Re: $$ up in smoke
- From: "Ron Recer" <ron48@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 10:27:29 -0500
"FMB" <fmbb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:HwkZh.6806$rO7.2533@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Calif Bill" <bmckeespam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:xAeZh.6804$j63.4338@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"FMB" <fmbb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:qvdZh.18147$Kd3.7966@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Ron Recer" <ron48@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:59ksncF2llba7U1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Friday lightening started a fire in a refinery tank holding 2 million
gallons of gasoline. Before that was brought under control an adjacent
tank containing 1 million gallons of diesel caught fire. They can't
put the fires out, but have kept them from spreading and both fires are
expected to burn themselves out in the next few days. If you are
traveling on I-35 near Wynnewood, OK and see smoke to the east it is
the refinery fire.
Ron
I can't think of any reason beyond 'irresponsibility' to let them burn
out. There are just too many good companies out there that would put
them out. (Boots & Coots and Williams Fire are a couple) So many ways,
so much foam, large nozzles, LDH and pumps... oh well...
FMB
(North Mexico)
Putting out a tank fire is different than putting out a well fire. You
will have depending on the tank 1-2 million gallons of liquid fuel. Too
much water trying to cool it off, and you have a eco disaster with both
diesel and gas flooding the area and contamination of the ground if the
fire is out, and if the stuff is still on fire, you now have a river of
fire. Pity those downstream.
I agree a tank fire is different than a well fire. I'm not sure where you
were going with that, its different than a house fire too.
The quantity of liquid fuel by itself is not very relevant as it is
contained. What is relevant is the diameter of the tank, wether or not
the roof has sunk, the level of the tank, availability of water, primary
and secondary containment, ability to pump off the tank and availability
of firefighting equipment and supplies.
You shouldn't be flowing water streams into the fire (top of the tank) to
'cool' it. Water should be used with foam to take care of any ground fires
and should be used without foam on the exposed sides of non-involved tanks
to keep them cool above the liquid level. It can also be used to keep the
sides of the involved tanks cooler above the liquid level.
I've never seen that tank field in OK but if it is built to any
responsible standard, there won't be any 'river of fire' flowing
downstream. The eco disaster is all this fuel going up in smoke instead
of being used to tow my 5th wheel to my favorite camping spot.
They have berms around all the tanks in tank fields here so even if the tank
ruptures the liquid won't go 'down stream'. I think the decision to let it
burn itself out was an economic one.
Like you, I would like to have that diesel rather than see it burn! ,g>
Ron
FMB
(North Mexico)
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: $$ up in smoke
- From: Bob Giddings
- Re: $$ up in smoke
- References:
- $$ up in smoke
- From: Ron Recer
- Re: $$ up in smoke
- From: FMB
- Re: $$ up in smoke
- From: Calif Bill
- Re: $$ up in smoke
- From: FMB
- $$ up in smoke
- Prev by Date: Re: OT: Three cheers for General Petras!
- Next by Date: Re: OT - Gun Control as a result of recent violence?
- Previous by thread: Re: $$ up in smoke
- Next by thread: Re: $$ up in smoke
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
