Slashdot Mirror


Giant Methane Leak in California Won't Be Capped For Months

Motherboard takes a look at the ongoing leak from a deep well in Southern California, and the engineering challenges that mean it won't be stopped for a while. From Motherboard's report: An enormous amount of harmful methane gas is currently erupting from an energy facility in Aliso Canyon, California, at a startling rate of 110,000 pounds per hour. The gas, which carries with it the stench of rotting eggs, has led to the evacuation 1,700 homes so far. Many residents have already filed lawsuits against the company that owns the facility, the Southern California Gas Company. ... Part of the problem in stopping the leak lies in the base of the well, which sits 8,000 feet underground. Pumping fluids down into the will, usually the normal recourse, just isn't working, said [copmany spokesperson Anne] Silva. Workers have been "unable to establish a stable enough column of fluid to keep the force of gas coming up from the reservoir." The company is now constructing a relief well that will connect to the leaking well, and hopefully provide a way to reduce pressure so the leak can be plugged. As the article notes, methane is an especially noxious gas in a figurative as well as literal sense; while it spends less time in the atmosphere than does CO2, it is more effective at trapping heat.

292 comments

  1. Re: More proof CA is ruled by those... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The state givernment had the worst record of any state/province in the world because of those Republicans. They are celebrating this disaster.

  2. Rotting eggs? by Deadstick · · Score: 5, Informative

    That would be hydrogen sulfide. Methane doesn't smell like anything. It's odorless; in fact your gas company puts a stinky compound into it so you'll know when there's a leak.

    1. Re:Rotting eggs? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      I assumed that doped CH4 was being released, but if it is from a well, it doesn't make sense that it would be doped. Probably a good thing it smells though.

    2. Re:Rotting eggs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Natural Gas often contains some hydrogen sulfide as an impurity.

    3. Re:Rotting eggs? by Deadstick · · Score: 5, Informative

      The dopant in city gas isn't H2S; it's usually methyl mercaptan. My HS Chem teacher said it's considered the worst smelling substance known, and distinctly (distinkly?) different from H2S (which could masquerade as flatulence).

    4. Re:Rotting eggs? by drew_92123 · · Score: 2

      "My HS Chem teacher said it's considered the worst smelling substance known"

      Yeah.... not even close. Look up thioacetone. :-)

    5. Re:Rotting eggs? by pepsikid · · Score: 5, Informative

      You misunderstand. This is not a production well, it is a storage well. This is natural gas which has already been pumped topside, treated with scent, and has been forced back underground into an expired oil well. It's a super-cheap way to store fuel, but in the minds of those who are not legally immunized from disasters like this one, extremely risky. When storage wells like this crack open, there's almost nothing that can be done, and no ability to do anything quickly in any case.

    6. Re:Rotting eggs? by silas_moeckel · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's a storage well so it's processed NG with it's standard marking impurity already added.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    7. Re:Rotting eggs? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Ah thanks. That makes more sense.

    8. Re:Rotting eggs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If only we could add mercaptan to extra apostrophes... It's means it is.

    9. Re:Rotting eggs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So this gas has already been processed, treated (well treated then processed but we always say it the other way for some reason), and then oderized and stored? That makes it generally "safe" as long as concentration levels remain low. Smell is an issue but al long as it's below LEL there's no danger.

    10. Re: Rotting eggs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thioacetone? Pfft. 3am, Saturday night, my bathroom. Bring a hazmat suit.

    11. Re:Rotting eggs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Based on the 110,000 lbs per hour figure, and the price of energy producing methane to be anywhere from 2-10 $ per cubic foot, that works out to 110000 / 26.47 = 4155 cubic feet per hour, so about $8000-40000 dollars an hour .... that sucks, or rather blows

    12. Re:Rotting eggs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "So far, over 150 million pounds of methane have been released by the leak, " so by that measure 5666792.59539 cubic feet, so about $10 million - 50 million down the drain so far

    13. Re:Rotting eggs? by ShaunC · · Score: 2

      When storage wells like this crack open, there's almost nothing that can be done, and no ability to do anything quickly in any case.

      Surely someone nearby owns a quadcopter and a road flare...

      --
      Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
    14. Re:Rotting eggs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought burnoff was the standard way to handle these incidents. Does the company have so much clout that disrupting thousands of people's lives and making a huge area deadly is politically cheaper than one-and-a-half truckloads per hour of wasted product?

    15. Re:Rotting eggs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      its wasted either way -- vented or burned.

    16. Re: Rotting eggs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Your bathroom? Huh, luxury. Try my son's sneakers.

    17. Re:Rotting eggs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but flaring methane is not nearly as bad on the environment as letting it vent. It's the reason gas flaring is require by law.

    18. Re:Rotting eggs? by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Mike Rowe has a thing or two to say on smells.

    19. Re:Rotting eggs? by MarkRose · · Score: 2

      Yes, the two are different. H2S has a slightly sweet aroma. Methanethiol (aka methyl mercaptan), another sulphur compound, has a more sour smell (it occurs in urine after asparagus). Both are toxic in high enough concentrations.

      --
      Be relentless!
    20. Re:Rotting eggs? by pepsikid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Something said in another article about this leak, was that they *don't* try to burn them off, because it complicates the repair. I get the impression that the facility this leak is at is still open for business. The heat from the fire would force workers to keep a greater distance, and destroy equipment which the gas plume alone doesn't harm. It also seems that the leak is not coming out of a broken pipe, but rather from where it emerges, or even cracks in the ground nearby it. A fire fed like this might move around, pop up in unexpected places, and perhaps disintegrate the ground underneath the facility. Burnt, it's better for the environment, but set alight, it might never be put out.

    21. Re:Rotting eggs? by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      "So far, over 150 million pounds of methane have been released by the leak, " so by that measure 5666792.59539 cubic feet, so about $10 million - 50 million down the drain so far

      I'd like to know how much heat trapping capacity they are releasing into the atmosphere as well.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    22. Re: Rotting eggs? by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      Ha! Your son's sneakers could be used to freshen the room after opening a Canadian's hockey bag.

    23. Re:Rotting eggs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > It's a super-cheap way to store fuel, but in the minds of those who are not legally immunized from disasters like this one, extremely risky.

      Thanks for the clarification, but allow me to pinpoint that "cheap" should refer to the whole thing; if there's a possibility of disaster, it should be considered in the storage cost.

      The way things are done it's more like an externality -- a cost that is pushed to someone else (in the present case, on everyone, if it is understood the leakage will cause more climate disruption).

      "Legal immunization" is a disturbing concept IMHO.

    24. Re: Rotting eggs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should train yourself to shit in the daytime, you'd see an improvement with your sleep patterns

    25. Re:Rotting eggs? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      It's on my mad science to-do list already:
      - Achieve first magnetic shrinking of a manhole cover, powered by a lightning strike.
      - Build a fusion reactor. Just a fusor.
      - Manufacture a thioacetone stink bomb.
      - Build a laser lawnmower.

      Current project:
      - Power a small LED above the handle on my back gate using energy harvested from radio transmissions.

    26. Re:Rotting eggs? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      "What's that in tons or cubic meters?"
        - The entire rest of the world.

    27. Re:Rotting eggs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for the clarification, but allow me to pinpoint that "cheap" should refer to the whole thing; if there's a possibility of disaster, it should be considered in the storage cost.

      With the possibility of disaster being miniscule, you'd just insure against it and add the cost of the insurance, surely?

    28. Re: Rotting eggs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Canada isn't the only country that plays hockey. Have you tried a Finnish or Russian hockey bag?

    29. Re:Rotting eggs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Global warming! Global warming! The methane leak must be capped immediately. Why won't the politicians think of the children this time?

    30. Re:Rotting eggs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "My HS Chem teacher said it's considered the worst smelling substance known"

      Yeah.... not even close. Look up thioacetone. :-)

      I raise.

    31. Re:Rotting eggs? by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

      Not to mention all the dry brush from four-plus years of drought just waiting to burn.

      --
      How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
    32. Re:Rotting eggs? by thegarbz · · Score: 3, Interesting

      and distinctly (distinkly?) different from H2S (which could masquerade as flatulence).

      Very different from H2S. H2S is highly toxic and tricks your brain into thinking that you don't need to breath. It has some even better bonus features. At high concentrations (50ppm) it paradises your sense of smell so if you step into a H2S cloud you can get an instant whiff and then think you're back in the clear even though you're at great risk of death.

      Methyl Mercaptan doesn't paralyse your sense of smell, but it is also far more toxic. However stench (as it is called in the industry) is detectable in concentrations of 1ppb so you need only a tiny tiny fraction of the stuff to dose your consumer gas, and at that concentration it's quite safe for everyone except for the people working at sites which use it ... and their office workers ... and their families. Had a funny story from a mechanic who drew the short straw to overhaul a stench pump at our work. He walked into the office a day after still smelling and complaining that despite having 3 showers he was still sleeping on the couch and the dog is in his bed with the wife. We all would have laughed but we were holding our breath so we didn't need to smell him.

    33. Re:Rotting eggs? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      "Waa, we can't do simple math or use Google."
      -SuricouRaven trying to speak for the rest of the world.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    34. Re:Rotting eggs? by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Might never be put out, like this?

      50+ years later, still going strong.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    35. Re: Rotting eggs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cadaverene, putrecene. :)

    36. Re:Rotting eggs? by budgenator · · Score: 1

      As compared to what, having
      1. Los Angelenos lighting a coal furnace everytime the temperature dips below 22C?
      2. CO2 from the curing concrete to build enough Nuclear Fission Reactors to let Los Angelenos heat with electricity?
      3. CO2 from the curing concrete to build pads big enough to keep wind turbines from blowing down in the Santa Anna winds?
      4. Converting Natural Gas fueled power plant to coal?

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    37. Re:Rotting eggs? by eliphalet · · Score: 1

      Actually, this is a storage well run by So Cal Gas, the local utility, and the smell is the mercaptans that the gas was doped with.

    38. Re: Rotting eggs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except when the well cracks open. Then we have problems. Which happen. So now we have problems

    39. Re:Rotting eggs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would take more than that to obtain the result you're probably thinking of. Methane and heat alone an explosion does not make. You also need the proper mixture of oxygen to get methane to combust. At worst your roadflare idea would cause a localized fireball on the surface where the mixture was just right.

    40. Re:Rotting eggs? by nytes · · Score: 1

      Something like that happened in the '60's, at the same spot. A valve blew out and the escaping gas caught fire. It took them about two weeks to bring it under control.

      It looked pretty spectacular, though.

      --
      -- I have monkeys in my pants.
    41. Re:Rotting eggs? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      'crete liberates CO2 during the production of cement, it absorbs it during curing.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    42. Re:Rotting eggs? by pepsikid · · Score: 1

      Trust me, the agency responsible for this leak will NOT be penalized enough to be more careful in the future. This is effectively immunization, and that's better for business than any insurance policy. They calculate the losses (in lost profit + lawsuits, etc.) vs the expense of better safety, and whichever is cheapest wins. Who cares if 1600 customers are roasted in their own juices, when the expense of greater safety is larger than the profits those customers would have provided? :D

    43. Re:Rotting eggs? by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      As compared to what,

      Compared to nothing. what it is, for what it is. A gigantic fuck-up that we see from these industries that they're sowwy about

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    44. Re:Rotting eggs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MERCAPTANS AS A class of compounds are the smelliest think skunk sprays for a real world example.

      Hydrogen sulfide is actually a toxic compound and they would be doing a lot more if 100.000 pounds an HOUR of this stuff was erupting from a well

    45. Re:Rotting eggs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A flare? Oh hahaha your'e a funny mother fucker. Haha. Except it's a few miles from my home. Let's blow your town up instead. Asshole.

    46. Re:Rotting eggs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BUT BUT BUT, Global Warm..., er, AGW, er, Climate Cha... Nevermind.

  3. Re: More proof CA is ruled by those... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You just know they did this on purpose.

  4. WTF timmay by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 5, Funny

    Pumping fluids down into the will, usually the normal recourse, just isn't working, said [copmany spokesperson Anne] Silva.

    Great editing as always, timmay.

    1. Re:WTF timmay by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      Left me wondering what the unusual normal recourse is.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    2. Re:WTF timmay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Murder most fowl.

    3. Re:WTF timmay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Russians use a bomb to seal such leaks. Very effective.

    4. Re:WTF timmay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Crows?

  5. "into the will"? "copmany spokesperson"? by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 1

    I believe Timothy is showing signs of hypoxia. Better evacuate him immediately.

    (Typos not present in source article. Yes, I checked. Clicking through and copying text is one of my apparently-rare mutant powers.)

    1. Re:"into the will"? "copmany spokesperson"? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 3, Funny

      Typos not present in source article.

      So much for those who say the editors don't do anything anymore.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    2. Re: "into the will"? "copmany spokesperson"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is evacuating people another of your super powers, or do you plan to use a more mundane method such as a laxative?

    3. Re:"into the will"? "copmany spokesperson"? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Don't knock it - "copmany spokesperson" is doubleplusgood newspeak :)

    4. Re:"into the will"? "copmany spokesperson"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tag all timothy articles with timothyarselicker

  6. Just like deepwater horizon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gravity and dense fluid is basically the only way to match the pressure at the bottom of the well. The funny thing is the residents trying to start petitions for gov Brown to shut down the site and plug the well. I guess they expect him to stick his finger in the hole?

    1. Re:Just like deepwater horizon by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      It's going to be hard for a fluid to match pressures when there's 8,000 feet of rock pushing down on the deposit, and gas tends to bubble up through fluids, expanding as the pressure goes down.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    2. Re: Just like deepwater horizon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Concrete is a nice fluid for this. But it will cap the well permanently, so it looks live those greedy private morons are still trying to salvage it, out of pure greed

    3. Re: Just like deepwater horizon by stevelinton · · Score: 1

      Don't think so. I think they gave up on that some time ago, but they can't get the concrete deep enough or keep it there long enough to set.

    4. Re: Just like deepwater horizon by danceswithtrees · · Score: 1

      Not an expert in this field, but what you are advocating would almost certainly not work for natural gas. Imagine a propane tank with an access port where you can add or remove gas (don't know if the gas is liquified at storage temperatures and pressures). If the tank springs a leak somewhere else in the tank, you are not going to be able to seal it with a fluid that falls to the bottom when you pump it in-- unless the leak is at the bottom. What you propose works when the stored fluid is about the same density as concrete but in this case, the concrete will immediately separate and fall to the bottom.

      Don't get me wrong, I have no sympathy for the petroleum industry but I am sure they are trying to fix this as quickly as possible given the bad PR.

    5. Re: Just like deepwater horizon by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Concrete is a nice fluid for this. But it will cap the well permanently, so it looks live those greedy private morons are still trying to salvage it, out of pure greed

      It's a well into a natural gas storage field, they've already decided it has to be capped, it's not like it's the only well into the storage field, the leaking well was used to pump fluids into the field to maintain stable pressures. The easy fix is to drill another well to pump concrete down to the area of the leaking well to reduce pressure in the leaking well casing an then fill the leaker with concrete to seal it, i.e. cap the well permanently.

      The alternative is to shutdown facility and fill it with fluid to avoid collapse and earthquakes. That would also mean that Natural gas fired power plants wouldn't be assured of sufficient gas to operate during peak consumption times and rolling blackouts.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    6. Re: Just like deepwater horizon by nytes · · Score: 1

      Don't get me wrong, I have no sympathy for the petroleum industry but I am sure they are trying to fix this as quickly as possible given the bad PR.

      So. Cal. Gas is also stuck paying the hotel bills of all the evacuated families. About 4,000 families have requested relocation.

      --
      -- I have monkeys in my pants.
    7. Re: Just like deepwater horizon by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Does gas count as petroleum?

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  7. Re: More proof CA is ruled by those... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    People forget that it is the Republicans that rule CA. The Democratic Party has no influence here.

  8. Obligatory by SeaFox · · Score: 2, Funny

    Well it sounds like this really stinks for those residents.

    1. Re:Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      should be used to it by now... a little methane leak is hardly the only thing that stinks in california.

  9. No, methane is odourless. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Of course, the article gets that wrong (well done linking to vice of all places) and doesn't specify whether this is natural gas that has had the mercaptan added as required or if this is natural natural gas that has some other foul-smelling substance mixed. There's a typo in the summary too, but that's par for the course here.

    1. Re:No, methane is odourless. by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      It's a storage well containing already processed methane.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
  10. Re: More proof CA is ruled by those... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They love pollution because they know it hurts the poor and minorities more than them.

  11. Re: More proof CA is ruled by those... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's the same reason they're causing global warming.

  12. Throw a flare at it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If it's really that bad, strap a flare to a drone and fly it into the methane exhaust.

    Then maybe someone will take notice and actually do something about it, rather then this bullshit "oh well, ho hum, we'll drill another well as soon as we can" business-as-usual attitude. I'm guessing the facility is fully operational and pulling in profits for SCGC, despite the insane environmental harm it's currently causing? What incentive do they actually have to fix it right now? They haven't even confirmed if the secondary well will actually do anything.

    1. Re:Throw a flare at it? by itsenrique · · Score: 1, Troll

      I think you mean if the secondary will well do anything.

    2. Re:Throw a flare at it? by belthize · · Score: 4, Funny

      A flare won't work, methane has horrible eyesight and won't be attracted by it.

    3. Re: Throw a flare at it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't matter anyways since most methane is consumed by bacteria before it even reaches the atmosphere.

    4. Re:Throw a flare at it? by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But the flare would be attached to a drone and methane's vision is based on movement.

    5. Re:Throw a flare at it? by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      And then the methane will move around the drone to its operator whose last words will be "clever girl"...

    6. Re:Throw a flare at it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you're confusing Aliens with Predator.. :-]

    7. Re: Throw a flare at it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you might be thinking about something that doesn't actually exist.

    8. Re: Throw a flare at it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ken M? Is that you?

    9. Re:Throw a flare at it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If methane had bad eyesight, how would its vision be based on movement?

  13. Re: More proof CA is ruled by those... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's embarrassing to be from CA these days with our screwed up government.

  14. Possible fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe CA can deport Steve Ballmer to Washington state?

    1. Re:Possible fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe CA can deport Steve Ballmer to Washington state?

      No way! We already had him once - California can keep him!

    2. Re: Possible fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then what would they use to plug the hole?

  15. Re: More proof CA is ruled by those... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Voting for a Republucan is like owing the wrong person money.

  16. Re: More proof CA is ruled by those... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Our environmental laws are a joke. Are a joke.

  17. Re: More proof CA is ruled by those... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And they love that this is happening.

  18. Re: More proof CA is ruled by those... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We have oil wells even in Beverly Hills! This state has a horrific environmental record because of the Republicans.

  19. Re:More proof CA is ruled by those... by ganjadude · · Score: 0

    i gotta give you credit king troll, you managed to get more posts down than ive seen you get in the past

    you are still a moron but still, kudos

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  20. Well? by nitehawk214 · · Score: 0

    This stinks.

    --
    I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    1. Re: Well? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well? Done.

      Brevity is the soul of wit. Wish I had mod points for you.

  21. Burn it by Dan+East · · Score: 2

    Burn it. It's far better to burn it than let it escape as methane.

    --
    Better known as 318230.
    1. Re: Burn it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Farts too!

  22. Re: More proof CA is ruled by those... by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    Heeeey! It's Jimmy Two Times!

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  23. Trump! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trump!

    1. Re:Trump! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hear he can't be stumped...

    2. Re:Trump! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because he never gives real answers.

      Reporter: "What's your opinion on gov't-required backdoors on consumer devices?"

      Trump: "I'll find and put the very very best people on it and produce the very best solution. I'm very good at putting teams together, and my poll numbers show it."

  24. Golden Opportunity! by Baldrson · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Look at the prevailing atmospheric vorticity of the area, place a bunch of counter-vorticity-inducing stators around the biggest leak (just a few percent cant on them is sufficient) and light it up. The updraft will pull air in through the stators inducing continuous vorticity that will form a fire tornado miles into the atmosphere, totally oxidizing the methane and anything else that might burn in the gas.

    Once the fuel supply is cut off, the vortex may be self-sustaining due to the temperature difference between the ground and the upper troposphere. This is known as an Atmospheric Vortex Engine.

    To turn it off, you turn the stators straight in thereby removing the vorticity and the vortex structure dissipates into a normal updraft.

    1. Re:Golden Opportunity! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Funny

      Look at the prevailing atmospheric vorticity of the area, place a bunch of counter-vorticity-inducing stators around the biggest leak (just a few percent cant on them is sufficient) and light it up. The updraft will pull air in through the stators inducing continuous vorticity that will form a fire tornado [youtube.com] miles into the atmosphere, totally oxidizing the methane and anything else that might burn in the gas.

      I'll agree to your plan, but only if we make Dennis Arriola, the CEO of SoCal Gas light it with a Bic lighter while wearing a suit made from styrofoam peanuts soaked in gasoline.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:Golden Opportunity! by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Sort of makes sense, but isn't L.A. infamous for the temperature inversions that hold in the smog? I suppose there must be days with decent wind however.

    3. Re:Golden Opportunity! by Baldrson · · Score: 2

      This would punch a hole through any temperature inversion.

    4. Re: Golden Opportunity! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you've enjoyed hot showers,cooking with gas,or electricity generated by Natural gas,you should go ahead of him,since you're more culpable than he is,you're his master and he's your servant.Roman Marquez.

    5. Re:Golden Opportunity! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Serious question. If methane is so bad, why can't they ignite it? It burns to co2 and water.

    6. Re:Golden Opportunity! by wvmarle · · Score: 2

      Bad idea. At least you should give him a reliable lighter. Or a flare, just to make sure.

    7. Re: Golden Opportunity! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      you're his master and he's your servant.Roman Marquez

      Wait, you mean CEOs are all my servants? And I'm the master? Then I want Tim Cook to deliver a brand new Surface Pro to my house this afternoon along with a case of beer.

      Roman Marquez, you are a dope.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    8. Re:Golden Opportunity! by pz · · Score: 1

      Christ, will you please contact those idiots in California and convince them to use your plan? This is probably the smartest, most informed thing I've read on Slashdot all year.

      Moreover, it reinforces the observation that when something REALLY insightful (not merely marked as such) is posted, chances are very high that it was from someone with a low ID. Wisdom comes with age, as they say.

      --

      Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
    9. Re:Golden Opportunity! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good plan, but styrofoam peanuts dissolve in gasoline. Have you ever used a foam cup to transport gas?

    10. Re:Golden Opportunity! by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      It might be a density issue - methane requires a certain stoichiometric density to be flammable, somewhere around 17% I believe. Too much methane, not enough oxygen to support combustion.

      I'm sure there's some kind of goldilocks zone on the perimeter of the gas plume where you would get a very nice explosion and shock wave, but the higher densities towards the center wouldn't burn without some kind of oxidizer being injected.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    11. Re:Golden Opportunity! by dywolf · · Score: 1

      carry that thought a bit further, and you'll see that he knows exactly what he was saying.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
  25. Re:Burn it, but that would make CO2...Gasp! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Oh noes, you cant burn it, that would create the even more deadly greenhouse gas CO2...

    Give me a break people. This was an accident, and unlike in your theoretical world, sometimes accidents happen. In the grand scheme of the globe this release doesn't mean shit. More methane is released every day by far from biomass, ocean floor, cows farting, natural venting etc... across the planet.

    The gas leaking out is costing the company big money and they are doing everything they can to seal it. If they were to follow your jackass advice, not only would they have a massive NG leak, but they would also have a giant plume of flame that could set shit on fire, melt the well head and surrounding equipment and generally be extremely dangerous. The reality is this is an unavoidable risk of living in the modern world. If you think this is so terrible, have your gas shut off (and your electricity too now that much of it is generated by NG turbines thanks to enviro regs) and live by your envirowhackjob principles for a while. Better bundle up buttercup, cause it gets cold without a heater. I will enjoy all of my modern conveniences and technologies in the warmth and comfort of my NG heated home, and say a prayer for the brave workers trying to seal the leak. I accept that the world is imperfect and while we can and should work to be better, technology and modern conveniences are a net plus, even when there are accidents.

  26. Thanks, PepsiKid. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    Mod to +10.

  27. Climate change ohnoes :-0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Serves 'em right

  28. Re:Burn it, but that would make CO2...Gasp! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Give me a break people. This was an accident

    No. An accident is when you're drunk and you think you have to fart but you end up crapping your drawers.

    When a leak in your natural gas storage facility springs a leak so bad that it makes an entire California town uninhabitable and the residents seriously ill, has already dumped the greenhouse equivalent of a million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere and you won't be able to stop the leak until at least March, 2016, it's a fucking crime. They should be frog-marching the CEO and Board of Directors of SoCal Gas in handcuffs right now. Let the hundreds of families that have had to leave their homes indefinitely throw rocks at their heads.

    http://www.theguardian.com/us-...

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  29. more to it by Goldsmith · · Score: 5, Informative

    This article is pretty light on details. I know some of the residents in that area, and these are things some retired engineers have passed on to me from community meetings SCGC has had with them.

    This is an old (early 20th century) oil field with over 80 wells. If you've never driven around LA, you may not know that there are still operational oil fields inside the city, but think of the La Brea tar pits, and it makes sense.

    All of the wells in this field were designed to pump out oil. The pipes used in the wells are larger inner diameter than typically used with methane and have thinner and more porous wall material than typically used with methane. The pipes used are perfectly fine for oil, but would not be approved for a new methane well.

    SCGC uses this underground cavern emptied of oil as storage for methane for Los Angeles in lieu of constructed tanks. They can and do pump methane in and out, it's all processed and comes from somewhere else.

    What they did not do is verify that this old oil field will actually hold methane before they started using it. This leak looks like the methane is going through the porous concrete pipe that makes up the well and through the surrounding rock to the surface. This is why they can't seal the leak by clogging the pipe. It seems unlikely that anything short of capping all of the wells at the bottom or pumping out the methane will stop the leaking for good. They're halfway through drilling for one well, and don't intend to start on others until they show signs of leaking. All of their sensors are at ground level, so they will have no advance notice of an imminent leak.

    The local schools have been closed due to air quality issues, and a few thousand people have been temporarily moved at SCGC's expense. This leak accounts for 25% of the total expected statewide carbon emissions.

    1. Re:more to it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I use to work for ExxonMobil and did a lot of research on a well blowout in the N. Sea and killed almost 200 people from the heat or hypothermia from the sub freezing water they were forced to jump into. Methane gas is extremely volatile and H2S is not one in the same but is worst than methane because it will kill you instantly. I was exposed to test vessel filled with H2s that ruptured at about 20,000 psi, I was 1 of only 2 men that were there at 3:00am when this occurred. e had to use face mask and breathing air to enter the test lab. My friend's airline came loose from the connector and he collapsed instantly so I manage to drag him outside. Here are the EPA standards for worker exposure limits, it is not to be taken lightly. It smells worse than rotten eggs and it has a very distinct odor.
      Worker Exposure Limits
      NIOSH REL (10-min. ceiling): 10 ppm
      OSHA PELs: General Industry Ceiling Limit: 20 ppm
      General Industry Peak Limit: 50 ppm
      (up to 10 minutes if no other exposure during shift)
      Construction 8-hour Limit: 10 ppm
      Shipyard 8-hour limit: 10 ppm

      NIOSH IDLH: 100 ppm

      IDLH: immediately dangerous to life and health (level that interferes with the ability to escape) (NIOSH)

      PEL: permissible exposure limit (enforceable) (OSHA)

      ppm: parts per million

      REL: recommended exposure limit (NIOSH)

      Concentration
      (ppm)

      Symptoms/Effects

      0.00011-0.00033

      Typical background concentrations

      0.01-1.5

      Odor threshold (when rotten egg smell is first noticeable to some). Odor becomes more offensive at 3-5 ppm. Above 30 ppm, odor described as sweet or sickeningly sweet.

      2-5

      Prolonged exposure may cause nausea, tearing of the eyes, headaches or loss of sleep. Airway problems (bronchial constriction) in some asthma patients.

      20

      Possible fatigue, loss of appetite, headache, irritability, poor memory, dizziness.

      50-100

      Slight conjunctivitis ("gas eye") and respiratory tract irritation after 1 hour. May cause digestive upset and loss of appetite.

      100

      Coughing, eye irritation, loss of smell after 2-15 minutes (olfactory fatigue). Altered breathing, drowsiness after 15-30 minutes. Throat irritation after 1 hour. Gradual increase in severity of symptoms over several hours. Death may occur after 48 hours.

      100-150

      Loss of smell (olfactory fatigue or paralysis).

      200-300

      Marked conjunctivitis and respiratory tract irritation after 1 hour. Pulmonary edema may occur from prolonged exposure.

      500-700

      Staggering, collapse in 5 minutes. Serious damage to the eyes in 30 minutes. Death after 30-60 minutes.

      700-1000

      Rapid unconsciousness, "knockdown" or immediate collapse within 1 to 2 breaths, breathing stops, death within minutes.

      1000-2000

      Nearly instant death

    2. Re:more to it by khallow · · Score: 1

      Sounds like no H2S is involved. The smell comes from the odorant they stick in to natural gas so you know it's leaking.

    3. Re: more to it by TheReaperD · · Score: 1

      From what others have said, this well is storing processed methane with the oderant added in already. So, it would smell worse than dead people's farts.

      --
      "Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
    4. Re:more to it by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      I bet those executives who decided to take on the risk of using this well for methane storage still got their bonuses, though.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    5. Re:more to it by MarkRose · · Score: 1

      I've only been gassed once. It happened earlier this year from a fumarole in a geothermic area. I breathed the vapours for about half a minute when the wind shifted and ended up with irritated lungs for the next few hours (my eyes were also sore, but that could have been due to the sun; I was already sunburnt). My breathing peaked in tightness about an hour later. I also had a sore throat. No pulmonary edema. I'm not sure if I lost my sense of smell or not at the time. I do remember some drowsiness shortly after. I figure the concentration was close to 100 ppm H2S. It doesn't take much.

      --
      Be relentless!
    6. Re:more to it by MarkRose · · Score: 1

      The methanethiol they add to natural gas is about equally toxic. The use the different chemical so you know it's natural gas and not something else. Methanethiol occurs naturally in the body, so small concentrations are harmless. High concentrations are deadly. Methanethiol, like H2S, is heavier than air and it may pool in low lying areas.

      --
      Be relentless!
    7. Re:more to it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean life isn't black and white and there are so many shades in between that taking a staunch position on either side is actually a really simplified and dumb way to view the world?

    8. Re:more to it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean life isn't black and white and there are so many shades in between that taking a staunch position on either side is actually a really simplified and dumb way to view the world?

      There are at least 50 shades of grey....

    9. Re:more to it by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because this thread has a complete lack of people in it that want to see a perp walk of a CEO.

      Are you cracked?

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    10. Re:more to it by k6mfw · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the informative post.

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
    11. Re:more to it by nytes · · Score: 1

      They've been using this site for decades. They had a quite spectacular valve bow-out and fire in the late '60's/early '70's. The plume of fire was visible for miles.

      This place is also in the shadow of the Santa Susana Field Laboratory.

      --
      -- I have monkeys in my pants.
    12. Re:more to it by Reziac · · Score: 1

      From the map it appears this is the Aliso Canyon east of Acton, not the one in Orange County. And being familiar with the Acton area -- assuming it's the one in question (and that area is lousy with oil wells) I wonder how much of this is media feeding hysteria. Prevailing wind is from the west/southwest, and there's nothing much to the east/NE of the area but a few ranches and a lot of wilderness. It's kind of an isolated valley, and the nearest schools are in Acton, over the hill and upwind. Not so good if you live in the canyon, but not the widescale disaster that's being implied. (Indeed, I wonder how this compares to the natural gas seeps in the area.)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    13. Re:more to it by khallow · · Score: 1

      The methanethiol they add to natural gas is about equally toxic.

      But not equal in concentration. I notice that the literature claims methanethiol is in concentrations of around 1 part per million (ppm) in natural gas and LD50 in rats is around 675 ppm. So you have to concentrate methanethiol by almost three orders of magnitude without simultaneously creating a lethal concentration of natural gas.

    14. Re:more to it by Goldsmith · · Score: 1

      The Aliso Canyon you're looking for is the Aliso Canyon in the city of Los Angeles (it's a city "park" that's really just a couple of old trails). It's in the neighborhood of Porter Ranch at the edge of the San Fernando Valley.

      I'm sure there's a lot of extraneous media hype surrounding this, but SCGC was meeting with residents and moving people out well before the media got involved. Methane isn't really a big health hazard, but SCGC is taking this pretty seriously.

    15. Re:more to it by Reziac · · Score: 1

      There's another Aliso Canyon down in Orange County. They're everywhere!!

      Frankly I'd trust the gas company over the city or the media.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    16. Re:more to it by carbonates · · Score: 1

      I agree the article is light on details. I have been unable to find an article that explains the actual engineering problem they are dealing with. No one seems to be reporting WHERE the methane is leaking from. Is it coming from a blowout of an existing well that cannot be controlled? Or is it leaking outside of the well casing and coming up around the well through the earth (similar to Macondo)? No one seems to report that and it makes a huge difference. As someone who works in the drilling business for oil and gas I have to assume this leak is outside the well casing, coming through rock strata because controlling a blowout does not normally take this long.

      Your explanation about the "pipes used in the wells" is pure bullshit however. The same well 7" steel casing is used for gas and oil, and in fact this field produced gas. The Aliso Canyon Field which is now used for storage has about 212 wells in it, and the earliest wells are not that old. The early drilling was in the 1970's. By oilfield standards that is a fairly modern field. Some of these wells produced as much as 7 Billion cubic feet of natural gas before they were depleted. They were suitably designed for gas and oil. The field most certainly held methane before they started using it, because it produced methane. For what it is worth, I currently manage an oil and gas field that produces out of 7 inch casing at about 8,000 feet, and has been producing since the 1970's. We do inject water, but have not yet considered using it for gas storage because it is still producing gas and oil.

      Natural gas storage in oil fields is the norm around the world, not the exception. Building tanks is much less safe and more expensive, plus tanks to hold the quantities of gas that are stored would be huge beyond engineering capabilities. This is the most practical solution to storing natural gas. What they did wrong is probably more closely related (and I am speculatiing) to not doing enough cement bond logging, and not enough casing inspections, and basically not enough due diligence to assure themselves that every well they are using for injection is sound and can hold. However, the part that disappoints me the most is that there does not seem to be any communication with the media about what is actually happening.

      For what it is worth, the Los Angeles Basin still holds the record as the most productive oil basin in the world in terms of barrels of production per acre. Few people in Los Angeles realize the city was built on oil, and much of the original wealth of Los Angeles was made by oil. Getty once owned Malibu. Doheny Drive in Hollywood is named for one of the largest oil prospectors in California, who established the oil business in Los Angeles. Recent estimates of Wilmington Field, that stretches across southern Los Angeles, estimate it still holds a Billion barrels recoverable.

    17. Re:more to it by carbonates · · Score: 1

      I've done some additional checking and found there are wells that were drilled in this field as far back as the 1940's (by Getty Oil coincidentally). However, many of the wells are much newer. This adds to my frustration with the reporting. Wells all have names. Reporters should be reporting the well name. Then at least someone could go access public permit records and see how the well bore in this well was constructed. I have yet to find a reporter in California who realizes that all of that information is publicly available. I have been very frustrated by AP doing FOIA requests for well information that I could find in five minutes online, that they spent months and thousands of my tax dollars trying to obtain, and then claimed they had "discovered" something.

    18. Re:more to it by Swave+An+deBwoner · · Score: 1

      This place is also in the shadow of the Santa Susana Field Laboratory. [wikipedia.org]

      Wow. That's all I can say after reading that wikipedia article.

  30. Sue the fuck out of them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That is the only real recourse.

    1. Re:Sue the fuck out of them. by freeze128 · · Score: 1

      I don't think that will matter much. BP was sued after they dragged their feet capping an underwater oil well, and they still have plenty of fuck left in them.

    2. Re:Sue the fuck out of them. by kwbauer · · Score: 1

      Yup, the only recourse is to force them to give you a loan and then pay it back slowly over time. Good thinking there. Oh wait. Force them to give the government regulatory agencies money and then pay it for them. Either way, the residents (who are also most likely customers) end up paying.

    3. Re:Sue the fuck out of them. by aevan · · Score: 1

      I'm in favour of plugging the leak by throwing upper management into it. If that doesn't suffice, throw middle management into the leak. If it still fails, there shouldn't be anyone to complain about just burning the methane. Deterrent and solution, all rolled into one.

    4. Re:Sue the fuck out of them. by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      BP received one of the largest fines in history for their deepwater screwup: $18.7 billion, or roughly six year's worth of declared operating profit. The investigating revealed systematic incompetence and lax safety practices, including deliberately electing not to install essential but expensive head equipment and falsifying equipment tests. Despite this few individuals have faced any serious penalty because the corporation, as corporations are intended to do, acts to shield individuals from liability. The only people who may face jail time are one engineer and two site managers - and so far only one has been sentenced, to probation. Not a single person has actually spent even one day behind bars.

      A corporation as a legal entity has many purposes. One of which is to protect individual workers from liability. Turns out it's pretty good at protecting them from criminal accountability too.

  31. Where is the FEMA money or similar? by dbIII · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's a disasterous waste of a resource and many people have had to be evacuated, possibly for months. Why isn't there a serious response on the federal level instead of expecting the company to do whatever they can with their own resources? A spill in the gulf was dealt with on such a level.

    1. Re:Where is the FEMA money or similar? by Firethorn · · Score: 4, Informative

      Why isn't there a serious response on the federal level instead of expecting the company to do whatever they can with their own resources? A spill in the gulf was dealt with on such a level.

      Actually, the spill in the gulf was mostly dealt with on a company level, with the feds breathing down their neck going 'fix it now!' That involved subcontracting, which is the same sort of deal we're seeing here.

      For that matter, the gulf spill involved the same sort of response - they had to drill a relief well to take pressure off the original in order to fix a leak.

      Which brings up the question: How do you propose that the feds increase the speed of drilling the relief well? Think of it like drilling into a safe. It's going to take a while, and having a dozen guys 'assisting' isn't going to make it go any faster.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    2. Re:Where is the FEMA money or similar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Natural gas is "invisible" so less nasty images for the media to plaster all over the place ;)

    3. Re:Where is the FEMA money or similar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the politicians with their fingers on the levers have to keep the propaganda straight. The story is that the only thing this is harming is the few thousand people who needed to be evacuated. The reality is that this is such a major leak of a major greenhouse gas that it will have an effect on the local climate and environment. But that effect cannot be acknowledged because to acknowledge it would then give political legitimacy to climate change action in a way that they do not want. This leak is equal to 25% of ANNUAL greenhouse gas emmisions so far. If it keeps going for another month then that will then be 50% of annual greenhouse gas emmissions.

      And unless they have a concrete that can be pumped down at a high enough pressure to push back against the gas and hold it back.... its going to keep spewing until the pressure is reduced. The problem is that there is sooo much gas down there that the only way to reduce pressure is to vent the well into the atmosphere. They dont have any where else to pump it. UNLESS, they can bring in empty NG gas ships and pump it back down to long beach. But then again, we dont know how much volume they have down there. They might have more volume then they have ships.

      And as had been said before... what is being left on the table in an effort to salvage the well rather than permanently seal it. amazing that this kind of thing was allowed right below major earthquake faults.

    4. Re:Where is the FEMA money or similar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And interestingly, the Feds delayed BP from doing what they wanted to do for weeks -- a more aggressive top kill. The Feds were wimps and afraid that it might not work and were worried that if it failed, THEY would be held responsible so they preferred to dither and prevent progress for weeks. When the Feds eventually green-lighted the more aggressive top kill, it worked wonderfully. So, the Fed's excessive caution caused a lot more oil to spill into the gulf. The Feds then required the relief wells (I think both) to continue until the first one reached it's target to do a bottom kill on the well which was already killed. This requirement to kill a well that was already "dead" perplexed people in the industry - it was like pouring water on a fire that was already submerged.

      The well was killed well before the first (let alone the second) relief well reached the leaking well.

    5. Re:Where is the FEMA money or similar? by kwbauer · · Score: 1

      Yeah, maybe the EPA could come in and clean it up like they did in Colorado and Utah.

    6. Re:Where is the FEMA money or similar? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      I suggest you read your last paragraph again and then consider what the article is telling us even if you know nothing at all about this sort of thing other than that. Only a few moments thought will make you wonder why you wrote something as stupid as that. I do not think you are stupid, just that you are appearing so by writing in haste, maybe after a few drinks.

    7. Re:Where is the FEMA money or similar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holy shit. You actually think FEMA is designed for or capable of helping?

      Wow. See something new every day.

    8. Re:Where is the FEMA money or similar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean the well that was still leaking two years after it was declared "sealed?"

    9. Re:Where is the FEMA money or similar? by budgenator · · Score: 1

      It's a disasterous waste of a resource and many people have had to be evacuated, possibly for months. Why isn't there a serious response on the federal level instead of expecting the company to do whatever they can with their own resources? A spill in the gulf was dealt with on such a level.

      What they are doing is drilling a well 3800 ft down, and then steering the drill-bit to over to hit the 7 inch pipe, then pour concrete into the leaking 7 inch pipe through the new well! They have actually detected the 7 inch pipe and are steering toward it now; it would be like threading a needle blindfolded with someone else giving you directions; how are you going to hurry that up?

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    10. Re:Where is the FEMA money or similar? by sjames · · Score: 1

      A few regulators nixing a 2 week furlough and demanding a second and third shift be brought in can speed things up a bit.

    11. Re:Where is the FEMA money or similar? by k6mfw · · Score: 1

      There are no FEMA emergency response teams with equipment, such disaster response teams come from the state OES and similar agencies. FEMA basically provides money and contractors.

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
    12. Re:Where is the FEMA money or similar? by dywolf · · Score: 1

      We cant all be believers in the Agenda 21 Camping trip.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
  32. Re: More proof CA is ruled by those... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Our Governor passes laws by executive fiat,making long showers illegal? Shower police? And all kinds of other crazy stuff.

  33. Re: More proof CA is ruled by those... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh they're the only ones driving cars and all the other stuff that crude oil makes possible?

  34. Re: More proof CA is ruled by those... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Darn that Jed Clampett!

  35. Re: More proof CA is ruled by those... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They love minnows more than people too

  36. Re: Burn it, but that would make CO2...Gasp! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All life produces an astronomical amount of methane but most of it never reaches the atmosphere thanks to bacteria.

  37. Well done... by dimethylxanthine · · Score: 2

    At the mind-boggling 110,000 pph (interesting choice of units for measuring a quantity of gas, btw) I don't know if this will be the atmospheric version of the Deep Water Horizon... There would probably be less damage overall if you'd just bought it straight from Gazprom... Sad :(

    1. Re:Well done... by Firethorn · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Assuming it's pure methane, that would be ~23k BTU/lb, or about 2.5B BTU/hour.

      At around $1.80 per Million BTU, that's about $4,500 worth of gas leaking out per hour. About $3.2M/month.

      Not good, by any means, but I think dollars puts it into better scale.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    2. Re:Well done... by crbowman · · Score: 1

      Not really pounds per hours seems reasonable. You want to measure a quantity of gas escaping per unit of time not a volume (which would depend on temp an pressure). Stating it in moles or some other unit not familiar to lay people to whom you're trying to communicate would be foolish.

    3. Re:Well done... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Some other numbers to note. There are approximately 6000 households that have to be relocated. The adjoining community is relatively upscale, and SoCal Gas has been told they must provide comparable housing, so they have to pay up to $7600/month for each household (prices in the area have skyrocketed for temporary housing). That could mean as much as $45M/month for relocation expenses. Not to mention that the residents have been able to get Erin Brockovich and her legal team to speak on their behalf, since SoCal Gas has been dragging their feet and thousands are still on the wait list for relocation.

    4. Re: Well done... by JoeRobe · · Score: 1

      I agree with the units issue. The American pre-distribution NG sectors work in standard cubic feet (where standard is usually but not always 15C and 1 atm). Sometimes they work in standard liters. In Europe they frequently work in normal cubic meters.

      If I were reporting this, I would give units of cfh and btu/hr. Btu is what a person is actually paying for.

      --
      The best way to predict the future is to invent it.
  38. Re: More proof CA is ruled by those... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Al Gore Made millions and temperatures haven't risen at all too Now they're causing climate change" same scam,different name,like they have that kind of power!stop looking at the sky,and do something about the problems in California,

  39. Re: More proof CA is ruled by those... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You should pay back any money you owe,like I'm too dumb to figure republicans out by myself,thanks for the advice,I knew you would tell it!

  40. Re: Burn it, but that would make CO2...Gasp! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An accident would be listening to you're twisted logic,Roman Marquez

  41. Re:Burn it, but that would make CO2...Gasp! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    One can spend 100% of resources on attempting to get 100% perfect outcomes. The problem is, it's possible to spend 100% of your resources, it's impossible to get 100% perfect outcomes.

    If you had an automobile accident that killed someone (or inadvertently set your apartment on fire and it ended up killing a neighbor, or rode your bike around a pothole and swerved into traffic and caused an accident because you didn't signal properly and someone died in that accident), I assume you would expect and welcome (and even demand, in the interests of proportionality and fairness) an even worse fate than you are proposing for the CEO and BOD of SoCal Gas. I assume this since you are proposing a fairly quick death - probably only a few hours - for temporarily inconveniencing some people, presumably your death for actually KILLING someone by accident should presumably be allowed to be a lot slower and more painful -- you should hope the family of the person(s) you killed are not too creative because they could keep you alive for years with you begging to be killed every hour of every day.

  42. why stockpiling? by supernova87a · · Score: 2

    Maybe this is a dumb question, but why in the world were they stockpiling that much gas to begin with?

    1. Re:why stockpiling? by bgarcia · · Score: 1

      They didn't drill into a natural stockpile. They were pumping processed NG into old, empty oil wells for storage. That's why there's an odor - natural gas with no additives does not produce an odor.

      --
      I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
    2. Re:why stockpiling? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Because there isn't enough transport capacity into the LA basin during peak load periods.

    3. Re:why stockpiling? by BetterSense · · Score: 1, Interesting

      They are probably waiting for the price to go up. There are wells all over the Midwest that have been prepped for drilling but not drilled, or drilled but not fracked, or fracked but are being held idle, because the economics of their existence was calculated on $80+/barrel oil. The companies are letting them sit hoping the price goes up so they can make more. It's easy to project how long this is worth doing given a certain amount of volatility in the price and the fact that demand will always be there, in fact, the current glut of NG in North America means applications are being converted to run NG, possibly boosting the coming price upswing.

    4. Re: why stockpiling? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's nothing too nefarious. Well production happens all year long, but demand spikes in the winter. So during summer they store unused (processed) gas in these wells, and then pull it out during winter.

    5. Re:why stockpiling? by stoatwblr · · Score: 2

      The same reason all gas companies use large storage vessels of some sort or another:

      Demand is never constant, supply can be highly variable and you need to maintain delivery pressure within a fairly tight window regardless.

      There's usually 3-6 months' supply of gas in the EU distribution networks at any one time, which is handy when russia cuts off the flow into western europe during a dispute with Ukraine, etc. On the other side of the continent, LNG ships plugged into the distribution system result in highly irregular input patterns.

      Pressurisation of the reservoir is done when demand (and energy prices to run the pumps) are low. Feedout is done in peak periods.

      It's just as well this is processed gas in any case. A raw gas leak would be deadly, not just smelly.

    6. Re:why stockpiling? by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Probably because the pipelines in or the supplying wells to the area have insufficient capacity during peak demand periods and/or they can buy extra when prices are low in the summer and use it in the winter when prices are higher. This is standard practice in the industry. These are our Underground Natural Gas Storage in Michigan.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    7. Re:why stockpiling? by nytes · · Score: 1

      We were getting ready for the zombie apocalypse.

      --
      -- I have monkeys in my pants.
    8. Re:why stockpiling? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      All the ones that can.

      One of the interesting problems I worked on using utility models was Florida's gas burn forecasting.

      Florida has no significant natural gas storage, so utilities have to tell the pipeline company how much they will be burning ahead of time. The time increases as you go south (as the pipelines run N to S). If they get it wrong (too low) they burn oil, if too high, they flare gas.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    9. Re:why stockpiling? by supernova87a · · Score: 1

      After seeing peoples' replies below, I did a little math. SoCal residential uses about 244 billion cf gas each year (ref and ref ) and let's assume that is what this inventory is used for. 244 billion cf gas = 20.2 billion pounds (using 12.076 cf per pound of standard gas ref).

      So according to the article, 150 million pounds have been leaked, or 0.7% of the above annual usage.

      If the rate of 110,000 pounds per hour continues for 2 months, making some assumptions from the article, then 158 million pounds more will leak, or another 0.8% of the stockpile.

      Why can't anyone put it in terms like this for people to better visualize the issue...

  43. Where xactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    wanna go there with a bic an take a selfie.

  44. Re:Burn it, but that would make CO2...Gasp! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since when does life owe you something. Shit fucking happens. Should the State of Texas sue God for the storms and hurricanes they are suffering. Perhaps the residents of Texas could sue the government for not doing enough to protect it's citizens from these so called natural disaster. Perhaps you could sue your parents for bringing such an obviously flawed and emotionally challenged creature into the world.

    Cowboy up. The world and no one on owe you anything. Suing is absolutely the last coarse of action that any self respecting decent man should ever take. However vigilante action is entirely justified. I like your idea of throwing rocks at the problem until it goes away. Violence and force are the universal problem solvers. Enough force directed at any problems will make it go away or become irrelevant.

    The problem is that when anything goes wrong with any part of someone life to make it not perfect, people want to sue. There is something pathological about this. The world is not perfect and neither is anyone who lives on it. Deal with it. Where would we be if our forefathers who had long ago migrated across continents and oceans sued everything in existence if their lives were not sufficiently free of hardship. Did Christopher Columbus sue the maker of his boat when it started leaking. Fuck no.

  45. Re:Burn it, but that would make CO2...Gasp! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is especially the case when the only reason why they were using an old natural well to store the gas (knowing full well when those things fail they're very difficult to fix if at all) is to save money since making a proper storage well costs $$$.

  46. hmmm.. by SuperDre · · Score: 1

    seems like the movie 'the arrival', aliens are warming up the planet so they can take over... LOL...

  47. Re:Burn it, but that would make CO2...Gasp! by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They should be frog-marching the CEO and Board of Directors of SoCal Gas in handcuffs right now. Let the hundreds of families that have had to leave their homes indefinitely throw rocks at their heads.

    Cowboy up. The world and no one on owe you anything.

    So what you're saying is that the people affected by this problem should take the law into their own hands, and string those fuckers up? Because the world and no one owes them anything, like protection from those who would attack them?

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  48. If you need FEMA you are already FUCKED by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    Why isn't there a serious response on the federal level instead of expecting the company to do whatever they can with their own resources? A spill in the gulf was dealt with on such a level.

    If you're looking for relief from FEMA, you are looking in the wrong place. We just had a fire here in NoCal called the Valley Fire. First the ARC showed up and mismanaged the refugee camps to the point that aid supplies were just lying around. They not only didn't put on enough people to handle the problem, but they actively chased away any volunteer who was not a member of the ARC and refused to let them help. This was followed up by FEMA making people apply for aid on specific dates, then telling even people who applied correctly that they had made an error and in many cases denying them any aid at all, and generally giving aid willingly only to homeowners. And lots of these people are finding that even their fire insurance plus whatever pittance (if any) they manage to wrangle out of FEMA is insufficient to rebuild. And most of them won't even be permitted to do that (as in, with a building permit) for over a year after the incident.

    If you are subject to a disaster in the USA, you are well and rightly fucked. You can expect deliberately poor treatment.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:If you need FEMA you are already FUCKED by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Dude, they don't WANT to rebuild until after the mud slides are over. Many of the steeper places that burned will now slide. It's just the natural progression in CA.

      Who's fault is it if they carried insufficient fire insurance?

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    2. Re:If you need FEMA you are already FUCKED by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Dude, they don't WANT to rebuild until after the mud slides are over. Many of the steeper places that burned will now slide. It's just the natural progression in CA.

      They're not letting people build in most of the places that clearly won't slide, either. It's not because they're not issuing permits yet. It's that they're being assholes about it, and issuing them too slowly.

      Who's fault is it if they carried insufficient fire insurance?

      If they were told that it was adequate and found out later that the insurance company lied to them? The insurance company. And that's been going around. It wouldn't be such a problem if FEMA weren't denying people relief even when they clearly qualify, through sneaky tactics like not informing them of when and where their review meeting is. This is par for the course for government, though. I wasn't informed as to where my hearing against an employer who didn't pay me was, and I'm told the judge was upset that I wasn't there. But the job board didn't actually contact me like they were supposed to, so I wasn't even aware a trial happened. FEMA is using the same tactics to avoid giving relief to former homeowners who became homeless and destitute as a result of the fire, which is in turn a result of poor land management practice.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:If you need FEMA you are already FUCKED by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      You need an insurance company to tell you the current market value of your house and possessions? How would they know?

      FEMA has a long tradition of being useless. Nothing new there.

      The whole of CA's foothills are a nightmare to get building permits for. Just permits are $20k+ for a house.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    4. Re:If you need FEMA you are already FUCKED by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The whole of CA's foothills are a nightmare to get building permits for. Just permits are $20k+ for a house.

      Here in Lake County it can cost you over $30k for all the necessary permits and connection fees (not including the actual water and/or sewer connection, just the fees) for just a one-bedroom house... that's more than the building materials. And this county is a bit of a hole.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:If you need FEMA you are already FUCKED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The traditional solution is to call the rebuild a remodel. You just need one corner of the house still standing.

      A bit of a hole? 'Clear' Lake has three teeth, total.

  49. Re:Burn it, but that would make CO2...Gasp! by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 2
    Should the State of Texas sue God for the storms and hurricanes they are suffering?

    Hell, yeah!

    Its more sensible than a lot of other things that happen in Texas, and the movie rights would be worth even more than the legal fees. Unless God's legal team actually win and Texas has to pay - where is Chuck Norris when you need him?.

    --
    Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
  50. it's natural gas by X10 · · Score: 1

    Methane is natural gas. In this country it's piped to homes for cooking and heating. Why can't they do that in California?

    --
    no, I don't have a sig
    1. Re:it's natural gas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because California. They have a thing against fossil fuels there.

    2. Re:it's natural gas by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

      We do. I live in suburban Los Angeles county, and our heating and cooking is all done by natural gas (methane). That's why the Southern California Gas Company exists.

      --
      How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
    3. Re: it's natural gas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They can and they do. That's the propose of storing it right there. But this methane isn't coming from the wellhead. It's coming out of a hole in the ground because the storage well failed. Hard to capture and sell that.

  51. compared to cow farts by kwoff · · Score: 2

    By my calculations, this well is about 0.3% of the world's cows methane output (according to the webs, 265 pounds per year per cow; and there are over a billion cows), or the equivalent of about 3.67 million cows. (Note: I consume meat/dairy products. Just trying to put it into perspective.)

    1. Re:compared to cow farts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This post needs more MOOOOOOO! Cows go MOOOOOOO!

  52. Methane is odorless by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

    Methane leaking from a well doesn't smell like rotten eggs, because that smell is added by the gas company before it goes into distribution.

    Methane in its natural, unadulterated gaseous phase is colorless and odorless.

    1. Re:Methane is odorless by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      Methane in its natural state is colorless and odorless but what comes out of the ground is a mixture of methane, propane and (usually) a bunch of sulfur-related compounds.

      It does tend to smell like rotten eggs, but the hydrogen sulphide is removed long before it hits consumer outlets as that compound is highly toxic (almost as toxic as hydrogen cyanide). What's added to consumer gas is mercaptan - equally pungent but unlikely to kill people.

    2. Re:Methane is odorless by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      I forgot to add: raw gas also contains copious quantities of CO2 (up to 50%) and CO, neither of which you really want hanging around in a populated area.

  53. Re:More proof CA is ruled by those... by vel-ex-tech · · Score: 1

    I just read them in the voice of the blue and pink unicorns in this documentary about Candy Mountain.

    Chaaarlie! It's a magical liopleurodon, Chaaarlie! The Republicans hate liopleurodons, Chaaarlie!

  54. Re:Burn it, but that would make CO2...Gasp! by vel-ex-tech · · Score: 1

    Oh god, the shills are out!

    There are no such things as accidents as concerns vehicles: cars, four wheel trucks, big trucks, or bicycles. There are only collisions. Not linking to the Smith System because obvious shill is obvious.

    No, I'm sorry, safety fucking first. Especially as concerns an operation such as this one, there are no motherfucking accidents. This is the result of an asshole manager. (In this case, an asshole manager who even fails at gaslighting!)

  55. Storage Well by NReitzel · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So this is a storage well for natural gas, right.

    Is that anything like the proposed storage wells for captured carbon dioxide? Sequestering billions of tons of carbon dioxide in undrerground in deep wells so it doesn't get into the atmosphere and cause trouble?

    Methane is lighter than air and disperses quickly -- in fact it goes to the upper atmosphere where it causes the problems that it causes. So this light gas which isn't particularly toxic hangs around long enough for it's impurities to force the evacuation of 1700 homes. Now what would happen if a CO2 storage facility would have a similar blowout, of a gas that is very heavy and creeps along the ground and kills people in houses (and livestock) instead of just stinking them out?

    And unlike nuclear waste that is dangerous for thousands of years, carbon dioxide is deadly forever.

    Is it really such a great idea to consider storage and capture?

    --

    Don't take life too seriously; it isn't permanent.

    1. Re:Storage Well by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      "Now what would happen if a CO2 storage facility would have a similar blowout, of a gas that is very heavy and creeps along the ground and kills people in houses (and livestock) instead of just stinking them out?"

      Lake Nyos.

    2. Re:Storage Well by danceswithtrees · · Score: 2

      Can't tell if intentionally trolling or just slightly misinformed. When people talk about carbon sequestration, no one is considering what you just wrote. There are several different methods of carbon sequestration. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      but they involve turning CO2 into solid form, e.g. mineral carbonates (think calcium carbonate, i.e. antacid), that are buried.

    3. Re:Storage Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, for one thing CO2 is heavy so it wouldn't magically creep out of an underground storage facility. You will need an eruption of some sort for that to happen, or build a CO2 storage on the top of a mountain.
      In the case of Lake Nyos the CO2 was underwater and could have been accelerated towards the surface so building a CO2 storage at the bottom of a lake is also risky and very impractical.
      If you store CO2 in volcanic areas you have a larger problem. I also recommend that you don't build nuclear reactors in volcanic areas because that can also cause bad situations. (And you have accessible geothermal energy available anyway.)

    4. Re: Storage Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not that it hangs around. But the concentration in air. For methane, remember, there is a flammable range. And it is like any gas, it is inconsistent in its movement, and not being seen, until it oxidizes. But, that clean gas would not soot the marshmallows.

    5. Re:Storage Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "rock fissures and tectonic processes may act to release the gas stored into the ocean or atmosphere."

    6. Re:Storage Well by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      One would assume that your CO2 sequestration facility would not operate at atmospheric densities. If you did, it would be incredibly inefficient, but as you stated, not at risk of any kind of eruption without an external force.

      My guess is that they would pressurize the storage in order to put more CO2 in there, which is kind of the point. Should the storage rupture, the pressure would force the gas out.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    7. Re:Storage Well by danbert8 · · Score: 1

      They are stored underground AND under pressure. Storing a gas at atmospheric pressure would be a huge waste.

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    8. Re:Storage Well by danbert8 · · Score: 1

      Nature has already done this to almost all of the CO2 that used to be in the atmosphere... It's called "limestone."

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    9. Re:Storage Well by budgenator · · Score: 1

      I know a guy who works in the field and the compressors that pump the natural gas into storage facility operate at 15,000 PSI, the manufacturer's operator school was a month long, as was the maintenance school. I'd assume the same equipment would be used for CO2 sequestration or compressed air energy storage.

        The LA area is unique due to the high seismicity, so I'm surprised they can keep anything in the ground, I'm 60 and I've felt a total of 2 earthquake in my entire life in Michigan. Underground storage would be more workable here, at least until the New Madrid fault ruptures. Last time the New Madrid fault ruptured even the dirt wouldn't stay in the ground!

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    10. Re:Storage Well by pepsikid · · Score: 1

      Neither the CO2, nor the natural gas in question, is just rising due to buoyancy. The weight of the thousands of feet of rock holds the gas under pressure. It's like a whoopie cushion with a stack of 99 cinder blocks on top of it. It's actually physically impossible to store gas underground at surface-level densities. It takes a lot of pressure to force it down there, but the advantage is that you don't need power to extract this gas; just a pressure regulator. The earth is full of cracks and holes, most of which are pressed tightly together, making an airtight seal. Evidently the earth around this exhausted oil well isn't sealed tightly enough, at least not any more. In the case of this natural gas, like the Deepwater Horizon oil disaster, the regulators and valves have been circumvented. Any gas (or liquid) sequestered in this manner will shoot up like a rocket for months or years. CO2 will fill up nearby valleys and flow along low-lying paths. Until the reserve runs out, it would create a zone lethal to animals.

  56. Re:By the plan. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    YOU insisted on swallowing the rhetoric of government == evil because you thought you'd keep more of "your" money. YOU don't get to piss and moan that government isn't wealthy enough to help when there's a disaster.

    No, no I didn't, and you can anonymously eat a bag of dicks up for leaving this comment as a reply to what I wrote. I have always argued for distributed government with oversight, not against government.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  57. Re:Burn it, but that would make CO2...Gasp! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You don't understand.

    A crime is when some teenager robs some chewing gum and gets arrested.

    This is just business as usual.

  58. Metric, please by jandersen · · Score: 1

    ... 110,000 pounds per hour... 8,000 feet ...

    We are an international audience. Many of us are engineers. Probably the majority of us are not used to thinking in the American dialect of Imperial Measures. Is it not time that we show a bit of curtesy to people and start using metric? I mean, it is not even as if anybody actually has much of an intuition of how much "110,000 pounds" is, other than "it's a lot". Metric tons we can compare to things we know - a lorry, a cubic meter of water (there was the metric again) etc. 110 kpounds? Probably about 500 t; but of course 500 doesn't sounds as big as 110,000.

    1. Re:Metric, please by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

      500 metric tons is almost exactly right for 110,000 pounds. Sorry for not having much sympathy, I have to do these conversions in my head all over the place (in the reverse direction, I don't natively "think metric" but I also don't expect anyone else to translate for me) and pounds-to-kilograms is one of the easiest, along with yards-to-meters and miles-to-kilometers. This is not because I am an engineer, the only thing I engineer is audio and our decibels are the same as yours.

      --
      How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
    2. Re:Metric, please by clovis · · Score: 1

      110,000 pounds is equivalent to the weight of 460 Homer Simpsons.

      http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_5koC...

      So you are correct: "it's a lot".

    3. Re:Metric, please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are a lot of accountants here, too and you don't hear us crying about it, do ya?

    4. Re:Metric, please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AN engineer should have no problem converting units. Slashdot is and always has been American-centric. It says so in the FAQ.

    5. Re:Metric, please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I will consider such "courtesy" when European articles state both metric and imperial as well. Until then you may continue to use whatever converter you find handy. Personally I use Google.

    6. Re:Metric, please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because you love all of them $ £ ¥ €

    7. Re:Metric, please by budgenator · · Score: 1

      I've got an app on my smartphone that converts most units, of course it doesn't do Apothecary so if you want to know how many grams are in a dram you're still screwed.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    8. Re:Metric, please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are over 1.0x10^9 cows.

      HTH

    9. Re:Metric, please by jandersen · · Score: 1

      Sorry for not having much sympathy

      By a happy coincidence, I wasn't looking for sympathy - I was just trying to lure - or provoke - the Americans out of their comfort zone. It would do you good in the long run, really.

    10. Re:Metric, please by jandersen · · Score: 1

      There are a lot of accountants here, too and you don't hear us crying about it, do ya?

      I expect an account would ask "Which country?" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_%28currency%29). Sorry, just a bad joke :-)

    11. Re:Metric, please by jandersen · · Score: 1

      AN engineer should have no problem converting units. Slashdot is and always has been American-centric. It says so in the FAQ.

      As an engineer, I don't have much trouble converting units, when I need to. But when I am faced with the pound as a weight unit, I have to first figure out which of the many pounds we're talking about - to an American, perhaps, everything is American, but to everybody else, not so. Plus, since us Internationals used to use pounds or similar in the past, reading an American article like this feels like stepping back in time; personally, I tend to lose interest around that point. My loss, you might say, but the publishers of articles would have an interest in not limiting the reach of their articles, one would imagine.

      As for /. being American-centric, I think reality has moved on a bit - perhaps the FAQ should be updated to reflect this. No nation exists in isolation any more - not even North Korea. Considering the declining role of America in the area of technology, I don't think America can afford being so narrowly self-centered in the long run. Just a thought, really - but just imagine if people elsewhere lose interest and start reading, I don't know, Chinese blogs because they are much more interesting? The world changes, and we have to keep up or get left behind.

    12. Re:Metric, please by jandersen · · Score: 1

      ...how many grams are in a dram ...

      Aye, who wouldn't like a wee dram? The problem with using old fashioned measures (to sound 'quaint', perhaps?) is that they originate from some local tradition and therefore have meanings that depend on where you are and which context you are in.This introduces a lot of potential problems - read 'sources of error'. That is the very reason why the system has been so successful internationally.

    13. Re:Metric, please by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Actually the Apothecary system is just being phased out of the medical/pharmacy professions. I live on the border with Canada and even a metric country has issues, most Canadians around here still think in Fahrenheit degrees for temperature.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    14. Re:Metric, please by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

      Oh I understand the practical downside of having archaic measurements. I'm just not all that sympathetic to those on either side of the divide that can't deal with relatively simple conversions that can be done in the head, on the fly. Now if you're talking Celsius and Fahrenheit, that's a mess.

      --
      How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
  59. Re:Burn it, but that would make CO2...Gasp! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The should treat them like slumlords. Make them live in that town until all of the families are able to return home.

  60. Change of assumptions by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

    I hope this event leads to a change of the default assumption that a natural underground reservoir that held liquid hydrocarbons is automatically qualified to hold gaseous hydrocarbons. It should be necessary to test such reservoirs before pumping gas into them -- say, with air tagged with extra argon or something. If it escapes, no harm is done. It is just being done to see if the damn thing leaks.

    --
    How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
    1. Re:Change of assumptions by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      "a natural underground reservoir that held liquid hydrocarbons"

      Almost all such reservoirs also held gas and in old fields it was flared or simply vented long ago. The point made by another poster is that the issue isn't the reservoir itself, but the fact that much of the pipework feeding in/out of it is not gas-tight.

      Argon's not going to help much for testing. Methane has much smaller molecules and will leak in a lot of places that argon won't (not to mention that there isn't that much in the way of noble gasses generally available for such testing.

      If regulatory tightening is required, making sure that your feeder network is gas-tight would be a good starting point.

    2. Re:Change of assumptions by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

      I chose argon because it is the one noble gas that is fairly plentiful, 23 times the abundance of carbon dioxide. If argon is too big, that's good reason not to use it, but it's certainly not hard to find. Every time I've bought wine directly from a winery and they bottled it on the spot, they first filled the bottle with argon to clear any oxygen out. Nitrogen would obviously be safe, but it would be a big ask to detect excess nitrogen when the air is itself 80% nitrogen. I was just trying to think of a gas that is both reasonably cheap and completely safe while remaining straightforward to detect. I wasn't thinking about permeability.

      --
      How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
    3. Re:Change of assumptions by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      Washing a bottle out with argon is a lot different to an underground gas reservoir - which is fed at high pressure and may be a few cubic km in size.

      (I'm guessing the winery used argon because it's heavier than air and acts as a mobile "cap" on the liquid as it's filled, whilst a nitrogen purge wouldn't guarantee oxygen staying out during the filling process.)

    4. Re:Change of assumptions by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Seems a well casing blow out, probably within a few hundred feet of the surface, I'm not sure how you'd pressure test that.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    5. Re:Change of assumptions by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

      I didn't expect that all possible failure modes could be tested this way, but we've now had one that has been proven to be a catastrophic failure, and it should now be on the list of things to check for before an underground vault is used. If you've got a better way to do that, fire away.

      --
      How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
    6. Re:Change of assumptions by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Dude the field is still in use, how is that a catastrophic failure? Given the seismicity of the area, any test would be good for maybe a month.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    7. Re:Change of assumptions by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

      "Worst environmental accident since the BP spill" isn't catastrophic? Thousands of people forced from their homes with no hope of remediation for months isn't catastrophic? Certainly it could get worse (if someone goes in and starts a fire that can't be extinguished), but how can the mere fact that "it's still pumping" make it non-catastrophic?

      I'm well aware of the seismicity of the area. I live in Los Angeles County. However, nobody has claimed that this happened due to ground movement. It's being blamed on porous pipes never intended to be used this way. How is that not their responsibility?

      --
      How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
  61. Meantime by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

    In the Leptov sea, substantially more methane is pouring out with no attempts being made to mitigate it.

  62. Re: More proof CA is ruled by those... by dywolf · · Score: 0

    spoken like a true republicant that ignores reality

    --
    The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
  63. Drought by koan · · Score: 1

    I wonder if the "warm spot" deflecting rain and causing the drought in California could be tied to this leak.

    Could you imagine if they could prove it was...

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    1. Re:Drought by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      Does methane have some sort of time reversing capabilities that I'm not aware of? If not how would it be possible for a 3 month old leak to cause a several year old drought?

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
  64. Re: Burn it, but that would make CO2...Gasp! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So the crack in the ground is near the well head. So closer to the truth of the situation. Now if we could figure out, if it was overpressure, ground movement , or lack of maintance. We need more facts not hyperbole on the subject.

  65. I do wonder why they don't burn it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At first glance, if Methane is 25x a worse green house gas than CO2, then if they burned it should lesson the impact.
    It would a much more visable news story, which they are unlikely to want to do.
    It might make it harder to stop the leak as well.

    Has SoCal published anything on the tradeoffs for setting the leak on fire?
    It might be a bad idea, but they could say why.

    It is annoying that the BP stuff was in the news continually, and these clowns seem to be getting a free ride with the news outlets.
    Guess Ca's tree huggers are in name only.

  66. Re:Burn it, but that would make CO2...Gasp! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's your rate for shilling, because you're either a moderately poor shill or a fucking retard who actually believes the shit people have paid for you to believe..

  67. Use A Bomb by JimSadler · · Score: 1

    Slide a strong explosive down that well and blow it up so that the shaft collapses. No more leaks!

    1. Re:Use A Bomb by dasgoober · · Score: 1

      Doesn't that run the risk of igniting the methane that's already in the well?

    2. Re:Use A Bomb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is why you never lite farts unless you are wearing pants that will stop the flame front.

  68. Re:Burn it, but that would make CO2...Gasp! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They should be frog-marching the CEO and Board of Directors of SoCal Gas in handcuffs right now.

    But we won't because they're 'merican. The "we will make them pay" speeches are only reserved for foreign companies.

  69. Re:Burn it, but that would make CO2...Gasp! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Should the State of Texas sue God for the storms and hurricanes they are suffering?

    Hell, yeah!

    Its more sensible than a lot of other things that happen in Texas, and the movie rights would be worth even more than the legal fees. Unless God's legal team actually win and Texas has to pay - where is Chuck Norris when you need him?.

    So one night in Texas God met Chuck Norris in a dark alley in Dallas... and God stepped aside to let Chuck Norris walk by.

  70. Re:Burn it, but that would make CO2...Gasp! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck yourself with a rake, shill.

  71. What makes the problem complex by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

    What makes the problem complex is that they are trying to stop the leak while keeping the well. It is a much simpler problem to stop the leak if one is willing to lose the well in the process.

  72. Re: More proof CA is ruled by those... by budgenator · · Score: 1

    We have oil wells even in Beverly Hills! This state has a horrific environmental record because of the Republicans.

    Are you going to blame the Republicans for La Brea tar pits as well? Perhaps the oil wells are relieving natural pressure in the oil containing formations and are reducing environmental damaging oil seeps elsewhere; like the ocean.

    --
    Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  73. Natural Gas by mchummer · · Score: 1

    Natural gas has NO ODOR which is why it is DANGEROUS. The smell is added when the gas is processed to alert us to a leak or a burner not lit. Other articles correctly site this.

  74. Are they still filling the cavern with gas? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they have a bunch of wells into the cavern,
    is the net flow in or out?

    Seems like they would be lowering the pressure as fast as possible by running CA from that supply of gas first.
    Maybe also shipping some out of CA from there as well.

    The leak has been going on for months.
    I wonder how many months of supply the caverns hold.

  75. somebody needs to call International Well Control by laurencetux · · Score: 1

    i would say call The HellFighter but i don't know the country code for the correct section of the HereAfter.

    this might be a case of try to suck the well dry and or just LIGHT IT UP.

    AWG "fans" must be having generalized tonic-clonic seizures left right and center

  76. Re:Burn it, but that would make CO2...Gasp! by budgenator · · Score: 1

    Give me a break people. This was an accident

    No. An accident is when you're drunk and you think you have to fart but you end up crapping your drawers.

    When a leak in your natural gas storage facility springs a leak so bad that it makes an entire California town uninhabitable and the residents seriously ill, has already dumped the greenhouse equivalent of a million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere and you won't be able to stop the leak until at least March, 2016, it's a fucking crime. They should be frog-marching the CEO and Board of Directors of SoCal Gas in handcuffs right now. Let the hundreds of families that have had to leave their homes indefinitely throw rocks at their heads.

    http://www.theguardian.com/us-...

    Well first what are the alternatives, coal fired power plants? Here's the real skinny,

    The gas company has already told state regulators that it would complete drilling of the primary relief well by Feb. 24, but representatives said in an interview last week that repairing the leak could take until the end of March SoCal Gas pinpoints the site of a leaking well near Porter Ranch

    Notice that state regulators , how many rate increases to upgrade infrastructure has the state regulators turned down in the last decade? Regulated Utilities aren't like other businesses, there profits are limited to a percentage of revenues, so normally the more they spend on expenses, the more money they can't give to shareholders; unless the Regulators will not approve the rate increases.

    --
    Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  77. What is a lorry? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you're going to force me to Google the word "lorry", then how is that any different than anyone else having to Google an metric conversion?

  78. Re:Burn it, but that would make CO2...Gasp! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    Notice that state regulators , how many rate increases to upgrade infrastructure has the state regulators turned down in the last decade?

    Why don't you tell us? How many?

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/se...

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  79. Re:Burn it, but that would make CO2...Gasp! by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

    If a company is going to profit a million dollars an hour off of doing a certain thing, I kind of expect them to be able to handle it when things go awry and certainly not affect the lives of anyone else. When did the right for a corporation to profit also absolve them of any kind of harm or damage that they do to others?

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  80. Re:Burn it, but that would make CO2...Gasp! by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    First: You don't understand ratebase. Old utilities where the only business that could turn a profit redecorating the presidents office. So they regularly did. They were guaranteed a regulated rate of return on all legitimate business expenses.

    Second: CA is a power pool. Not ratebase and hasn't been for more than a decade.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  81. Re:By the plan. by KGIII · · Score: 1

    Oh, no... See, I can agree with their premise. If we starve the government then necessary programs will be cut. Of course, I've yet to see a starving US (federal or state) government that actually needed to cut those programs when there were many other programs that could have been cut or eliminated and freed up the funds for more necessary things.

    So, the onus is on them to show where the government was starved. Show me a government efficiently spending, in their entirety, and I'll show you a pipe dream.

    That they blame it on you is laughable, of course.

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  82. Storage is part of an efficient gas network by stomv · · Score: 1

    The stockpiling is storage for peak.

    Natural gas use is seasonal. Depending on climate and electric generators, the peak is either during very cold weather (gas space heating) or very hot weather (high air conditioning load and gas-fired electric generation).

    In either case, building large pipelines to supply the gas over a long distance so that they are large enough to meet peak demand means that those pipes are rather empty most days. That's very inefficient from a cost perspective. Instead, the long distance pipelines are medium sized -- slightly bigger than load requires on most days. During the off-season the rest of that pipeline space is used to deliver gas to the storage units. During the peak, the gas is emptied from storage right on the distribution grid, because the long distance pipelines aren't big enough to get all the needed gas to the load.

    This, of course, is an overly simplistic explanation, but presents the big idea.

  83. Re: More proof CA is ruled by those... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What value would temperatures have to rise and over what period for you to be convinced?

    Morons think that if they aren't wearing Hawaiian shirts in Christmas then it's a myth. Fucking retarded idiots like you are the reason populist politics works.

  84. Re:Burn it, but that would make CO2...Gasp! by budgenator · · Score: 1

    Sorry must have had a brain cramp, "normally the more they spend on expenses, the more money they can't give to shareholders;" should have been "normally the more they spend on expenses, the more money they can give to shareholders;"

    --
    Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  85. Lots of Computer Science nerds here, too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Man the fuck up. You don't see us crying about converting Gb vs Gib.

  86. Re:Burn it, but that would make CO2...Gasp! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    lol yes and give them permission to force choke them a little. The whole damn company of MILF Milkers using lawyers to skirt around admiting they messed up and are messing up the whole damn eco system for DECADES to come. Just arrogantly say something like Oh well we don't have to deel with it! Guess what pal, if by some chance you do happen live into you're 60's and 70's. You'll reap the consiquences of youre hubourous. Hopefully you and that arrogant company called SoCal Edissson have to fix the imediate issue INSTANTLY and the long term issues also Instantly. The problem here is these children won't own they failed SoCal and are now failing the envonrionemtn they want to play Lets Play Monopoly.
    Don't they get it? they have to breath that air, and eat the food that's getting effed up now like anything else that breathes, and eats. i'm assuming of course these dunderheads aren't androids.

  87. I can fix it fast by TechnoJoe · · Score: 0

    Got a match?

  88. If that was sequestered CO2, many would be dead... by bobwyman · · Score: 1

    Whenever anyone talks about Carbon Capture and Sequestration in underground wells, refer them to the Aliso Canyon gas leaks. Leaking methane rises since it is lighter than air, but CO2 would sink to the ground and flow like water. It would drown any living thing in its path. From this we should learn that it is too dangerous to store CO2 in the ground. Eventually, we'll have a leak. If you doubt that, then consider that natural gas has market value and the 100,000 lbs or so that are leaking every hour in LA is wasting a great deal of value. If the industry can't figure out how to securely store something that has such value, why would we believe they can safely store something that they consider to have no value? (i.e. CO2).

    If they can't store methane safely in underground wells, then you can't trust them to store CO2 in such wells.

  89. Scored -1? Wow, the truth hurts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Typical slashdot leftist troll/trolls downgraded the FACTUAL message because the content was politically inconvenient, and further exposed this by not making any factual counter-argument.

  90. It is a simple answer. by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    Winter.