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.""

97 of 163 comments (clear)

  1. 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 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.
    2. 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".

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

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

    4. 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.

    5. 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.

    6. Re:No problem! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

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

    7. 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.

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

      ...But it was for the last time.

      Talk about naive...

    9. 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?
    10. 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'
    11. 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'
    12. 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?

    13. 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
    14. 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?
    15. 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.

    16. 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.

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

      I award you one Internets for that joke!

      --
      John
    18. 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.

    19. 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'
    20. 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."
    21. 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?

    22. 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.

    23. 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.

    24. 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?

    25. 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.

    26. 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?

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

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

    28. 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.
    29. 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.

    30. 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.
    31. 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.

    32. 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?

    33. 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?

    34. 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.'

    35. 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".

    36. 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.

  2. 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]
  3. 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 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.

    2. 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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.

    6. 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
    7. 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.

    8. 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.

    9. 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.

    10. 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.

    11. 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.

    12. 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
    13. 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.

    14. 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.

    15. 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.
    16. 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.
  4. 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 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."
  5. 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 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!

    2. 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!
    3. 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".
    4. 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!
  6. 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.
  7. 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/

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

    They can use trains instead...

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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.
  12. 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?

  13. 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'
  14. 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.
  15. 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'
  16. 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...

  17. 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.
  18. 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.

  19. 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
  20. 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 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.

  21. 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.

  22. 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?
  23. 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.
  24. 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'
  25. 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'
  26. 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?

  27. 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.

  28. 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.
  29. 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
  30. 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'