal surface area (think cotton candy or a sponge made from teflon) where the backbone material is long chains of CH2 or other known highly hydrophobic compounds you could create the equivalent a “super-oil absorbing” polymer. Such a material’s internal structure would initially be filled with air and would be so hydrophobic and light that it would float on the suface of water. When brought in contact with oil it would naturally “sponge up” the oil and oil would preferentially partion into the internal matrix driven by surface tension. During polymerization of such a polymer it is feasible that one could also capture magnetite into the matrix and use that to effect magnetic separation of the polymer once oil filled.
What I suspect this fellow has invented is simply a very highly porous highly hydrophobic polymer – a solid surface active agent, or solid surfactant. Such a polymer would resist centrifugal extraction but could be mechanically squeezed to extract any free oil. But unless some other, better way to return it to it’s original unsaturated state is conceived, I don’t think it would be any more cost effective than the best super-oliophylic polymers used in current oil skimmers. I also imagine that what he has created is quite costly to manufacture!
See: http://www.nature.com/srep/2013/130927/srep02776/full/srep02776.html?WT.ec_id=SREP-20131001
For $85, I’ll see what 2 square inches of this stuff is like. Count me in.
DonaldL. Klipstein says:
December 29, 2013 at 2:05 pm
Donald, While booms and skimmers have been used to confine or try to scoop up oil, I have NOT seen a description as stated by me to enclose a large area, then reduce the enclosure. In addition, the initial spill, and for a while after, the oil, clearly floats and would be collected as I said. If the oil sits out long enough for tar balls to form, they either still float, or sink, and if they float, they would be picked up. If they sink, that is what chemicals that are spread try to accomplish (which is a big mistake for both what they try to accomplish, and the result of the chemicals themselves). Your comments make no sense at all. I know some compounds may eventually sink, and there is nothing you can do for those, but that is not how almost all recently spilled oil acts. I have also never seen the simple (and now obvious) separation method I suggest. If you can show me otherwise, please do.
Leonard – separation is not important to oil recovery. The desire for separation is a consequence of limited space to store the pollution for delivery to the nearest refinery. Given the volume of oil in a given area one can recover it all with very ineffective equipment but you get a lot of water with it. It is an issue of affordability and profitability. The cleaner you can make the recovered oil the cheaper it is for the refineries to convert it to product to sell. The problem all separation systems face is getting enough oil to the recovery point. It is thin on the surface of the sea and a gallon of it takes a lot of chasing around with your skimmer. It takes miles of booms in the right place to collect for recovery economically. Fact is most of it is below the surface away from such recovery efforts so the entire enterprise in the open sea is a bit nuts. Where recovery is most important is the intertidal zone for what should be obvious reasons, and no skimmer does a good job here because they can’t gather that oil easily. It is stuck to the rocks and plants that live in the intertidal zone.
A two-stage system that has fast but inefficient skimmers feeding high capacity high efficiency separator tankers is a better idea. The mobile skimmers can suck up all the oil (and water) they can hold using cheap technology then transfer it to separators that put the oil in a tank and the fairly clean sea water back in the ocean. That collects all the collectable oil and provides a very profitable crud product to the refineries for processing. This is how bees work, so it’s not a very new idea.
Now who pays everyone for doing this?
That is a trick question – nobody but the government is going to do that. Why would we tax payers set out to make refineries more profitable?
The animated presentation for NAIMOR was certainly interesting however it was animated and not indicative of real life performance. Laboratory demonstrations are interesting but performance in the environment will vary considerably from one application to another. Probably a good product if it performs as shown in the animation.
We manufacture the ADsorb-it Fabric that is made from waste fibers from the textile manufacturing industry and it provides thorough oil removal from water as well. Water flows throught he ADsorb-it Fabric and the oil is retained in the ADsorb-it Fabric. Many miles of ADsorb-it were deployed by BP as an oil fence for shoreline protection during their release to the Gulf of Mexico in 2010. I can provide photographs of the ADsorb-it in use if you have an interest.
ADsorb-it was tested for reusability by the U.S. Army and testing was discontinued after the 25th reuse when the ADsorb-it had not noticably deteriorated and oil sorbency remained excellent.
Ultimate disposal of the ADsorb-it can be done through waste-to-energy incineration as the ADsorb-it provides a higher BTU per pound value than coal and less than 1% residual ash.
There is more information available on our site at eco-tec-inc.com. Please feel free to contact me anytime with questions or if you would like additional information.
Herb Pearse, President
Eco-Tec, Inc.
Jeff Alberts
The same guy on a face book site with link to same vid. This guy is posting up aqll over the net.
Due Dilligence: NAIMOR®? A worlwide search for NAIMOR on http://www.ipo.gov.uk/tmtext/ reveals no such ®, not even ‘application received’.
Never mind all of the foregoing “what if?” hypotheses. If the applicant is being untruthful about his invention/product it’s walk away time, despite his apparently sincere posting towards the end of this thread.
For Mr. Bugsd Man:
Trade Mark Registered in Italy and the patent is a provisional patent. Document just uploaded and you can find in Wuala as well: http://www.wuala.com/SA%20-%20Presentation%20and%20technical%20documents/
Red light no. 1 “NAIMOR® which needs your SUPPORT for becoming a reality.”
Red light no. 2 They’re working with nano tech compounds and are short of 55k ?
Red light no. 3 “verified by several international laboratories”. Oh , yeah, who?
Red light no. 4 Guy drinks from test tube but we don’t see his dip it in the tank. As credible as 1960’s dog food ads.
Technical:
If the oil is absorbed by the nano structure you won’t get it back out by “mechanical pressure”, so re-usability claim is dubious.
At about 5min in video there is a reversed video sequence _suggesting_ oil extraction. This is a trick.
“Sensor tests weight of carpet”. How? It’s floating on the ocean.
SCAM.
The cheapest way to solve the oil spill problem is to prevent stupid cost cutting risks like those that caused the Gulf of Mexico fiasco.
While sea-birds are a concern don’t forget the oil workers who died in the explosion or the thousands in Louisiana who were poisoned by the oil and the “clean-up” chemicals.
“It does produce any kind of waste”
FALSE. Since it can only be reused “several times”.
dp says:
December 29, 2013 at 8:43 pm
dp, you do not have a clue what you are talking about. The volume of oil in a big spill is millions of gallons. The water taken in when a film is sucked up is a large multiple of the amount of oil. In order to use few large tankers (or barges) rather than dozens for a large spill, separation is required. My technique is nothing but running the mix of oil and water into a tank with holes in the bottom, and connected to the ocean. The oil floats to the top and the water runs out the bottom. the tank can be filled until it is mostly oil. This has nothing to do with the oil companies or their saving, it has to do with rapid clean up. Skimmers do not do a good job, they push most of the oil aside and are very limited. There is no other technique that would do as well as my stated concept. BTW, adding chemicals, or fibers or anything to soak up the oil is a limited process to very small area, and would not do what I claim, including the post at the top here.
Leonard – you are under the impression that a significant number of oil spills are large and warrant a massive response. That is simply not true. Most oil spills amount to mishandling bilge water.
Most oil on the open sea even for large spills is not where your collector is, no matter where your collector is placed, no matter how many collectors you have. You’ve missed the bigger point that collecting and separating are two different things and require different responses. The problem has always been collecting efficiently followed by getting the gathered oil to a refinery without losing your available storage (barges).
Another similar process: commercial fishing which use speedy effective fishing vessels and multiple large and efficient processing vessels. And in this case too you finally have to get your product to shore without reducing your efficiency.
Lightering is the process used in oil shipping. Now here’s the practical problem – who pays for all this equipment to sit rocking at the dock waiting for a spill large enough to muster it, and where is that dock? In the commercial industry the risks are understood and the product is reliably available. No so with oil spills.
I can think of two reasons right off the top of my head: “BIL deals” and NIH thinking. (Brother In Law deals and Not Invented Here thinking.)
Make that three reasons; entrenched interests in current (or present) technology being the 3rd (supply chain is established, preferred vendor lists are already established). This is an ‘inertia’ kind of thing where the present tech has the edge.
Inventing new mousetraps that work better is a cinch; getting the crowd to beat a pathway to your door to buy that new design takes marketing effort.
.
Regardless of the chemistry or the physics involved, the main engineering problem stands: You have to get the recovery material in physical contact with the material to be collected.
Oil spills are notorious for occupying many tens to hundreds of square kilometers, each of which is a million square meters. It amounts to trying to mow a whole county in west Texas, edge to edge. Even if you are doing 1,000,000 square meters a day it will take months if not years, and the oil slick will be spreading all the while.
Let the oil-eating bacteria have at it, I say!
I could never buy a chemical from anyone who claims a property of their chemical is “Inert, made of pure carbon, environmental friendly and no chemicals involved“.
LOL
OK, now you’re in my arena – first, probably not an intentional “scam” as that word is usually used. Just someone with an idea that is trying to find money – impossible with the information given as to determine whether it is scientifically sound. Second, I meet with inventors all the time, the huge majority have no idea how to commercialize an invention or how to tell if an invention is even commercializable. These guys fit right in. Inventors almost invariably tell you “there’s nothing else like it out there.” Well, they are always wrong. They also tell you it has a market in the billions – again, almost always wrong. They also have no concept of all the hurdles in getting a product to market. Third, the money they are asking for is so small that no experienced VC would be interested – the amount is too small to accomplish anything and not worth the investment of time to figure out if this is a worthwhile investment. Finally, I happen to know of similar competing technology that is receiving oil company funding – and that effort will burn up over $500,000 in less than its first 1/2 year of so; we’ll then raise several million for the next step.
Surely just checking would not cost very much compared to for example climate change actions which to any objective observer have virtually no credibility or ability to produce accurate predictions. Just repeating this test in front of a room full of sceptics would be enough to see whether to follow it up or not and would cost a few thousands at most.
The makers of perfume claim that overcharging is part of the image and if they sold it cheaply it would have not credibility. The price tag is a measure of cost and greed not quality.
dp says:
December 30, 2013 at 8:26 am
dp, I looked at the oil spill confinement and clean up issue after the Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska. I developed several procedures to confine and cleanup large spill at that time, and published a NASA tech brief on the subject. At the time I looked at spill size and frequency statistics. Very large spills are infrequent, but fairly large ones are not so infrequent. Small one are very frequent, and can be handled by simple means (soaking up, dispersing, etc.). I am addressing the medium to large spills, which can be major disasters. They happen about every 5 to 10 years at huge size, and about every year at significant size. Your comments show you do not understand what I am commenting on. If my method had been used on the recent Gulf BP spill, it would have cut the damage an order of magnitude. I sent the writeup to the coast guard, and to all other people I could think of and got a not-interested response. It appears these people, like you, do not understand the issue or value of my procedure properly. The version I gave a url to above is a much simplified and easier to implement version than my work in the 1990’s, based on the need for fast response with easily converted equipment. It would have worked.
dp, most LARGE oil spills occur when a ship hits rocks, near shore, or from oil drilling platforms in near coastal water, not in the mid ocean. The Mexican drilling spill, and BP spill are drilling ones. The North sea fire led to one. several ships broke up on rocks, including one off spain, and Exxon Valdez off Alaska. These events happen every few years or even more often. As drilling increases, the number of accidents is likely to increase. I don’t care about bilge spills or minor spills, they can be handled by present technology.
Relative small oils spills occur due to ships and oil drilling activity. Nature produces oil spills naturally at scales an order of magnitude greater than what man is negligently responsible for.
I doubt the rationale for developing cleanup tech on a world scale but for a closed system, or a pond or a lake this is interesting.
The earth itself is the worst oil seepage polluter.
http://tomnelson.blogspot.ca/2008/07/oil-seepage-from-ocean-floor-accounts.html
If they make it work, great on them. I’m skeptical mostly of the small amount they’re asking for and the budget which has nearly half of that going to the “drone” prototype. I have to ask how many unmanned boats has this team built if they think they can do it for $25k. I’d add at least 2 zeros to that number based on experience.
Also there’s the fact that the EPA has a BAA out currently calling for just this thing, they’re eager to give millions for the development of tech that would do what this guy is claiming he can do for $55k.
Dear IW,
yes I understand your doubts about just asking 55.000 dollars. I agree it is nothing, to develope just RECAM the investment done has been already more than 3 milions Euro in last 5 years. I am asking 55.000 like symbolic contribution and if you read to my long post up, I explained that the purpose is not to get 55 K dollars but to create interest in the product and make promotion.
I cannot answer to all other posts here, but I think that the link to documents, certifications, case studies, comments from clients that tested the material and all the links I posted here in this page (up) should be enough to make an evaluation of the technology. I can understand when someone post something telling that he thinks he does not like the technology, any comments are always accepted and can be also used as a hint to improve. What for me is difficult to understand is when somebody just write negative comments without reading any kind of scientific documents and certifications that are available to the links posted. Maybe they did not have time to read, or maybe they do not want to open a critical discussion based on numbers and with a scientific approach.
Thanks. I wish you all a great 2014!
This has been my favorite conversation on the internet of 2013, as a highlight to a New Years Eve of reading. Too many great insights and comments to respond to.
Instead, as a change of pace, I will address the serial comments from “dp” and “Leonard Weinstein” as they and everybody whistle pass the graveyard, at least as to how oil spills in water are cleaned up in the United States. Using the example of the Macondo blowout, (Deepwater Horizon), that leak was federalized, if under political pressure. Professionals would understand that federally, the Environmental Protection Agency does not have a “Clean Up” standard for petroleum impacts to water. States do, but not the EPA. For petroleum impacts, the EPA reverts to the only standard it has, the Primary, or Drinking Water standard.
Dr. Aglietto claims that his product is completely hydrophobic. Let’s stipulate that. That would then mean that his product has zero water that requires discharging back into the water body, and therefore zero discharge that would have to meet the Primary, Drinking Water standard of well over 99 percent pure water, prior to discharge.
I think any professional out there knows that the EPA should have been instructed to waive that standard in an emergency situation. We will stipulate that the EPA should have waived their only standard, just to start cleaning things up. However, they were not so instructed. I also think that any professional would admit that even the most exceptional oil/water separation process, in the field, would yield less than 90 percent pure water. I would posit closer to 80 percent, in actual practice, best case.
That was the reality of Macondo. They faced a discharge standard of something like 99.997 percent clean, or the vessels had to return all the way to port and discharge to a Waste Water Treatment Facility (WWTF). The regulatory regime of the effort was designed to fail with any known technology.
Mitigating 80 percent of the problem all day, everyday, while other professionals attempted to stop the leak, was never an option. Realists may accept that even Dr. Aglietto’s vessels would require lightering to larger vessels and those larger vessels would be receiving significant quanities of water, even if just from wave action at sea. Lightering vessels that could not separate beyond 99.997 percent pure, before discharging water would have to return to port, sooner than those that received pure liquid hydrocarbons.
And that would bring in the Jones Act; they would violate union rules if they returned to a nearby port, as opposed to a port from which they originated.
So, a marvelous discussion, but the science and engineering does need to be tempered with raitional government. Under certain circumstances, the federal government needs to waive the Jones Act. Under most circumstances, the EPA must be kept at arm’s length, when they are a hammer and the job requires a Phillip’s head screwdriver. States have hydrocarbon standards for impacts to water, with respect to clean up; typically measured as Totally Recoverable Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TRPHs). I have found those useable in the field. Not useable in the field, if you are facing the Drinking Water standard.
I would like to encourage Dr. Aglietto to respond to the concepts of lightering ( the removal of the liquid from his recovery vessels, as conceived) and the amount of water he likely anticipates that may fill the lightering vessels, thus requiring their return to port.
I would like to encourage other professionals to address the issues of practicality with other technologies, with respect to the return to port issue, in a federalized oil response. No nonsense about separation to be entertained, allowing discharge of water, that does not achieve the Primary Standard enforced by the EPA. Any marine borne technology that is incapable of achieving the standards of a land-based, Advanced WWTF is hereby called out as a time-waster in the midst of a wonderful discussion.
Thanks again for a wonderful post and great comments.