Slashdot Mirror


It's Time To Plug the Loopholes In Pipeline Regulation

Hugh Pickens DOT Com (2995471) writes "Congresswoman Janice Hahn writes in the Daily Breeze that thousands of gallons of crude oil spilled onto a residential street in Wilmington, California when an idle pipeline burst in a residential neighborhood, wreaking havoc on the lives of families who live in the community. "With a noxious smell and the sounds of jackhammers engulfing the community, the residential neighborhood turned into a toxic waste site in less than an hour," says Hahn. "The smell was nauseating and unbearable. Extensive drilling on the street is causing damage to driveways and even cracking tile flooring inside homes. Residents have seen their lawns die within a two-week span and they worry that the soil may be toxic. Several residents have suffered from eye irritation, nausea, headaches and dizziness due to the foul oil odor, including an elderly woman who has lived in Wilmington for more than 20 years." (More, below.) "The 10-inch pipeline is owned by Phillips 66, who initially said it was almost positive that the company was not to blame for the leak and declined to elaborate on why the unused 10-inch pipeline was filled with crude oil. Hahn says current loopholes in pipeline regulation are inexcusable and has called for a congressional hearing to examine regulations for pipeline safety and plans to introduce legislation that will specifically require that all abandoned or idle pipelines are routinely inspected. "The Wilmington community deserves answers and support from Phillips 66 and handing out gift cards and breakfast burritos to the residents is not in any way a substitute for transparency and accountability to the community," concludes Hahn. "This oil spill could have been prevented. With prudent oversight, we can make sure that the industries our communities rely on are also good neighbors and ensure that an incident like this never happens again.""

163 comments

  1. Likely "squatters" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unused pipelines sometimes get tapped between two places to transport illicit oil or other substances. Nobody ever checks in on abandoned resource assets so it's not that difficult to "squat" on them.

  2. No problem! by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    All the residents capable of retaining counsel and fighting a decade-long war of attrition with a superior force can simply achieve redress for this tort through the courts! (until we tort-reform that away). Any of the sickies who 'die' before 'the lawsuit even finishes 250,000 pages of discovery' clearly just didn't care enough about righting the wrongs done to them, so they probably deserve them.

    1. Re:No problem! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So it's ok to poison your water supply to the point of making you ill, simply because you drink water?

    2. Re:No problem! by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      So you won't have a problem if I dump a few hundred gallons of crude in your living roon.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    3. Re:No problem! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I will have a problem with that. And I'll probably sue you. I probably *won't* die from "oil sickness".

    4. Re:No problem! by sjames · · Score: 1

      This was crude oil, not the stuff you put in your car.

    5. Re:No problem! by demonlapin · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I find it difficult to believe that the oil industry in California is under-regulated. And yet all those rules failed to stop this leak.

    6. Re:No problem! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's because you naively believe that California is effectively regulated.

      The California electric crisis proved the lie in that, despite the number of people who mistakenly believed that it was due to power production being stymied by regulation, the reality was significantly due to deregulation.

    7. Re:No problem! by HornWumpus · · Score: 0

      The California power crises happened during the move from regulation to deregulation.

      The system is running fine, now that the hangover from regulation has cleared.

      The fact is that generation was underbuilt by the regulated system. The power pool rules were defective in that they didn't cap the market.

      Players bet their companies on the first summer and were bailed out of their fuckup. But it was for the last time.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    8. Re:No problem! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      It was a crude analogy, not the stuff you put cars in.

    9. Re:No problem! by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      So you won't have a problem if I dump a few hundred gallons of crude in your living roon.

      As long as I can leave my car idling in your bedroom. See? To much of anything can be bad.

    10. Re:No problem! by houstonbofh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ...But it was for the last time.

      Talk about naive...

    11. Re:No problem! by mspohr · · Score: 4, Informative

      There was plenty of generating capacity.
      The crisis was created by market manipulation by Enron and others. They were able to manipulate the market because it was DE-regulated.
      Now that we have better regulations in place, the market is working better.
      From Wikipedia:
      California had an installed generating capacity of 45GW. At the time of the blackouts, demand was 28GW. A demand supply gap was created by energy companies, mainly Enron, to create an artificial shortage. Energy traders took power plants offline for maintenance in days of peak demand to increase the price.[9][10] Traders were thus able to sell power at premium prices, sometimes up to a factor of 20 times its normal value. Because the state government had a cap on retail electricity charges, this market manipulation squeezed the industry's revenue margins, causing the bankruptcy of Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) and near bankruptcy of Southern California Edison in early 2001.[11]
      The financial crisis was possible because of partial deregulation legislation instituted in 1996 by the California Legislature (AB 1890) and Governor Pete Wilson. Enron took advantage of this deregulation and was involved in economic withholding and inflated price bidding in California's spot markets.[12]
      The crisis cost between $40 to $45 billion.[13]

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    12. Re:No problem! by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Many of the plants had been run for years without maintenance, were at the end of their lives and had just changed hands and in many cases crews.

      Much of that installed capacity was not available as the system was _out of water_. Very dry hydro year.

      This is exactly the kind of subject never to trust Wikipedia about.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    13. Re:No problem! by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Do you have any idea how power pools work? It's a market now, like it or not. PG&E's service area is now shrinking in a long term unstoppable way. Watch for SF to pull their PUD out again. ;-)

      Granting other parts of the nation haven't moved past rate base so there is still lots of regulator liability left in areas.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    14. Re:No problem! by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      All it would take is for a minor bubble and value crash to endanger a few of the big providers now, and half would get bail outs. You don't want the power market going out of business, do you?

    15. Re:No problem! by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 4, Informative

      The system is running fine, now that the hangover from regulation has cleared.

      The system is running fine, now that Enron is out of business and the top con men put in jail or (in the case of Lay) dead. (Not for defrauding the people of California-- that's not a crime-- but for defrauding their own company as well, resulting in crash of value of the stock.

      --
      http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    16. Re:No problem! by mspohr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I should trust you?
      The Wikipedia article has 36 references.
      Where are your references for your theory?

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    17. Re:No problem! by tomhath · · Score: 1

      According to the LA Times "Phillips' crews would steam clean the street and that repairs would be completed in a week.". It's a very minor spill and short term inconvenience for a couple of dozen families. Oh, and it won't effect the decision to build the Keystone pipeline.

    18. Re:No problem! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      first question: which was there first, the pipeline or the subdivision?

      second question: is anyone going after the developer of the subdivision?

    19. Re:No problem! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is it difficult to believe? We are spoonfed on the notion that the heart of politics, which sets regulation, requires compromise. And if you begin a debate over regulation with reasonable safety requirements and assume that anything that reduces profit is a "burden" to be born by industry (the libertarian/conservative mantra) then the million$ spent by business to hire lobbyists have only 1 goal. Lobbyists earn their fees by convincing legislators to reduce reasonable safety requirements based on a monetary scale where lobbyist's fees are the minimum necessary compromise necessary to justify the expense to the corporation.

      I don't see any evidence that lobbying congress has slowed down or commands lesser 'investment' from industry, therefore I must conclude they are effective and the compromise becomes a cost born by the consumer through watered down regulation which results in unsafe, unhealthy conditions for the public and greater profit for indUStry.

    20. Re:No problem! by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      If one of the wealthiest and bluest states in the country - cannot effectively regulate itself, then perhaps the problem is that regulations don't actually work very well.

    21. Re:No problem! by plover · · Score: 1

      I award you one Internets for that joke!

      --
      John
    22. Re:No problem! by tomhath · · Score: 1

      Did you even read the article? It appears they found the leak and contained most of it, not much was actually spilled. One backhoe digging a hole to fix the leak; cleanup will take a few days. Wouldn't effect the water supply or sewers.

    23. Re:No problem! by ffflala · · Score: 0, Troll

      Have you ever actually looked up a single California state regulation? CCR Title 8, Division 1, Chapter 4, Subchapter 14 "Petroleum Safety Orders -- Drilling and Precaution" is comprised of a "whopping" 56 articles. http://www.dir.ca.gov/title8/sub14.html. Most of those articles are comprised of 1 to 3 sections (sections are the individual 'regulations'.)

      Given how specific the equipment and services related to petroleum safety will necessarily be, that's... well it's actually not much regulation, AT ALL. Yet thanks to the tireless efforts of talking heads to plant into your head that (1) there are just too darn many regulations covering everything to the point that businesses can't operate, darnit, and (2) California is particularly over-regulated, you are part of millions of folks who simply guess, assume, and believe that over-regulation is actually a real thing, a real thing that is a problem.

      First off, your guess is inaccurate. Secondly: even if overregulation *were* an actual, real, not-being-made-up problem, seems like some additional paper pushing is less grave a price to pay than putting up with negligent industrial accidents that destroy neighborhoods, either through toxic exposure, explosions, or both.

    24. Re:No problem! by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      What? The market will not go out of business. Capital is relatively plentiful and there are many participants, many trying to geologically diversify. No economic plant will stay shutdown for long. The sooner uneconomic plants shutdown the better. That was the main point of power pools...

      What you describe might happen in areas still under rate base. Fortunately most power pools have been running for a decade now (without the drama we saw in CA). Only areas where the 'local' power companies have so much power (cough, Southern Company, cough) that market based systems are being delayed is bankruptcy and bailout still a possibility.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    25. Re:No problem! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's some pretty unpersuasive reasoning there. A lack of effective regulations does not mean that regulations do not work, any more than a badly swung hammer means you can't drive nails with one that is properly used.

      You might try establishing a better premise.

    26. Re:No problem! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What? Doesn't PG&E have a deal with Solaren for space-based solar power? They have less than two years left to get megawatts from the sky.

    27. Re:No problem! by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 1

      Meanwhile wallstreet and congress...

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    28. Re:No problem! by demonlapin · · Score: 1
      Are you seriously arguing that the quality of regulation should be judged by its length? Never mind that some of these 56 articles covering something less than 193 sections (some have been repealed, not going to bother going through them all) reference other sections, like this from section 6529:

      Every employer shall implement confined space procedures in accordance with the provisions of the General Industry Safety Orders, Article 108.

      Well, by your count that's one line, except that one line just embeds an entire set of other regulations.

      Incidentally, if California - a wealthy state with a high-tax, high-service approach to government - can't design effective regulation, doesn't that tell us that pretty much nobody is going to come up with good regulations?

    29. Re:No problem! by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      Government is not run by the Platonic ideal of disinterested technocrats; it is run by humans.

      The fact that these regulations didn't work doesn't mean regulation can't, but it does suggest at the least that the ones they have should be scrapped as ineffective and replaced.

    30. Re:No problem! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're the one who said "then perhaps the problem is that regulations don't actually work very well" so are you now retracting that claim?

    31. Re:No problem! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      remember that "deregulation" tripled the amount of regulation, making almost any safety improvement by PG&E impossible to accomplish legally.

    32. Re:No problem! by ffflala · · Score: 1
      Are you no longer maintaining that California state has overregulated the petroleum industry? Or are you just personally offended that someone pointed out that your guess was uninformed and wrong?

      Are you seriously arguing that the quality of regulation should be judged by its length?

      You guessed --wrongly-- that California has 'over-regulated' petroleum safety. I pointed out the minimal number of California regulations pertaining to petroleum safety. There's been nothing about 'length', line count, or word count of said regulations until you brought it up. Sounds like you didn't bother to actually look up any of the regs until someone bothered to correct you.

      Well, by your count that's one line, except that one line just embeds an entire set of other regulations.

      General Industrial Safety Orders are safety rules that apply to myriad industries --things like wear helmets and protective gear on-site. Cross-referencing more general regs is analogous to the concept of shared libraries.

    33. Re:No problem! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find it difficult to believe that the oil industry in California is under-regulated. And yet all those rules failed to stop this leak.

      Rand Paul 2012!

    34. Re:No problem! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find it difficult to believe that the oil industry in California is under-regulated. And yet all those rules failed to stop this leak.

      Ron Paul 2012!

    35. Re:No problem! by blue+trane · · Score: 2

      That's pretty glib. How can you say what the long-term consequences are? And who are you to proclaim what is inconvenient for others? Wait, are you being paid by the oil company to astroturf?

    36. Re:No problem! by blue+trane · · Score: 1

      The statement that the system was "_out of water_" is an exaggeration.

      According to http://www.sanfranciscobay.sie...:"The year 2000 was about average for rainfall (97% of typical precipitation)".

      Wikipedia says:

      In the summer of 2001 a drought in the northwest states reduced the amount of hydroelectric power available to California. Though at no point during the crisis was California's sum of actual electric-generating capacity plus out-of-state supply less than demand, California's energy reserves were low enough that during peak hours the private industry which owned power-generating plants could effectively hold the State hostage by shutting down their plants for "maintenance" in order to manipulate supply and demand. These critical shutdowns often occurred for no other reason than to force California's electricity grid managers into a position where they would be forced to purchase electricity on the "spot market", where private generators could charge astronomical rates.

    37. Re:No problem! by blue+trane · · Score: 1

      I think he wants to trust in the invisible hand to fix the very real problems. If the people affected don't like it, why don't they just move?

    38. Re:No problem! by blue+trane · · Score: 1

      Yeah let's have some REAL leaks like the Elk River spill in West Virginia!

    39. Re:No problem! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ya think they got them all?

      AC

    40. Re:No problem! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ya think he's actually dead? Heart attack, closed-coffin funereal, happens to be best pals with a guy whose Dad used to be Director of the CIA? (let alone President, Vice President, and the friend is President of the USA at the time...)

      Oh yeah, he's very much dead, in the Cayman Islands somewhere.

      AC

    41. Re:No problem! by dj245 · · Score: 1

      What? The market will not go out of business. Capital is relatively plentiful and there are many participants, many trying to geologically diversify. No economic plant will stay shutdown for long. The sooner uneconomic plants shutdown the better. That was the main point of power pools...

      What you describe might happen in areas still under rate base. Fortunately most power pools have been running for a decade now (without the drama we saw in CA). Only areas where the 'local' power companies have so much power (cough, Southern Company, cough) that market based systems are being delayed is bankruptcy and bailout still a possibility.

      The fundamental flaw in your argument is that you assume that uneconomic plants are not needed. This is far from true!! For the 1-5 hottest days of the year*, uneconomic plants are desperately needed when the rest of power is already used up. There are plenty of sites across the US which operate for less than 2 weeks a year, because they are for the greatest "peak of the peak". The power grid needs these plants just as badly as it needs the 24/7 coal/nuclear plant. But in a pure economic model, those handful of days a year aren't enough to justify maintaining that kind of plant. Speculating that the price will skyrocket on hottest of hot days enough to keep you solvent is very risky. It is also bad for society as a whole- society risks not having enough power AND is assured of higher electricity rates on hot days.

      In the old days, the utility would operate such plants since they relied on them. Nowadays, there are 2 kinds of power pools- those which subsidize this kind of plant and those which do not. In subsidized markets, they are paid a capacity payment every day which they are "ready". This kind of "payment for nothing" gives free-marketers heartburn however, so some markets don't do this, or don't do it as much as they need. Those markets are the ones which have huge problems on the hottest days, and because they are frequently on the edge of overcapacity, the price of electricity is always higher.

      Keep in mind that "idle plants" is a synonym to "overhead which isn't making me money". Private industry wants to keep the % of idle plants as low as possible.
      In regulated markets, the utility has the obligation to do what is best for their customers. It is better for their customers that the grid isn't near the edge of overcapacity on a daily basis. Their % of idle plants is higher as a result. With a larger pool of potential power available, the utility can use the cheapest generation on the majority of days, and keep the expensive power plants as a reserve for the very hottest days. The private industry model thinks those reserve plants are uneconomical, and so on the hottest days they get into trouble.

      For the end customer, private electricity markets will always be less predictable compared to a regulated market. Usually in a way which is not favorable to the customer.

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    42. Re:No problem! by jythie · · Score: 1

      Well, if they really cared they would simply earn more money and live elsewhere, after all since they had full awareness of everything around their property they choose to live with the risk of living near a pipeline and since opportunity is available to all they must be lazy since they choose to be poor, so this is really their fault.

    43. Re:No problem! by meustrus · · Score: 1

      I suppose you'd rather we read about it on Conservapedia. Well I tried to read about a few things there once. After only a couple hours of reading I had long passed the "don't trust Wikipedia, this is what *really* happened" stuff and had wandered strangely into a "nerds suck, jocks rule, god hates fags" shithole. Which is what happens when a web site based on countering perceived "bias" operates for years without any of the kind of (admittedly draconian at times) quality controls Wikipedia has in place.

      --
      I sometimes ask revealing, often ignorant-seeming questions. Maybe they're harder to answer than you think.
    44. Re:No problem! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you consider to be a proper amount of regulation? Given that California is the biggest pain in the arse compared to other states for a whole list of different things, I would be surprised that they aren't here also.

    45. Re:No problem! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More oil is probably dumped into the environment by naturally occurring oil seeps in the state of California. The "thousands of gallons" referenced by Ms Hahn was actually 1200.

    46. Re:No problem! by blue+trane · · Score: 1

      The article claims 70 barrels were leaked. One barrel is 42 US gallons. 70 * 42 = 2940 gallons. More than twice what you glibly wrote.

      Is the oil dumped naturally concentrated in one neighborhood? Does anyone live in the areas where that oil is naturally seeping?

      Your reasoning process contains a lot of handwaving.

    47. Re:No problem! by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      If your counting the number of articles and saying it isn't enough isn't a complaint about length, then what is it? Oh guru, tell me, how many articles does it take to properly regulate an oil industry? And if California - a wealthy, environmentally conscious state - can't do it adequately, then what hope do you have that anyone can?

    48. Re:No problem! by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      No, I'm juxtaposing can't and don't. When theory and reality diverge, which one needs to be updated?

    49. Re:No problem! by ffflala · · Score: 1

      Before you continue to proclaim your guess that "California is overregulated," you should at the very least familiarize yourself on a simple & cursory basis with California regulations (as well as federal regulations.) For some reason you seem to need to insist that "California regulations" are the reason that this pipeline broke and contaminated a neighborhood. Here are a few questions that should illustrate why your position seems to miss the mark.

      Are building codes responsible for construction failures due to faulty maintenance? Are automobile regulations responsible for most fatal car accidents? Are health industry regulations responsible for adult-onset diabetes?

      Next time you're about to press your 'overregulation is responsible' button, ask yourself: "Have I actually bothered to even take five minutes to look over these regulations?" If the answer to that is 'no', then you'll probably be able to make a more convincing argument if you take the time and effort to change that answer to 'yes.'

    50. Re:No problem! by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      My point is not that "overregulation is responsible for disasters"; my point is that "even overregulation does not prevent disasters".

    51. Re:No problem! by ffflala · · Score: 1

      And my point is that "this is not a case of overregulation." Your "overregulation" premise is faulty, here.

  3. Send them pizza by ATMAvatar · · Score: 4, Informative

    After all, everyone knows that free pizza makes everything better after an event like this.

    --
    "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    1. Re:Send them pizza by lonOtter · · Score: 1

      Fecal frenzy mathematics?

      --
      [End Of Line]
    2. Re:Send them pizza by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dammit dammit dammit, I knew someone would say it. I live in PA I read that from local papers before it was posted on /., and saw the reaction from residents it was hilarious. They looked like serial killers hungry to kill again.. I really fail to understand the shear stupidity of the Oil Industry, " were sorry, were sorry this isn't are fault, even tho it is, but hey here is some pizza and soda", not to be out done Phillips hands out gift cards and breakfast burritos.

      LOL the world has become inverted.

  4. food as payoff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It makes me think of a episode of the daily show that was last week where a company that screwed up a town due to fracking was paying off the inhabitants of the town with pizza.

    1. Re:food as payoff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Except that the town wasn't screwed up - a well outside of town was on fire for several days. One person (an employee) unfortunately did die. The payoff was for the noise and inconvenience not due to any contamination. Then, some ant-drilling group posted some petition showing that the residents were pissed off. The only problem? Nobody in the town had actually signed it. Here's the link: http://www.businessweek.com/ap.... You may want to read your news more critically and not jump on the internet's immediate "omg, evil corporation" crap that seems to fester immediately when some news comes up.

    2. Re:food as payoff by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 1

      Except that the town wasn't screwed up - a well outside of town was on fire for several days. One person (an employee) unfortunately did die.

      A well on fire? That's happened before, there were complaints of a noxious smell for weeks before the Mexican town blew up.

      Guadalajara, Mexico. Gasoline leaked into sewer pipes and vapours built up for weeks. When they ignited, the blasts killed 252 people
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1...

    3. Re:food as payoff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guadalajara is the 2nd largest city in Mexico, so it's hardly "a town". It's also not that surprising that at some point in time gasoline would have leaked into a sewer. Similar accidents happen at different times in large cites around the world.

  5. Money money money by pla · · Score: 2

    Why don't pipelines like that have passive shutoff valves every hundred feet or so, such that if the pipeline suddenly looses pressure, the valve closes and no more oil can escape than already made it into that section?

    We've had those for water pipes in our homes for decades to keep the house from flooding in case of a burst. And filling your basement with water does a hell of a lot less damage than filling your basement with crude.

    Of course, we all already know the answer to that. The same answer GM didn't give congress last week; the same answer we always have when talking about health and safety tradeoffs: Money.

    1. Re:Money money money by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 0

      For the same reason we don't put firewalls after 100 feet of network cabling. It's expensive and likely to _create_ more failures than it prevents.

    2. Re:Money money money by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      Why don't pipelines like that have passive shutoff valves every hundred feet or so,

      Because we live in a world of finite resources. This would be prohibitively expensive. If we want to spend money to improve the world, this would be one of the least effective ways to do it. Accidents happen, and no finite amount of spending is going to stop them all. This was one incident. No one was killed or injured beyond some nausea. Anyone exposed to the oil, or with property damage, will be compensated. Without more information, I would not conclude that either more safety equipment or more regulation is needed.

    3. Re:Money money money by pla · · Score: 2, Informative

      For the same reason we don't put firewalls after 100 feet of network cabling. It's expensive and likely to _create_ more failures than it prevents.

      Great analogy, because just like water or crude, bits on the wire leak out when a failure occurs and make a mess of everything around them. Man, I'll never forget the sticky mess I found myself in when a backhoe came through the top wall of the server room and took out a densely packed cabling tray. Bits up to my waist within minutes, just awful. ;)

      Ironically, though, your answer does more to promote the idea than discredit it - Because, we do put routers between network segments and firewalls at each end-point, and no more fine-grained points of (virtual) compromise really exist.

      Backhoes notwithstanding.

    4. Re:Money money money by pla · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Anyone exposed to the oil, or with property damage, will be compensated.

      "Home" does not count as fungible.

      The value to me of the place I've chosen to settle down far exceeds its market value. Yeah, great, they destroyed some houses and will pay for them plus a few grand extra as a "nuisance" fee; except they didn't destroy "some houses", they destroyed a neighborhood.

      You can't just pay me off for my sunny spot on the back deck where the light hits just so, filtered between my favorite trees. You can't just pay me off for the trails I've made in the woods behind my house, or all the time I've spent learning those woods and enjoying them. You can't just pay me off for the squirrels I've trained to take peanuts right from my hand while sitting in that aforementioned favorite sunny spot. You can't just pay me off for needing to move away from my neighbor who I consider a close friend, or pay off his kids who love coming over to play with the cat.

      Now... I would agree with you completely if the issue at hand involved individual property owners voluntarily selling a right of way across their yard to random oil companies, knowing that an accident could eventually occur. Except it doesn't work like that, and that explains why we hold these parasites to a higher standard of safety. They apply to the government for permission to steal that right of way for a pittance under eminent domain, they dot all their "i"s and cross all their "t"s to have the right people look the other way... And then they expect us to just live in the shadow of their stellar record of safety and caring about the environment?

      FUCK THAT. They can damned well pay to put in pressure shutoffs every hundred feet.

    5. Re:Money money money by letherial · · Score: 1

      Thats a really really bad analogy, do you know what a firewall is? do you understand the difference between a logical network and err pipes....cause its a world of difference.

      Networking systems do have shutoff valves at critical places to stop the flow of bad information before it causes critical damage (at least a decent secure setup, it certainly can be done without great expense). In 20 years the tech industry has done more to protect information then the oil company's have done to protect their oil in 80.

    6. Re:Money money money by cavreader · · Score: 2

      There are already pressure meters, flow rate monitors, gravity meters, automatic shutdown valves. Every origination station, booster station, tank farm, delivery station, and pumping station monitors their assigned segments while simultaneously passing all the monitoring data back to a centralized pipeline control center. However these precautions cannot stop at least some product from being released into the environment if the actual pipeline is ruptured.

    7. Re:Money money money by rnturn · · Score: 1

      Just consider the amount of money that will be required to excavate one of the homeowner's lawn to remove the contaminated soil, replace the soil, grade it properly, and replant the grass. That could easily exceed $10K/lawn. And they're offering the homeowners a breakfast burrito and a few bucks for their trouble?

      This is the third pipeline leak that I've heard of in as many (or fewer) weeks. Just where is the pipeline safety track record that these industry spokesweasels refer to?

      On a somewhat-related note (well, "oil + pipelines" so close enough): Imagine what sort of damage will be done by a leak of the proposed oil sands pipeline if that corrosive gunk finds its way into the aquifer used by the majority of the Midwest and the huge amount of farming that occurs there. A leak of that proposed pipeline would cause damage that could never be repaired. Plus say goodbye to a good chunk of the food supply when that water is unusable.

      --
      CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
    8. Re:Money money money by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      Please go back and read what you wrote:

                                Why don't pipelines like that have passive shutoff valves every hundred feet or s

      I answered your actual question. Now, you' seem to be mocking it, based on how my answer does not apply to a question you did not ask, mainly:

                                  Because, we do put routers between network segments and firewalls at each end-point, and no more fine-grained points of (virtual) compromise really exist.

      Yes, we do. But "every 100 feet" on a 10 inch pipe is not at every _endpoint_, it's at every _connection_. And that's a full pipeline cut-off valve. It has to be able to stop the full pressure behind a 10" pipe. Given a typical pipeline pressure of roughly 125 PSI according to notes in Wikileaks, that means that the cutoff has to maintain a good seal with 124 * 3.14 * 5 * 5, or about 9000 pounds. That is not a cheap valve.

    9. Re:Money money money by Kohath · · Score: 1

      On a somewhat-related note (well, "oil + pipelines" so close enough): Imagine what sort of damage will be done by a leak of the proposed oil sands pipeline if that corrosive gunk finds its way into the aquifer used by the majority of the Midwest and the huge amount of farming that occurs there

      So you'd rather people continue to die every year in oil train crashes? You don't have to "imagine" the train crash that killed 47 people in Quebec last summer.

    10. Re:Money money money by houstonbofh · · Score: 4, Informative

      Why don't pipelines like that have passive shutoff valves every hundred feet or so, such that if the pipeline suddenly looses pressure, the valve closes and no more oil can escape than already made it into that section?

      Because several miles of crude oil flowing at 10 miles an hour has a lot of mass. Suddenly closing a valve would be like suddenly popping up a wall in front of a train. The oil would not just stop, but find a catastrophic and explosive new path. No, not money. Physics.

      As to the money thing... Why is that considered so unimportant? More people die of a lack of money than any other thing on earth... People who say "It's only money" must have never gone to sleep (sleep, not bed as homeless don't have beds) hungry.

    11. Re:Money money money by pla · · Score: 1

      I answered your actual question. Now, you' seem to be mocking it, based on how my answer does not apply to a question you did not ask

      Fair enough. I should not have mocked your answer, and I apologize for doing so.

      I thought it clear, though (from my subject, if nothing else), that I asked my original question rhetorically. I simply don't find that even remotely an acceptable answer.

    12. Re:Money money money by t0rkm3 · · Score: 1

      Given that the spill was 1200 gallons... I may have seriously botched the math, but I think that equates to about 145m of pipeline. Given that the company manages 15000miles of pipeline, 145m between shut-off measures sounds pretty good.

      It's not pretty for the neighborhood, but it really is small potatoes.

    13. Re:Money money money by dentin · · Score: 2

      "Home" does not count as fungible.

      Yes, it is. What you meant to say was, "I find it unlikely that anyone would offer me what I consider my home and experiences to be worth."

      You can't just pay me off for my sunny spot on the back deck where the light hits just so, filtered between my favorite trees. You can't just pay me off for the trails I've made in the woods behind my house, or all the time I've spent learning those woods and enjoying them. You can't just pay me off for the squirrels I've trained to take peanuts right from my hand while sitting in that aforementioned favorite sunny spot. You can't just pay me off for needing to move away from my neighbor who I consider a close friend, or pay off his kids who love coming over to play with the cat.

      I might not be able to, but there exist people who can.

      Please be more clear with your wording in the future. Blatant trolling like the above does no-one any good.

      --
      Alter Aeon Multiclass MUD - http://www.alteraeon.com
    14. Re:Money money money by pla · · Score: 2

      Yes, it is. What you meant to say was, "I find it unlikely that anyone would offer me what I consider my home and experiences to be worth."

      Fair enough, but it amounts to the same thing under the present discussion. Of course someone could conceivably offer me enough money that I would gladly take it and buy my own private Caribbean island. I won't hold my breath on RDS offering me $100M for my 3Br cape in the middle of nowhere, however.


      Please be more clear with your wording in the future. Blatant trolling like the above does no-one any good.

      My wording perfectly communicated my intent, although I will admit to a bit (and just a bit, not anything over the top) of hyperbole - Though make no mistake, people do exist who wouldn't voluntarily sell at any price. I certainly wouldn't go so far as to call my comment "trolling", though - I meant every word of what I said. People bought out under eminent domain seizures - Or in this case, under "oops we turned your block into a hazardous waste dump, collect your $300k checks on the way out of town" conditions don't get compensated for their emotional investment in their property. Simple as that.

      You want "fair" compensation, or the closest thing we can get to it? Every time we hear about one of these minor disasters, the CEO's family homestead gets bulldozed and turned into high-end luxury housing for everyone displaced. CEO doesn't have enough land? Work through the entire board until everyone has a new place to live. Of course, that would often fail because the soulless CEO finds it more convenient to live in a series of condos scattered across the world, but we can at least try to demonstrate to these scum why I wouldn't sell my home for twice its appraised value.

    15. Re:Money money money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That'd be scary. If that happened to my internet cable, shitloads of horse porn would spill out and ruin the neighborhood kids' lives... or enrich them ;) giggity

    16. Re:Money money money by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      "Home" does not count as fungible.

      Yes, it is.

      No. A house is fungible. A home is not.

    17. Re:Money money money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, and they do aobout evey 10 miles, computer contolled to close at the right time, so that the amount of oil lost is much smaller than the amount of oil in the affected section. The yellowstone river pipe a few years ago spilled less than 8% of the oil that was under the flood plain of the river (the section they won't let you put those shutoff valves in) when it had a leak under the river. The damage caused by the pipeline ingesting river water was more expensive than the environmental cleanup of the small part they spilled, but nobody points out that it cost a hell of a lot more (ultimately to pension funds and people who buy gasoline) to preserve the environemnt than the economical optimum. Exxon would have come out cash ahead if they had less equipment, more economically effective control laws and shit out the river. Exxon did a very good job at pipeline design in that case.

    18. Re:Money money money by 517714 · · Score: 1

      70 barrels is closer to 300 gallons. The author of the story says thousands of gallons early in the story, but later says about 70 barrels.

      --
      The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
    19. Re:Money money money by 517714 · · Score: 1

      Sorry dropped a zero should be 3000 gallons.

      --
      The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
    20. Re:Money money money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You would need to have all shutoff valves engage simultaneously. The problem is not the 1200 gallons, it's the billion gallons that pushes it forward.

  6. Stop Pretending... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...that the current state of regulation is some kind of mistake or oversight. Never attribute to incompetence that which can be sufficiently explained by political corruption (which is not the same as malice - it's merely self interest and indifference towards others, i.e. systematized psychopathy).

    The current state of the regulations is what is intended, and only because they cannot get away with more. The board of Phillips is insulated from their actions (to not maximize safety) both from below (employee layer) and from above (corporate veil). No matter how big a spill they make and no matter what the degree of gross negligence, the worst that can possibly happen is that Phillips gets their profits reduced on a one-time basis. Nobody will ever see jail time, and this is the system working exactly as intended.

    The regulators who go easy on Phillips will be offered fat-cat industry positions when the episode is over, and everybody knows it. A spill is now a payday for regulators involved. They're probably tripping over each other to get assigned to the matter. Heck, we'll probably eventually get a leak about some regulator causing a spill just so he can get a better job - because why not? That's how the incentives are aligned; that's how the current government is architected.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture

    1. Re:Stop Pretending... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was with you up until you wrote "architected"...

    2. Re:Stop Pretending... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      No matter how big a spill they make and no matter what the degree of gross negligence, the worst that can possibly happen is that Phillips gets their profits reduced on a one-time basis. Nobody will ever see jail time, and this is the system working exactly as intended.

      Your post reads like speculation based on reading too many conspiracy sites (don't worry, I attribute it to political corruption, not incompetence). I don't know if anyone deserves jailtime for this particular pipeline problem, but criminal charges do happen.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  7. Mismanagement by kheldan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Totally out of left field, but what can I say, my mind makes weird-sounding connections sometimes, so just hang with it for a minute..

    Crude oil is nasty stuff. Nobody is arguing that point. But while people complain about that (and this case in particular, and rightly so), they're complaining about it on their computers, or on their phones, both of which have high-end semiconductor devices and batteries in them that required even more noxious, toxic, dangerous chemicals to produce -- but nobody is complaining about their phones, or computers, or their nice quiet hybrid or 100% electric car, now are they? A modern bicycle contains components that required some sort of nasty chemicals and processes to produce, but nobody thinks about that, do they? Even shoes, used to for walking of all things, the most 'green' of all transportation devices, requires some rather nauseating chemicals to produce the synthetic rubber and other synthetic materials in them.

    My point here is this: Mismanagement is the problem. It's like the old argument: 'Guns don't kill people, people kill people'. Gun control advocates give you a dirty look when they hear this, but it's 100% true, now isn't it? Should we continue to transition away from fossil fuels like petroleum and coal? Absolutely! But don't forget that it's humans' management (or the lack thereof) that ends up causing many of the disasterous problems (like in this news story!) and not what's being managed.

    What I'm finally leading up to is this: Things like nuclear power (which, in one form or another, whether it's fission or fusion) are, in and of themselves, not evil; it's the mismanagement of it in the past that's left the nasty taste in people's mouths and the lasting negative sentiments in their minds. If we, as a civilization, had been more thoughtful and careful with our technology, maybe this little disasters in the Los Angeles area wouldn't have happened in the first place.

    Seriously, human race: It's time to grow up and start learning to put aside the base desires for power and money where the public interest is concerned and think more about what's good for our collective civilzation over the long run.

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    1. Re:Mismanagement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well the problem is sentiments like yours (and many others) aren't NEARLY as influential on civilization as those of corporations with billions of dollars.

    2. Re:Mismanagement by Rob_Bryerton · · Score: 3, Funny

      Seriously, human race: It's time to grow up and start learning to put aside the base desires for power and money where the public interest is concerned and think more about what's good for our collective civilzation over the long run.

      Welcome to Earth; I see you've just arrived!

    3. Re:Mismanagement by roman_mir · · Score: 0

      I do not know who you are talking to, but I assure you that civilization derived from injustice of destruction of individual freedoms has no entitlement to exist at all.

    4. Re:Mismanagement by kheldan · · Score: 1

      I'm not really sure who you are talking to, or to what you're referring? Please, clarify.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    5. Re:Mismanagement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously, human race: It's time to grow up and start learning to put aside the base desires for power and money where the public interest is concerned and think more about what's good for our collective civilzation over the long run.

      And we have a mechanism for that. Corporations are very strongly structured to only pay attention to money/greed, so regulations translate what the government thinks is in the best interest of civilization at large into a language corporations can understand: money (in the form of fines, etc.).

    6. Re:Mismanagement by rhodium_mir · · Score: 1

      Roman you ignorant slut. Until you pay fair market value for the air you breath you also have no right to exist..

      --
      You can't spell "oneiromancy" without "roman".
    7. Re:Mismanagement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Roman you ignorant slut. Until you pay fair market value for the air you breath you also have no right to exist..

      I dunno about that... I wouldn't rule out roman_mir being a bot, so it doesn't need oxygen.

      If the original human behind roman_mir was as a principled "libertarian, anarcho-capitalist, objectivist" as roman_mir claims, he should have replaced himself with a robot long ago. There are more productive things to do than posting on slashdot. Apparently he runs a business of his own.

      Then again the bot could also have been built by government as false flag operation. Am I being too paranoid? If government is as evil and unjust as roman_mir has us believe... no, no I am not.

    8. Re:Mismanagement by roman_mir · · Score: 0

      Seriously, human race: It's time to grow up and start learning to put aside the base desires for power and money where the public interest is concerned and think more about what's good for our collective civilzation over the long run.

      - this of-course. Quite the opposite is true, we must stop talking about public interest and collectivism, we must stop everything that has to do with government controlling our lives and allow individuals do what is best for them and if individuals decide to combine some of their efforts voluntarily, that's fine. If that is your call, call to VOLUNTARISM then I am on board. But that was my question: who are you talking to, what are you talking about? Force of government? A call to more violence based on government 'solutions'?

    9. Re:Mismanagement by kheldan · · Score: 1

      I'm surprised I haven't made it obvious enough.
      I'm not talking about individuals, except maybe individuals who also happen to be in control of large companies/corporations, I'm talking about large companies/corporations that are doing things that affect large percentages of the population, especially in the areas of essential services like energy, and it probably is something that governments should be regulating, unfortunately, because left to their own devices large companies/corporations have proven time and time again that they'll prioritize based on profits and not on what's best for the people depending on them. Again, I cannot stress enough that I'm not talking about government regulation of all business, just essentials like energy, that if screwed up in the name of profit, the environment gets severely damaged, people get seriously ill or die, etc. We're well past the point where things like electricity and fuel can be considered "non-essentials", and therefore it's time to start prioritizing safety and people first and profit second. If, for instance, nuclear power plants had been managed properly in the first place, placing safety and the serving the public interest first, then we likely wouldn't have had incidents like Three Mile Island that scared so many people that nuclear power is now considered anathema.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    10. Re:Mismanagement by roman_mir · · Score: 0

      except maybe individuals who also happen to be in control of large companies/corporations

      - precisely. You want to destroy individual rights, and people that own/run/operate companies are individuals, whose rights you want to destroy, so I understood you quite correct then. No, none of any business, regardless of its size and industry should be regulated, quite the opposite. There should be 0 regulations, 0 licenses, 0 income related taxes, 0 government intrusion into our individual lives, only that prevents corruption that is inherent in systems that attempt to regulate for the 'good of the society'. Everything and anything that starts 'for the good of the society' ends up being for the destruction of the individual and as I said earlier, society that is willing to sacrifice individual rights has 0 entitlement to exist, it has no purpose, there is no purpose for us, individuals to create societies and civilizations that destroy our own individual rights.

      Society is only a concept, individuals are actually living breathing creatures and as living breathing creatures we need to prevent collectivist concepts from destroying our rights to be free people.

      As to nuclear power being anathema: that's the problem with government regulating business, including regulations of nuclear power in the first place. The collective is using government supplied violence to prevent individuals from their own attempts at nuclear power plants and that is what should be stopped - government and the mob should be stopped, not individuals.

  8. Elderly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "... including an elderly woman who has lived in Wilmington for more than 20 years."

    Woohoo, twenty whole years. What exactly does elderly have to do with anything? I'm not elderly, but I've lived 'here' for 20 years, that doesn't get _me_ much of anything.

    Not to be dismissive of any of the symptoms that everyone is suffering from, but in another 20 years I'll be I'll be elderly too. If I stay where I am right not, that'll be _forty_ years. If history is any indication, by then, that and $25 will get me a cup of coffee at McDonalds. And FWIW, I'm already old enough to join AARP.

    1. Re:Elderly? by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      "Not to be dismissive"... And now I'll be dismissive.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:Elderly? by sjames · · Score: 1

      Because elderly people are more likely to not be able to do a DIY move? Because everyone but the courts seems to understand that there is value in a familiatr place just because it is familiar?

    3. Re:Elderly? by RandomFactor · · Score: 1

      ...of any of the symptoms that everyone is suffering from,

      Not of that he wasn't.

      It's not bad just because some special group got sick (elderly in this case). It was bad because people were sickened.

      --
      --- Mercutio was right.
    4. Re:Elderly? by rnturn · · Score: 1

      ``Because everyone but the courts seems to understand that there is value in a familiatr place just because it is familiar''

      The homeowners will likely do well in the lower courts where their peers will likely see things in the same light as the victims. Unfortunately, once the appeals begin, the homeowners no longer have access to juries of their peers. If it gets all the ways to the Supremes, well, the results are heavily skewed in favor of the corporations. Something like 80+% of all cases are found in favor of corporations.

      Solutions? Perhaps eliminating being able to appeal a court decision because you don't like the size of the monetary damages. Appeals need to be about -- and only about -- actual misuse of the law or blatant mistakes in the court proceedings, etc. And you get one appeal; no more. Of course, bringing back the corporate death penalty would do wonders to improve corporate behavior so that these incidents might be fewer and farther between. Of course, IANAL so I can't predict whether any of this is possible but something tells me that none of this would ever happen as it would serve to reduce the number of legal proceedings and all the billing that those bring. The laws seem to be written to benefit lawyers not the average person.

      --
      CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
  9. Ban automobiles! Make gas cost $20 gallon! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That will fix everything! I'm sure the cost of food won't rise either and it won't have any effect on the economy.

  10. Slashdot used to be tech oriented. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Posts like this is why I don't bother with Slashdot anymore. HuffPo seems fair and balanced compared to the tripe that gets greenlit.

    1. Re:Slashdot used to be tech oriented. by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 1

      Posts like this is why I don't bother with Slashdot anymore. HuffPo seems fair and balanced compared to the tripe that gets greenlit.

      Ah yes HuffPro, before my New HDTV it was the only place I can get a TV listing for this area. http://tvlistings.aol.com/

  11. No need for pipelines. by Kernel+Kurtz · · Score: 1

    They can use trains instead...

    1. Re:No need for pipelines. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They can use trains instead...

      No, you cannot, as long as you don't have tracks that are no longer in use. The company was using a discontinued pipeline as toxic waste disposal. The equivalent would be putting toxic waste in trains on discontinued tracks. But that's more conspicuous.

  12. Was the precious oil saved? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who gives a shit about that crappy town - they should be charged for recieving that free oil!

  13. The good ol' days by Ol+Biscuitbarrel · · Score: 1

    An incident in the book Early California Oil comes to mind here: after a sale of an oil tanker truck the two parties realized they weren't sure what to do with the contents of the truck - the buyer had no use for the oil. The seller thus simply emptied all the oil onto the street! The Wilmington oil field is also the poster child for oil extraction causing massive ground subsidence. Regulations were more than a bit lax back when. Occasionally people in SOCAL have to deal with this legacy - there was an explosion in a store in the 80s caused by a gas leak from a shoddy drilling operation, for instance. But generally things run relatively smoothly.

    1. Re:The good ol' days by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Because if I buy a tanker unexpectedly full of a valuable commodity I just dump it on the street.

      I'd suspect a hippie with an agenda making up 'facts' for his book.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    2. Re:The good ol' days by Ol+Biscuitbarrel · · Score: 1

      Actually it's a warts-and-all trip down memory lane: Early California Oil: A Photographic History, 1865-1940. Lots of warts to put it mildly, dumping the tanker is just one that sticks out in my mind. Oil companies used to overdrill fields as a matter of course, another memorable photo is of a couple of cottages separated by only 20 feet or so, with a derrick in between them.

  14. shut the socialists up!! by Billly+Gates · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    THe residents need to stop spewing anti corporate left wing radical stuff. We tried fascism before with the soviet union.

    I prefer freedom instead thank you very much!

    The market will take care of this only if we do not do anything. In a free market without government regulation none of these things would EVER happen.

    1. Re:shut the socialists up!! by PPH · · Score: 1

      You forgot your <sarcasm> tags.

      In a free market without government regulation

      One of those evil government regulations is the one that keeps me and my buddies from relieving you of all of your hard earned wealth at the point of a gun.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:shut the socialists up!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop being fatuous. The Soviet Union wasn't fascist, it was Communist, which is the polar opposite of fascism. Why do you think these two competing ideologies had a war?

      I get the idea you hate properly regulated free markets. Why could that be? Who taught you that? Apply critical thinking. Why did this person teach you this, and what was her benefit?

    3. Re:shut the socialists up!! by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      They had a war over who would be in charge of the workers paradise. I don't think you know what 'polar opposite' means.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    4. Re:shut the socialists up!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop being fatuous. The Soviet Union wasn't fascist, it was Communist, which is the polar opposite of fascism. Why do you think these two competing ideologies had a war?

      Hitler was a greedy warmongering bastard who hated the traditional enemies of Germany and figured under his leadership that once and for all, the true Reich would prevail.

      Really, he wrote it out for all to read.

    5. Re:shut the socialists up!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The diametrical opposite. Or the antipodal. For example, the polar opposite of the North Pole is the South Pole.

      You can argue over the accuracy of the claim(and they certainly seemed to have missed the sarcasm in Billy Gates's post), but the meaning as used is correctly understood.

    6. Re:shut the socialists up!! by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      On what planet are fascists (socialist dictatorship) diametrically opposed to communists (socialist dictatorship). They were fighting over ownership of the same political space.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    7. Re:shut the socialists up!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you stop reading my comment after the first sentence?

      "You can argue over the accuracy of the claim(and they certainly seemed to have missed the sarcasm in Billy Gates's post), but the meaning as used is correctly understood."

    8. Re:shut the socialists up!! by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      So it's used correctly, except that it's completely wrong. Interesting POV.

      Let me guess: the definition is socially constructed anyhow, so everything is true, and nothing is.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    9. Re:shut the socialists up!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're the one who said "I don't think you know what 'polar opposite' means." when clearly, the reply above did know and used its meaning correctly.

      Your problem is with the accuracy, which as I said, you can argue over it, but that last sentence there? No, they used "polar opposite" correctly.

  15. Gotta stop GHE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where's AL GORE?

    We need to STOP GLOBAL HYDROCARBON EXTRACTION (STOP! GHE).

    Al knows that's the only true solution to global warming, Stop! GHE.

    But instead they just want to jack up taxes, I wonder why?

    Baba Booey!

  16. end run attempt at gun control by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 0

    TIC

    Idle pipelines are great targets for Ruger 10/22's (rifles), They meet the requirements of a great target; you shoot it and you get an indication of a hit. Not as good as blasting caps but a pipeline will do in a pinch.

    1. Re:end run attempt at gun control by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      I encourage you to shoot 22s at thick pieces of steel. Stand nice an close so you don't miss.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    2. Re:end run attempt at gun control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I encourage you to shoot 22s at thick pieces of steel. Stand nice an close so you don't miss.

      Give him a break: a 10/22 is considered heavy weaponry in Canada. SUPPRESSING FIRE!

    3. Re:end run attempt at gun control by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      FYI 22s can bounce of steel. Not unlike a bb. He'll shoot his eye out.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    4. Re:end run attempt at gun control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A veritable Canadian Rambo... an arsenal of over *250* rounds of lethal, unjacketed lead in the form of 22 *long* rifle! There's no reason for any private citizen to have thar much firepower. How long has he been hoarding ammunition and refining his terror plot, eh? I bet his 10/22 has been accurized and has a bedded stock with high checkering so he can disperse his deadly precise fire more rapidly.

      I hear 22 LR can be lethal at up to 300 FEET!

      Please, think of the children and ban this scourge.

  17. Number of people affected less than 20 by Kohath · · Score: 0

    Why do we need national regulations to deal with a small local problem that affects only a few people?

    Is it because you have a personal hatred for one of the parties involved? Is it because you will personally gain from the regulation? Or is it because you think everything in the world needs a regulatory hand guiding it -- a government hand, with armed enforcers to punish anyone who gets out of line? Which is it?

    1. Re:Number of people affected less than 20 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Are you really that naive that you think that only this single company was neglecting safety measures only in this single area?

    2. Re:Number of people affected less than 20 by Kohath · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      What's the point? Either there are lots of problems all over and therefore we need to think about regulation, or not. This story is about one incident. It does not indicate lots of problems. It does not counter-indicate lots of problems either. If there is data to indicate widespread problems, post the data.

      Stop pretending to have knowledge. Either post it or admit you don't know.

  18. Be careful what you wish for by PPH · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Prior to the Olympic Pipeline explosion in Bellingham, Washington, gasoline was always cheaper there than in other parts of the state. After the imposition of a $112 million settlement on the pipeline owners, the local price of gas jumped above the state average. And it will remain there until the companies have recouped that penalty several times over.

    Companies don't pay fines. The plebes do.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:Be careful what you wish for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It should be illegal (and it probably is...) to pull that stunt. A damage settlement is supposed to hurt the party guilty of the Tort.

    2. Re:Be careful what you wish for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cormernust!

    3. Re:Be careful what you wish for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Prior to the Olympic Pipeline explosion in Bellingham, Washington, gasoline was always cheaper there than in other parts of the state. After the imposition of a $112 million settlement on the pipeline owners, the local price of gas jumped above the state average. And it will remain there until the companies have recouped that penalty several times over.

      You have no idea what you're talking about. The pipeline in question runs from Blaine WA to terminals in Seattle (110 miles away) and Portland (290 miles away). The passing of the $112M settlement to consumers would NOT affect retail gasoline prices in Bellingham more than anywhere else in WA or OR. If gas prices in Bellingham and surrounding areas went up more than the WA state average, it was due to some other factor.

      Companies don't pay fines. The plebes do.

      OK, you got that part right.

    4. Re:Be careful what you wish for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It should be illegal (and it probably is...) to pull that stunt. A damage settlement is supposed to hurt the party guilty of the Tort.

      Does not work on corporations though. A corporation is an artificial entity which is how this shit is possible. If the stock holders were slugged the fine, I guarantee those shares would become toxic assets which would be a real punishment for the company when nobody wants those things any more.

      Limited Liability is economic grease made from nuclear waste, it works but is highly toxic to anyone exposed to the consequences of it.

  19. Why are the residents there? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why the fuck weren't they evacuated?

  20. Easy fix: regulate the courts by Kohath · · Score: 1

    Here's an easy fix: regulate the courts. The courts must be dangerously under-regulated if they are as inefficient as you say.

    1. Re:Easy fix: regulate the courts by HiThere · · Score: 0

      You are making assumptions about their goals.

      The US legal system derives from the British which, since the Magna Charta, has been about ensuring that nobody who is powerful enough to overthrow the government wouldn't lose more than they would gain by doing so. So the courts attempt to provide a veneer of justice while actually finding in favor of those with the most power, including wealth as a form of power. They don't always do that, but that's always the way to bet. The problem is you don't always know all the players.

      Please note: I believe that the Civil Rights movement was fostered by the Dixiecrats repeatedly flouting the desires of the Democratic party, and voting with the Republicans. That's not the way it looked on the ground, and there were easy justifications based around equity, and popular mores, but those had been ignored for nearly a century. OTOH, another factor was a bulge in the population in the early 20's, when people tend to act more idealistically and without fully counting costs. So it's not all for one reason.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  21. Follow the money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nobody upgrades old systems unless it's going to generate new revenue or an increase in revenue. "Today's enterprise" is dramatically different than 1998. There are actually firewalls at nearly each segment enforcing rules and very specific flows of traffic.

    In the technology world "pipe" upgrades and system upgrades are consistent because every 3 to 5 years old systems are replaced with new systems that have much higher throughput capabilities, leverage the same shelf space to handle more workload, in many cases leveraging a similar power and cooling requirement. This makes good business sense to a company.

    I would imagine that the oil industry would replace old systems in a heart beat if they were able to get "more revenue" from an old well with brand spanking new technology. Until then, I wouldn't imagine they would change anything, as long as they don't have to. It doesn't make sense to spend money to get the same amount of oil in a day, or change out the systems of an old well with little to no more oil left in it.

  22. It's just 70 gallons of crude oil by Animats · · Score: 1

    It's just 70 gallons of crude oil left in an unused pipeline. No fire. No explosion. Just a mess.

    It's not like a few years ago, when a high pressure gas pipeline exploded in Daly City and took out a small subdivision. Now that was a serious problem and an indication of a worse one. The column of smoke was visible 20 miles away. The state of California made PG&E do hydrostatic testing on all their major gas pipelines, over PG&E's claims that it was unnecessary. During hydrostatic testing with water, there were two pipeline bursts. One caused a landslide that blocked parts of I-280 at Woodside CA. No fire, of course; just water and mud, since this happened during testing.

    1. Re:It's just 70 gallons of crude oil by Kohath · · Score: 1

      The LA Times story says 1200 gallons. "Thousands of gallons" is a big exaggeration that is probably intended to mislead people. But it's more than 70 gallons.

    2. Re:It's just 70 gallons of crude oil by Khashishi · · Score: 3, Informative

      TFA says 70 barrels, not gallons. A barrel is 31.5 gallons.

    3. Re:It's just 70 gallons of crude oil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's over 2000 gallons if you do the math. So both of you are wrong.

    4. Re:It's just 70 gallons of crude oil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The opinion piece says it was 70 BARRELS of oil, not gallons. A barrel for petroleum is 42 US gallons which works out as 2,940 gallons.

    5. Re:It's just 70 gallons of crude oil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But considering one drop can ruin over a thousand gallons of water the 70 gallons you so easily dismiss can, and probably will, destroy over four million gallons of fresh water. Considering CA is already in a drought, this spill will destroy millions of dollars worth of agriculture and kill hundreds of people. Why do you Bush supporters not understand the horror of what you do? Dumping crude oil into irrigation water is horrific. You people need to be put in prison to stop you from doing this.

    6. Re:It's just 70 gallons of crude oil by mysidia · · Score: 1

      During hydrostatic testing with water, there were two pipeline bursts. One caused a landslide that blocked parts of I-280 at Woodside CA. No fire, of course; just water and mud, since this happened during testing.

      !

      They should make it mandatory that they do all that testing every 6 months.

    7. Re:It's just 70 gallons of crude oil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're advocating that they stop the transfer of whatever the pipe carries (oil, gas, what-have-you); flush out its contents; re-fill it with clean(ish) water; perform the tests; flush out the water; re-fill it with whatever it's supposed to actually carry; and then carry on with business as usual? And that they do this every 6 months?

      I'm no fan of the petroleum industry, but this is wishful thinking at its finest.

    8. Re:It's just 70 gallons of crude oil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A barrel is 31.5 gallons.

      A barrel of oil is 42 gallons.

  23. Incentive to fix problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The problem now is that companies have no incentive to fix the problem. Fines are minimal, and a court fight can drag out for years. First, we must make the company or companies pay all costs of cleanup, including establishing families in new homes if necessary. On top of those costs there needs to be a hefty fine so companies have an incentive to design for safety from the start.

    Finally, and this is the most important, the top executives for these companies should be forced to live in these areas until the problem is fixed and live as most of the residents in terms of drinking water, air filtering, etc. Forcing top executives to live in areas where they have caused problems would be a powerful incentive for them to fix the problem.

  24. Pipeline ruptures are extremely common. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Here's a list of nearly 300 that have happened since 2000 in the United States. That's just in the new milleneum, involving all kinds of petroleum products.

     

    Either there are lots of problems all over and therefore we need to think about regulation, or not. This story is about one incident. It does not indicate lots of problems.

      Oh yes, there's lots of problems with our pipelines. Whether more regulation is necessary, that's not my place to say. But there isan issue in how petroleum products are piped around our country. Accidents happen, like car crashes happen all the time in the vehicle pipelines we call freeways. But we have to continue to work at solving them - to ignore these problems and say "oh well" is not an option.

    1. Re:Pipeline ruptures are extremely common. by Reziac · · Score: 1

      And how much of a problem are these accidents as a percentage of the whole? I'd guess it's some miniscule fraction of a percent, relatively safe compared to, say, medicine or automobiles or bathtubs. But like a plane crash (also a rare risk) it's spectacular compared to everyday risks.

      Also, let's not forget that a great many of today's housing developments grew up AFTER the pipeline or refinery or whatever nasty-NIMBY. Who is really liable when you move in next door to a known potential risk?

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  25. Little did they know by symbolset · · Score: 1

    Those toxic polluters in government actually made their STREETS themselves out of extra-thick oil.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
  26. Oh no! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Congresswoman Janice Hahn declares it's the end of the world!

  27. Congress woman it is your job. by ralphaostrander · · Score: 1

    Why did you not do it before now. Too much oil money in your campaign fund?

  28. Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nothing solves problems quite like regulating harder.

  29. Road surfaces... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These very same people who get so upset by crude spills, are only too happy to have bitumen covered roads to drive on and never get sick of the smell of fresh asfalt, which is really just crude oil mixed with pebbles and spread in a straight line.

  30. The Price of Responsability by JimSadler · · Score: 1

    Frankly i dislike oil companies a lot. I'll say that up front. But what I do see in regard to spills and leaks is the same issue that invades many other industries. Frankly people and companies simply can not afford to be responsible. Your car insurance is a great example. Most drivers have insurance that is a joke when compared to the real harm that is often done. I saw one rare recovery in which a woman was ruined for life and in a nursing home permanently at a young age. Somehow her lawyers got her a 30 million dollar settlement. But after court costs and legal fees she had a bit over 20 million and the fear was that with 20 million dollars she would run out of money as she might live a very long life requiring a lot of medical care in a skilled nursing facility. Obviously every driver could easily cause such a horror and there could be more than one person in the car that they hit. And people unlikely to be hurt often suffer serious harm. I saw what looked like an ankle that was almost sprained turn into a near death situation for a salesman. When he arrived at work and got out of his car there was a tiny surface crack in the pavement. His shoe caught a bit and he had a bit of an ouch but did not fall down. What he did not know was that he had a minor break in the leg bone. Infection was not obvious and after about four days he suddenly collapsed and went unconscious. He was at death's door. The hospital brought him out of it and after the usual fifty thousand in expenses he could go home and rest until the cast came off, If he had died that little stumble would have been enough to bankrupt most small companies. So society cheats and Workmans' Comp would step in and his family would have been cheated out of everything. If the business could be held responsible it could not exist.

  31. Hear, hear! by hoboroadie · · Score: 2

    My Dad won't read Wikipedia either. He gets his information from Fox News.

    --
    They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
    1. Re:Hear, hear! by zeugma-amp · · Score: 1

      My Dad won't read Wikipedia either. He gets his information from Fox News.

      Wikipedia is useless for anything political unless you happen to agree with the political slant of the article.

      Want information about metalurgy, great. Wikipedia rocks for that.

      Want formation about anything where there is political finger pointing? Not so much.

      --
      This is an ex-parrot!
    2. Re:Hear, hear! by hoboroadie · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's what I tell him, but Fox News said Wikipedia was full of shit, so he won't reference it for anything useful, like organic chemistry & such.
      He clung to dial-up for an amazingly long time, too. Netzero ftw!

      --
      They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
  32. Citation [Re:No problem!] by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 1

    This is exactly the kind of subject never to trust Wikipedia about.

    The useful thing about Wikipedia is that it cites references.

    It's wise not to "trust" Wikipedia-- or any single source-- but it is a good first place to go to look up references.

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com