On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 12:34 PM, jerryF <[email protected]> wrote: > I turns out the navy had in it inventory a Fire Boom... See Document > http://www.essmnavy.net/fireboom.htm > > The first paragraph of this document contains the statement "The fire boom > system must be deployed early with appropriate operation in spill responses" > > What the reason that this device was not deployed in the BP Oil problem in > our gulf of mexico in a timely fashion? --------------------------
They were looking for the eleven men who died. This is a surface level attach and we have a gushing well at 1 mile below the surface of the water. In-Situ is for taker hull breeches. The oil is very close to the surface and burning is the most effective tool for dealing with million barrel volumes. Too bad this is not at the surface. The oil can be seen via plane for miles but the surface component is still tiny in reality to the amount that is underwater. Do you think that you have a boom system that can encompass a thousand square miles and drop down at least a half mile? That would be a BIG HONKIN net! I was wondering why they didn't shoot Napalm at the surface to hit a large area at once. I mean strafe the slick day and night increasing the strike zone over time. -- Stephen Russell Sr. Production Systems Programmer CIMSgts 901.246-0159 cell _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
