Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: editor-surveyor; rigelkentaurus

Of course you’d have to refuel the temporary equipment. But that is a simple logistical consideration that is pretty easy to figure out. The basic premise seem very low cost and workable. Again, yes, you would have to build some very minimal infrastructure, but the idea is sound. Have tankers set up at state rest stops and other places, or even pre-build small grass cut outs along the highways for future emergency use. Not that hard. Refuel the temporary trucks along a route with a bladder underneath a helicopter. I don’t know, but the idea seems pretty low-cost and workable.


23 posted on 11/03/2017 11:55:40 AM PDT by Obadiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]


To: Obadiah

.
You’re a born hand waver!

Everything takes time. Best for every driver to take the time way in advance, and also consiously keep vehicle tanks filled by habit.
.


24 posted on 11/03/2017 11:59:28 AM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies ]

To: Obadiah

If you’re refilling the temporary equipment, why not just refill the permanent equipment? The issue isn’t that there aren’t places to get fuel, it’s that there’s no fuel at the places to go. Tankers can’t deliver fuel when all the highways lanes are one-way leave town. Ports can’t take on fuel when the infrastructure is damaged/flooded. Underground storage tanks need to be inspected probably before using them after flooding.

As for helicopter delivery, it’s not very practical. A Chinook can lift 24k pounds, or about 4000 gallons. Assuming 20gal tanks, one delivery only fills 200 vehicles.
But, you have to look at cost: ignoring the $20-40M initial purchase, Chinook operating costs are somewhere around $2k-4500/hr. Assuming a flight from offshore to middle of FL, would be around a half hour. So that’s at least $.50 to a dollar a gallon in operating costs, with no markup. And no factoring of operating cost of wherever the birds are coming from.

Now, who has all this capability? I doubt any gas companies own Chinooks, much less franchise station owners. The birds they do have aren’t going to be heavy-lifters. Their people probably aren’t very qualified on sling-load operations. Most tankers are oil ships, and the few gas tankers probably don’t have immediate refueling capability - they dock into special ports to offload. Also, how are they refueling the birds? It’s not like a gas station where you just poke a nozzle in the side of your vehicle.

Is the Army/Navy doing this? (Note the Navy’s Seahawk, their version of the Chinook, only lifts about 9k lbs, not 24k. We’re down to less than 100 vehicles per delivery, ) If so, how is the military picking which stations get fuel? How is the military providing fuel/containers? All our stuff is diesel/aviation fuel, including tankers. Who’s paying for it all? The military isn’t a complimentary delivery service for the oil companies.

This type of stuff is fine in a rescue situation, but isn’t near practical as a fuel delivery system for masses of people driving.


40 posted on 11/03/2017 2:15:58 PM PDT by Svartalfiar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson