(meant to post this 2 days ago had it saved)
Some more interesting information and some food for thought
I ended up going back to the coverage map of Katrina's path again. Then I went back into the NOAA aerial photography page which is where Howard so
kindly provided the aerial image of Waterford 3 for us from.
The image comes from this NOAA map:
Now consider the fire map from that I posted earlier.It stated there was an on-going fire for over 12 hours on August 31st
According to yahoo driving directions, the area marked on the fire map seems to lead to the Norco/Shell facility.
Also if you look at this exact location on this NOAA aerial photography map the aerial photos are quiet interesting.
The photos show just cloud coverage over the area....
Or is it?
Thick clouds, with some black cloud coverage in there as well.
The NOAA website these aerial photography photos come from states that any photos with 244 in the beginning of the photo were taken on August 31. Any
aerial photos with number 243 in front of them were taken on August 30th. These aerial images were taken during a two day time period.
An interesting statement made by NOAA before you can access these photos:
"This imagery was acquired by the NOAA Remote Sensing Division to support NOAA national security and emergency response requirements"
This explains why there are no satellite imagery websites available for the public to look at satellite images of anything near the Waterford 3 plant.
I tried just about all of them. Under the idea of national security clearly..... because this is a nuclear plant we're talking about.
This also explains why areas of this aerial photography map photos are "boxed in" so that the public can only see photos that the government wishes
for us to see of the area, correct?
So is that just cloud coverage or something more?
If you compare it to the other photos the clouds do seem to be much thicker. Comparable to photography in that immediate area such as this photo
below, just a bit down the river.
The cloud coverage there is not the same. although I do see some thick clouds in other spots on the map that are a bit comparable as well as seeing
some dark tint but not as much.
Can someone confirm that this is not in fact a fire burning at this location?
The reason I question this is because there is no news coverage about fire damage at Norco refinery.
I also question the Entergy photo from Reuters of the large fire burning dated Sept. 3rd or 4th I believe.
There are no marks on the fire map for those days, leading me to believe if the fire on the 3rd or 4th was
active it must not have been as big as this one because it didn't even get noticed on the fire map.
It looks quiet nice for cloud coverage, but clearly based on the location nearby there was in fact some flooding there.
This photo below is the Waterford 3 plant. There seems to be quiet a lot of cars there although 2 days after Katrina hit I would assume there are a
lot of regular employees located nearby after the storm on call to checkout the damages. That being just a passing paranoid thought at it's best
There sure were a lot of employees there...
Waterford 3 Aerial Shot
Another strange thing I noticed is if you go to this website to look at Waterford Aerial photos:
It leads to a broken FEMA link:
My Mistake With all the info. about the Waterford 3 plant out there I was starting to think that the corporate office was located further north
and the actual reactor was located directly across the river from Norco/Shell. Based on some info. that I saw earlier I was questioning the actual
location of the reactor being that Waterford has different addresses listed for such in various documents I've read. It was because of different
addresses I was comparing.
Anyhow that is cleared up after just looking at the coordinates for the plant location, and this was a mistake on my part as I mentioned earlier
something about the Corporate office if anyone noticed that. It was a good thing that I made this mistake because it made me look into EBASCO more in
depth which is what is located across from the Norco/Shell refinery.
"EBASCO Services Inc Waterford" EBASCO has a lot of services for the Waterford 3 plant, including waste management and waste transportation. I'm
curious now to find if this is where the excess spent fuel for the Waterford 3 plant was stored. It would make a lot of sense wouldn't it? If you
look up EBASCO Services Inc. they have a wide range services for Waterford including environmental, legal, waste management, etc.
Now I'm trying to find out if this EBASCO Services Inc. is actually considered on the property of the Waterford 3 plant considering Waterford 3 has a
lot of land coverage for the plant. Even if they aren't located directly on property of the reactor itself, EBASCO Services would be just a little
distance away but would still be under the nuclear restricted airspace the Waterford III reactor, thus allowing for the spent fuel storage and service
of transportation "readiness" of the spent fuel when the time comes to move it.
This is just something I'm questioning now as well. It could indeed be where they have the excess spent fuel off-site.
Anyhow this is just hypothetical, but this location would be directly across from the Norco/Shell refinery. I'm questioning Norco's involvement with
Waterford 3 as well, what, if anything they had located there from Waterford 3, and again another hypothetical due to relationship activities I've
seen in my research thus far and trying to figure out where Waterford III had it's excess spent fuel.
With that mistake it led me directly to some Waste Management info on EBASCO for Waterford so this mistake was a good thing even though some here are
getting their chuckles because they believe they are above this all.
So if there was a large fire at this location, why no mention?
Just something else to think about...