Oil containment barrier boom for shorelines/marshes/wetlands

Abstract

This new design/invention is a Continuance-In-Part application Ser. No. 13/068,983 extension of the Oil Containment Barrier Boom for Shorelines/Marshes/Wetlands.

Description

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

FIG. 1

Illustrates the physical dimensions of a standard bale of Bermuda Straw, raw as shipped, baled and aligned to be inserted into a biodegradable burlap receptacle/bag as it is being prepared to be sewn and enclosed with one end closed as a gusset and the opposite end with a one foot loose overlap of the burlap in order to accommodate another bale/module in order to be joined/connected to form a section of a chain wall barrier.

FIG. 2

Shows two bales/modules connected and secured with Teflon reinforced straps at the joint as well as the entire new section of the extended module bound also both vertically and horizontally and strapped.

FIG. 3

Depicts the connected two bales/modules with a covered overlap of biodegradable burlap material secured to each adjacent edge via Teflon ties creating an approximate one foot section split evenly forming a continuous covering for that new extended module.

FIG. 4

Illustrates the newly formed extended module with the covered joint and secured strapping with the one foot overlap extension of the biodegradable burlap sack with Teflon ties ready to accommodate another section with a closed/gusset end for further extension of a barrier wall, as needed, and preparing for the process of anchoring same to the selected steel or wooden fence posts, securing same to adhere to the contour of the landscape shorelines.

FIG. 5

Shows a typical extended section of barrier boom for an offset contour simulation of wetland shoreline/shoals.

FIG. 6

Illustrates a simulation of a section of Boom modules connected together and anchored, adjacent to the shoreline of the wetland marshes, to fence posts.

It is noted that the embodiments described herein in detail for exemplary purposes are of course subject to many different variations in structure, design, application and methodology. Because many varying and different embodiments may be made within the scope of the inventive concept (s) herein taught, and because many modifications may be made in the embodiments herein detailed in accordance with the descriptive requirements of the law, it is understood that the details herein are to be interpreted as illustrative and not in a limiting sense.

It should also be noted that the general rule is for anyone skilled in the subject matter should understand and allow for related improvements and changes that do not change the entire scope and objective of a new invention without a limiting challenge to its object and intention. The latter should include both Provisional and/or Utility patents.

Claims

10. The method of claim 5 is designed and served to function as a temporary remedy to treat an average short term oil spill based on days and weeks and not long term months or years while never an intention of a permanent containment barrier.

11. The demand and use of claim 10 beyond an average short term oil spill will require the necessary maintenance and/or replacement of modules proportionate to the length/time of the disaster.

12. The second preferred embodiment, an oil containment barrier/boom (Boom II) is composed of the basic designs in claims 1 through 4 and is modified to address and combat conditions to prevent oil and tar balls intrusion in the deeper adjacent depths of the marshes/wetlands shoreline shoals.

13. The basic module of claim 12 is modified and affixed with a hinged metal filter frame/receptacle that provides single and/or double filter surface area in a closed vertical position or in an extended vertical open adjusted to depth limitations desired of the shoreline shoals.

14. The design and method of adapting the filter rack/frame to the basic bale module of claim 13 is achieved by connecting the metal frame to the Teflon strapping securing the basic module that is encased in the biodegradable burlap material.

15. The method of installing the environmentally friendly filter/oil blanket of claims 13 and 14 is to secure the desired one layer or two layer filter medium to the vertical or the extended vertical devices, if opened, with Teflon wire ties that serve to connect the filter to the wire frame in multiple positions that prevent the slipping/sliding of the filter while performing its function; (a) at the time the filter becomes loaded/full of contaminate and requires changing/replacement the Teflon ties supporting the filter media are cut with snips allowing for the replacement filter to be installed in it's place, followed by the same initial procedure of installation of same.

16. The added advantage of claim 15; filtering is that the life of the absorbent straw module is extended and reduces replacement tasks in addition to reaching varying areas and depths while preventing the intrusion of oil/tar balls into the marshes/wetlands.

17. The same installation approach that the first preferred embodiment incorporates in claim 4, applies and allows for connecting modules in chain wall fashion and adjusting to the contour of shorelines/shoals.

18. As in claim 8, the option to aid buoyancy by incorporating the cork board in the bottom of the module, as required, applies also to the second preferred embodiment; oil containment barrier (Boom II).

19. Conversely, as opposed to the existing boom of rubberized/plastic/cylindrical products that were designed to harness and contain oil residue in the open/deeper waters that required boat driven assistance and were not applicable for successful use in the marshes/wetlands and inland waters; bayou's and canals. (a) as shown from exhibits/pictures they were miserable failures near the shorelines and posed a threat to further inland damage by allowing oil and contaminants to go over and under the boom with wind driven waves and tides.(b) there were no major storms and/or hurricanes that obviously would have caused extensive damage and penetration from these devices.

20. As in claim 19 illustrates and as shown in exhibits/pictures the approved boom in the specifications did not perform in the wetland areas and was mal suited for those conditions, while in fact, posed a threat for further damage to the wetlands as compared to either; oil containment barrier modules (boom I) or (Boom II) as proposed; (a) since the materials used in these modules is environmentally friendly and would actually enhance the restoring of the wetlands/marshes by serving as a base/compost with microbes and nutrients, if impacted by hurricanes and/or severe storms.