Oil Prices to Remain Low - For 10 Years?

While low oil prices are viewed by the majority of the public as good, the low prices are not without consequences (as is always the case with ANY economic news). Capital investments in the oil industry are down, so drillers, pipe manufacturers, steel suppliers of said pipe and so forth are seeing a similar downturn. At the other end of the...pipeline...(groan), plastic prices are down. This is generally great for manufacturers, but it is not so great for the recycling industry. With the difference in price between virgin and recycled resin disappearing, the incentives to use recycled resins are disappearing and so is the demand for recycled resins.

So a recent report that oil prices could stay low for another decade is something to take seriously. The source of the prognostication, Ian Taylor if the Vitol Group, is a respected opinionator:

"Vitol trade[s] in excess of five million barrels of crude and refined products a day, sufficient for the needs of France, Germany and Spain combined, and its views on the market [are] closely monitored."

The slowing of the Chinese economy and the shale fracking boom are to blame according to Taylor.

Surprisingly, nothing was said about Saudi output, which Saudi production, which as the linked chart shows, still remains steady. Opinions are numerous and varied as to why this remains so steady (The new Paris accord shouts one site! Fracking and Iran shouts another!) I don't have the time to assembly a list, but proposed reasons could outnumber the reasons offered for the Fall of the Roman Empire. Regardless, a quick decrease in their production could rapidly elevate prices.

As with any good (?) prediction, there are plenty of weasel words to allow for saving face. "Could", "should", "might" and "possibly" are all right up there, with dozens more waiting in the wings. So will oil prices stay low for another decade? I don't know. As Yogi Berra said (or was it Neils Bohr?), "It's difficult to make predictions, especially about the future."

Feel free to add yours in the comments section below.

Previous Years

February 23, 2012 - An Edible Drink Bottle - No Thanks, I've Lost My Appetite)

February 23, 2010 - Spec Sheets

Another overhyped polymer to start the New Year

It's been a year-and-one-half since the science press last went gaga about a new wonder polymer from IBM researchers that does everything, including making us all better looking, more intelligent and with naturally wavy hair. So we are overdue for a new such polymer.

Esteemed fellow blogger Chemjobber first made me aware of this wonder polymer back in December. I hoped that the hype would have quickly died down, but was disappointed to find that it is alive and kicking a month later.

The research report was published in Nature Chemistry (subscription required), and describes the ring-opening polymerization of ?-butyrolactone (GBL) to form a type of polyester, as well as the depolymerization of the polymer, accomplished via heating.

That the researchers were complicit in hyping this research is what I find most upsetting.

"Textbooks and scientific literature had described these small molecules as too happy and thermally stable in their monomeric chemical states to polymerize. 'Don�t even bother with this monomer,' Chen summarized the conventional wisdom. 'You cannot make a polymer out of it because the measured reaction thermodynamics told you so.'"

Wow. A textbook is wrong? How can that be? (Maybe someone should read yesterday's post about textbook mistakes.) What is more disingenuous about this is that the authors are well aware of previously reports on the polymerization of GBL, since they cited many of these reports and even the review article on the topic. So is this polymerization really that novel?

But the hype continues as the authors give us the illustration on the right. Not only can they polymerize the GBL, but with heat, they can depolymerize it too. It's a neat trick, but hardly novel. It's so well established a concept that there is a term for it: ceiling temperature, and it even has its own Wikipedia page. That's right, there are LOTS of polymers that depolymerize upon heating to reform their monomers. So why call this "hot breaking" as if it is something new? (Worse yet, why call the polymerization route "cold fusion"? Who wants to be associated with that?)

That the hype over new wonder polymers is created by people drinking the same Koolaid, look at the term the researchers use to call the thermal depolymerization: "recycling". That is the exact same word used by the researchers at IBM behind last year's wonder polymer (linked to at the beginning) who also claim that reverting their polymer back to its source monomers is "recycling".

Maybe from a very broad viewpoint, it can be viewed as recycling, but this "recycling" takes far more energy, materials and equipment than conventional recycling does. The polymer first has to be heated (far hotter than the melt point) and held at temperature to form the monomers, then the monomers have to be purified (you really don't expect 100% yield, do you?) and then the monomers, with a catalyst have to polymerized. Only then can the polymer pellets be melted and processed. Compare that to conventional recycling: heat the polymers and process them.

If a commercial entity was using this verbiage in advertising, they should expect a Cease and Desist letter in short order from their competitors and/or the government. So how come academia can get away with it?

Previous Years

January 5, 2015 - Time's "Person of the Year" - and Plastics

January 5, 2011 - ANTEC Bound

January 5, 2010 - Amusing Names for Rheology Models

Fairlife Followup #2

Back in July I wrote about the non-recyclability of the container used by Fairlife for their chocolate milk. The recycling code says "#7 PETE" which is problematic since PETE is #1 and "Other" is for #7. Since I didn't know how to sort it, it went into the garbage. I email went off to Fairlife to explain themselves, but their reply only muddied the water further, stating that a white pigment in the PETE made it a #7. That's not right since pigments do not affect the recycling codes for any other plastic. I speculated that there was likely a barrier layer that made the container a #7.

It looks like I was right. A person [*] with access to some lab equipment cross-sectioned the container and found this:

Busted! There is a barrier layer in there. The identity of it is unknown, but ATR-FTIR did show the 2 main layers to be PET.

So it's time to send another letter off to Fairlife. Hopefully I'll get a more truthful reply (and not so many words in ALL CAPS!).

[*] Note: the person who did this analysis wishes to remain anonymous. I will respect that request and am very grateful for their contribution.

Previous Years

October 27, 2010 - The Coolest Thing You Can Do With a Polymer - Set Yourself Ablaze

October 27, 2010 - How to Get Around FDA Regulations - Legally!

October 27, 2008 - So when are they going to ban Scotch Tape?

Messing up on Recycling Codes

My wife and I had a bottle of Fairlife Chocolate Milk last week. After we finished if off, I looked at the bottom of the bottle to see if it was recyclable. It is. Or is it? You decide:

Yep. It's identified as both "PETE" and as a number 7.

The only problem is that PETE is a number 1, while a number 7 is "Other". So which is it? I can't tell just by looking at the bottle since it is colored white. If it was clear, then it would likely be PETE, but once a plastic has been pigmented white, it's a lot tougher to guess it's identity. At this point, I would have to say it is unrecyclable. I had no choice but to toss it in the trash.

My first thought is how can a major-league company like Coke (which owns Fairlife) screw up something so simple? But I have seen weird stuff in the past too, such as this one from 5 years ago where the bottle was labeled as both a 7 and a 5, but it clarified the matter by saying the 5 meant it was PP compatible.

I've always been unable to understand consumer confusion over the recycling codes, but company confusion seems to be common too.

Previous Years

July 13, 2012 - Open Access Polymer Journals and Other Links

July 13, 2011 - Just the same, only really different

July 13, 2010 - Physicists Can't Get Anything Right

July 13, 2010 - Betrayal by a Polymer Scientist

How Cheap are Recycled Plastics Nowadays?

"Prices for recycled plastic are so low now, it's not worth stealing anymore" according to Richard Stegner, president of Regency Recycling in Rosedale, Queens. Stegner is noticing a drop in theft that followed recent the large drop in oil and resin prices.

While the common perception of plastics is as cheap, junky material, crime statistics will tell you otherwise. I've been writing about plastic thievery around the world for the last 5 years ([1], [2], [3], [4] and [5]) so it is nothing new, but it also gives pause to those who think that plastic doesn't have much economic value. On a $/lb. basis compared to precious metals it doesn't, but that isn't always a good comparison. Stealing plastics is comparable to robbing the local liquor store, while stealing metals is comparable to robbing a bank. The former is extremely common, seldom reported in the news and doesn't net a whole lot of money, but the chances of getting caught are small. The latter is much less common, more newsworthy, but also much more difficult to pull off (successfully). People aren't going to be suspicious if you have a truckload of plastic; they will be extremely suspicious if you have a truckload of silver or gold.

As petroleum prices slowly increase, the price of everything made from it will increase too and so the crime rates for stealing those more valuable materials will once again increase. As will the stories of incompetent thieves (see links above).

Previous Years

May 11, 2012 - What a Crappy Project

May 11, 2011 - Bouncing Jello at 6,200 Frames/Second

May 11, 2010 - Flow-Induced Phase Separation

May 11, 2010 - "9 Shocking Things Made from Oil" - Not!

May 11, 2010 - 10 Things I Like about Polymer Chemistry

May 11, 2010 - Follow Up on "9 Shocking Things Made From Oil"

May 11, 2007 - A much better QC test

Using a Reusable Bag isn't so good for the Waistline

The issues surrounding the use of reusable bags at the grocery store just got a little more complicated. That's because Harvard and Duke researchers found out that using a reusable bag changes your behavior, and not all for the good. People toting around a reusable bag did buy more organic foods, but they also felt good enough about themselves and their helping-the-environment that rewarded themselves with junk food:

"It was clear that shoppers who brought their own bags were more likely to replace nonorganic versions of goods like milk with organic versions. So one green action led to another. But those same people were also more likely to buy foods like ice cream, chips, candy bars, and cookies. They weren�t replacing other items with junk food, as they did with organic food. They were just adding it to their carts."

Maybe we need to update the old saying "A moment on the lips, a lifetime on the hips" to "Don't bring your own bag or your butt will start to drag"?


Hattip to Don Loepp at PlasticsNews for this item.

Previous Years

April 21, 2014 - The Week That Was(n't)

April 21, 2011 - Small is not Necessarily Better (with Plastics)

April 21, 2010 - Visible Light Photocatalysis - Even in the Dark

April 21, 2009 - The Double-Edged Sword of UV Light

The Dirty Little Secret of Agricultural Plastics

You may have seen this story entitled either as "The Biggest Source of Plastic Trash You've Never Heard Of" or "How can agriculture solve its $5.87 billion plastic problem?". It came out late last week and is making the rounds different sites. The article provides a high level overview of how plastic films are extensively used in agriculture for a number of reasons such as water retention and warming the soil so as to extend growing seasons. People have recognized the waste and potential for is use for years (since at least 2003), so it isn't quite as new of a concern as the headlines may have you believe. Much of this plastic is never recycled, but the article really downplays why.

It's the dirt.

"Another big issue in recycling agricultural plastics is dirt and debris."

Another big issue? How about it being the biggest issue. I was at a plastics recycling conference a few years ago and all the speakers kept talking about was the dirt. Dirt is going to contaminate the plastic and discolor it (unless it is already black). Consumers are all in favor of companies using recycled plastics and some are even willing to pay a little more for it, but no one is willing to give up on appearance. White plastic with dark brown specks, line and swirls? Not too likely.

At that conference, one of the speakers showed prototypes how using the unwashed plastic could generate tiles for use in plastic sidewalks. The appearance was nice, as the nonuniform discoloration provided visual interest, much like slate, marble, granite and other natural materials do. I've not heard much about that application since, but it was mentioned in passing in this article. Sadly, there aren't too many applications like that that can take in the plastic "as is" and run with it. The plastic can be washed, but then you have to dry it afterwards. Water and molten plastics just don't get along.

Previous Years

April 6, 2012 - Chemophobia - from a grant reviewer?

April 6, 2011 - Plastics to the Rescue in Japan

April 6, 2010 - Wind Power Problems

Plastics Recycling - Good News and Bad News

A couple of recent online reports highlight the "interesting" times that plastics recycling faces. (By "interesting", I'm referring to the infamous non-Chinese, Chinese curse of living in interesting times.)

First, the good news: The American Chemistry Council is reporting that the recycling rates for plastic films took a nice jump up last year of over 11%. The research organization that performed the study "attributes the gain to a combination of increased collection and more comprehensive reporting." This is pretty important news however, as plastic films are at the frontline in the battle against plastics, i.e., plastic bag bans. I see more and more opportunities of plastic collection sites, such as at the entrances of Target, Walmart and local grocery stores, so there are few excuses for everyone to not stuff the bags in there. (I happen to have a good excuse - I reuse the bags by picking up dog poop.)

But now comes the bad news. Low oil prices are putting a strain on recyclers. Since the price for virgin resins are falling, the price advantage of using recycled resin is disappearing.

Low oil prices will not last forever. The Saudi's have a lot of cash in the bank to live off of, but it won't last forever, so the strain on recyclers will also not last forever. But I am hopeful that the increase in plastic film will continue into next year and beyond.

Previous Years

March 23, 2011 - EVA vs. VAE

March 23, 2010 - Automotive Plastics

March 23, 2010 - Is this a Dagwood?

March 23, 2009 - Natureworks is expanding

K-Cups

I have to honestly admit that I've never really thought about K-Cups much. Don't be surprised, as after all, I don't drink coffee. (I prefer my caffeine like my salads - cold and green - i.e, Mountain Dew.) But a recent interview and article in The Atlantic with John Sylvan, the inventor of the K-Cup has me taking a closer look.

Sylvan is denouncing his invention and admits to not even owning a Keurig machine. Besides the expense compared to a normal drip coffee-maker, he is also concerned about the K-Cup containers and their lack of recyclability.

" 'No matter what they say about recycling, those things will never be recyclable,' Sylvan said. 'The plastic is a specialized plastic made of four different layers.' "

I admit again, that I never it gave it much thought, but the package is pretty complicated. The cups have to protect the ground coffee from oxygen. That's easy for the top of the cup which is a piece of foil, but the plastic cup itself requires an oxygen-barrier plastic, such as ethylene-vinyl alcohol (EVOH) or polyvinylidene chloride (PVDC, aka Saran [*]). And that's where the problems start. Barrier plastics are great at being barriers, but seldom perform well on their own and so they are usually incorporated into multilayer films or sheets such as in this case. And hence the concerns with recyclability and why they are marked as plastic #7 (Other).

"....a specialized plastic made of four different layers". That's odd, because it isn't odd. To be clearer, that's odd because it isn't an odd number of layers. Barrier plastics are usually more expensive than the base plastic, so thin layers are typically used. This can lead to problems with holes in the thin layers, so to address that, typically 2 or more layers of the barrier plastics are used with the thought being that the odds of two holes in the barrier layer being in the same are other is remote. The construction would then be base/barrier/base/barrier/base - which is an odd number of layers - 5. It can get even more complicated when the base and barrier don't stick to each other. Then a tie-layer can be coextruded, which further increases the number of layers. But even if the barrier plastic is still only used once as in a base/barrier/base construction, you still have an odd number of layers - 3. I'm not sure how you could effectively have a 4-layer construction.

I'm not sure what plastics are used as the base in the cup and in the filter (the patent is expectedly plenty vague.

I would encourage you to read the entire article as the bottom-most section gives an interesting perspective on how the Keurig machines and K-Cups might not be as bad as we might think. They can unexpectedly reduce waste in other ways that we accept without question. The author describes the issues very well, so it's pointless for me to try and repeat them. But you will see that the reaction to K-Cups is very much like the reaction to disposable water bottles. By focussing on just the delivery device right before, during and after the consumer uses it, you miss out on the bigger picture. An optimized solution is never found by optimizing just one part of the problem or by optimizing each part separately, but instead by looking for a global optimum. That such global optimums may appear to be non-optimized in a local area can be confusing at times.



[*] Saran was the tradename that Dow first used when introducing this material as a household plastic foodwrap. The product line has since been sold to S.C. Johnson who kept the tradename, but changed the plastic to a chlorine-free alternative.

Previous Years

March 10, 2010 - The Great Pacific Garbage Patch

Sometimes, Being "Cheap Plastic" is a Good Thing

As much as I generally despise the phrase "cheap plastic", there are times where being a low cost material can produce some unexpected advantages. Such as when people steal manhole covers in order to sell off the metal to a recycler. Plastic manhole covers bring less per kilogram for anyone recycling them, so the temptation will be less, even though it should be a lot easier for someone to steal them due to their low weight.

This is not the first time that plastics have been substituted to foil metal thieves. I wrote a couple of years ago about some local thieves who stole the copper piping used to cool a local outdoor skating rink. The Park Board replaced it with crosslinked polyethylene tubing.

Don't you dare think however, that plastic is so low in value to never be stolen. It is stolen frequently (1, 2 and 3). It's just that to make it worthwhile, you need to steal large quantities - truckloads and such.

Previous Years

February 27, 2013 - Elephants and Plastics - They Go Together

Plastics to Oil? Not in my backyard!

Efforts to convert plastics to oil have been getting a lot of good press lately. People seem to like the ashed-to-ashes, dust-to-dust approach of taking petroleum-based plastics and turning them back into oil. (This is all done via the miracle of anaerobic pyrolysis, and the output is a very sweet oil since there is very little or no sulfur in the feedstock.)

But the fly in the ointment seems to be the same issue faced by any chemical plant: where to build it? And we all know the answer - not in my backyard! That was what happened in Smith Falls, Ontario the other day. Attendees at the Town Hall were 21-1 against the proposal. The facility would only process polyethylene (both high- and low-density) and polypropylene, both of which are pure hydrocarbons, so I'm not sure what the concerns are from residents "...about the possibility of a fire at the plant which they said, could potentially expose residents to toxic fumes." Pure hydrocarbons burn pretty cleanly, especially compared to say, PVC (which inherently gives of hydrochloric acid), polyurethanes which can give off isocyanates, etc.

While Canada is a net exporter of oil, eastern Canada has some gaps in its pipelines with western Canada and so the east has to import some oil. Hence the potential use for a project such as this. Putting such in a facility in say, Edmonton would be the equivalent of setting up an ice factory in Fairbanks, Alaska.

I wonder how much a similar project here in the US would face similar resistance. We will find out as this trending technology will not disappear anytime soon.

Previous Years

November 19, 2013 - Your Plastic Waste is Valuable