17/0710
It appears that Plume Balloon is still alive:
from OSC-Homeport@uscg.mil
to SOLAROOF@gmail.com
date Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 10:30 AM
mailed-by uscg.mil
The following RDC BAA Form has changed status:
New Status: Screening Complete
Tracking Number: 2002082
Submission Title: PLUME BALLOON
Company: SOLAROOF
Technology Area: Oil Wellhead Control and Submerged Oil Response
Date Submitted: 06/14/2010 02:00
Further this explanation from OSC Homeport:
from RDC-BAA-DHR <RDC-BAA-DHR@uscg.mil>
to solaroof@googlemail.com
date Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 2:40 PM
subject RE: RDC BAA Form Status Change
mailed-by uscg.mil
"With regard to your e-mail, the Deepwater Horizon Site is for the Unified Incident Command. You must have submitted your idea or ideas to them [Horizon Response emails that are cited below] as well as to our Broad Agency Announcement, and they are responding to your submissions to them.
Contracting Officer /s/
USCG R&D Center"
This cryptic explanation indicates that Horizon Response (Unified Incident Command) and Homeport (USCG R&D Center) are not on the same page.
14/07/10
Its not over - after various replies from "Horizon Response" (see below around June 23) I have this report from OSC-Homeport:
from Richard Nelson <solaroof@googlemail.com>
to OSC-Homeport@uscg.mil
date Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 4:07 PM
subject Re: RDC BAA Form Status Change
mailed-by googlemail.com
Homeport Team,
Please be informed that I have had 3 separate messages about my White Paper, "Plume Balloon" from "Horizon Response" I have written back with firm objections to the process and the findings that they reported. I found the process to be lacking in transparency and diligence. I asked for the appeal of the decision that "Horizon Response" team has reported to me. For complete information you can read all the correspondance between me and them and other notes and clarifications at my Blog:
http://www.solaroof.org/wiki/SolaRoof/DeepWaterHorizonResponse
I await your further feedback,
Richard Nelson
from OSC-Homeport@uscg.mil
to SOLAROOF@gmail.com
date Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 3:04 PM
subject RDC BAA Form Status Change
mailed-by uscg.mil
The following RDC BAA Form has changed status:
New Status: Screening Complete, Pending Notification
Tracking Number: 2002082
Submission Title: PLUME BALLOON
Company: SOLAROOF
Technology Area: Oil Wellhead Control and Submerged Oil Response
Date Submitted: 06/14/2010 02:00
30062010
Blue Ocean Institute
Dear Dr. Carl Safina,
I am so pleased to finally hear your voice, a voice of science and ecology, on the media giving an alternative advise on approach and possible action to mitigate the BP Disaster.
I have been Blogging [here] at my Wiki and I would like you to have a look at my recommendations to the President that I put "on the record" back in May 29th when I was finding that it was impossible to reach proper authorities with solutions to the disaster and due to my concern of a long term consequences probably to result from use of dispersants that will threaten the world with Toxic Oceans - killing the Gulf and causing ecological systems collapse in the Atlantic and damaging the health of the worlds' oceans at a time when there is already extraordinary stress on the world's oceans.
On the 29th May I asked for this action:
I would take every engineering proposal to an open internet based system of consultation, with capacity to enable anyone who has a potential contribution, to make that input quickly and effectively. This is not to be a media circus - this is a serious and professional method to assure that we will not be deprived of "fielding in" any potential solutions that otherwise could be neglected or lost.
Next, the government's program must include not only the engineering component - it must have strong Ocean Ecology and Life Science teams that will decide on the most important aspect: the mitigation of the toxic impacts of the ongoing crisis. We have seen the President's Energy Advisor (Steven Chu) on-site but we have not seen the presence of Dr. John Holdren, the President's Science Advisor, who is an Ocean Ecologist.
The use of the dispersants is an ill considered strategy and is not lessening the environmental impact but has only the goal of making the BP uncontrolled ocean floor gusher invisible - to "keep the oil off the beaches". The concern is that this makes the crude miscible in the ocean depths.
The internet based solicitation of White Papers, outlining solutions under five categories of action was initiated on about the weekend of June 12th as follows:
Deepwater Horizon Response
Solicitation Number: HSCG32-10-R-R00019
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Office: United States Coast Guard (USCG)
Location: Contracting Office, USCG Research and Development Center
I had already submitted my Plume Balloon as an unsolicited proposal on the 8th and 9th of June to the best channels that I could find and then I merged these proposals into a White Paper, titled "Plume Balloon" and submitted this under the Solicitation Number, above on June 14th, which received a Tracking Number 2002082 on the same day.
I write you about this because during your interview, on CNN today, you recommended the strategy of mitigation of the pollution by technology that would prevent the mixing of the oil with ocean, by means of containment that would enable the use of dispersant to cease. My technology proposals are completely viable and technically feasible and will accomplish this goal starting directly at the source and channelling and containing the oil at the surface (or in sub-surface soft, fabric reservoirs). This can be achieved by the use of soft, fabric structures: that is, large diameter fabric tubing that will "lay-flat" (start empty) and will fill only with the blowout hydrocarbons and prevent mixing with seawater. This was the key element of my proposal of June 8th, but on June 9th I also envisioned a further key component, which is the Plume Balloon structure. This is a structure that operates at or near the seabed and creates a volume where the gushing flow of the hydrocarbons can separate to gases and liquid fractions. The liquids will be withdrawn from a pool at the base of the structure while the gases will expand into the upper hemisphere of this structure and will be vented up to the surface (for flaring).
The Plume Balloon can operate at the depth and easily withstands the pressure at the ocean floor (one mile deep) since as it is a fabric tension structure it will collapse (or expand) in response to the difference in pressure. This capacity to handle only the pressure difference is the key, and the "over pressure" is controlled by the venting of the gaseous hydrocarbons at a rate that will not over stress the very high strength fabric construction of these components. The key is that the liquid is not gushing to the surface with the gases at a high velocity that cannot be constrained. The liquid crude oil is pumped from the liquid pool that will form in the base of the Plume Balloon and the rate of flow in of these liquids will balance the pumping out and the venting of the gas to the surface will keep the pressure in balance with the deep water pressure. As I say in the White Paper, the Plume Balloon is not a method to stop the flow but rather to contain it and prevent pollution.
These are technically feasible methods and I cannot say with confidence that the authorities understand my approach to the problem, yet the 3rd message indicates that a "further evaluation" will not go forward. I doubt very much that my approach is the same as the "similar proposals" that Horizon Response claims to have on-hand from other Offerers of White Papers and/or those parties who already were in a position (as known contractors) to be heard by PB and/or by the government authority that is responsible. As an inventor, with 6 USA Patents, that have been described as establishing fundamentally new domains of invention, I know that my approach can be unique in the world. I do not comprehend how those responsible can lump in the very few proposals that would be judged to have technical merit or high technical merit and feasibility with the 80,000 ideas that have been received. The process of a global tender for White Papers would anticipate and be organized to handle such an administrative challenge or else those responsible should be replaced with people who can get the job done.
It is entirely inappropriate for the administrators of this Solicitation to claim to not have sufficient resources for extended discussion with anyone that has a serious contribution to make and could participate (if retained on the list of selected Offers) in bidding to contract for an offer of services. I can form a Teaming Arrangement with very capable industrial partners who can mobilize the right technology to manufacture and deliver the key components for implementation and I suggest that we should not be knocked off the list of Offerers who will be invited to bid to deliver such feasible solutions. Among others who have expressed interest to team with Sola Roof to develop and implement the Plume Balloon solution, I copy Jim Bob Carpenter, who leads ECP, a technology supplier with a strong capacity, and I hope that together we can assure this most critical evaluation process can remain open and transparent and not result in a further level of damage where insiders will attempt more deficient and ineffective response simply because they wish to eliminate competition. This will only result in the further damage that insiders will probably grossly over charge for their services which is a potential further insult to the American people.
I have Blogged [at this page]] the details of the blow-by-blow of the 3 responses received to this date from the Horizon Response (Alternative Response Technologies) program administrators. This response continues to be anonymous and clearly negligent of proper consideration and procedure. In my replies I have attempted to protect my rights and insist on a just and careful discussion of the unique aspects of the Plume Balloon as outlined in the White Paper.
Carl, my methods will certainly accomplish the objectives that you have brought forward in your CNN interview. Therefore, please help me to be able to have a full and transparent further evaluation of the Plume Balloon.
Regards,
Richard
Posted at my Wiki Blog: Deep Water Horizon Response
290610
Horizon Response
Dear Sir:
You have made two previous communications on my file but you have not - in these messages quoted my tracking number, which is 2002082 and which today indicates "Screening Started" as the status of my White Paper titled: Plume Balloon which was submitted on a formal basis on the 14th of June.
In reference to your message below of June 28, 2010, I respectfully require you to inform me of steps that I can take to appeal your action on my file. To begin with I ask for clarification of the basis of your decision: into which of the three possible categories has my White Paper, "Plume Balloon" been determined "to fall"?
Your first message of similar type (of Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 9:28 AM), referenced in the body of this message below, stated clearly:
"Your submission has been reviewed for its technical merits. A similar approach has already been considered or planned for possible implementation."
Your present message is not retracting that conclusion. I therefore direct you again to my reply on June 24, 2010 in which I present serious and important issues pertaining to the further evaluation of my proposal and in regard to the transparency and ethical standards that should be required of your administration. In respect to my rights as an Offerer who is presenting a solution of high technical merit for action that will contain the blowout at source and greatly curtail the disastrous pollution of the Gulf, I am confident to say that full transparency would show that I am one of a handful of Offerers and there is no excuse for your claim to lump me in with the bulk of the 80,000 proposals received.
You have serious responsibilities to have care with the Offers that are found to have technical merit. I suspect that you do have only a few proposals that could be found to be similar to the Plume Balloon, but from me you only have the information that can be provided in a 3 page technical presentation. There is much concerning my proposal that you would very likely fail to understand or appreciate without a further discussion. Your failure to have that discussion could lead to failure in your responsibility to field in all potentially valid approaches and gain a full understanding of the differences between the approaches of the few Offerers with technology that may appear similar. Down the road you may claim that they looked to be the same but if there is failure in implementation it will be due to details and you certainly do not have a basis for a detailed understanding of my proposal from the White Paper alone.
I am confident that my White Paper has high technical merit and I ask you with the greatest respect and concern for good process to take your decision in appeal to your higher chain of command. I do not know who is communicating with me on what you call "an important message" but I would like names and point of contact to further pursue my appeal.
Sincerely,
Richard Nelson
Posted to my Blog at:
http://www.solaroof.org/wiki/SolaRoof/DeepWaterHorizonResponse
From horizon.support@oegllc.com
to: solaroof@gmail.com
date: Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 2:14 PM
subject: An Important Message from Horizon Support
Dear Richard Nelson,
Thank you for your submission to the Alternative Response Technology (ART) process for the Deepwater Horizon MC252 incident. Your submission has been reviewed for its technical merits.
It has been determined that your idea falls into one of the following ART categories: Already Considered/Planned, Not Feasible, or Not Possible, and therefore will not be advanced for further evaluation. To date, we have received over 80,000 submissions with each submission receiving individual consideration and priority based on merit and need.
BP and Horizon Deepwater Unified Command appreciate your contribution and interest in responding to this incident.
Thank you very much,
Horizon Response Team
250610
New concerns...
I have heard again about how warm the surface water of the Gulf is this spring - and now there is a tropical storm approaching the oil disaster area. It is known that surface temperature will "fuel" the strength and I have just realized the the thousands of square miles now covered with the "oil sheen" - which is a never seen before phenomena comprising a light mixture of oil, dispersant and water could cause higher surface water temperature due to an abnormal solar heating affect.
One of my serious objections to the vast scale of use of the dispersant I did express weeks ago - the hurricane will pick up the surface sheen of chemicals and take them far inland as well as driving the subsurface toxic soup deep into inland waters because it is now so miscible with water. This whole dispersant strategy is just to hide the oil and reduce the liability of BP and makes the situation more dangerous than it already was. This was done to fool the public and government has not sought out honest advise from ocean ecologists.
240610
Horizon Response Team,
Thank you for your feedback on my White Paper under BAA HSCG32-10-R-R00019:
New Status: Screening Started
Tracking Number: 2002082
Submission Title: PLUME BALLOON
Company: SOLAROOF
Technology Area: Oil Wellhead Control and Submerged Oil Response
Date Submitted: 06/14/2010 02:00
Below I quote the two separate emails issued (on 23rd June) by Horizon Support <Horizonsupport@oegllc.com>, one at the morning that indicates my Offer has technical merit since the comment is: "A similar approach has already been considered or planned for possible implementation." but then a further message later the same day that states: "the team has determined that your idea cannot be applied under the very challenging and specific operating conditions we face" which again implies that my White Paper has technical merit.
I am anxious that my rights as an Offerer are respected and that a competent review can be done as well as "be seen to be done with care and diligence". Considering the very serious consequences of misjudging the potential of any White Paper deemed to have technical merit, it is imperative that the Offerer is able to respond to the assertions that the challenges of the "specific operating conditions" would limit or prevent the application of the Plume Balloon proposal.
The standard of transparency that you provide must be beyond reproach. I suggest therefore is that this Offerer is given a chance to answer to specific questions to clarify the solutions to challenges faced in the application of the Plume Balloon. For example, I have been granted 6 US Patents and in each case there were a number of previous patents cited as "similar" to my patents during examination, but there is a process with the patent examiner that provides an inventor to elucidate what in the invention is different and new. I suggest that there must be a similar written questions and oral examination process for Offerers that provides the Offerer the right to defend the uniqueness of their proposal and to explain aspects that are innovative and which may not be obvious to an expert in the domain - even to a qualified Examiner. Thus for the purpose of protecting my legal rights I now request that you inform me if you will submit your review process to written and verbal examination process. I also suggest to your organization that, similar to a patent examination, there be transparency and accountability and for this purpose the Offerer should be allowed to know who is the Examiner and there should also be a process of appeal.
Solutions that have been presented under terms requested, of an automatic grant of a free license to the USA Government, and which have technical merit, are perhaps the most valuable of all assets that must be used effectively to mitigate the damage being done to the local and global environment. I am a Canadian and I have understood that anyone is welcome to participate in this urgent search for solutions. If you do not look deeply enough into proposals that have technical merit then you may miss out on an important opportunity to fix the problem. I am not suggesting that you should be called to this level of effort for any White Paper that is rejected for lack of technical merit. But a rejection might also have an appeal process. For example, since writing my White Paper I have obtained several positive reviews by a group of technical experts and manufacturing organizations that have a capacity to engineer and implement the Plume Balloon. Such technical corroboration in relation to a rejection should merit appeal.
Further, if more than one Offerer have submitted the same proposal that is one kind of issue. Additionally, if there are also "similar" proposals, then it is normal to keep all those Offerers with technical merit in the selection process - to allow each to have the right to participate in a further stage of proposal development that will clarify technical merit and capacity of the Teaming arrangements. With such a serious disaster situation it is inappropriate de-select any particular Offer that is similar to others on a basis of time of receipt or due to the Offerer being an "unknown" to your team, since there may be a loss of a substantial opportunity to provide effective response. That is, those proposals accepted for technical merit should be placed on the list of those asked for a more detailed proposal - the White Paper is not a full proposal.
Considering the above comments and in reference to the messages from you (see below) I ask for a formal response that will not be anonymous and will provide me and my team a reasonable opportunity to make our effort to contribute to the solution we all wish to see delivered with all speed.
Regards,
Richard Nelson
Posted to my Blog
from Horizon Support<Horizonsupport@oegllc.com>
reply-to Horizonsupport@oegllc.com
to solaroof@gmail.com
date Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 7:04 PM
subject Horizon Call Center - your recent submission
Dear Richard Nelson,
Thank you so much for taking the time to think about and submit your proposed solution regarding the Horizon incident. Your submission has been reviewed for its technical merits. Unfortunately, the team has determined that your idea cannot be applied under the very challenging and specific operating conditions we face. All of us on the Horizon Support Team appreciate your thoughts and efforts.
from Horizon Support<Horizonsupport@oegllc.com>
reply-to Horizonsupport@oegllc.com
to solaroof@gmail.com
date Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 9:28 AM
subject Horizon Call Center - your recent submission
Dear Richard Nelson,
Thank you so much for taking the time to think about and submit your proposed solution regarding the Horizon incident. Your submission has been reviewed for its technical merits. A similar approach has already been considered or planned for possible implementation. All of us on the Horizon Support Team appreciate your thoughts and efforts.
Sincerely yours,
Horizon Support Team
17th June, 2010 - message to Gulf Recovery L.L.C. - including: John Nistler; Geoff Daly; Wade B GCB-pontoons; Haley, Michael J.; Michael Cudahy MT AR; Dery, Marcel; John Dila IC MA; Carl Morahan FB Fl; alan McLean T&T MS; Dwayne Spradlin CEO-IC; Kevin Teichman T&T MS; Mike McPherson VP CSR; Mike Senatore LC DW; Richard Martin GA Tech; Steve Townsend ABTECH; Todd Caccamo B&P Mi
Dear friends of the Gulf,
In this time of urgent need for effective response I would like to connect with you and with your efforts to save the Gulf. I have said from early on that this disaster can kill the Gulf and threaten the collapse of the Atlantic ecology and fisheries as well and called at that time for an "open internet based" collaboration. This disaster is magnified by the use of dispersants on a vast scale - it is a threat to the ocean ecosystems of the world and it comes on the top of many planet stressors.
Such concerns are my motivation to come forward as Canadian inventor, living in Norway and Malaysia, where I work on Sola Roof technology. My Sola Roof invention has linked me over the years with leaders in high-tech architectural and industrial fabrics and I have worked with CHEMFAB (as we used to call Marcel's company, which is now part of Saint Gobain) in NH and Birdair in NY to develop transparent architectural fabrics for solar structures, as well as with TAG International in Malaysia who develop advanced fabric envelope know-how for Lighter Than Air technology - balloons, blimps, and airships.
I am convinced that a structure, comprised of a soft fabric envelope, can be tethered to the seabed and function as a containment structure, which I call the Plume Balloon. I have talked with the key people in the above private sector companies and I am certain that additional deepwater expertise in Norway is available to establish a team with the competence and capacity to rapidly engineer, manufacture and then install this containment system that will operate at the seabed - "at source" - to receive substantially all of the blowout flow of hydrocarbons - both liquids and gases.
The gases will expand rapidly up through the liquid fraction and form a bubble of pressurized gas that will expand the soft structure to the shape of a typical Hot Air Balloon. This 3D volume would be hemispheric at the top and conical below with a coupling at the base that would allow the blowout to feed into this structure and entrain very little seawater. The coupling would allow the progressive and gradual diversion of the blow out from the free discharge to the sea to flow and expand into the containment structure of the Plume Balloon. The lower conical section will fill with a pool of the liquid hydrocarbon and the gases will bubble up to the hemispheric section at the top of the structure. These gases have a pressure that can inflate the soft structure even against the tremendous pressure of water at the seabed. However, the gas pocket forming at the top of the structure (over the liquid fraction below) will be vented at a rate that will prevent any relative "over-pressure" of the gas from becoming greater than the design strength of the fabric envelope. The liquid fraction will also be continuously pumped out to the surface tankers, so that the Plume Balloon structure can contain the blowout in a dynamic respones - with an equilibrium of flow into the Plume Balloon and an balancing release and flow of hydrocarbons out of the structure to the surface. This is not a method of stopping the "explosive energy" of the blowout but is a method of containment of the flow so that it will no long mix with the seawater and create pollution.
The soft fabric structure is unlike typical steel pipe and rigid structural engineering that is usual within the current deepwater oil engineering community. A creative team will need to be formed that will have the collective experience, skill - and most importantly - the imagination to get this system rapidly developed and delivered. There is need for rapid system development of the method of manufacture of the Plume Balloon, the materials technology, the tethering of the buoyant structure to the seabed, the coupling to the well head, the control of the shunting of the flow to the Plume Balloon. The process technology for the gas venting of pressure and of balanced flow of the liquid out of the structure to the surface. Much of the dynamics can be computer modeled and some rapid scale modeling can inform the engineering design and specifications that would be developed in a crash program to design and deliver the system.
I have concern that reviewers of my White Paper may not give the proposal credit for specifying a practical approach to the problem. They may dismiss the Plume Balloon out of hand, with the assumption that the extreme pressure at the seabed would prevent the practical operations envisioned. Actually, dealing with the power of this blowout at the depth of the seabed is the best way to handle the explosive pressures because they are balanced and restrained by the deepwater pressure. These pressures are of no consequence to the Plume Balloon since it works with nature, using the extreme pressure to help contain the flow at the source. Nor is the buoyancy of the gaseous faction within the structure a problem since the density of water is almost constant and at this great depth the buoyancy is practically the same as at the surface - so, the tethering of the structure containing a certain volume of gaseous hydrocarbons is a challenge - but is completely practical.
Perhaps you already have such ideas developing within your existing group. If so, that is wonderful and I am ready to drop everything to help. There is nothing happening of greater negative consequence to the planet (except the incredibly destructive Tar Sands projects in Canada) - so lets all cooperate to innovate a "real solution" and not accept anything less than a total containment and eventual killing of this gusher.
Thank you for hearing me out and for taking a look at my attached White Paper: Plume Balloon.
Email to: Horizon Support <Horizonsupport@oegllc.com>
Thank you for your feedback. I would like you to note that for my proposal of 9th June, which is called "Plume Balloon" (sorry for spelling error in the text to you) I have a webpage that will have further information and updates, please look here:
http://www.solaroof.org/wiki/SolaRoof/DeepWaterHorizonResponse
I can confirm that the company Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics, known also as CHEMFAB, is now evaluating my proposal. I have talked with Anne Hardi, Director of Research, last Friday and tomorrow I will speak to Marcel Derry, VP Manufacturing and initial feedback is that the materials and fabrication methods are on-hand for production of the Plume Balloon, which would contain the blowout and prevent pollution - but which is not a strategy for stopping the blowout.
This Plume Balloon would be a large tension fabric structure and the materials technology and engineering capacities exist to handle the design and engineering but we recognize that specialized consulting support will be needed to handle the problem statement in the context of the seabed conditions. Please note that the extreme pressure at this depth are not a problem for such "soft structures", since only the pressure difference (which would be controlled) will impart stress into the tension structure.
The removal of gas from the Plume Balloon will limit the over pressure within the Plume Balloon. Venting the blowout into this structure will be controlled until an equilibrium of inflow and the venting of gas and pumping of the liquid hydrocarbons is established. At that point all mixing of water with the blowout will cease and the pollution will stop.
I am also submitting the Plume Balloon proposal to the following government RFP:
Deepwater Horizon Response
Solicitation Number: HSCG 32?-10-R-R00019
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Office: United States Coast Guard (USCG)
Location: Contracting Office, USCG Research and Development Center
Sincerely,
Richard Nelson
The above in reply to:
On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 1:21 AM, Horizon Support <Horizonsupport@oegllc.com> wrote:
Richard Nelson,
We appreciate you submitting your Alternative Response Technology (ART) proposal to the Horizon Support Team. This note is to inform you that we do have your information on record and will be processing it as soon as possible. You will be informed of the disposition of your recommendation following technical review.
Thank you!
Horizon Support Team
9th June, 2010
I have submitted this proposal for Alternative Response Technology RFP
Brief Description of Technology (200 words or less)
This is a solution for the: Spill at Source
This is an alternate to my proposal of June 8th, which is similar with respect to using a soft fabric envelope to receive the rapidly expanding blowout and contain it; preventing mixture with any water. Previously I proposed a large diameter layflat, coated fabric tubing in continuous length that could be a deep reservoir at source or a conduit all the way to the surface. The present proposal operates at the seabed using a soft envelope called a Plume Balloon, which is a large envelope into which we direct all the blowout hydrocarbons, both expanding gases and liquid fractions. The coupling to the cap prevents any water from mixing into this flow. This method will not stop the flow but will contain it and prevent pollution.
Materials Required (50 words or less)
The Plume Balloon is a strong fabric envelope with the approximate shape of a Hot Air Balloon, that is a conical lower volume and a hemispheric volume above this section. The blowout flow is directed into the Plume Balloon, which starts in a flat state expands to its' 3D volume as the blowout gas and liquid flows in and separates into a gas fraction in the hemisphere at the top and a liquid fraction in the conical section. The gas at the top of the structure is allowed to vent to the surface such that the over-pressure in this containment envelope will not exceed envelope strength. Concurrently the liquid below is pumped out at a rate that maintains a steady state of volume of liquid within the Plume Balloon structure.
Equipment Required (50 words or less)
The Plume Balloon is fabricated with strong fabric material such as glass fabric and coated with hydrocarbon resistant material. This is a large tension structure and the gas fraction will stress the fabric and create lift force on the structure due to buoyancy of the gas contained in the structure. A ballast anchor or seabed footing is required to tether the Plume Balloon to the seabed and adjacent to the source of the blowout. A coupling is required and I would recommend a dual system for redundant safety as well as an option to vent the blowout to the ocean in the case where the Plume Balloon is not functioning as planned.
Expertise Required – including description and numbers (100 words or less)
The Plume Balloon can be manufactured by Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics, (701 Daniel Webster Highway, Merrimack, NH 03054 Tel: +1-800-243-6322 Email: Chemfab@saint-gobain.com) or similar manufacturer with current production capacity. The couplings from the source to the base of Plume Balloon and the structural anchor to the seabed can be developed by Stat Oil?, Norway or others. Extraction of the gas fraction and pumping of the liquid reservoir that will form in the base of the Plume Balloon requires fine tuning during start-up.
Notes to the Alternative Response Technology submitted above:
So today I have submitted above on the 9th of June, the proposal which I call a Plume Balloon. Like the proposal of yesterday 8th of July (below) it uses a soft envelope that is taken down to the seabed as a flat, folded and rolled bundle and then coupled to the cap on the top of the BOP. This envelope will contain the liquids and gases as the blow out is directed into the Plume Balloon. Okay, the key idea is that it is a large envelope that will be placed in position completely flat and empty.
A large ballast anchor is needed to hold the envelope in position at the seabed. The Balloon is a large volume of envelope that will contain the mixture of liquid and gas materials. The blowout enters at the base of the ballon - in a hot air Balloon this is where the hot air goes in. Like a hot air ballon the Plume Ballon has a conical lower section and this volume will fill with the liquid fraction of the flow. The gaseous fraction will blow through the liquids and collect in the upper volume of the hemispheric volume at the top of the Plume Balloon. The volume of the space within the Plume Balloon needs to be optimized to create the space for a reservoir of liquid in the lower conical section and a separate gas pocket above. Both the gas and the liquids are then removed - with the oil pumped at a rate that results in a steady pool of liquid and the release of the gas at a rate that prevents the over-pressure (compared to the seabed water pressure) from exceeding the strength of the envelope. The envelope materials are such that they can hold in significant pressure and can resist any chemical attack on the fabric strength and impermeability. This process handles the blowout pressure and allows for the release of pressure - that is going with the flow and not resisting the release but channeling the flow and preventing any mixing with water.
This soft structure approach is natural to my way of thinking and I am very confident that this stuff will work - but others might not get it and might have difficulty to envision the large Plume Balloon. However, I will be connecting with Chem Fab? corporation who have the technology for manufacturing the Plume Balloon. My solution is the only one that I have heard of that can operate effectively at the source and completely fix the problem and prevent pollution. It is not a way to turn the gusher off - it is a strategy for complete containment of the hydrocarbons that will prevent or mitigate the pollution until the super pressure blows off or the well is killed at the bottom with the relief well. My proposal needs to be heard and not rejected by people who cannot get their heads around the concepts. Please help if you can and we might get the opportunity to make a huge contribution to save the planet - which in this case might not be an overstatement.
The day before the above proposal I submitted this proposal below:
8th June, 2010
Hi Jim Bob,
I have been in Europe, living mostly in London for the past ten years and I have just last year moved back to Montreal. I am reconnecting with some of the positive business connections that I have had from my R&D activities years ago in Montreal. In fact I was just talking about your fabrics for Sola Roof buildings with Barry Goldsher of Farm Tek? who is now a big customer of yours. I would like to talk you about my urgent objective now that I am back to North America to live (part-time), which is to push ahead with a DIY Kit for backyard greenhouses, family farms and community based projects. This is a non-commercial, Open Source initiative called DIY Food. Perhaps you can help us to encourage our pioneering DI Yers - you will be helping our global community to make a difference and implement Pay It Forward Projects for a humanitarian self-help program that enables DIY Food solutions in communities held back by poverty and/or disaster.
But to the real purpose of this communication: I think I have a solution for the pollution at the source:
8th June, 2010
Deep Water Horizon Response:
Brief Description of Technology (200 words or less)
This is a solution for the: Spill at Source
HDPE extruded to film, slit to ribbon and woven to large diameter continuous tubing which is coated in-line and flattened and rolled, like a very large diameter fire hose. Large scale manufacturing of this component is in place and can be expanded - for example by Fabrene and by Intertape Polymer Group. This is a containment system with approach that the blowout liquids and gases must release pressure and find equilibrium with deep water pressure. Gas and liquid crude will fill the continuous tubing, expanding and filling it. No water will mix with the flow and ideally the tubing will be horizontal so that gases can be vented separately. The filled fabric tubing will look like a very large sausage.
Materials Required (50 words or less)
The layflat tubing is sufficiently strong as it has the equilibrium pressure of the deep seabed location to retain the oil. The soft structure of a layflat fabric allows this "reservoir" to be brought to depth "layflat" - that is empty and ready to fill. The individual containment units can open to large diameter and very long in length. Thus, individually they can hold large quantities. It is important to vent gases and to continuously vent the gaseous component as the container is lifted from depth - so that the container is not over stressed.
Equipment Required (50 words or less)
A coupling system: at the cap the blowout is funneled directly into the layflat tubing. The coupling must allow a second tube to be be attached while the blowout is directed into the first tubing. Then before the first tubing is detached, the blowout is directed into the second tubing. Alternating in this manner, all the blowout is captured and will not mix with water at all.
Expertise Required – including description and numbers (100 words or less)
Knowledge of the materials technology and production method for slit woven film to produce strong but light layflat tubing. Methods for coating the woven tubing to provide oil resistance and no-leak containment within the filled tubing both at depth and when the filled (flexible) reservoirs are brought to the surface. The deep water robotic assembly of cap to coupling and to handle the filling, removal and replacement in a process that will contain all the blowout materials and prevent mixing with seawater. Initial filling may have some water entrainment but zero water is possible.
Updates and Comments:
The above is my submission through the online NOAA form - I would like to add that the layflat tubular riser/reservoir is brought down to the depth of the cap now installed on the Blow Out Preventer. The tubular riser is at this stage a roll of thousands of linear feet on a roll and is not opened until connected to the cap. One end has the cap connection and the other has a coupling to a surface reservoir systems. The continuous tubing can be made from woven ribbon or fabrics or film but the woven ribbon (tape) is light but tough enough and strong enough. Coatings may be needed for resistance to the corrosive and solvent attacks by the liquids and gases in the gusher.
The basic idea is that once "the genie is out of the bottle" we will not have success if the thinking is focused on getting it back into the bottle - or in this case, back into a pipe. That is because the blowout is expanding explosively - even against the great pressure exerted by one mile depth of water pressure. Also, you cannot hold back the flow because there is not only the pressure, there is the upward velocity of the mass of the gusher in the pipe welling up from the depths. The movement of this mass is like a battering ram and it is not possible to slow the flow and certainly we cannot "stop the flow" - and that is proving to be the case.
What is currently happening is in fact a ram pump - that is, the power of the flow is forcing a small portion of the flow to push back into the riser pipe on the cap. But most of the flow will never be "re-compressed" into a pipe. The engineers are stuck on the idea of pipes. So my idea is to let the gusher expand into a very large diameter tube that it can fill. The flow could have a great vertical dimention in which the gases will separate into a bubble above the liquids. There will be plenty of space for this flow and the gases can separate and be vented at the source. By allow the gusher to fill this large tubular reservoirs at the source is the idea but that is potentially a problem area since the gases will want to vent rapidly. This has never been done before and there are likely to be some challenges and problems.
The key component is a layflat continuous (large diameter) tube of a thousand or more feet in length. It may even reach all the way to the surface. This large conduit to the surface would have issues of stabilization in ocean currents and the closure at the top end will likely be challenge - as would be an issue during a hurricane. For local surface containment that can survive and continue to operate during a hurricane, the same large diameter layflat tubing can be used as subsurface floating reservoirs.
I am very willing to see this proposal openly and freely circulated for further technical evaluation and opinion. I invite any expertise at IPG to provide feedback and I will really appreciate if you can copy me on any discussions and evaluations. Thanks for looking at this - we all hope and pray that there will be effective solutions for the mitigation of this terrible disaster.
The concern about Toxic Oceans and that dispersant are a big mistake.
My letter to President Obama
Concern about lack of disaster planning for complications of the combination of Oil Plus Hurricane disaster.
Your comments are welcome (if not a member get a password):
