Dear Editor,
With reference to the letter in SN dated October 24 and titled ‘Boiler incident may have given Barama excuse to close plant,’ I would like to offer some clarifications. I view the statements comparing the current boiler incident and the 1998 incident to be very misleading. I do not wish to be included in 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 damage the Barama boiler system sustained recently, and I cannot make any comparison with past experiences. My knowledge of the 1998 incident is that it was minor damage caused to a few tubes which were easily repaired. The boiler system comprises over one hundred furnace tubes, steam drum, water drum, fans, air pre-heater, dust collector, chimney, control systems, casing and so on. This system functions to create and control steam from the burning of wood waste. As a result the different components of the system can become vulnerable to varying degrees of damage in any overheating situation.
Therefore it is irresponsible for me or anyone else to assume (without technical knowledge and thorough examination of the damage) that the two separate incidents of overheating could result in similar damage and could be resolved in the same way. From the letter it is clear that the source of the information is ignorant of the Barama boiler system, given that he described the boiler as a 15-tonne boiler when in fact it is a 35-tonne boiler.
As mentioned earlier, as the owner of a reputable and long-serving construction company in Guyana I would like to distance myself from such assumptions.
Yours faithfully,
Chandralall Deokie
C Deokie and Sons
Contracting Services
