clean up oil with hay....

[USFREEDOM911]

despite stacks of information about this topic I think I'm going to find it necessary to needle my way out of the debate and bale on this thread.....

But there's more then a kernal of truth in the proposal and I don't understand why so many are threshing it.
It's like they don't believe that there's even a grain of truth in it.

 

[tinfoil]

Seems pretty obvious they want to let BP control the process so BP can define the facts.

I'll ask a simple question. Who at the NOAA is responsible for the 5K estimate that was the first reported "official" estimate upon which the actions of the feds were based? I bet you can not get an answer to that question

Today's 5 minute masterpiece

 

[cancel2 2022]

I say throw it all at the problem, with the arms and hay we'll get a large amount out of the water before it hits any shore, we could avoid some of the environmental impact. Get the government out of the way, Mr. President, start doing the part of this that you actually can do. Nobody suggests he get out there and shoot hay himself.

Maybe you could learn some lessons from the 1996 Sea Empress oil spill in Wales.

Sea Empress Disaster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Sea_empress2.jpg" class="image"><img alt="Sea empress2.jpg" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/6b/Sea_empress2.jpg/300px-Sea_empress2.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@en/thumb/6/6b/Sea_empress2.jpg/300px-Sea_empress2.jpg

 

[Mott the Hoople]

for the same reason the arms are still not being used, it doesn't remove the oil to 15 ppm. They'd rather remove none than not do it perfectly it seems.

Sorry Damo but you not informed. the 15 ppm standard is the permit standard for releasing oil into a navigable water way via a NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) permit under the CWA (Clean Water Act). This applies to point source emissions, generally speaking from Waste Water Treatment Plants (WWTP's) or Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW's). The TPH (Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon) standard of 15 ppm doesn't apply to either incident response of remediation efforts.

It could also be the case that, and speacking from experience, there certainly are, superior sorbants then this. Did you notice that the application was a 1:1? Not really that impressive actually.

Here are some of the problems I see with using hay.

#1. Hay/Straw are very bulky and that makes transportation difficult and costly.
#2. As a sorbant the hay/straw will pick up much more water then oil.
#3. There are many more sorbants available that will pick up mostly just oil and not water.
#4. Because Hay is inaffective is would substantially increase the cost of clean up and waste by increasing the over all volume of waste that needs to be treated for disposal.
#5. The hay, once absorbed with oil, water and sediment, tends to sink to the bottom where it becomes entrained (entraped) in the sea floor sediment. It also makes it harder to collect. So that assumption that it would wash a shore to be easily cleaned up in an erroneous one.

I can see using hay as a barrier method. Say lining the shores of threatened areas with hay. It would help to keep the oil out of the beaches or wetlands but it has to be immeaditly cleaned up or it just adds to the problem.

So the hay idea could have some practical application but it's hardly a cure all.

 

[Canceled2]

http://www.usda.gov/rus/electric/pubs/1724e302.pdf

Bulletin 1724E-302
Page 74
• Be too fine-grain to permit removal by conventional means such as nets and sieves
• Be abrasive to mechanical pumps
• Require specialized equipment to spread and recover
• Not burn, eliminating burning as a disposal process.
8.2.1 Natural or Agricultural Products
Many agricultural products are available for use in adsorbing oil from water. Most leaf-like
plants contain some natural oils, giving them a greater affinity for oil than water. When dry, they are lightweight enough to float on water. All of these products will become water-wet and sink, carrying the oil with them. Straws with hollow stems will float for longer periods than grass or hay. These sorbents are plentiful in agricultural communities and usually are available within a short distance.

Agricultural products are relatively inexpensive but are bulky. If needed in sizable quantities, they will require large protected storage areas. Rain-wet straw or hay loses a great deal of its affinity for oil, is more difficult to spread, and will sink more readily. The method of packaging or baling is important. Baling wire will quickly rust out in humid climates, rendering the bale useless for transport. Plastic baling line for storage of hay or straw is preferable.

Spreading an agricultural product on the water or along a beach can be a costly and timeconsuming operation unless a mechanical spreader can be used. Such mechanical units usually are available in agricultural communities and also are used by highway construction contractors.

Some of the natural products that have been tested and used as oil spill sorbents include
• Rice straw
• Oat straw
• Wheat straw
• Flax straw
• Johnson grass (hay)
• Coastal Bermuda (hay)
• Bagasse (sugar cane)
• Buffel grass (hay)
• Red top cane
• Cottonseed hulls
• Corn cobs (ground or unground)
• Peat moss
• Sawdust

Straws are the most common and widely used natural sorbent materials. Straws can be oat, wheat, rice, or flax. These are available to most communities. They are the most adsorbent of the agricultural products. Straws will float for longer periods because of their hollow or fibrous stems. Straw is the least expensive of the natural products and, if baled properly, can be stored for many years. Tests have shown that straws have a 30 percent greater oil adsorbing capacity than hays, 40 percent more than canes, and 100 percent more than cottonseed hulls. Straws have been known to adsorb between 8 times and 30 times their weight in oil.

Grass or hay makes a good sorbent. It is generally available as feed for livestock, but since it is a feed, it costs more than straw. This is principally a leafy material that has a high oil-adsorbing capacity. However, it can and will become water-wet and sink with the oil. Its use in shore-side or beach operations may be justified. It can be removed from the water with fine screens and easily raked into piles on a beach.

Bagasse and red top cane are regional products. Bagasse has a high affinity to oil but will readily become water-wet and sink. Red top cane, like bagasse, quickly becomes water-wet and sinks. Also, it has a relatively low oil sorption capability. Peat moss is expensive for oil spill cleanup work. Like cottonseed hulls and corncobs, it will readily become water-wet and sink. These products can be used on land and on beaches but their cost may preclude their use.

Sawdust quickly becomes water-wet, reducing its oil-adsorbing capacity and it tends to sink quite readily. Sawdust is also easily churned at the beach by breakers and dispersed in the water column, adding to the problem. On the beach, sawdust readily mixes with the sand during raking, making it impossible to remove.

 

[Minister of Truth]

 

[Damocles]

Sorry Damo but you not informed. the 15 ppm standard is the permit standard for releasing oil into a navigable water way via a NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) permit under the CWA (Clean Water Act). This applies to point source emissions, generally speaking from Waste Water Treatment Plants (WWTP's) or Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW's). The TPH (Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon) standard of 15 ppm doesn't apply to either incident response of remediation efforts.

It could also be the case that, and speacking from experience, there certainly are, superior sorbants then this. Did you notice that the application was a 1:1? Not really that impressive actually.

Here are some of the problems I see with using hay.

#1. Hay/Straw are very bulky and that makes transportation difficult and costly.
#2. As a sorbant the hay/straw will pick up much more water then oil.
#3. There are many more sorbants available that will pick up mostly just oil and not water.
#4. Because Hay is inaffective is would substantially increase the cost of clean up and waste by increasing the over all volume of waste that needs to be treated for disposal.
#5. The hay, once absorbed with oil, water and sediment, tends to sink to the bottom where it becomes entrained (entraped) in the sea floor sediment. It also makes it harder to collect. So that assumption that it would wash a shore to be easily cleaned up in an erroneous one.

I can see using hay as a barrier method. Say lining the shores of threatened areas with hay. It would help to keep the oil out of the beaches or wetlands but it has to be immeaditly cleaned up or it just adds to the problem.

So the hay idea could have some practical application but it's hardly a cure all.

Actually that would be a good usage of hay, they currently use it at the roadsides for exactly that. However, testing showed that the hay wasn't going to "sink to the bottom" and would carry in allowing pickup of the detritus quite a bit easier. It was also notable that the hay would be best for the thick oil residue you are seeing reach the beach.

However, you're getting the general idea. Use what is available, rather than nitpick.

And the 15 PPM is salient as the water that is returned to the ocean after separation fell under that regulation (it became waste product). Again, one regulation standing in the way, easily removed (even temporarily and very specifically) by a swift move of a Presidential pen...

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Again, one regulation standing in the way, easily removed (even temporarily and very specifically) by a swift move of a Presidential pen...

the first day he should have appointed someone and given him the authority to change whatever federal regulations stood in the way of solving the problem.....the one time a "czar" would have come in handy and the one time he didn't appoint one.....