Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Big Dog's Boom Boom Room -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Think4Yourself who wrote (131168)	5/3/2010 9:31:28 PM
From: Broken_Clock	4 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 206101

No idea. ++ Despite plan, not a single fire boom on hand on Gulf Coast at time of oil spill By Ben Raines May 03, 2010, 12:09PM blog.al.com An image provided by Carmi, Ill.-based Elastec/American Marine shows an oil burn being conducted in one of its patented Hydro-Fire Boom systems. The inflatable, fire-resistant, water-cooled boom was developed to contain surface oil and burn it offshore, helping prevent destruction of critical environmentally sensitive shoreline habitats, company officials said. If U.S. officials had followed up on a 1994 response plan for a major Gulf oil spill, it is possible that the spill could have been kept under control and far from land. The problem: The federal government did not have a single fire boom on hand. View full size(AP Photo/U.S. Coast Guard, Petty Officer 1st Class Justin Sawyer) This April 28, 2010 image made from video released by the Deepwater Horizon Response Unified Command, shows an in situ burn in the Gulf of Mexico, in response to the oil spill after the explosion on the Deepwater Horizon. The "In-Situ Burn" plan produced by federal agencies in 1994 calls for responding to a major oil spill in the Gulf with the immediate use of fire booms. But in order to conduct a successful test burn eight days after the Deepwater Horizon well began releasing massive amounts of oil into the Gulf, officials had to purchase one from a company in Illinois. When federal officials called, Elastec/American Marine, shipped the only boom it had in stock, Jeff Bohleber, chief financial officer for Elastec, said today. At federal officials' behest, the company began calling customers in other countries and asking if the U.S. government could borrow their fire booms for a few days, he said. A single fire boom being towed by two boats can burn up to 1,800 barrels of oil an hour, Bohleber said. That translates to 75,000 gallons an hour, raising the possibility that the spill could have been contained at the accident scene 100 miles from shore. "They said this was the tool of last resort. No, this is absolutely the asset of first use. Get in there and start burning oil before the spill gets out of hand," Bohleber said. "If they had six or seven of these systems in place when this happened and got out there and started burning, it would have significantly lessened the amount of oil that got loose." In the days after the rig sank, U.S Coast Guard Rear Admiral Mary Landry said the government had all the assets it needed. She did not discuss why officials waited more than a week to conduct a test burn. (Watch video footage of the test burn.) At the time, former National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration oil spill response coordinator Ron Gouguet -- who helped craft the 1994 plan -- told the Press-Register that officials had pre-approval for burning. "The whole reason the plan was created was so we could pull the trigger right away." Gouguet speculated that burning could have captured 95 percent of the oil as it spilled from the well. Bohleber said that his company was bringing several fire booms from South America, and he believed the National Response Center discovered that it had one in storage. Each boom costs a few hundred thousand dollars, Bohleber said, declining to give a specific price. Made of flame-retardant fabric, each boom has two pumps that push water through its 500-foot length. Two boats tow the U-shaped boom through an oil slick, gathering up about 75,000 gallons of oil at a time. That oil is dragged away from the larger spill, ignited and burns within an hour, he said. The boom can be used as long as waves are below 3 feet, Bohleber said. "Because of the complexity of the system and the obvious longer production time to build them, the emphasis is on obtaining and gathering the systems," he said. Bohleber said his company has conducted numerous tests with the Coast Guard since 1993, and it is now training crews on the use of the boom so workers will be ready when they arrive. "We're arranging for six to be shipped in. We keep running into delays. Hopefully, they will be here by Wednesday to be available for use on Thursday. Bear in mind, two days ago, we thought they would be here today."

To: Think4Yourself who wrote (131168)	5/3/2010 9:47:44 PM
From: ChanceIs	2 Recommendations Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 206101

>>>Anyone know what the "wings" are for?<<< Device to sink down so far into the (soft) sea floor, and then stop when it hits the "wings???" That would be more efficient then just resting on the bottom and allowing sea water to come in underneath. The well is obviously under some sort of net pressure, else the sea would push the oil back down the hole - density differences notwithstanding. The natural pressure could then be used to aid in lifting the oil to the surface. One has to consider what type of "tubular" connection will be used to raise the oil. A soft fire hose arrangement would be easiest, safest and fastest to deploy. A problem with that is that the sea pressure might force the hose closed - recalling that Bernoulli principle would be in play with the internal pressure less than the external due to the fluid flow. If there were no flow, then of course the internal and external pressure would be equal, given the soft walls tube. Otherwise we are talking steel pipe. Perhaps some sort of soft hose with steel bands to prevent collapse. I think a pressure seal on the bottom would be a good thing based on flow considerations and not so much on an effort to catch every last drop of oil. Be thankful for containing 80% at this juncture.