It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Sprinklers Set To Fail In The Next North Sea Oil Fire

page: 1
9

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 10 2017 @ 02:46 PM
link   
Worrying revelation here.

www.energyvoice.com...

. . . they were originally invented and designed almost 100 years ago for fresh water systems, and therefore are unable to cope with the marine by-products produced by a sea water delivery system. These by-products not only contribute significantly to expensive and repetitive service and maintenance regimes, but have resulted in a culture of “fail and fix” compliance test procedures. A “pass” will never be set at 100% on first time system activation and normal test criteria is set well below this figure and allows for repeat testing until a pass is recorded.



When an offshore fire safety system is activated it will fail on first time activation where delivery line contamination is present, due to the sprinkler nozzles blocking regardless of delivery line material: the sprinkler heads will then be removed, cleaned, re-instated and tested in this way until a pass is recorded.



. . . when the inevitable does happen, who will be held responsible? The product company for failing to note on their data sheets that their nozzles will block and fail when used in a specific environment? The service company who makes repeat money out of a fail fix process with these products? Or the operator who doesn’t change its fire safety design? If a solution is available to put an end to this senseless attitude towards offshore personnel safety, someone must take responsibility and ensure a culture shift before it’s too late . . .


This is not good news for offshore oil workers.
edit on 10 7 2017 by Kester because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 10 2017 @ 02:50 PM
link   
How about the safety inspection guy who passes systems that fail?

My guess is they're insured against this problem and don't have any monetary incentive to fix this.

what a mess. thanks for the thread!



posted on Jul, 10 2017 @ 02:52 PM
link   
What's to burn, There's no oil left.....or so we are lead to believe.



posted on Jul, 10 2017 @ 03:00 PM
link   
a reply to: lordcomac

He doesn't, it says that it will fail on first activation, so when the system is tested the nozzles get cleaned or replaced and then it works. But due to the corrosive nature of the sea it's only a matter of time before it will fail again when it is activated. The only hope is that the next time is the checkup again, because there no time to fix it in case of fire.



posted on Jul, 10 2017 @ 03:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Kester
There is a saying in the fire detection industry:

100 people can burn to death in a fire, but if only one person suffocates because of smoke, you´re in big trouble.



posted on Jul, 10 2017 @ 03:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Jubei42

Normally, at least here, if you # up at the day of official activation, if there´s any doubt something is not the way it´s supposed to be, like for example missing stickers on fire detectors or sirens, you fail.

You have to deliver a so called 100% test that shows, every detector is working AND is adressed correctly. I´ll probably have nightmares tonight after reading the OP and how it´s done. Unbelieveable.



posted on Jul, 10 2017 @ 03:10 PM
link   
a reply to: lordcomac

Easy answer: It was working correctly AT THE TIME I was there.

Problem solved.



posted on Jul, 10 2017 @ 03:22 PM
link   
I know it´s the fourth post in a row here but I like to add this;

It´s a very bad idea to sprinkle water on burning oil (better to say: burning oil fumes). So the article is a bit missleading. If the sprinkler system pulls seawater (hence the contamination) it´s not suitable for oil fires.



posted on Jul, 10 2017 @ 03:26 PM
link   
a reply to: lordcomac

5th post:

The insurance is the first reason they need a fire detection / suppressing system. It´s basically the only reason if you look at it from a employee´s view.



posted on Jul, 10 2017 @ 04:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: verschickter
a reply to: lordcomac

Easy answer: It was working correctly AT THE TIME I was there.

Problem solved.


Exactly. That's why when a Fire Marshal enters a business to do an inspection, it's completely common to see employees hauling ass through the store to get obvious violations corrected. He can only check what's there, when he's there to see it.

The majority of the time, all they care about is passing the inspection and then fixing problems "later."



posted on Jul, 10 2017 @ 05:59 PM
link   
If you've got an electrical fire, water won't help, you need inert gas like Xenon. If it's an oil fire, water won't help either. That requires chemical foam. That is assuming the initial explosion hasn't fractured all the pipes in the first place.

Some sprinkler nozzles are protected by a glass bulb. My apartment had one in each room. Under heat, the liquid expands, shatters the glass and releases the water. All other times, the nozzle is kept sealed.

s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...



posted on Jul, 10 2017 @ 10:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Kester
How in the hell has no one thought of the idea of desalination plants, filtration, and large reservoirs for the sprinkler system?



posted on Jul, 11 2017 @ 04:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

1. It's expensive as hell.

2. It requires a lot of room.

3. If the desalination system is always running, assuming it should be, you'd have to move excess water or waste it, you'd need a steady supply of filters too.

4. It's expensive as hell.



posted on Jul, 11 2017 @ 04:35 AM
link   
a reply to: verschickter

It could be oil or gas, even both that's being produced.

They're the first thing that comes to mind in relation to burning but they are not the only things that could, I'd like to imagine that the right fire retardant is used in the correct locations.
edit on 11-7-2017 by RAY1990 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2017 @ 07:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Soloprotocol

well there are humans there to burn ! and that wouldnt be nice

add this to the list of things that are #ed with the oil industry like the helicopters currently in service, Eurocats
whose manufacturers have noted failed gear systems and have never bothered to renew them

see every eurocat crash was reported the gear system that failed

the crash in glasgow in the clutha vaults . My mates work offshore and they all fear the chopper will be there demise



posted on Jul, 11 2017 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: stormcell

There are also differences in the type of systems. Either they are pre-loaded with water or pressureized air. It depends on how it´s designed and if it´s "just" a pipe system like you say or if there is a central fire detection system that will open the valve.

Often, the inrushing water replaces the air so fast that it can´t escape fast enough and the glas heads explode. That´s not desireable, you want the heads open where the fire is. Some facturies and warehouses here in Germany need a water tank that is several stories high and has a footprint of 15x15m. You can walk in those things, they are made out of metal and they have stairs in them. Of course only if they are empty.

The pumps itself (three most often, one backup, two staged) are driven by huge V12 diesels with HUGE turbochargers. The whole floor and vibrates when they start up, it´s a little bit terrifying I admid. You can feel it in your body.



posted on Jul, 11 2017 @ 02:03 PM
link   
a reply to: RAY1990
but where are the constant contaminations coming from?

My post was related to the OP´s article and there they connect failing sprinkler system, contaminations (seawater?) and oil fires.



posted on Jul, 11 2017 @ 02:22 PM
link   
a reply to: RAY1990
That would have been me, more than a decade ago, but not as a fire marshal. It works differently here.

Sometimes I did maintanance checks in a big office building. I had a small can of artifical smoke (airosol) and a small ladder with me. I´d peek into the ceiling and then put my arm in it to give the detectors a small shot of smoke and wait for the optical code that the detector emits if he detected the test smoke. The can had a small jet like trumpet in front of it and you could shoot small clouds of white smoke with it.

I´d like to tell some extra nosy and direct asking office drones that were asking me what I was doing in (every) office room´s hidden ceiling that I´d just clean the cameras lenses. The face reactions were always hilarious but I´d quickly clear the situation by giving a small puff of aerosol (artifical smoke, smells like vanilla) into the room and tell them I checked the smoke detectors. While shooting another cloud at their smoke detector above them under the finished ceiling. I checked the upper ceiling first on purpose, everytime


It´s a language thing, in my language you differ between good known people and strangers when it comes to our equivalent to the "you". The english language does not provide this so it may seem strange to you. there are two different forms, "du" and "sie". It´s expected to use "Sie" if you did not offer the "Du" to someone. Family automaticly has the "du" status. It´s politeness.

If they used "du" in the question, I´d always make fun of them, because it´s unpolite.


edit on 11-7-2017 by verschickter because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 05:24 PM
link   
a reply to: verschickter

The contamination is particles of salt/minerals I'm assuming, that is "caked" or dried into the system. This is caused by when the system is tested then left idle until cleaned and tested again or used in an actual emergency.

Particles suspended or diluted in water can mineralise too, potentially clogging parts of the system.

That's how I came to understand it.

Can someone correct me if I'm wrong?



posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 01:01 PM
link   
a reply to: RAY1990

I think that sums it up perfectly.



new topics

top topics



 
9

log in

join