I see Quentin´s analysis as clear, but I think it fails as a rebuttal. No one said the solution would be on a small scale. Maybe it would have made a good rebuttal if the numbers were another order of magnitude larger. This simple approach, combined with the inadequate efforts underway seems to be worth consideration.<br>
...John <br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 8:58 AM, Tom Freeman <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:tfreeman@intel.digichem.net">tfreeman@intel.digichem.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
One of the clearest rebuttals to a simple solution that I've seen to<br>
date for virtually any situation. If we could all get in the habit of<br>
checking ideas this way, we might be in better shape.<br>
<br>
OTOH, while I don't think hay is "the solution", I suspect that use of<br>
hay to chase after the oil has some value, and should see some use.<br>
Exactly where is another problem, for another post, and possibly<br>
another venue.<br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
On 05/23/2010 09:58:46 PM, Quentin Schander wrote:<br>
> Reaching for an envelope to do some calculations.<br>
><br>
> BPs estimate of the leak rate is 5000 barrels per day.<br>
> Times 42 gal/bbl = 210,000 gal/day<br>
> Times 8 lb/gal = 1,680,000 lb/day<br>
> divided by 2000 lb/ton = 800 ton/day<br>
><br>
> Other estimates place the leak rate at up to 50,000 bbl/day<br>
> or 8,000 ton/day<br>
><br>
><br>
> My estimate of the amount of oil put in each of the basins for the<br>
> demo: 1/4 to 1/2 cup<br>
> or 2 - 4 oz.<br>
><br>
> Amount of hay reported to be used in each of the basins for the demo:<br>
> 1/4 lb or 4 oz.<br>
><br>
> I am going to assume that the maximum amount of oil that can be<br>
> recovered by a given amount of hay will be equal to the mass of the<br>
> hay. I believe that this number can be easily defended in the<br>
> situation that is being considered and I personally believe that the<br>
> recovery rate will be much lower than a 1::1 mass ratio.<br>
><br>
> The minimum amount of hay needed per day would be somewhere between<br>
> 800 and 8,000 ton/day.<br>
><br>
> WIKI answers suggests that 4 tons of hay/yr/acre should be considered<br>
> good production<br>
><br>
> Using 4 tons of hay as the annual production of an acre of land that<br>
> means that the yearly hay production of somewhere between 200 and<br>
> 2,000 acres of land will be needed each day if we assume nearly ideal<br>
> recovery rates. Georgia produced hay from 700,000 acres last year.<br>
> Again assuming nearly ideal recovery rates, the hay demand for oil<br>
> recovery after about 30 days of leakage would be somewhere between 1<br>
> and 10% of Georgia's annual hay crop.<br>
><br>
><br>
> The problem which is obscured by the demonstration is that the oil is<br>
> not introduced at the surface of a relatively still basin of water<br>
> but<br>
> is introduced a mile below the surface of a body of water which is<br>
> anything but still and the transit time from bottom to surface is<br>
> likely measured in hours. As a result of the extended transit time<br>
> to<br>
> the surface and wind and water currents the oil when it first appears<br>
> will be spread over an area that probably will be measured in square<br>
> miles.<br>
><br>
> Once at the surface, wind and currents have spread the oil over areas<br>
> that are now measured in hundreds or thousands of square miles. This<br>
> compounds the problems of recovery by what ever means is used.<br>
><br>
> There are two points that I would like to make. This problem is not<br>
> amenable to easy solutions (I said easy, not simple because many of<br>
> the proposed solutions are conceptually simple but the magnitude of<br>
> the problems precludes them from being easy.) The second point is<br>
> that standard techniques used to contain oil spills are really not<br>
> much more complicated than absorbing the oil with hay. They have<br>
> been<br>
> tried and have not worked because the real Gulf of Mexico is not a<br>
> stainless steel basin at a press conference.<br>
><br>
> Now is not the time to deal with the fact that it appears that many<br>
> people either were asleep at the switch or were accustomed to cutting<br>
> corners in ways that we now recognize as unwise. Those issues must<br>
> be<br>
> addressed but not now.<br>
><br>
> Quentin<br>
><br>
><br>
> >>> On 5/23/2010 at 04:41 PM, in message<br>
> <<a href="mailto:AANLkTilnQCob2JItwnfQir6Qz3EyF1vwh0rgs1zbX1F1@mail.gmail.com">AANLkTilnQCob2JItwnfQir6Qz3EyF1vwh0rgs1zbX1F1@mail.gmail.com</a>>, Greg<br>
> Freemyer<br>
> <<a href="mailto:greg.freemyer@gmail.com">greg.freemyer@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> > <a href="http://www.wimp.com/solutionoil/" target="_blank">http://www.wimp.com/solutionoil/</a><br>
> ><br>
> > I don't know, but it sure looks simple, cost effective, and doable<br>
> right<br>
> > now.<br>
> ><br>
> > Greg<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Ale mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Ale@ale.org">Ale@ale.org</a><br>
> <a href="http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale" target="_blank">http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale</a><br>
> See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at<br>
> <a href="http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo" target="_blank">http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo</a><br>
><br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Ale mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Ale@ale.org">Ale@ale.org</a><br>
<a href="http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale" target="_blank">http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale</a><br>
See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at<br>
<a href="http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo" target="_blank">http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>