John Hoffer
Guest
Steven:
You make a good point. Spec tanks are not inviolate. If a tank is dangerous, DOT is gonna pull the tank off the market--spec or exempt, it won't matter.
But that is a risk all tanks have. My point was that exempt tanks have an additional risk that I didn't know about. How much of a risk is presented from losing the exemption is difficult for me to assess, and I have just begun to look into it. I was anticipating some insightful comments, like yours, which is why I enjoy this board so much.
Here was my first thought after learning about the renewal process for exempt tanks: I figure that I can dive 20 to 25 year more years. What are the odds that a third world country, say China, gets into the cylinder production game? If its cheap labor out competes other tank manufacturers, could the price pressure put PST out of business within the next ten or twenty years? If PST derives only 10% of their gross revenues from SCUBA tank sales, and the rest is from acetylene tanks, liquid petroleum tanks, etc., a low price producer could put PST into chapter 7 (preceded by chapter 11) without ever making a single SCUBA tank. In that case, the avenue of third-party renewal becomes important.
PST is an easy case because they have a lot of tanks out there. In my worst case scenario above, there will probably be a third-party exemption renewal. A less widely sold HP tank is more problematic, which is why this whole issue may auger in favor of PST to the detriment of smaller HP SCUBA tank manufacturers.
In my conversation with DOT today, I learned that many tank exemptions have a renewal period that is specific to the exemption, i.e., you have to review the exemption, not DOT regulations, to see when it comes up for renewal. It is common for the renewal period to be much longer than two years.
You make a good point. Spec tanks are not inviolate. If a tank is dangerous, DOT is gonna pull the tank off the market--spec or exempt, it won't matter.
But that is a risk all tanks have. My point was that exempt tanks have an additional risk that I didn't know about. How much of a risk is presented from losing the exemption is difficult for me to assess, and I have just begun to look into it. I was anticipating some insightful comments, like yours, which is why I enjoy this board so much.
Here was my first thought after learning about the renewal process for exempt tanks: I figure that I can dive 20 to 25 year more years. What are the odds that a third world country, say China, gets into the cylinder production game? If its cheap labor out competes other tank manufacturers, could the price pressure put PST out of business within the next ten or twenty years? If PST derives only 10% of their gross revenues from SCUBA tank sales, and the rest is from acetylene tanks, liquid petroleum tanks, etc., a low price producer could put PST into chapter 7 (preceded by chapter 11) without ever making a single SCUBA tank. In that case, the avenue of third-party renewal becomes important.
PST is an easy case because they have a lot of tanks out there. In my worst case scenario above, there will probably be a third-party exemption renewal. A less widely sold HP tank is more problematic, which is why this whole issue may auger in favor of PST to the detriment of smaller HP SCUBA tank manufacturers.
In my conversation with DOT today, I learned that many tank exemptions have a renewal period that is specific to the exemption, i.e., you have to review the exemption, not DOT regulations, to see when it comes up for renewal. It is common for the renewal period to be much longer than two years.
