WITH reference to the SN article dated October 24, 2010 titled ‘Boiler incident may have given Barama excuse to close plant’ I would like to offer some clarifications. I strongly view the statements in relation to comparison between the current boiler incident and the 1998 incident to be very reckless, lack of sound technical reasoning and very misleading. I do not wish to play or be included in any part of such public ramblings.
I am the owner of a very reputable construction company which has been in operation since 1998. I have no knowledge of the kind of damages the boiler system sustained recently and I cannot make any comparisons with past experiences. My knowledge of the 1998 incident is that there were minor damages to a few tubes which were easily repairable. The boiler system comprises of over 100 furnace tubes, steam drum, water drum, fans, a pre-heater, dust collector, chimney, control systems, casing and so on. This system functions to create and control steam (heat) from the burning of wood waste. As a result, the different components of the system can become vulnerable to varying degree of damages in any overheating situation.
Therefore, it is irresponsible for me or anyone else to assume (without sound technical knowledge and thorough examination of the damages) that two separate incidents of overheating can result in similar damages and can be resolved the same way. From the article it is clear that the source of the information is ignorant of the Barama boiler system given that he/she described the boiler as a 15-tonne boiler when in fact it is a 35-tonne boiler. This shows how the statements in the article are reckless and misleading.
As mentioned earlier, as the owner of a reputable and long serving construction company in Guyana, I would like to distance myself from such dangerous accusations/assumptions.
Comparing the two Barama boiler incidents is reckless
SHARE THIS ARTICLE :
Facebook
Twitter
WhatsApp