a Blue chip investor and micro cap trader.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Up 900%, nice to see
some movement in the green world even if short lived.
Everyone is just speculating here,
because no one here KNOWS the actual number of unrestricted shares outstanding...no one knows the float.
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/basics/03/030703.asp
I agree that the longer the O/S and the float are hidden by ECCI management, the more suspicious it becomes....and the lower share price will go, unless significant and verifiable contract news is released. Then more ECCI stock buyers would be willing to take greater risk for some time.
If ECCI were a scam, I would think that they would played their hand differently so far. IMHO
Ducky- I don't do drugs, but
a 20 bagger would take us to less than 1/20 of a cent per share. Maybe you are right.
A couple of contract announcements and it should go to a penny per share. How many bags is that? 80 or 90 bags? I guess I was being wildly conservative on that previous post. A stock priced a one cent per share is ridiculously cheap.
Of course it all depends on the number of shares outstanding. Dude, don't Bogart that stock certificate, my friend.
Congratulations on your research: DD
Now the company only needs to show us and the stock market what they are DOING with all this technology. There is so much potential here. But you cannot "take" "potential" profits. You can only bank "actual" profits that come from actual progress in the business world represented by the stock.
I am seeing a 20 bagger here. I just wish the process would start- the REVELATION BEGIN. Until then, as in the times of Noah, only the doubters will have pleasure in their taunts.
Let's light this board up,
a 20 bagger should make it more interesting around here.
Yep, there is news in the brush,
someone just needs to flush it out. Quail...!
"Natural gas operators are examining water recycling as a method to curtail their water usage and demand, but current technology still renders the process less economical than the alternative of simply disposing of the post-drilling, contaminated fluid.
Spurred by residents’ concerns about pollution and water usages, and the industry’s desire to keep costs down, some area operators are pursuing new technologies with the hopes of recycling the water, which could eventually eliminate the need for disposal wells and expensive transportation while ensuring the operators a good standing in the community.
About 3.75 million gallons of water are used for each natural gas well, and what fluid doesn’t remain – or disappear – underground is recaptured either as flow-back water or produced water, both of which are chloride contaminated and need to be managed.
Traditionally, both fluids are inspected in saltwater disposal wells that send the fluids into underground rock formations, where they remain. There are more than 50,000 disposal wells across Texas that serve the more than 216,000 gas wells in the state, according to the Railroad Commission of Texas, which regulates the industry’s subsurface water use.
The saltwater disposal wells are controversial, however, because detractors argue the highly corrosive water could escape and pollute city-used water tables. In October 2007, the Fort Worth City Council enacted a moratorium on these wells, due to expire April 30. However, the city council is expected to extend the measure. Transporting the fluids to these wells is also expensive, representing one of the major costs gas operators incur during the process.
Washing the water
Oklahoma-based Devon Energy Corp. has used a Canadian water treatment technology since 2005 to reclaim and recycle some of the flow-back water and some of the produced water. Devon’s nine mobile heated distillation units, or NOMADs, reclaim and recycle about 24 percent of the 3.5 million gallons of water used during the fracing processes.
The NOMAD systems are designed and built by Aqua-Pure Ventures Inc., based in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, and operated by Granbury-based Fountain Quail Water Management, a subsidiary of Aqua-Pure. In short, the NOMADs use an evaporator and a compressor to treat waters up to saturation, or about 40,000 total dissolved solids, recycling about 80 percent of the inlet water.
“What we’re doing is boiling off the steam, and as the steam evaporates it’s ‘pured,’” said Pat Horner, an engineering team leader at Fountain Quail. “It leaves behind all the contaminants in a concentrate, so we can take that steam and just condense that into pure, distilled water, and take the concentrate away.”
Fountain Quail soon could find competition in another water treatment technology company looking to break into the lucrative Barnett Shale market, Utah-based 212 Resources.
Some Barnett Shale operators have toured 212 Resources’ Wyoming facilities, and the company hopes to sign contracts soon, said Robert Waits, 212 Resources’ executive vice president for business and government affairs, who declined to name the operators.
There are similarities in the Fountain Quail and 212 Resources platforms – both can be powered by on-site natural gas, both use evaporation and distillation technologies – but the latter currently uses a different method of heat transfer, allowing the machines to handle higher Total Dissolved Solids or T.D.S. content, which includes chlorides, and produce a higher concentration of salt brine, Waits said.
“There are technologies handling the flow-back water, and handling it very well,” Waits said. “[The flow-back water] has very low T.D.S. and is pretty good shape coming in, and that’s not to talk critically of other technology. Where we come in is the produced water. It has as much as three to four times the T.D.S. of the flow-back water and No. 1: most processes can’t even deal with it, and No. 2: they can’t concentrate it enough.
“Each technology has its best use, and we focus on these high T.D.S. waters that have the hydrocarbons in them, and we’re able to take it as high as it is, 110,000 parts per million, and concentrate it to 260,000.”
At the behest of Devon, however, Fountain Quail has been modifying the NOMADs for the past six months to enable the machines to reach for higher T.D.S. levels.
Another difference between the two technologies is the idea behind their existence. For example, 212 Resources’ PODs act as a miniature recycling facility, while Fountain Quail’s NOMAD system serves as a transportable and modular technology with a 20 foot by 60 foot footprint.
“It doesn’t make sense to build a permanent recycling facility because you’re going to have to move it in six months to a year,” said Horner, adding a central recycling facility to serve all wells wouldn’t remove the problem of transportation costs.
The PODs are a 40 foot by 60 foot, enclosed machine that represent a different theory behind how operators might recycle water.
“They’re transportable, but they’re not mobile,” Waits said. “They’re not intended to move more than once or twice a year, but we anticipate building fixed, central plants, but not necessarily in the Barnett Shale … The economies of scale has to do with how one gathers and redistributes the water, whether by trucks or by pipeline.”
The final difference between the two machines is their applicability in an urban gas drilling environment. Devon Energy has no plans to use the NOMAD systems in a neighborhood environment, due to the technology’s necessary and large, water-holding tank, piping and tubing to connect the two, and transport trucks to move the water to and from the site.
The POD systems could be used in an urban environment, however, even though the machines require the same tank, tubes and trucks, said Waits, adding the technology’s enclosed construction makes noise more bearable and manageable.
What it all costs
Fountain Quail and 212 Resources declined to disclose the machines’ daily operating costs, but according to Devon’s Jay Ewing, completion/construction supervisor, the Fountain Quail system costs about $3.35 per barrel, about 68 percent more than the $2 cost if post-fracing water is simply disposed of.
Waits said he could not provide a cost per barrel, and declined to name the Wyoming operator set to use the POD machine.
However the costs end up, persuading the industry to take a chance on these firms’ products is going to be a balancing act between environmental stewardship and bottom-line economics, said Robert Grable, a partner at Fort Worth-based Kelly Hart & Hallman.
“I think there is going to have to be a general understanding of the technology and how far it can go,” said Grable, “and an appreciation that the current technology is not static if the operator is willing to invest in something that won’t handle all of his water right now.”
Investing in the technologies today is a hope that in the future the costs will decrease and the efficiency will increase, said Grable, but he added if the operators view the technology as “grossly uneconomic,” they’re unlikely to buy into it.
In addition to cost, drillers must contend with the public’s perception of the industry.
Natural gas drillers have a responsibility to practice environmental stewardship and the community needs to get active to work with the industry, said James Samudio, a Fort Worth environmentalist and water conservation supporter.
“I was against urban drilling since the get-go,” Samudio said, “but now that they’re here, we need to be proactive and get behind the companies who can save our water.”
The industry recognizes that fact, too, Grable said.
“I think operators have a self interest in reducing potential conflicts with landowners in the broader community, and many – if not most – have a sense of public responsibility.”
Waits agrees.
“I see it as beyond [public relations], although there’s certainly a PR aspect to it,” Waits said, “but I think there really is a conscientious effort to try to conserve resources or to steward resources. And it takes some companies longer than others to get there, but we’ve found intense interest.
“I’ve not yet met a producer that says I don’t care,” he said."
Same to you $treet,
enjoy the time off!
We can wait on this one,
as long as crude oil stays below $50.
abc- some photos of an ECCI unit,
actually doing something would be reassuring to many of us!
CR
Loveismyreligion: I agree with your customer comments!
From ECCI's last "fluffy" press release, as some would call it:
"..Jerry Inman has also been instrumental in developing additional opportunities for Ecoloclean, including a full-scale trial of the ECCI Waterpure™ system with Aviation Exteriors, Inc. (AvEx) of Lake Charles and New Iberia, LA. These tests run in late October will allow AvEx to recycle the water that until now has had to be trucked to a disposal site. Ecoloclean is preparing proposals for providing compete service that will free AvEx from the capital equipment and maintenance costs.."
Sounds like a contract to me along with a potential one on the Barnett Shale with Fountain Quail and another potential one in South Texas (below Crystal City) mentioned in an earlier press release.
tmcc is right. Contracts are likely coming...multiple contracts. Why not wait to buy stock until after the first such announcement? ;))
http://www.avexpainting.com/
https://nbaa2008.bdmetrics.com/portal/ViewCompany.aspx?id=5327463
ECCI can prevent pollution in many industries and protect human health and the environment, as you pointed out in LA. and TX.
FORT WORTH BUSINESS PRESS:
Water recycling debate has many sides
BY JOHN-LAURENT TRONCHE
March 24, 2008
Natural gas operators are examining water recycling as a method to curtail their water usage and demand, but current technology still renders the process less economical than the alternative of simply disposing of the post-drilling, contaminated fluid.
Spurred by residents’ concerns about pollution and water usages, and the industry’s desire to keep costs down, some area operators are pursuing new technologies with the hopes of recycling the water, which could eventually eliminate the need for disposal wells and expensive transportation while ensuring the operators a good standing in the community.
About 3.75 million gallons of water are used for each natural gas well, and what fluid doesn’t remain – or disappear – underground is recaptured either as flow-back water or produced water, both of which are chloride contaminated and need to be managed.
Traditionally, both fluids are inspected in saltwater disposal wells that send the fluids into underground rock formations, where they remain. There are more than 50,000 disposal wells across Texas that serve the more than 216,000 gas wells in the state, according to the Railroad Commission of Texas, which regulates the industry’s subsurface water use.
The saltwater disposal wells are controversial, however, because detractors argue the highly corrosive water could escape and pollute city-used water tables. In October 2007, the Fort Worth City Council enacted a moratorium on these wells, due to expire April 30. However, the city council is expected to extend the measure. Transporting the fluids to these wells is also expensive, representing one of the major costs gas operators incur during the process.
Washing the water
Oklahoma-based Devon Energy Corp. has used a Canadian water treatment technology since 2005 to reclaim and recycle some of the flow-back water and some of the produced water. Devon’s nine mobile heated distillation units, or NOMADs, reclaim and recycle about 24 percent of the 3.5 million gallons of water used during the fracing processes.
The NOMAD systems are designed and built by Aqua-Pure Ventures Inc., based in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, and operated by Granbury-based Fountain Quail Water Management, a subsidiary of Aqua-Pure. In short, the NOMADs use an evaporator and a compressor to treat waters up to saturation, or about 40,000 total dissolved solids, recycling about 80 percent of the inlet water.
“What we’re doing is boiling off the steam, and as the steam evaporates it’s ‘pured,’” said Pat Horner, an engineering team leader at Fountain Quail. “It leaves behind all the contaminants in a concentrate, so we can take that steam and just condense that into pure, distilled water, and take the concentrate away.”
Fountain Quail soon could find competition in another water treatment technology company looking to break into the lucrative Barnett Shale market, Utah-based 212 Resources.
Some Barnett Shale operators have toured 212 Resources’ Wyoming facilities, and the company hopes to sign contracts soon, said Robert Waits, 212 Resources’ executive vice president for business and government affairs, who declined to name the operators.
There are similarities in the Fountain Quail and 212 Resources platforms – both can be powered by on-site natural gas, both use evaporation and distillation technologies – but the latter currently uses a different method of heat transfer, allowing the machines to handle higher Total Dissolved Solids or T.D.S. content, which includes chlorides, and produce a higher concentration of salt brine, Waits said.
“There are technologies handling the flow-back water, and handling it very well,” Waits said. “[The flow-back water] has very low T.D.S. and is pretty good shape coming in, and that’s not to talk critically of other technology. Where we come in is the produced water. It has as much as three to four times the T.D.S. of the flow-back water and No. 1: most processes can’t even deal with it, and No. 2: they can’t concentrate it enough.
“Each technology has its best use, and we focus on these high T.D.S. waters that have the hydrocarbons in them, and we’re able to take it as high as it is, 110,000 parts per million, and concentrate it to 260,000.”
At the behest of Devon, however, Fountain Quail has been modifying the NOMADs for the past six months to enable the machines to reach for higher T.D.S. levels.
Another difference between the two technologies is the idea behind their existence. For example, 212 Resources’ PODs act as a miniature recycling facility, while Fountain Quail’s NOMAD system serves as a transportable and modular technology with a 20 foot by 60 foot footprint.
“It doesn’t make sense to build a permanent recycling facility because you’re going to have to move it in six months to a year,” said Horner, adding a central recycling facility to serve all wells wouldn’t remove the problem of transportation costs.
The PODs are a 40 foot by 60 foot, enclosed machine that represent a different theory behind how operators might recycle water.
“They’re transportable, but they’re not mobile,” Waits said. “They’re not intended to move more than once or twice a year, but we anticipate building fixed, central plants, but not necessarily in the Barnett Shale … The economies of scale has to do with how one gathers and redistributes the water, whether by trucks or by pipeline.”
The final difference between the two machines is their applicability in an urban gas drilling environment. Devon Energy has no plans to use the NOMAD systems in a neighborhood environment, due to the technology’s necessary and large, water-holding tank, piping and tubing to connect the two, and transport trucks to move the water to and from the site.
The POD systems could be used in an urban environment, however, even though the machines require the same tank, tubes and trucks, said Waits, adding the technology’s enclosed construction makes noise more bearable and manageable.
What it all costs
Fountain Quail and 212 Resources declined to disclose the machines’ daily operating costs, but according to Devon’s Jay Ewing, completion/construction supervisor, the Fountain Quail system costs about $3.35 per barrel, about 68 percent more than the $2 cost if post-fracing water is simply disposed of.
Waits said he could not provide a cost per barrel, and declined to name the Wyoming operator set to use the POD machine.
However the costs end up, persuading the industry to take a chance on these firms’ products is going to be a balancing act between environmental stewardship and bottom-line economics, said Robert Grable, a partner at Fort Worth-based Kelly Hart & Hallman.
“I think there is going to have to be a general understanding of the technology and how far it can go,” said Grable, “and an appreciation that the current technology is not static if the operator is willing to invest in something that won’t handle all of his water right now.”
Investing in the technologies today is a hope that in the future the costs will decrease and the efficiency will increase, said Grable, but he added if the operators view the technology as “grossly uneconomic,” they’re unlikely to buy into it.
In addition to cost, drillers must contend with the public’s perception of the industry.
Natural gas drillers have a responsibility to practice environmental stewardship and the community needs to get active to work with the industry, said James Samudio, a Fort Worth environmentalist and water conservation supporter.
“I was against urban drilling since the get-go,” Samudio said, “but now that they’re here, we need to be proactive and get behind the companies who can save our water.”
The industry recognizes that fact, too, Grable said.
“I think operators have a self interest in reducing potential conflicts with landowners in the broader community, and many – if not most – have a sense of public responsibility.”
Waits agrees.
“I see it as beyond [public relations], although there’s certainly a PR aspect to it,” Waits said, “but I think there really is a conscientious effort to try to conserve resources or to steward resources. And it takes some companies longer than others to get there, but we’ve found intense interest.
“I’ve not yet met a producer that says I don’t care,” he said.
Contact Tronche at jtronche@bizpress.net
It's now or "never",
or at least until there is meaningful revenue. Contract?
" ..the E-C WaterPure™ unit provided greater effectiveness in removing ten of the twelve contaminants tested. In addition, the E-C WaterPure™ unit is both well suited and fully-developed to provide for implementation in mobile applications.." 12/03/08 PR
You don't need to make it into drinking water when you are putting it into an injection well. You just need to get the worst 10 offenders off the list. Customers will pay for removing 10 out of 12, especially when the 2 left are not on the top of the EPA "hit list".
Reducing 10 contaminates is enough
when the water is going to an injection well and not being released. Many posters here are ignorant of the customer needs and industry standards. There is no substitute for education to combat the spin doctors who want to suppress this stock's price for their own profit:
The facts:
http://www.texaskaos.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2884
Underground Toxic Waste Fact Sheet
* Over 9 billion gallons of hazardous waste are injected every year.
* Over 2 billion gallons of brine from oil and gas operations are injected underground every day.
* Billions of gallons of automotive, industrial, sanitary and other wastes are injected underground every year.
.
* There are 173 hazardous waste injection wells in the US.
* There are hundreds of thousands of oil and gas waste disposal wells in the US.
* EPA has five classifications of underground injection wells. Two of those types of wells pose the greatest threat to human health, groundwater and property values. They are:
o Class I injection wells that dispose of hazardous waste from the chemical
industry.
o Class II injections wells that dispose of oil and gas industry wastes.
Note: Although oil and gas wastes contain benzene, pit sludge, various forms of hydrocarbons and many other dangerous components, Congress has exempted oil and gas waste from classification as hazardous. Thus EPA has almost no authority to regulate oil and gas drilling wastes even though it is the federal oversight agency responsible for protection of most groundwater.
* Scientific studies by the USGS in Oklahoma and Texas State University in Texas show that oil and gas drilling wastes injected underground have likely polluted aquifers.
* Hazardous waste injection facilities have repeatedly been implicated in groundwater, soil and air contaminations.
* Serious health problems resulting from groundwater contamination from injection wells have been reported in five states.
* There are instances of and groundwater pollution from underground waste dumping in every investigated state where there are injection wells.
* Property values routinely plummet in the vicinity of injection wells.
* There are viable and successful alternatives to underground dumping such as bioremediation and waste reduction
Recycling of Metals
Before the accumulation of TENORM in oil production equipment was recognized, contaminated materials were occasionally recycled for use in making steel products:
* load-supporting beams in house construction
* plumbing for culinary water
* fencing materials
* awning supports
* practice welding material in class rooms.
Top of page
Disposal of Wastes
When sludge fouling in water and oil storage tanks became a problem, the tanks were drained and the sludge disposed of in waste pits:
*
Burn pits
Earthen pits were previously used for temporary storage an periodic burning of non-hazardous oil field wastes collected from tanks and other equipment.
*
Brine pits
Lined and/or earthen pits were previously used for storing produced water and other nonhazardous oil field wastes, hydrocarbon storage brine, or mining wastes. In this case, TENORM in the water will concentrate in the bottom sludges or residual salts of the ponds. Thus, the pond sediments pose a potential radiological health risk. The radionuclides in these soils have been reported to be in the range from 270 to 1100 pCi/g.
Top of page
Disposal and Reuse: Current Practices
Recycling of Metals
Now that the petroleum industry is aware of the potential for contamination, they take a number of precautions before recycling:
* Loads of scrap metal are surveyed for hidden radioactive sources and TENORM.
* Piping and equipment are cleaned before release for recycling at smelters.
* Pollution control devices, such as filters and bubblers, are installed in smelter stacks to reduce airborne radiation releases.
Although much of the NORM-contaminated equipment is presently stored in controlled areas, some companies are now cleaning the equipment and proposing to store it at designated disposal sites.
Top of page
Waste disposal
The average concentration of the radium in the oil and gas wastes at offsite and onsite disposal facilities is approximately 120 pCi/g. EPA has issued non-mandatory guidelines identifying radium concentrations limits for disposal at landfills:
*
3- 50 pCi/g
disposal in sanitary landfills, with limited access and no future development of the site
*
50-2,000 pCi/g
disposal in TENORM or Low-Level Radioactive Waste facilities
* Greater than 2,000 pCi/g
disposal according to Atomic Energy Act regulations.
Sludges containing elevated TENORM are now dewatered and held in storage tanks for later disposal.
Produced waters are now generally reinjected into deep wells or, in the case of offshore production facilities, are discharged into non-potable coastal waters. No added radiological risks appear to be associated with this disposal method as long as the radioactive material carried by the produced water is returned in the same or lower concentration to the formations from which it was derived. As of 1992 there are 166,000 injection wells in 31 states.
Pipes contaminated with scale are cleaned at pipe yards either by sandblasting them with high pressure water or by scraping out the scale with a rotating drill bit. The removed scale is then placed in drums and stored for later disposal.
Contaminated equipment may either be cleaned and reused by the petroleum industry; disposed; or, if radiation levels are sufficiently reduced, sold for recycle. If equipment cannot be further decontaminated to acceptable levels, it is sent to a landfill licensed to accept NORM materials.
In some cases contaminated steel may be reprocessed via smelting. During the smelting process molten steel separates from the NORM which vaporizes and is released as a gas. If the steel mill has pollution control equipment, most of the NORM is trapped in the baghouses and scrubbers. A typical smelting operation is capable of capturing 99 percent of the particulate releases.
Top of page
Exposure Risks
TENORM contamination in oil production waste came to the attention of industry and government in 1986 when, during routine well work in Mississippi, barium sulfate scale in tubing was found to contain elevated levels of levels of radium-226, and thorium-232.
Because of concerns that some pipes may have contaminated the surrounding environment, radiological surveys were conducted by EPA's Eastern Environmental Radiation Facility. These surveys showed that some equipment and disposal locations exhibited external radiation levels above 2 mR/hr and radium-226 soil contamination above 1,000 pCi/g. Some contamination had also washed into a nearby pond and drainage ditch at one site, as well as into an agricultural field with subsequent uptake of radium by vegetation.
Because TENORM contaminated wastes in oil and gas production operations were not properly recognized in the past, disposal of these wastes may have resulted in environmental contamination in and around production and disposal facilities. Surface disposal of radioactive sludge/scale, and produced water (as practiced in the past) may lead to ground and surface water contamination.
Those at risk include:
* oil/radiation waste disposal workers
* nearby residents/office workers.
http://epa.gov/radiation/tenorm/oilandgas.html#metalrecycling
How are drilling wastes produced?
The briney solution contained in reservoirs of oil and gas is known as "formation water." During drilling, a mixture of oil, gas, and formation water is pumped to the surface. The water is separated from the oil and gas into tanks or pits, where it is referred to as "produced water." As the oil and gas in the reservoir are removed, more of what is pumped to the surface is formation water. Consequently, declining oil fields generate more produced water.
While uranium and thorium are are not soluble in water, their radioactive decay product, radium, and some of its decay products are somewhat soluble. Radium and its decay products may dissolve in the brine. They may remain in solution or settle out to form sludges, which accumulate in tanks and pits, or mineral scales, which form inside pipes and drilling equipment.
Top of page
How much radiation is in the wastes?
Because radium levels in the soil and rocks vary greatly, so do their concentrations in scales and sludges. Radiation levels may vary from background soil levels to as high as several hundred nanoCuries per gram. The variation depends on several factors:
* concentration and identity of the radionuclides
* chemistry of the geologic formation
* characteristics of the production process (McA88).
The table below shows the range of activities in these wastes:
Wastes Radiation Level [pCi/g]
low average high
Produced Water [pCi/l] 0.1 NA
9,000
Pipe/Tank Scale [pCi/g] <0.25 <200 >100,000
The Radiation in TENORM Summary Table provides a range of reported concentrations, and average concentration measurements of NORM associated with various waste types and materials.
Top of page
Waste Types and Amounts
Each year the petroleum industry generates around 150,000 cubic meters (260,000 metric tons) of waste including produced water, scales, sludges, and contaminated equipment. The amount produced at any one oil reserve varies and depends on several factors:
* geological location
* formation conditions
* type of production operation
* age of the production well.
An estimated 30 percent of domestic oil and gas wells produce some TENORM (McA88). In surveys of production wells in 13 states, the percent reporting high concentrations of radionuclides in the wells ranged from 90 percent in Mississippi to none or only a few in Colorado, South Dakota, and Wyoming (McA88). However, 20 to 100 percent of the facilities in every state reported some TENORM in heater/treaters.
Top of page
Produced Waters
The radioactivity levels in produced waters are generally low, but the volumes are large. The ratio of produced water to oil is approximately 10 barrels of produced water per barrel of oil. According to the American Petroleum Institute (API), more than 18 billion barrels of waste fluids from oil and gas production are generated annually in the United States.
Produced waters contain levels of radium and its decay products that are concentrated, but the concentrations vary from site to site. In general, produced waters are re-injected into deep wells or are discharged into non-potable coastal waters.
Top of page
Scale
Scale is composed primarily of insoluble barium, calcium, and strontium compounds that precipitate from the produced water due to changes in temperature and pressure. Radium is chemically similar to these elements and as a result is incorporated into the scales. Concentrations of Radium-226 (Ra-226) are generally higher than those of Ra-228.
Scales are normally found on the inside of piping and tubing. The API found that the highest concentrations of radioactivity are in the scale in wellhead piping and in production piping near the wellhead. Concentrations were as high as tens of thousands of picocuries per gram. However, the largest volumes of scale occur in three areas:
* water lines associated with separators, (separate gas from the oil and water)
* heater treaters (divide the oil and water phases)
* gas dehydrators, where scale deposits as thick as four inches may accumulate .
Chemical scale inhibitors may be applied to the piping complexes to prevent scales from slowing the oil extraction process. If the scales contain TENORM, the radiation will remain in solution and eventually be passed on to the produced waters.
Approximately 100 tons of scale per oil well are generated annually in the United States. As the oil in a reservoir dwindles and more water is pumped out with the oil, the amount of scale increases. In some cases brine is introduced into the formation to enhance recovery; this also increases scale formation.
The average radium concentration in scale has been estimated to be 480 pCi/g. It can be much higher (as high as 400,000 pCi/g) or lower depending on regional geology.
Top of page
Sludge
Sludge is composed of dissolved solids which precipitate from produced water as its temperature and pressure change. Sludge generally consists of oily, loose material often containing silica compounds, but may also contain large amounts of barium. Dried sludge, with a low oil content, looks and feels similar to soil.
Oil production processes generate an estimated 230,000 MT or five million ft3 (141 cubic meters) of TENORM sludge each year. API has determined that most sludge settles out of the production stream and remains in the oil stock and water storage tanks.
Like contaminated scale, sludge contains more Ra-226 than Ra-228. The average concentration of radium in sludges is estimated to be 75 pCi/g. This may vary considerably from site to site. Although the concentration of radiation is lower in sludges than in scales, sludges are more soluble and therefore more readily released to the environment. As a result they pose a higher risk of exposure.
The concentration of lead-210 (Pb-210) is usually relatively low in hard scales but may be more than 27,000 pCi/g in lead deposits and sludge.
Top of page
Contaminated Equipment
Oil drilling rig.(click for larger image.)
TENORM contamination levels in equipment varied widely among types of equipment and geographic region. The geographic areas with the highest equipment readings were northern Texas and the gulf coast crescent from southern Louisiana and Mississippi to the Florida panhandle. Very low levels of TENORM were found in California, Utah, Wyoming, Colorado, and northern Kansas.
According to an API industry-wide survey, approximately 64 percent of the gas producing equipment and 57 percent of the oil production equipment showed radioactivity at or near background levels. TENORM radioactivity levels tend to be highest in water handling equipment. Average exposure levels for this equipment were between 30 to 40 micro Roentgens per hour (μR/hr), which is about 5 times background. Gas processing equipment with the highest levels include the reflux pumps, propane pumps and tanks, other pumps, and product lines. Average radiation levels for this equipment as between 30 to 70 μR/hr. Exposures from some oil production and gas processing equipment exceeded 1 mR/hr.
Gas plant processing equipment is generally contaminated on the surface by lead-210 (Pb-210). However, TENORM may also accumulate in gas plant equipment from radon (Rn-222) gas decay. Radon gas is highly mobile. It originates in underground formations and dissolves in the organic petroleum areas of the gas plant. It concentrates mainly in the more volatile propane and ethane fractions of the gas.
Gas plant scales differ from oil production scales, typically consisting of radon decay products which accumulate on the interior surfaces of plant equipment. Radon itself decays quickly, (its half-life is 3.8 days). As a result, the only radionuclides that affect disposal are the radon decay products polonium-210 (Po-210) and lead-210. Polonium-210 is an alpha emitter with a half-life of 140 days. Pb-210 is a weak beta and gamma emitter with a half-life of 22 years.
Top of page
Disposal and Reuse: Past Practices
Recycling of Metals
Before the accumulation of TENORM in oil production equipment was recognized, contaminated materials were occasionally recycled for use in making steel products:
* load-supporting beams in house construction
* plumbing for culinary water
* fencing materials
* awning supports
* practice welding material in class rooms.
Top of page
Disposal of Wastes
When sludge fouling in water and oil storage tanks became a problem, the tanks were drained and the sludge disposed of in waste pits:
*
Burn pits
Earthen pits were previously used for temporary storage an periodic burning of non-hazardous oil field wastes collected from tanks and other equipment.
*
Brine pits
Lined and/or earthen pits were previously used for storing produced water and other nonhazardous oil field wastes, hydrocarbon storage brine, or mining wastes. In this case, TENORM in the water will concentrate in the bottom sludges or residual salts of the ponds. Thus, the pond sediments pose a potential radiological health risk. The radionuclides in these soils have been reported to be in the range from 270 to 1100 pCi/g.
Top of page
Disposal and Reuse: Current Practices
Recycling of Metals
Now that the petroleum industry is aware of the potential for contamination, they take a number of precautions before recycling:
* Loads of scrap metal are surveyed for hidden radioactive sources and TENORM.
* Piping and equipment are cleaned before release for recycling at smelters.
* Pollution control devices, such as filters and bubblers, are installed in smelter stacks to reduce airborne radiation releases.
Although much of the NORM-contaminated equipment is presently stored in controlled areas, some companies are now cleaning the equipment and proposing to store it at designated disposal sites.
Top of page
Waste disposal
The average concentration of the radium in the oil and gas wastes at offsite and onsite disposal facilities is approximately 120 pCi/g. EPA has issued non-mandatory guidelines identifying radium concentrations limits for disposal at landfills:
*
3- 50 pCi/g
disposal in sanitary landfills, with limited access and no future development of the site
*
50-2,000 pCi/g
disposal in TENORM or Low-Level Radioactive Waste facilities
* Greater than 2,000 pCi/g
disposal according to Atomic Energy Act regulations.
Sludges containing elevated TENORM are now dewatered and held in storage tanks for later disposal.
Produced waters are now generally reinjected into deep wells or, in the case of offshore production facilities, are discharged into non-potable coastal waters. No added radiological risks appear to be associated with this disposal method as long as the radioactive material carried by the produced water is returned in the same or lower concentration to the formations from which it was derived. As of 1992 there are 166,000 injection wells in 31 states.
Pipes contaminated with scale are cleaned at pipe yards either by sandblasting them with high pressure water or by scraping out the scale with a rotating drill bit. The removed scale is then placed in drums and stored for later disposal.
Contaminated equipment may either be cleaned and reused by the petroleum industry; disposed; or, if radiation levels are sufficiently reduced, sold for recycle. If equipment cannot be further decontaminated to acceptable levels, it is sent to a landfill licensed to accept NORM materials.
In some cases contaminated steel may be reprocessed via smelting. During the smelting process molten steel separates from the NORM which vaporizes and is released as a gas. If the steel mill has pollution control equipment, most of the NORM is trapped in the baghouses and scrubbers. A typical smelting operation is capable of capturing 99 percent of the particulate releases.
Well, there is one thing for sure,
someone is selling cheap. Only some contracts will change that situation. The last press release did not budge share price. I wonder who is buying all the volume so cheap?
Since we are all speculating about dilution,
I must say that we and ECCI are in dire trouble if there is significant dilution going on when the price per share is .0001 or .0002. If Mr. Ward sold 300 million shares, he would only get $30,000 at the current price of .0001. And that sale would be 10% of the authorized number of shares. It could well be 30% of the outstanding shares by some accounts posted below. Now $30,000 is a significant amount of money to many people. But would it pay Mr. Adams' salary? Would it pay the salary of Lee Barnes, the new Process Environmental Chemist with over 35 years experience? My point is that it does not make much sense to dilute when the stock is priced this low. Mr. Ward recently sold Regency Energy for several million dollars. He ran Tidelands Oil for several years. He can most likely afford not to dilute at these depressed price levels. Rather, if he were a scam artist, he could ramp up the news cycle and then sell hundreds of millions of shares when this stock is pumped up to .05 per share. Then he could get much more bang for his buck, if he were a crook. No, I think that he is honest and that he is not selling. I think that he is building a company here. FWIW
I just doubled down this week. I call it "penny cost averaging"! LOL
Now a little due diligence for potential ECCI investors:
http://www.avexpainting.com/
https://nbaa2008.bdmetrics.com/portal/ViewCompany.aspx?id=5327463
ECCI can prevent pollution in many industries and pretect human health and the environment.
NEWS!!!!
Ecoloclean Industries, Inc. Expands Staff and Marketing Efforts
Ecoloclean Industries, Inc. Expands Staff and Marketing Efforts
Thursday December 18, 11:11 am ET
FORT WORTH, Texas--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Ecoloclean Industries, Inc. (Pink Sheets:ECCI - News) announced today that during the fourth quarter of 2008 Ecoloclean has continued its business development efforts in the Barnett Shale with the addition of Lee Barnes to its staff. Lee is a Process Environmental Chemist with over 35 years experience in water treatment. He has worked for Dow Chemical, DuPont and Nalco Chemical, as well as providing consulting services to the Dept. of Energy and various municipalities in central TX. According to John Adams, COO of Ecoloclean, “Lee brings a wealth of practical knowledge in the areas of water treatment systems and processes to the company and his initial focus will be to continue the marketing efforts we have developed in the Barnett Shale as well as other aspects of the Oil and Gas industry through out the country.”
In addition to the work in central TX, Ecoloclean has been involved in providing initial testing of produced water for a major oil company seeking to utilize electro-coagulation for the removal of contaminants that foul thermal systems. While final results are not back from the independent labs early testing indicated reductions of TDS (total dissolved solids) in excess of sixty percent. Jerry Inman, VP of R&D, has been working on this project since June and bench tests were run with the help of Lee Barnes.
Jerry Inman has also been instrumental in developing additional opportunities for Ecoloclean, including a full-scale trial of the ECCI Waterpure™ system with Aviation Exteriors, Inc. (AvEx) of Lake Charles and New Iberia, LA. These tests run in late October will allow AvEx to recycle the water that until now has had to be trucked to a disposal site. Ecoloclean is preparing proposals for providing compete service that will free AvEx from the capital equipment and maintenance costs.
Royis Ward, CEO, of Ecoloclean Industries said, “While recent fluctuations in the price of energy may have changed the public perception regarding oil and gas exploration it has not altered the need to provide cost effective water reuse and recycling solutions. With our continued sales activities and the addition of Lee Barnes to the team, Ecoloclean is looking forward to 2009.”
Now a little due diligence for those lazy potential investors:
http://www.avexpainting.com/
https://nbaa2008.bdmetrics.com/portal/ViewCompany.aspx?id=5327463
THE ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES FOR ECCI ARE LIMITLESS. POLLUTION IS EVERYWHERE AND IT FINALLY AND LEGALLY NEEDS TO BE PREVENTED.
"...Royis Ward, President of Ecoloclean Industries, Inc., stated, “With these solid results under our belt we are moving forward with marketing efforts with other contacts in the oil and gas fields to pre-treat flowback and produced water.”
"Direct analytical comparisons clearly showed the E-C WaterPure™ unit provided greater effectiveness in removing ten of the twelve contaminants tested. In addition, the E-C WaterPure™ unit is both well suited and fully-developed to provide for implementation in mobile applications.
Full scale operating tests were undertaken at the West Crossroads location of Fountain Quail Water Management. The testing provided positive results and analytical data that the E-C WaterPure™ electrocoagulation process is an effective alternative to chemical based pretreatment processes currently in use in operations at the Barnett Shale strata."
Just rearranging the last PR is interesting!
The sleeping giant is waking up!
Let's rumble....several big up days in a row now.
mustangsny: don't miss your flight!
We will do OK without you until Spring.
Don't worry about any "reverse splits" in Brazil:
Link:
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.brazil-travels.com/Carnival/photos/carnival-03-1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.brazil-travels.com/Carnival/Index.htm&usg=__6gNrpVT1OMej4j_chSn5FMdeKew=&h=340&w=271&sz=10&hl=en&start=5&tbnid=smc3bOvrEtl9OM:&tbnh=119&tbnw=95&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dbrazil%2Bmardi%2Bgra%2B2009%2Brio%26gbv%3D2%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DG
More recently, what ever happened as a result of this?
Ecoloclean Industries' Wholly Owned Subsidiary, Aquatronics Industries, Inc., Acquires Advanced Bio-Catalytic Water Purification Patent
CRYSTAL CITY, Texas, March 31 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Ecoloclean Industries, Inc.'s (BULLETIN BOARD: ECCI) wholly owned subsidiary, Aquatronics Industries, Inc. of Riverside, RI, announced today it has acquired the advanced "Bio-Catalytic" water purification patent rights, which act as an adjunct to the active disciplines engaged in the production and installation of water remediation and provides the Company exclusive manufacturing rights to these products.
Aquatronics Industries has been engaged in the methodology of wastewater and drinking water remediation for over 20 years, with primary focus on the need to remove heavy metals and destroy pathogens and other harmful bacteria.
The Bio-Catalytic patent enhances the inactivation of pathogenic and other microorganisms, such as bacteria, virus, fungi, and protozoa that are common pollutants to water supplies worldwide. After extensive development and exercise of Aquatronics' current water remediation methodology, a growing need for more effective water-borne bacteria and parasite control arose as a result of recent natural disasters that have left thousands of people void of pure water and at constant risk from a bacteria-laden environment.
The exclusive use, manufacture and distribution rights of the Bio- Catalytic patented product complement the already active Aquatronics' disciplines that engage in the production and installation of their water remediation product lines.
This product concept is currently undergoing national certification sanctions for multiple uses and applications already established through proto-type and neutral laboratory testing.
The Company's marketing and sales plans are in place both nationally and internationally and scheduled for active distribution and installation during the summer of 2006.
Mr. Howard Schachter, President of Aquatronics Industries, Inc., stated, "The addition of the patent to the many disciplines already engaged at the company will enhance a very specific sector of the water purification market that encompasses Aquatronic's Point of Use (POU) and Point of Entry (POE) designs. These concepts play a very significant role in delivering and ensuring safe drinking water to populations throughout the US and around the world."
Mr. Royis Ward, President and CEO of Ecoloclean Industries, Inc., stated, "The acquisition of this patent has to be credited to the tenacity and continued efforts over the last several months of Mr. Howard Schachter in finalizing this agreement. These patent rights give Aquatronics Industries, Inc. control of a technology that adds value and a new credo to every product, system and concept that we now have in the market place. It assures us the capabilities to produce purified water anywhere contaminated water sources exist. At the same time, we are price competitive in a 'niche market' which is growing because the world is desperate to find effective alternatives to chlorine, bromine, and fluorine additives. Additionally, the advent of increased pollution resulting from the demand in the public water system in the USA and Canada, forces authorities to put more chlorine into the supply chain every day. This patented compound, in conjunction with our already existing systems, will offer a healthy alternative to the chemical reactions created by the use of these induced impurities."
http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/452303/ecoloclean_industries_wholly_owned_subsidiary_aquatronics_industries_inc_acquires_advanced/index.html
About Aquatronics Industries, Inc.
Aquatronics Industries, Inc. has provided creative and cost effective solutions to a wide range of industrial and commercial pure water, wastewater and solid waste management problems for 20 years. Utilizing a patented non- chemical, electro-coalescing technology, Aquatronics Industries began installing "closed-loop" wastewater treatment systems for industry and has grown to encompass a wide variety of both commercial and industrial pure water and wastewater applications with flow rates ranging from 5 to 250 gallons per minute. For more information about the Company, please visit their website at http://www.aquatronicsindustries.com/ .
About Ecoloclean Industries, Inc.
Ecoloclean Industries, Inc. is the parent company of three wholly owned operating subsidiaries: Ecoloclean, Inc., World Environmental Technologies, Inc., and Aquatronics Industries, Inc. Utilizing various remediation techniques and technologies, Ecoloclean Industries provides environmental waste remediation to treat and remove impurities in contaminated and/or polluted liquids for a variety of industries including, but not limited to, refineries, petroleum related industries and oil and gas drillers. ECCI continues to seek technologies and procedures that will offer its clients the safest and most cost effective technologies available in the marketplace. For more information about the Company, please visit http://www.ecoloclean.com/ .
Educational and old SEC Filing:
http://sec.edgar-online.com/2003/07/29/0001010549-03-000399/Section2.asp
"...THE ELECTROCOAGULATION SYSTEM
Most waste water contaminants are held in solution by electrical charges. Bacteria, algae, oils, clays, carbon black, silica, phosphate, nickle, lead, chromates and other ions are examples charged particle contaminants. Waste water contaminants must be removed from the water. The neutralization of the electrical charges and subsequent precipitation of these contaminants can be achieved by chemical or electrochemical alteration. Most commercial water treatment systems use chemical additives. Our electrocoagulation process is a non-chemical additive electrochemical system.
In today's environment, adding chemicals to contaminated waste water is becoming less acceptable due to increasingly stringent regulations. Solid residues (sledges) are being classified as hazardous materials and the required treatment levels are more difficult and expensive to achieve. In the future, we believe that there will be a significant increase in the use of nonchemical dependent systems such as the EC System. Different chemicals are required for various contaminants. Contaminant concentrations are critical and must be constantly monitored and balanced. These additives do not remain with the purified water (exception: chlorine) but combine with and must be disposed of with the "sludge" that is removed from the waste water stream. Under current regulations many of these sludge's are considered hazardous and must be handled accordingly. For every pound of chemical additive an additional pound of sludge must be disposed of. This cost of disposal must be added to the cost of purchase of chemical used.
Electrochemical water treatment methods have been used for many years. High voltages are used to produce an electromagnetic field which disrupts the electrochemical properties of the charged contaminant particles. This allows the contaminants to precipitate or fall out of the waste water. Until recent times, these electrochemical water treatment systems showed good contaminate removal compared with the chemical additive precipitation methods, however, high capital and operational costs coupled with lower flow rates have restricted widespread commercial use.
The electrocoagulation "EC" process does not use chemical additives. We believe that our EC process, with lower operating costs, higher flow rates and a reduction of sludge disposal costs will move our EC process to the forefront of water treatment technologies.
The electrocoagulation system uses equipment and methods that result from revisions of old technologies and principles of electrochemistry and physics made possible by our computerized microprocessor control panel.
The "EC" unit is capable of treating liquid solutions containing a wide variety of contaminants, including heavy metals, oil and grease, suspended and dissolved solids, most salts as well as bacteria and algae, without the use of chemicals. The "EC" unit places an electrical charge in the waste fluid which destabilizes suspended material electrochemically and causes the coagulation of the dissolved and suspended contaminants. This coagulation or flocculation is similar to the precipitation stimulated by chemical additives, but the altered contaminant particles tend to be larger (100 microns vs. 25 to 50 microns) and more stable. This flocculated contaminants are removed from the waste Stream by conventional equipment.
OVERVIEW OF WATER TREATMENT USING ELECTROCOAGULATION
When the term "we" is used, it means Sailtech by and through its subsidiaries, Ecoloclean, Inc. and World Environmental Technologies, Inc.
We have designed and manufactured three portable EC Units which are mounted on flat-bed trailers. The waste water is pumped into the EC unit, electrochemically processed and discharged on-site.
The water flows through a series of engineered electrodes within a cell while a controlled electric current is applied to the waste water. The electrical current energizes the solution creating a magnetic field within the cell. Our system is designed to optimize over twenty variables in order to effectively transfer electrical energy to the continuously flowing contaminated waste water. Water contaminated mixtures created by the electrocoagulation process, separate into an organic molecule floating layer known as flocculent, a mineral sediment and clean water. This separation occurs within minutes of treatment and conventional equipment may be used to extract the clean water. The Electrocoagulation process has successfully treated animal and human waste water removing chemical and biological contaminants. Tests confirm the destruction of coliform bacteria, flagellates, helminthes, eggs, infective parasite larvae and enteric viruses.
Our EC process utilizes proprietary and patented technologies applying electrochemical energies to the waste water stream. Contaminant laden water moves through an electric field where the treatment is accomplished by:
o Ionization
o Electrolysis
o Free radical formation
o Electromagnetic fields
System Capabilities:
o Removes heavy metals as oxides which will pass Toxicity Characteristics Leaching Procedures (TCLP)
o Removes suspended and colloidal solids
o Breaks oil emulsions in water
o Removes fats, oils and grease in water
o Removes complex organic materials
o Destroys and removes bacteria, viruses and cysts
o Processes multiple contaminants
Key Applications:
o Ground water cleanup
o Process rinse and wash water
o Potable water
o Sewage treatment
o Cooling towers
o Radioactive isotope removal
o Pretreatment for reverse osmosis, ultra-filtration, nano-filtration, and photocatlytics
o Water reuse resulting in zero discharge
o Metal recovery
o Influent quality water control
o Industrial waste water
Benefits:
o Capital cost significantly less than alternative technologies
o Operating cost significantly less than alternative technologies
o Low power requirements
o Generally no chemical additions
o Metal oxide formation passing TCLP
o Low maintenance
o Minimal operator attention
o Handles a wide variation in the waste stream contaminants
o Consistent and reliable results
o Sludge minimization
o Treats multiple contaminants
Proposed Operations and Services
Industrial and commercial businesses produce various types of wastewater (including hydrocarbon contaminated water from oil field operations, that must be disposed of as required by federal, state and local regulations. Similarly, oil and gas exploration and production companies produce liquid waste from drilling and other operations that must be disposed of complying with federal and state regulations. We propose to process the liquid waste and remove contaminants and dispose of the treated liquid waste as required by applicable regulations.
Oilfield Waste
Oilfield waste consists primarily of petroleum-based and water-based drilling fluids (which contain oil, grease, chlorides and heavy metals), as well as cuttings, saltwater, work over and completion fluids, production pit sludges and soil containing these materials. Under Louisiana and Texas state regulations, if oilfield waste cannot be processed for discharge or disposed of at the well where it is generated, it must be transported to a licensed oilfield waste processing or disposal facility.
Competitive Conditions
Competition is intense within oilfield waste water processing industry. Competition will be based primarily proximity to collection operations, collection and processing fees charged and quality of service. With respect to
certain waste streams, such as oilfield waste, we will compete with the generators of these waste streams, who continually evaluate the decision whether to use internal disposal methods or to utilize a liquid waste management company such as us.
We will compete with numerous companies, both large and small, which are able to provide one or more of the environmental services offered by us. Many of these companies will have greater financial, human and other resources. However, we believe that the type of waste management, treatment, processing and remediation services which we will provide will give us a competitive advantage with respect to certain of our more specialized competitors. We believe that our treatment processes will offer cost saving alternatives to the more traditional remediation and disposal methods offered by our competitors.
We believe that there are certain barriers to entry in the liquid waste industry. These barriers include the need for specialty machinery and facilities; licenses, permits and trained personnel necessary to operate these facilities.
Our Specialized Equipment
We have manufactured three portable EC Units.
Employees
Presently, Sailtech has two part-time employees in Royis and Michael Ward. Ecoloclean has two part-time employees in Royis and Michael Ward and two full-time field employees. World Environmental Technologies, Inc. has three full-time employees, one of which is Michael Richardson, its president. No employee was subject to a collective bargaining agreement.
Governmental Permits and Licenses
Presently, we have no licenses or permits to treat waste water. We have applied for a permit to treat oil industry waste water in Louisiana.
Waste management companies are subject to extensive, evolving and increasingly stringent federal, state and local environmental laws and regulations. Such federal, state and local environmental laws and regulations govern will our activities regarding the treatment, storage, processing, disposal and transportation of wastes. We will be required to obtain and maintain permits, licenses and/or approvals in order to conduct our proposed waste treatment business activities. Failure to obtain and maintain permits or approvals would have a material adverse effect on us, our operations and financial condition. The permits and licenses have a term ranging from five (5) to ten (10) years and, provided that the Company maintains a reasonable level of compliance, renew with minimal effort and cost. Historically, there have been no compelling challenges to the permit and license renewals. In the future, if we expand our operations, we may be required to obtain additional approvals, licenses or permits, the there can be no assurance that we will be able to do so. Such permits and licenses, however, represent a potential barrier to entry for possible competitors.
General License Agreement
Ecoloclean, Inc. acquired a General License Agreement by assignment from World Environmental Technologies, Inc. on September 12, 2002. The license grants an industry exclusive perpetual worldwide right and license under a U.S. patent to manufacture, use, market, sell, lease or otherwise dispose of product units based on, or relating to the invention contained in U.S. Patent No. 6,238,546, issued to Louis A. Kneiper, Gary A. Tipton and Daniel G. Noyes on May 29, 2001. The product units are the Electrocoagulation units. The license is industry specific and applies only to the petroleum exploration, petroleum chemical, transportation and refining industries. Ecoloclean, the licensee, is excluded from marketing, selling, leasing or otherwise disposing of product units to the paper industry, paint pigment industry and to all industries in Mexico and the Orient. Ecoloclean is obligated to pay royalties to the patent owner on an event basis. For product units of 100 gallons-per-minute (gpm), or less which are manufactured by the licensee, Ecoloclean is obligated to pay $3,000 each. For product units of capacities exceeding 100 gpm, Ecoloclean must pay $3,000 multiplied by the gpm design capacity. Additionally, for the use of the technology, Ecoloclean must pay a monthly royalty of 2% of gross income generated by product units. The General License Agreement and Assignment to the General License Agreement are attached to this Current Report as Exhibits 3.1 and 3.2, respectively.
Insurance
We believe we maintain insurance coverage adequate for our needs and which is similar to, or greater than, the coverage maintained by other companies of our size in the industry. There can be no assurances, however, that liabilities which may be incurred by us will be covered by our insurance or that the dollar amount of such liabilities which are covered will not exceed our policy limits. We are required by EPA regulations to carry environmental impairment liability insurance providing coverage for damages on a claims-made basis in amounts of at least $1 million per occurrence and $2 million per year in the aggregate.
Regulation
General
Our proposed business operations will be affected both directly and indirectly by governmental regulations, including various federal, state and local pollution control and health and safety programs that are administered and enforced by regulatory agencies. These programs are applicable or potentially applicable to one or more of our existing operations...."
blah blah blah
12 million shares at .0001,
now that is a rock bottom acquisition. How many bags would that be if it goes to just one penny per share?
ROFLMAF
MOMO, don't blow my cover,
the prior owners of this stock did not know what they owned because management didn't want anyone to know yet.
That was some sell-off over the last two days,
I hear it was a market maker liquidating...plus a few flippers who were wrong. Let's settle down now. The technical indicators are on the bottom lines. See MOMO's chart below.
"Virgil Caine is the name, and I served on the Danville train,
'Til Stonewall's cavalry came and tore up the tracks again.
In the winter of '65, We were hungry, just barely alive.
By May the tenth, Richmond had fell, it's a time I remember, oh so well,
MOMO's Chart is still live:
(I hope ECCI is alive too-
news in January I suspect- contract news- I hope.)
http://www.texerra.com/Barnetthydro.pdf
Chart below for technical analysis:
You got news!!!
(Such as it is....)
Green Globe International, Inc. Reaches Definitive Agreement With Green Hotel Certification for Use of the Green Globe Brand in the Certification of Hotels and Resorts
Tuesday December 9, 9:20 am ET
Marketing of Co-Branded Certification Will Begin Immediately in Targeted Regions
MURRIETA, CA--(MARKET WIRE)--Dec 9, 2008 -- Green Globe International, Inc. (OTC BB:GGLB.OB - News), the worldwide owner of the Green Globe brand, the premier international green brand for travel and tourism, today announced that it has reached a binding definitive agreement with Green Hotel Certification for a program to deliver a dual certification to tourism properties, including hotels and resort destinations.
With the definitive agreement in place, Green Hotel Certification will initiate sales and marketing efforts in North, Central and South America, the Caribbean, and Europe, the first regions targeted for the co-branding program.
Under terms of the definitive agreement, Green Globe International has licensed to Green Certifications the use of its brand and logo mark in conjunction with Green Hotel Certification of tourism properties as sustainable businesses.
In exchange for the use of the Green Globe brand, Green Certifications, which owns Green Hotel Certification, will pay a licensing fee to Green Globe International for use of the brand equal to a percentage of gross revenues received by Green Certifications from its clients.
"We are pleased to have reached this definitive agreement with Green Certifications so that the marketing of our co-branded Green Globe/Green Hotel Certification program can begin immediately," stated Bradley Cox, chief operating officer of Green Globe International. "We have worked closely with Green Hotel Certification to assemble the materials necessary to effectively sell the dual certification to hotel and resort customers in the targeted markets. We believe that Green Hotel Certification brings to this co-branding effort a highly effective sales and service team, which will articulate to the marketplace the power of the combined brands."
"A strong brand supported by an efficient sales and service team will make all the difference in the world. The Green Globe / Green Hotel Certification product will deliver both operational savings as well as immediate recognition in the market place," commented Guido Bauer, President of Green Certifications, Inc.
The Green Globe brand and program, which traces its roots back to the United Nations Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit in 1992, where 182 Heads of State endorsed the Agenda 21 principles of Sustainable Development, has primarily been used in the travel and tourism industry but is now being expanded to include a growing number of environmentally responsible businesses in a variety of market sectors. The Green Globe brand is an ideal symbol for the world's increasing awareness of environmental responsibility and response to global climate change.
Green Globe International, an affiliate member of the United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO), has endorsed the efforts of the United Nations Foundation, Rainforest Alliance, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the UNWTO in launching the Global Sustainable Tourism Criteria (GSTC).
Green Globe International (www.greenglobeint.com) encourages all shareholders and others interested in following the progress of the company to subscribe to receive email alerts whenever new information is made public. To subscribe, please visit http://www.greenglobeint.com/stayconnected/email/.
About Green Hotel Certification
Green Hotel Certification is a leading third party certification based on internationally accepted documentation. The seal is an independent recognition of sustainability efforts. Environmental and cultural levels as well as Corporate Social Responsibilities are benchmarked against the highest worldwide principles. Its object is to introduce and strengthen sustainability and social practices at all levels of management in the hospitality industry. The Green Hotel Certification seal also provides a distinguished promotional tool to reach a growing environmentally-aware global consumer market. Green Hotel Certification offers a completely paperless certification process which guarantees an efficient process. Through this system, properties are updated on a constant basis to ensure highest international standards. Its dedicated auditors work on-site, performing evaluation, implementation, solution-finding and training throughout. More information on Green Hotel Certification can be found at www.greenhotelcertification.com.
About Green Hotel Certification
armyseal- there have been so many plays,
like SLJB, to name one, in which you had a passing interest. I agree, it has all been very disappointing.
All the DD in the world will be ignored,
if the company is silent running. That last PR could have been much more detailed. And a contract needs to be announced for this stock to be priced at a penny or two. It is not up to us. It is up to Royis and Mike Ward.
We can "collectively increase Ecoloclean's visibility and their credibility" with well founded DD information once the company let's the cat out of the bag. Until then, we would just be "pumpers". Keep yer powder dry and be ready to publish when the company does. Seems like they will always understate the facts.
But I tell you all this, the Barnett Shale play is only going to be BIG for the next 12 months. There are hundreds of drilling rigs down there, and those wells are depleted in months, not years. The Shale will be depleted in the three main Texas counties in the next 12 months. But there is going to be other play(s) farther North, and Environmental issues will only become more pressing as the climate changes and the rape of the earth becomes more obvious. Where do folks thing the epidemic of childhood autism is coming from? Pollution of heavy metals in water, food and air. What will it take to wake up the dead? Things were different 50 years ago in our environment. But people still behave like it is 1908.
Who 'nose, but I'm holding
and doing DD on the funnmentals. Good luck.
The MSTF mentioned below looks for real too. Lot's of GOOD ideas for a 20 bagger on this board.
Keep an eye on ECCI
just a hunch.
You wrote:
WHY THIS WILL BE THE TOP BOARD ON IHUB
STBP from .0001 to .51
QMNM from.0008 to .0726
TWKGQ from .0002 to .06....just to name a few..
GROUND FLOOR BABY
Nice chart- GREAT OBV & other indicators:
That's what we are talkin' about here! The Price Pattern, as charted, is looking like a compressed spring = power. I have seen this before as a prelude to big moves. ECCI can't go much lower, so UP is the most probable direction to run. 20 bagger?
I started buying again this week because,
I don't think ECCI will be selling this cheap much longer.
http://www.woodmacresearch.com/cgi-bin/wmprod/portal/energy/highlightsDetail.jsp?oid=1102469
"Our view is that the Barnett Shale, as an aggregate, probably has one more year of decent growth, and that's 2009," said Mark Papa, chief executive of EOG Resources, a Barnett Shale production company.
"By year-end 2009, we believe Johnson County is going to be pretty well drilled up by all operators," Mr. Papa told analysts in July.
"That's going to remove a lot of the thrust."
Other production company brass put the peak a year or two later, but most agree that the natural gas field may have only a few more years of growth.
Already data from the Railroad Commission show production has been declining nearly every month this year.
This can be explained partly by another set of data: rig count.
The number of rigs drilling wells in North Texas has been stable for months, around 255 rigs, according to data from oilfield services company Baker Hughes.
But producers must add rigs all the time to keep production volumes rising.
A Barnett Shale natural gas well gives up around 65 percent of its gas in the first year and around 80 percent in the first two years. The only way to replace that production is to drill more wells.
"I would guess you got maybe two or three more years of growth," XTO Energy president Keith Hutton said in the summer. "And it will slow, because people have to pick up rigs in order to make it keep growing. You've got to add rigs at least 10 percent or 15 percent every year to keep that kind of growth pace."
THERE WILL BE BILLIONS OF GALLONS OF FLOWBACK AND PRODUCTION WATER FROM FRAC THAT NEEDS TO CLEANED! ECCI IS IN THE RIGHT PLACE AT THE RIGHT TIME.
I wasn't the only or first one to say
the testing was on Devon wells. Jay Ewing, manager of Devon said as much too and so did FQ's Jack Pearson did say it (2+2=4):
http://www.fwbog.com/index.php?page=article&article=18
"...“We are pleased with the progress of our recycling program to this point, and we are looking forward to continued development,” Ewing said. “We are actively testing other technologies and we are looking to improve the efficiency of our current system. “Over time, we hope to expand our effort to include produced water as well as flow-back water.”
Brent Halldorson, a professional engineer and chief operations officer for Aqua-Pure, added that the type of water being dealt with in the Barnett Shale “is extremely hard to treat because of the variability. It is highly variable in composition -- the longer it is under ground the more salt it picks up,” Halldorson added. The water “is also highly variable due to the chemicals added by the frac companies. Regionally, the water changes within the Barnett Shale due to differences in the subsurface conditions. So now we are not dealing with treating a ‘known entity,’ we are treating a wide spectrum of highly contaminated wastewater that varies from day to day, truck to truck.”
That being said, “the more people getting in and recycling water the better - there is definitely enough to go around,” Halldorson asserted. “It took us four years of hard work to get our systems to the point where they are getting good recovery.”
Fountain Quail’s Business Development Leader Jack Pearson, who offices in Acton (near Granbury), said in May that Devon remains Fountain Quail Water Management’s(FQWM) primary customer in the Barnett Shale (BS) for now. In May 2008, FQWM had nine water treatment units on the ground in the BS at four Devon locations (Circle R near Bono, West Crossroads near Godley, Johnson near Decatur, and McCurdy near Justin)."
YESTERDAY'S ECCI PR SAID THE 10 DAY TEST WAS AT FQWM'S WEST CROSSROADS PROJECT!
This is all public record stuph from DD- not inside info, leaks or fantasy MSU.
Water recycling debate has many sides
BY JOHN-LAURENT TRONCHE
March 24, 2008
Natural gas operators are examining water recycling as a method to curtail their water usage and demand, but current technology still renders the process less economical than the alternative of simply disposing of the post-drilling, contaminated fluid.
Spurred by residents’ concerns about pollution and water usages, and the industry’s desire to keep costs down, some area operators are pursuing new technologies with the hopes of recycling the water, which could eventually eliminate the need for disposal wells and expensive transportation while ensuring the operators a good standing in the community.
About 3.75 million gallons of water are used for each natural gas well, and what fluid doesn’t remain – or disappear – underground is recaptured either as flow-back water or produced water, both of which are chloride contaminated and need to be managed.
Traditionally, both fluids are inspected in saltwater disposal wells that send the fluids into underground rock formations, where they remain. There are more than 50,000 disposal wells across Texas that serve the more than 216,000 gas wells in the state, according to the Railroad Commission of Texas, which regulates the industry’s subsurface water use.
The saltwater disposal wells are controversial, however, because detractors argue the highly corrosive water could escape and pollute city-used water tables. In October 2007, the Fort Worth City Council enacted a moratorium on these wells, due to expire April 30. However, the city council is expected to extend the measure. Transporting the fluids to these wells is also expensive, representing one of the major costs gas operators incur during the process.
Washing the water
Oklahoma-based Devon Energy Corp. has used a Canadian water treatment technology since 2005 to reclaim and recycle some of the flow-back water and some of the produced water. Devon’s nine mobile heated distillation units, or NOMADs, reclaim and recycle about 24 percent of the 3.5 million gallons of water used during the fracing processes.
The NOMAD systems are designed and built by Aqua-Pure Ventures Inc., based in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, and operated by Granbury-based Fountain Quail Water Management, a subsidiary of Aqua-Pure. In short, the NOMADs use an evaporator and a compressor to treat waters up to saturation, or about 40,000 total dissolved solids, recycling about 80 percent of the inlet water.
“What we’re doing is boiling off the steam, and as the steam evaporates it’s ‘pured,’” said Pat Horner, an engineering team leader at Fountain Quail. “It leaves behind all the contaminants in a concentrate, so we can take that steam and just condense that into pure, distilled water, and take the concentrate away.”
Fountain Quail soon could find competition in another water treatment technology company looking to break into the lucrative Barnett Shale market, Utah-based 212 Resources.
Some Barnett Shale operators have toured 212 Resources’ Wyoming facilities, and the company hopes to sign contracts soon, said Robert Waits, 212 Resources’ executive vice president for business and government affairs, who declined to name the operators.
There are similarities in the Fountain Quail and 212 Resources platforms – both can be powered by on-site natural gas, both use evaporation and distillation technologies – but the latter currently uses a different method of heat transfer, allowing the machines to handle higher Total Dissolved Solids or T.D.S. content, which includes chlorides, and produce a higher concentration of salt brine, Waits said.
“There are technologies handling the flow-back water, and handling it very well,” Waits said. “[The flow-back water] has very low T.D.S. and is pretty good shape coming in, and that’s not to talk critically of other technology. Where we come in is the produced water. It has as much as three to four times the T.D.S. of the flow-back water and No. 1: most processes can’t even deal with it, and No. 2: they can’t concentrate it enough.
“Each technology has its best use, and we focus on these high T.D.S. waters that have the hydrocarbons in them, and we’re able to take it as high as it is, 110,000 parts per million, and concentrate it to 260,000.”
At the behest of Devon, however, Fountain Quail has been modifying the NOMADs for the past six months to enable the machines to reach for higher T.D.S. levels.- (Crusader question-ECCI??? Compare to yesterday's PR)
Another difference between the two technologies is the idea behind their existence. For example, 212 Resources’ PODs act as a miniature recycling facility, while Fountain Quail’s NOMAD system serves as a transportable and modular technology with a 20 foot by 60 foot footprint.
“It doesn’t make sense to build a permanent recycling facility because you’re going to have to move it in six months to a year,” said Horner, adding a central recycling facility to serve all wells wouldn’t remove the problem of transportation costs.
The PODs are a 40 foot by 60 foot, enclosed machine that represent a different theory behind how operators might recycle water.
“They’re transportable, but they’re not mobile,” Waits said. “They’re not intended to move more than once or twice a year, but we anticipate building fixed, central plants, but not necessarily in the Barnett Shale … The economies of scale has to do with how one gathers and redistributes the water, whether by trucks or by pipeline.”
The final difference between the two machines is their applicability in an urban gas drilling environment. Devon Energy has no plans to use the NOMAD systems in a neighborhood environment, due to the technology’s necessary and large, water-holding tank, piping and tubing to connect the two, and transport trucks to move the water to and from the site.
The POD systems could be used in an urban environment, however, even though the machines require the same tank, tubes and trucks, said Waits, adding the technology’s enclosed construction makes noise more bearable and manageable.
What it all costs
Fountain Quail and 212 Resources declined to disclose the machines’ daily operating costs, but according to Devon’s Jay Ewing, completion/construction supervisor, the Fountain Quail system costs about $3.35 per barrel, about 68 percent more than the $2 cost if post-fracing water is simply disposed of.
Waits said he could not provide a cost per barrel, and declined to name the Wyoming operator set to use the POD machine.
However the costs end up, persuading the industry to take a chance on these firms’ products is going to be a balancing act between environmental stewardship and bottom-line economics, said Robert Grable, a partner at Fort Worth-based Kelly Hart & Hallman.
“I think there is going to have to be a general understanding of the technology and how far it can go,” said Grable, “and an appreciation that the current technology is not static if the operator is willing to invest in something that won’t handle all of his water right now.”
Investing in the technologies today is a hope that in the future the costs will decrease and the efficiency will increase, said Grable, but he added if the operators view the technology as “grossly uneconomic,” they’re unlikely to buy into it.
In addition to cost, drillers must contend with the public’s perception of the industry.
Natural gas drillers have a responsibility to practice environmental stewardship and the community needs to get active to work with the industry, said James Samudio, a Fort Worth environmentalist and water conservation supporter.
“I was against urban drilling since the get-go,” Samudio said, “but now that they’re here, we need to be proactive and get behind the companies who can save our water.”
The industry recognizes that fact, too, Grable said.
“I think operators have a self interest in reducing potential conflicts with landowners in the broader community, and many – if not most – have a sense of public responsibility.”
Waits agrees.
“I see it as beyond [public relations], although there’s certainly a PR aspect to it,” Waits said, “but I think there really is a conscientious effort to try to conserve resources or to steward resources. And it takes some companies longer than others to get there, but we’ve found intense interest.
“I’ve not yet met a producer that says I don’t care,” he said.
http://www.fwbusinesspress.com/display.php?id=7232
Contact Tronche at jtronche@bizpress.net
ECCI EDGAR filing 07/29/03:
http://sec.edgar-online.com/2003/07/29/0001010549-03-000399/Section13.asp
HOW ECCI OBTAINED THE TECHNOLOGY:
"...1.(a) Licensors grant to Licensee (ECCI) an industry exclusive, irrevocable (except as provided pursuant to Subsection 5 hereof), perpetual and worldwide right and license under the Patents (hereinafter defined) and under the Information
(hereinafter defined) to manufacture and have manufactures, use, market, and have marketed, sell and have sold, lease and have leased, or otherwise dispose of or have disposed of, Product Units based on or relating to the Inventions.
The industry exclusivity shall apply to the Petroleum exploration, petroleum chemical, transportation and refining industry. The right and license herein granted shall apply to all inventions, improvements, patent applications and
letters patent which the Licensors (or either of them) now own or control (whether wholly or partially), or hereafter may own or control (whether wholly or partially), and which relate to the Inventions, including, without
limitation, U.S. Patent No. 6,238546, issued to (Licensors) Louis A. Knieper, Gary A. Tipton and Daniel G. Noyes on May 29, 2001 (collectively, the "Patents"), and to all information and documents which the Licensors (or either of them) now own or control (whether wholly or partially), or hereafter may own or control (whether
wholly or partially), and which relate to the Inventions (the"Information")..."
TRADE JOURNAL ARTICLE:
Electrocoagulation Technology Keeps Site In Operation, Meets Regulatory Requirements
An oily water treatment facility on the Sabine River near Port Arthur, Texas, was not in compliance and had a large inventory of wastewater on site.
- Louis H. Knieper
"An oily water treatment facility on the Sabine River near Port Arthur, Texas, was not in compliance and had a large inventory of wastewater on site. Gulf Coast Environmental, LP had been operating a chemical/biological based water treatment facility. The plant received water from barge washout, bilge pump-out, tank truck washout, petroleum production, and oily water from spill cleanup. Over 900,000 gallons of wastewater were on hand and regulatory agencies were threatening when the facility contacted Ecoloquip, Inc. of Houston to assist.
Samples from eight of the 23 storage tanks were collected for evaluation at Ecoloquip's treatability lab. Each sample was different in appearance and chemical composition. The facility did not control acceptance and wastewater was mixed into a number of holding tanks. Each sample was tested for treatability using the bench scale JOULE EC» electrocoagulation device.
All eight samples displayed a positive reaction to the electrocoagulation technology. The JOULE EC was effective at releasing the organic material and the suspended solids, leaving a clear aqueous layer. Subsequent chemical analysis indicated >90% reduction in organic contamination and >95% reduction in the concentration of toxic metals.
The water quality from the treatability tests was beyond expectations and personnel from the facility and the regulatory agencies were skeptical. Ecoloquip provided a trailer-mounted pilot test unit to process wastewater on site. After several delays due to schedule conflicts from the interested parties, the unit began processing wastewater within 30 minutes of arrival. Storage tanks were selected at random and 1,000 gallons were treated from each tank. The processing rate was between 15 and 20 gallons per minute.
Only two tanks were tested per day due to the need for free-oil skimming, coarse solids removal and pH adjustment prior to treatment. On-site testing confirmed that the JOULE EC technology was meeting or exceeding the target quality limits for COD, TSS, oil and grease, and turbidity. Laboratory testing confirmed the efficiency and effectiveness of the technology on the ten tanks sampled and processed. For future processing, the COD, pH, and turbidity were selected as indicator parameters by the owner, operator, regulators, and Ecoloquip.
The owner contracted with Ecoloquip and its agent ENSERCO, Inc. for the use of a portable JOULE EC electrocoagulation unit. Ecoloquip also provided a portable bench-scale testing unit to evaluate each storage tank prior to treatment. In addition to the electrocoagulation unit, two API separators, an oil water separator, an inclined plate clarifier and a pH controller were used to produce treated water. ENSERCO provided trained technicians and operators for the project. One technician and two operators were necessary to provide 24-hour operation of the JOULE EC-based system.
The equipment was mounted on a 28-ft. trailer and delivered to the site. The owner provided electrical power through a 220VAC, 60 amps circuit. Within one hour, the treatment plant was operational and wastewater was processed from the first storage tank.
Continuous sampling and testing verified the effectiveness of treatment. Treated water was to be discharged to the biological treatment unit at the facility. The added treatment was necessary for removal of the remaining organic compounds. This unit was not operational at the time due to the loading of waste material prior to the arrival of Ecoloquip.
In order to maintain the schedule, an Ecoloquip Bioreactor was provided that was able to breakdown the remaining organic materials within the 12-hour retention time. The product was discharge quality water significantly below the permit requirements. Standard facility operation required as much as 18 days for complete processing of wastewater through the chemical/biological treatment units. Ecoloquip had a complete, continuous flow treatment plant on site within one week of mobilization. Wastewater was processed at the average rate of 25 gallons per minute.
During the third week of operation, the owner declared bankruptcy and the project was terminated. Ecoloquip had processed and discharged over 300,000 gallons of wastewater at a cost to the client of $0.05 per gallon plus electricity. Alternatives for wastewater disposal were priced from $0.08 to $0.18 per gallon. After Ecoloquip moved off site, the U.S. Coast Guard and the Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission pressured the responsible parties and the Bankruptcy Court to remove additional wastewater from several tanks. The wastewater was transported to another facility at the cost of $0.25 per gallon plus transportation. Sludge also was removed for disposal at a RCRA TSDF at a cost of $400 per ton plus transportation, and storage tanks were dismantled or removed.
The facility was later purchased from bankruptcy with permits intact by EcoWater, L.L.P. Michael Laws, president of EcoWater, said, "The facility came with hundreds of thousands of gallons of contaminated water ranging from extremely contaminated to fairly clean. There was no inventory, no records of origin, and no information of contamination. After we acquired the site, several individuals expressed concern, stating that their knowledge of the site lead them to believe that it would wind up under Superfund. I was informed by a representative of the TNRCC that the TNRCC had anticipated a cleanup cost of between one and two million dollars."
EcoWater became aware of Ecoloquip due to ongoing operations in the United Kingdom and from the site history. Ecoloquip was contracted to provide the treatment unit for remediation and to design a full-scale treatment system capable of processing 100,000 gallons per day, expandable to 300,000 gallons per day. Ecoloquip immediately returned the trailer-mounted JOULE EC treatment system. Staff and associates of Ecoloquip devised a cleanup protocol and reconfigured the available facility equipment to optimize on-going treatment.
Ecoloquip provided training for EcoWater personnel and they operated the transportable unit with the assistance of a technician. The biological treatment unit at the facility was restructured and made operational as a bioreactor. Using the electrocoagulation technology and the equipment available, inventoried wastewater was processed at rates of up to 50 gallons per minute. The results of treatment were significantly better than required by permit. Laws wrote, "These impossible circumstances may have created the best testimony of your technology. The [JOULE] EC, in reality, acted as an equalizer, removing 70Ü99%+ of the contaminants and creating a clean, stable, safe flow of water very treatable with a biological system for polishing."
Ecoloquip delivered a permanent electrocoagulation unit to the EcoWater facility last month. In addition, EcoWater has selected the URRICHEM¬ chemical fixation technology, offered through Ecoloquip, to process the solids removed from the wastewater - rendering them a nonhazardous industrial waste."
By:
Louis H. Knieper is the president of Ecoloqip, Inc., Houston, TX;
Never a dull moment here,
100% gain today.
Don't let your children grow up to be
investors. Thanks, Willie!
Depends what you mean by trendy,
short or long trend.