|
|
Enron Mail |
Here are some comments that I provided to UPSCO Inc.? Note that the price is
$375 per kit.? UPSCO is the service firm in New York state that asked Dow to reformulate an insulation polyurethane foam product that they marketed.? The new product had a pressure of up to 260 psi and a retarded set time.? Both factors allowed better fill of pipe being abandoned.? Dow and UPSCO seem to have partnered on this product. In addition, here is the MSDS for the product.? The exposure of employees is negligible, however, since there are tight fitting connections to the pipe being filled. Attached is also a photo of nozzles used. Ralph Komai Ralph Y. Komai, Ph.D. Sempra Energy Principal Environmental Specialist Phone: (213) 244-5860 FAX: (213) 244-8046 Pager: (213) 287-2091 E-mail: RYKomai@sempra.com -----Original Message----- From: Komai, Ralph - TPRYK Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2001 11:17 AM To: 'Dan Pajak' Cc: ABOOS; Jim Bean; Chuck Lang V; Gary Grunauer; John Cahill; Ron Rockett; Razzak, Shahid - TP5SXR; Haines, Deanna - TP1DRH; Fernandez, David F. - TPDFF; Zubiate, Armando - TPAXZ; Padleschat, Joyce; Alex Barrios; Carey Downs; John Groot; Meraz, Delia - TP2DXM; William Huleis; William Jollie Subject: Comments to UPSCO Inc. Dan, I have copied your questions and have responded in capital letters.? Please realize that this is my reaction as of today, and that may change as we gain experience with the Froth Paks. Did we meet your expectations?? YES.? YOU MET MY EXPECTATIONS ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF YOUR PRODUCT.? MY EXPECTATIONS WERE INFLUENCED BY THE POSITIVE DEMONSTRATION THAT I OBSERVED IN ALBANY.? WHAT I WANTED TO ASSESS WAS ACTUAL USE IN THE FIELD, THE NECESSITY TO HAVE A TIGHT FITTING CONNECTION TO THE SERVICE AND WHETHER THAT WAS A SIGNIFICANT BARRIER TO USING THIS PRODUCT, THE TIME REQUIRED TO SET UP, AND THE OVERALL REACTION OF OPERATING MANAGEMENT AND FIELD CREWS.? THE REACTION TO THE PRODUCT WAS VERY POSITIVE. Do we have any challenges that need to be addressed?? 1.????? COST IS A BIG ONE.? IF WE CAN FILL 10 SERVICES (I BELIEVE THAT THIS WAS JOHN CAHILL'S GUESS FOR 50 FOOT SERVICES) PER FROTH PAK AT A COST OF $375, THAT HAS A UNIT ABANDONMENT COST OF $37.50 COMPARED WITH THE $5 WE ARE SPENDING FOR AN AEROSOL CAN.? CLEARLY THE FROTH PAK FILLS THE SERVICES OVER LONGER DISTANCES, CONSISTENTLY, RAPIDLY, AND MORE RELIABLY.? AS JOHN CAHILL AND I DISCUSSED, INCREASED SALES WILL BRING THE COST DOWN.? ??????? -- IT MAY BE PREMATURE, BUT WHAT IS YOUR ESTIMATE OF HOW COST MAY VARY WITH INCREASED DEMAND?? ??????? -- HOW MANY UNITS DO YOU HAVE TO SELL TO TRIGGER A SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION IS PRICE?? ??????? -- THERE WAS AN INDICATION THAT PALLETS OF 30 WOULD HAVE A QUANTITY DISCOUNT, BUT WHAT IS THAT DISCOUNTED PRICE OF A PALLET? THERE MAY BE A MIDDLE GROUND FOR US OF USING CANS FOR CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE FROTH PAK FOR OTHERS.? THE TWO PAKS THAT WERE LEFT FOR OUR USE WILL PROVIDE US SOME USEFUL HANDS-ON EVALUATION OPPORTUNITIES. 2.????? SHELF-LIFE AFTER THE CYLINDERS ARE OPENED.? THE 45-DAY LIFE MAY NOT ALLOW US TO EFFICIENTLY USE UP REAGENTS.? WE ARE A LARGE TERRITORY COMPANY.? SHARING OF PAKS BETWEEN DISTRICTS WOULD MEAN TRAVEL TIME TO TAKE KITS FROM DISTRICT TO DISTRICT.? ON THE OTHER HAND, INDIVIDUAL PAKS FOR EACH DISTRICT MAY MEAN GREATER WASTED REAGENTS. Where do we go from here?? FOR OUR COMPANY, THE FIRST STEP IS TO DEVELOP A SURVEY FORM THAT WE WILL USE FOR THE CREWS.? (THE DRAFT FORM IS UNDER REVIEW.)? WE WILL BE ABLE TO TALLY SUCCESSES UNDER VARYING CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE REACTION OF THE FIELD CREWS, AS WELL AS IDENTIFYING ANY PROBLEM SITUATIONS.? WE WILL ALSO BE ABLE TO DEVELOP THE AVERAGE COST PER SERVICE.? THE TWO KITS WILL BE USED IN TWO DIFFERENT REGIONS, AND THE INFORMATION/EXPERIENCE WILL BE EXAMINED TO SEE IF THERE WERE ANY PROBLEMS.? COSTS WILL BE CALCULATED.? THEN WE WILL DECIDE WHETHER WE NEED TO PILOT THIS SOME MORE, OR WE WOULD PREFER TO STAY WITH OUR PRESENT METHODS, OR IF WE WISH TO IMPLEMENT USE OF YOUR PRODUCT FOR SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS. JOHN CAHILL WILL BE PROVIDING US INFORMATION REGARDING LANDFILLING APPROVAL FOR PRODUCT FOAM AND DEPLETED REAGENT PRESSURE CONTAINERS.? ANDY BOOS WILL BE PROVIDING ADDITIONAL NOZZLE/CONNECTORS TO CAREY DOWNS, BECAUSE OF THE SHORTER AVERAGE LENGTH ABANDONMENTS IN HIS REGION. One of the thoughts that we are currently evaluating and would greatly appreciate your input on is the following:? Based upon all of our field work we believe that it may be advantageous to under fill the cylinders of chemical (180 board feet to 110-120) and in turn increase the amount of propellant from 250 psi to 350 psi.? In our opinion this would serve three functions: 1) Reduce potential material waste; 2) Reduce any potential confusion associated with using a kit multiple times; 3) Reduce the cost per foot factors and the acquisition price.? What do you think? 1.????? THIS APPROACH WOULD ADDRESS OUR CONCERNS ABOUT WASTED REAGENT.? 2.????? FOR USING THE KIT AT MULTIPLE LOCATIONS, THERE IS PROBABLY A NEED TO TRACK HOW MANY ABANDONMENTS OF WHAT DIAMETER AND LENGTH IN ORDER TO ESTIMATE HOW MANY ADDITIONAL LINES YOU CAN FILL.? TOWARD THE END OF A KIT, THERE IS A QUESTION OF WHETHER YOU HAVE ENOUGH TO FILL A LINE OR NOT.? CAN YOU SWITCH PAKS WHEN ONE RUNS OUT, IF YOU DO IT WITHIN 2 MINUTES OF THE INJECTION START TIME OF THE FIRST KIT?? OTHERWISE THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH RUNNING OUT OF REACTANTS WHEN YOU'VE SQUIRTED IN LESS THAN ENOUGH FOR 50% OF THE VOLUME.? THERE IS ALSO A PROBLEM WITH DECIDING WHAT PERCENTAGE YOU HAVE FILLED WHEN YOU RUN OUT. 3.????? IT WOULD SEEM THAT THE COST PER FOOT WOULD GO UP WITH UNDERFILLED CYLINDERS, SINCE THE FIXED COST IS THE SAME FOR CYLINDERS, HOSES, TRIGGER, AND CARDBOARD BOX.? YOU WOULD STILL GET THE SAME NUMBER OF BOXES ON A PALLET, BUT YOU'D FILL FEWER LINES WITH THAT PALLET. FEWER FILLS AND CHEAPER PAKS WOULD, HOWEVER, ALLOW US TO PURCHASE MORE AND DISTRIBUTE THEM MORE WIDELY.? THAT WOULD CUT DOWN ON THE TRAVEL TIME TO DELIVER SHARED PAKS. I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR WHAT THE FEEDBACK IS FROM THE OPERATING REGIONS AFTER THEY PILOT THE PAKS BEFORE WE GIVE YOU OUR MEASURED OPINION ON THE UNDERFILL CONCEPT. THAT'S ALL OF MY TRAIN OF THOUGHT REACTION FOR NOW.? THANKS FOR THE EVALUATION OPPORTUNITY. Ralph Komai Sempra Energy Principal Environmental Specialist Phone: (213) 244-5860? FAX: (213) 244-8046 Pager: (213) 287-2091 E-mail: RYKomai@sempra.com -----Original Message----- From: Dan Pajak [mailto:DPAJAK@upscoinc.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 8:50 AM To: Ralph Komai Cc: ABOOS; Jim Bean; Chuck Lang V; Gary Grunauer; John Cahill; Ron Rockett Subject: Demo Ralph, Good morning. The boys made it back safe and sound with glowing reports of yesterdays' foam demonstration.? I am curious as to your thoughts.? Did we meet your expectations?? Do we have any challenges that need to be addressed?? Where do we go from here?? One of the thoughts that we are currently evaluating and would greatly appreciate your input on is the following:? Based upon all of our field work we believe that it may be advantageous to under fill the cylinders of chemical (180 board feet to 110-120) and in turn increase the amount of propellant from 250 psi to 350 psi.? In our opinion this would serve three functions: 1) Reduce potential material waste; 2) Reduce any potential confusion associated with using a kit multiple times; 3) Reduce the cost per foot factors and the acquisition price.? What do you think? Thanks again for affording Upsco and DOW the opportunity to demonstrate our solution for Gas Utilities to effectively and economically address the Mega Rule. If you have any photos from yesterday that you can pass along I would appreciate seeing them.? DP Regards, Dan Pajak: Upsco, Inc. www.upscoinc.com Cellular: 215/439-2913 Voice Mail: 315/497-1944 X1117 ? - MSDSDOW.pdf - fill nozzle kits.jpg
|