Jump to content

Pipeline Explosion in Deer Park


Rip76

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

This is a stupid post.

1) 100 feet is not that far. A car going 35 mph will cover it in 2 seconds.

2) the area has a decent amount of traffic. It isnt like a random spot in West Texas seeing a car once an hour or so.

3) the amount of damage that can be caused, both in lost product and disrupted operations and in damage to the surrounding area, greatly eclipses the few thousand dollars to install modest barriers that would prevent 99.99% of realistic situations. 

4) I'll happily bet you $1,000 that once repaired, a barrier will be constructed at this location. 

It isn't about it being an evil oil and gas corporation. It is about what a responsible entity would do both to protect its own financial interests and to protect the public. This is a no brainer for any organization. 

Yet this had never occurred before.  And the "traffic" didn't even come from the goddamn road.  It came from the parking lot.  Maybe the store ought to put up bollards to keep cars in the parking lot. 

Edit: and Captainant absolutely made it about "energy" companies earlier.  You may not care, but he certainly does. 

Edited by Hate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Hate said:

Yet this had never occurred before.  And the "traffic" didn't even come from the goddamn road.  It came from the parking lot.  Maybe the store ought to put up bollards to keep cars in the parking lot. 

So? It never occurred before. But it has occurred now. As you said, this valve was installed somewhere around 2002. If this is an event that occurs once every 20 years at this location, building the barrier is a no brainer economically. Even if it only occurred once every 100 years, it would still be no brainer. The cost of the prevention is de minimus compared to the expected damage. 

And the store is unlikely to have any liability, so not much financial incentive. Even if the pipeline has no liability to a 3rd party, its lost many many times the the cost of prevention purely in lost product and disrupted operations. Economically, building a barrier is the smart move. And I guarantee it will. Do you disagree?

Edited by Dahobbs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

So? It never occurred before. But it has occurred now. As you said, this valve was installed somewhere around 2002. If this is an even that occurs once every 20 years at this location, building the barrier is a no brainer economically. Even if it only occurred once every 100 years, it would still be no brainer. The cost of the prevention is de minimus compared to the expected damage. 

I've never once said that the companies shouldn't do it based on the economic impact.  I've said that it is unnecessary as the risk of a similar event seems to be minuscule. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Hate said:

I've never once said that the companies shouldn't do it based on the economic impact.  I've said that it is unnecessary as the risk of a similar event seems to be minuscule. 

Those are contradictory statements. If it should build the barriers based upon economic impact, the risk isnt de minimis. Further, when evaluating risk, you have to look at likelihood of occurrence and magnitude of impact.

Just run the numbers. Let's say this event has a 1% chance at happening in any given year (or a once in every 100 years event). And let's say the purely economic damage to the company if an event occurs is $5,000,000. That means the expected yearly damage is $50,000. So, purely from an economic perspective, if the company can spend any amount less than $50,000 per year to prevent the event, it should do so. When the cost of prevention is a few thousand dollars and when the possible damage is in the millions, prevention is economically beneficial even if the chance of occurrence is extremely low. 

Edited by Dahobbs
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Hate said:

Edit: and Captainant absolutely made it about "energy" companies earlier.  You may not care, but he certainly does. 

Lol Rex made it about energy companies, I was trying to stick to O&G! In particular, this company profiteered off of the Feb'21 freeze and made billions on the corpses of hundreds of Texans. You're goddamn right I hold them in contempt. Even moreso if the defense is that it's too expensive to protect the thousands of families they operate around

I called out centerpoint not as an O&G example, but as an example of piss poor corporate maintenance posture and over-indexing on maximizing profits over mitigating risks that has led to multiple disasters within the last several years. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hate said:

You just want to point the finger at big bad oil and capitalism.  That's it. 

But you don’t understand. They made 2B by being in a business at an opportune time from an event that they had no control over, once.  They made money and it’s just not fair11!1! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Those are contradictory statements. If it should build the barriers based upon economic impact, the risk isnt de minimis. Further, when evaluating risk, you have to look at likelihood of occurrence and magnitude of impact.

Just run the numbers. Let's say this event has a 1% chance at happening in any given year (or a once in every 100 years event). And let's say the purely economic damage to the company if an event occurs is $5,000,000. That means the expected yearly damage is $50,000. So, purely from an economic perspective, if the company can spend any amount less than $50,000 per year to prevent the event, it should do so. When the cost of prevention is a few thousand dollars and when the possible damage is in the millions, prevention is economically beneficial even if the chance of occurrence is extremely low. 

Look, I don't care if they put bollards there or not.  I do not believe they are necessary.  This was a one time event.  Cars and pipelines have coexisted for a very long time with this being the first recorded such event.  But if you and Cap want to run a picket for bollards once the flames go out, go ahead. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

If it should build the barriers based upon economic impact

Correct. This doesn’t have shit to do with being industry subsidies, or having a profitable year due to a Wx event, or holding bitchmade feelings of contempt about the success of the company.  This is a math problem and I’m pretty sure this isn’t the first time it’s been looked at.  Capt, what you going to cry about when the bollard companies post the best income statements in their history? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Hate said:

Look, I don't care if they put bollards there or not.  I do not believe they are necessary.  This was a one time event.  Cars and pipelines have coexisted for a very long time with this being the first recorded such event.  But if you and Cap want to run a picket for bollards once the flames go out, go ahead. 

What's wrong with my math? By your own account this valve existed for about 20 years, much of that time before the area was developed and had significant traffic. The evidence right now is that this is a once in 20 year event or possibly higher given the development in the area. If that is the case, and given the amount of money they have lost, a barrier is no brainer. I'm not moralizing. I'm not condemning. I'm running the numbers. This could be a .01% chance of occurring per year and it would still be economically beneficial to spend a few thousand putting in barriers. I don't know why you're fighting this. The math makes this an easy choice. This was an oversight, one I'm sure will be corrected. 

Edited by Dahobbs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Captainant said:

Lol Rex made it about energy companies, I was trying to stick to O&G! In particular, this company profiteered off of the Feb'21 freeze and made billions on the corpses of hundreds of Texans. You're goddamn right I hold them in contempt. Even moreso if the defense is that it's too expensive to protect the thousands of families they operate around

I called out centerpoint not as an O&G example, but as an example of piss poor corporate maintenance posture and over-indexing on maximizing profits over mitigating risks that has led to multiple disasters within the last several years. 

You’re an absolute assclown of epic proportions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look, I don't care if they put bollards there or not.  I do not believe they are necessary.  This was a one time event.  Cars and pipelines have coexisted for a very long time with this being the first recorded such event.  But if you and Cap want to run a picket for bollards once the flames go out, go ahead. 

Wait…you’re contending that this is the first time a vehicle has hit a piece of above ground gas infrastructure, causing a fire?
Seriously? WTF?
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, blacklab said:

There's 3 million miles of natural gas pipeline, figure a valve a mile and 4 bollards at $1000 a pop we're talking about $12 billion to do this.

How much damage is this going to do? $10 million, $100 million? Probably need to have a few more accidents before it's economically wise to start the natural gas pipeline Manhattan project.

I could sub that shit out to some family members and get it done for tree fiddy and some bud light 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

What's wrong with my math? By your own account this valve existed for about 20 years, much of that time before the area was developed and had significant traffic. The evidence right now is that this is a once in 20 year event or possibly higher given the development in the area. If that is the case, and given the amount of money they have lost, a barrier is no brainer. I'm not moralizing. I'm not condemning. I'm running the numbers. This could be a .01% chance of occurring per year and it would still be economically beneficial to spend a few thousand putting in barriers. I don't know why you're fighting this. The math makes this an easy choice. This was an oversight, one I'm sure will be corrected. 

The math doesn't show that. That's like saying a correctly guessed coin flip on the first try means there is a 100% success rate. More than likely there are hundreds of similarly situated valves out there that have never been hit. So you have to factor those in as well when calculating the odds. Then you have to look at the cost of a pipeline company putting in the bollards, not the cost of the local 7-11. To be qualified to bid on something like that, a contractor has to carry the necessary insurance and meet a bunch of qualifications that kinda seem like a good old boy system. The cost of them is probably four times the cost of what it would be for a typical retail type company. So you figure there are a hundred of these similarly situated valves. One gets hit in 20 years. That's a once every two thousand year occurrence. Not a one in 20. So that $4000 dollars per valve expense is closer to $16000. Multiplied by 100 valves it's $1.6 million. And before this week, it was statistically one of those things where the odds were so low it was considered pretty much non-existant. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

The math doesn't show that. That's like saying a correctly guessed coin flip on the first try means there is a 100% success rate. More than likely there are hundreds of similarly situated valves out there that have never been hit. So you have to factor those in as well when calculating the odds. Then you have to look at the cost of a pipeline company putting in the bollards, not the cost of the local 7-11. To be qualified to bid on something like that, a contractor has to carry the necessary insurance and meet a bunch of qualifications that kinda seem like a good old boy system. The cost of them is probably four times the cost of what it would be for a typical retail type company. So you figure there are a hundred of these similarly situated valves. One gets hit in 20 years. That's a once every two thousand year occurrence. Not a one in 20. So that $4000 dollars per valve expense is closer to $16000. Multiplied by 100 valves it's $1.6 million. And before this week, it was statistically one of those things where the odds were so low it was considered pretty much non-existant. 

1) not really the first time of one of these has been hit. It is the first time this particular one has been hit. 

2) I guarantee you that many of the ones that are similarly situated already have protection. 

3) I guarantee you this one will be protected after this event. 

This was an oversight. It was installed before the development in the area and was overlooked as a risk as the area continued to develop around it. When the cost of mitigation is a small fraction of yearly expected value of an incident, you do the mitigation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evacuation order was lifted yesterday at 6pm

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/environment/article/deer-park-pipeline-fire-suv-19772158.php

The fire is not fully extinguished, but officials said they expect repairs to be fully complete by 6 p.m. Thursday. Once the repairs are made, the fire should take roughly two to three hours to die down, according to a news release. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I made the mistake of clicking on this fucking thread a day later. Fuck. 

 

19 hours ago, 0xdeadbeef said:

If you want to see what pipelines are near you, there is a viewer on the bottom of this page:

https://tx.pipeline-awareness.com/national_pipeline_mapping/

 

Austin: Meh

image.thumb.png.6a25af4a2200682dd7c17a3a6bb73ecd.png

 

Houston: Yikes.

image.thumb.png.d7ddd3ad61390e37aa0d4c1a50fdef26.png

 

 

 

Holla, living inside the loop. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sidenote, I was curious on what the safety reg is for pipeline valve safety and found the following:
https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/regulations/title49/interp/pi-12-0008

In a letter to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) dated August 9, 2012, the Associated Safety Consultants (ASC), Inc., requested an interpretation of the applicability of the Federal pipeline safety regulations at 49 CFR 192.317(b) to an aboveground gas transmission line or main.  Specifically, ASC asks PHMSA's interpretation of how a 'safe distance' is defined or determined, and what would constitute an effective barricade?

Section 192.317(b) reads as follows:

(b) Each aboveground transmission line or main, not located offshore or in inland navigable water areas, must be protected from accidental damage by vehicular traffic or other similar causes, either by being placed at a safe distance from the traffic or by installing barricades. 

PHMSA has not adopted general criteria to judge the safety of distances and effective barricades separating aboveground gas pipeline facilities from vehicular traffic.  Therefore, a safe distance and effective barricade would be whatever a reasonable and prudent pipeline operator would conclude is safe under the site specific circumstances, considering relevant factors such as the speed limit, the direction of traffic, the terrain, and any natural barriers.

 
So there's no actual rules or regulations on what is required, just as long as it passes the gut check of the operator. The valve is 100 feet from a 50mph road (45 posted, but cmon its Houston yall), surrounded by gravel. A chainlink fence seems sub-par at best.

If we want to split hairs, the pipeline and mainline valve appear to be below ground. It looks like either the smaller blowoff valve and/or the above ground actuator is what was hit.
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Captainant said:

Lol Rex made it about energy companies, I was trying to stick to O&G! In particular, this company profiteered off of the Feb'21 freeze and made billions on the corpses of hundreds of Texans. You're goddamn right I hold them in contempt. Even moreso if the defense is that it's too expensive to protect the thousands of families they operate around

I called out centerpoint not as an O&G example, but as an example of piss poor corporate maintenance posture and over-indexing on maximizing profits over mitigating risks that has led to multiple disasters within the last several years. 

No, you clown. YOU made it about “oil and gas” because of your ignorance and your political desire to disparage anything hydrocarbon related. This is why I’m calling you out. Again, I made a simple one-line response about your characterization of oil and gas, which is fucking dead wrong, and you’ve tripled and quadrupled down. 

  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

No, you clown. YOU made it about “oil and gas” because of your ignorance and your political desire to disparage anything hydrocarbon related. This is why I’m calling you out. Again, I made a simple one-line response about your characterization of oil and gas, which is fucking dead wrong, and you’ve tripled and quadrupled down. 

Why is this still a fight? I actually agree that @Captainant is going a little hard with the anti-business rhetoric. But I don't understand your argument here at all. Energy Transfer considers itself part of the oil and gas industry. That should be the end of this argument. No one really cares how the finance bros think of it. 

22 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

I don't know, Energy Transfer Partners seems to feel differently. It posted a YouTube video entitled "We're Proud to be a Leader in the Oil & Gas Industry"

I don't really get why this is so contentious either way. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Goredho said:

Holy shit, the Surly legal eagles ain’t got nothin’ on the Surly O&G scholars.  Stay loquacious, my dudes.

I was a midstream guy before midstream was a thing and have provided expert witness analysis and testimony on Midstream contracts and damages for 20+ years. They usually involve correlating a relatively simple business concept to a very complicated operational issue, that was memorialized in a few words in a contract that can be interpreted different ways.  Regardless of the words, there are always overwhelming numbers of numbers involved, and "the trend is your friend."

I've always enjoyed the perverse entertainment value of depositions, getting down to the nuts and bolts of a complex issue, usually with reams of data and numbers, that ends up with confused attorney's chasing their tails and saying, "Don't ask him that!".

More often than not, the opposing expert witness is a finance person or an accountant, and that's never a fair fight. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

No, you clown. YOU made it about “oil and gas” because of your ignorance and your political desire to disparage anything hydrocarbon related.

I don't hate hydrocarbon businesses. I hate businesses that are poor stewards of their operations and frequently leave extremely hazardous disasters for the public to clean up and pay for. These guys skimped on improving protection more than a chainlink fence as the area around the valve changed from a field to a road to a whole neighborhood. 

I cannot believe that a chain link fence is the standard of protection for extremely dangerous machinery that is (1) next to an active roadway (2) in the middle of a residential area and (3) going to impact the health and homes of thousands of families should ANYTHING happen to it.

24 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

Again, I made a simple one-line response about your characterization of oil and gas, which is fucking dead wrong, and you’ve tripled and quadrupled down. 

And also, midstreams are absolutely an O&G entity. Sorry you are so triggered by that lol. And as I mentioned upthread, I was not calling out CP as an O&G but as another recent and local happenstance of deffered maintenance and improvements leading to significant public damage and issues.

Edited by Captainant
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, PTINS said:

I was a midstream guy before midstream was a thing and have provided expert witness analysis and testimony on Midstream contracts and damages for 20+ years. They usually involve correlating a relatively simple business concept to a very complicated operational issue, that was memorialized in a few words in a contract that can be interpreted different ways.  Regardless of the words, there are always overwhelming numbers of numbers involved, and "the trend is your friend."

I've always enjoyed the perverse entertainment value of depositions, getting down to the nuts and bolts of a complex issue, usually with reams of data and numbers, that ends up with confused attorney's chasing their tails and saying, "Don't ask him that!".

More often than not, the opposing expert witness is a finance person or an accountant, and that's never a fair fight. 

I'm now curious if I've used you as an expert or cross-examined you before. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, PTINS said:

I was a midstream guy before midstream was a thing and have provided expert witness analysis and testimony on Midstream contracts and damages for 20+ years. They usually involve correlating a relatively simple business concept to a very complicated operational issue, that was memorialized in a few words in a contract that can be interpreted different ways.  Regardless of the words, there are always overwhelming numbers of numbers involved, and "the trend is your friend."

I've always enjoyed the perverse entertainment value of depositions, getting down to the nuts and bolts of a complex issue, usually with reams of data and numbers, that ends up with confused attorney's chasing their tails and saying, "Don't ask him that!".

More often than not, the opposing expert witness is a finance person or an accountant, and that's never a fair fight. 

Somewhere on another plane of existence, YGIFs/Lobo is looking at this thread like…

cut-it-out-smh.gif

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

Why is this still a fight? I actually agree that @Captainant is going a little hard with the anti-business rhetoric. But I don't understand your argument here at all. Energy Transfer considers itself part of the oil and gas industry. That should be the end of this argument. No one really cares how the finance bros think of it. 

A little hard?  lol. This is why it’s still a fight. I admit I’m being hyperbolic. Yes ETP is a part of the O&G industry. It is not an oil and gas company. 

  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Captainant said:

I don't hate hydrocarbon businesses. I hate businesses that are poor stewards of their operations and frequently leave extremely hazardous disasters for the public to clean up and pay for. These guys skimped on improving protection more than a chainlink fence as the area around the valve changed from a field to a road to a whole neighborhood. 

I cannot believe that a chain link fence is the standard of protection for extremely dangerous machinery that is (1) next to an active roadway (2) in the middle of a residential area and (3) going to impact the health and homes of thousands of families should ANYTHING happen to it.

And also, midstreams are absolutely an O&G entity. Sorry you are so triggered by that lol. And as I mentioned upthread, I was not calling out CP as an O&G but as another recent and local happenstance of deffered maintenance and improvements leading to significant public damage and issues.

Again, who "skimped"? The pigging valve has been there for a lot longer than the suburban growth around it. Fingers can be pointed at any number of entities. But, I can guarantee you that the cost will ultimately be passed to the consumers. As much as you hate it, earnings goals will still be met.

CHIEF

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, CHIEF said:

Again, who "skimped"? The pigging valve has been there for a lot longer than the suburban growth around it. Fingers can be pointed at any number of entities. But, I can guarantee you that the cost will ultimately be passed to the consumers. As much as you hate it, earnings goals will still be met.

CHIEF

Which is one of the things that make it even worse.

Bad decision that costs company lots of money?  Zero consequences for execs and shareholders, big consequences for captive consumers.  "No matter how stupid we are, YOU get to pay for our stupidity" is....what's the term folks like to use?  Oh yeah....socialism.

Most folks around here don't have a problem with profits.  They're good, they motivate positive market activity.  What we have a problem with is that this shit works like a one-way crab trap: privatized profits, socialized losses.  Things go well?  PROFIT.  Things went south?  STILL PROFIT, BECAUSE SOCIETY WILL PICK UP THE COST.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, CHIEF said:

Again, who "skimped"? The pigging valve has been there for a lot longer than the suburban growth around it. Fingers can be pointed at any number of entities.

So in your mind, once built, a facility or piece of machinery never needs to make any updates or site improvements as its surrounding environment changes?

14 minutes ago, CHIEF said:

As much as you hate it, earnings goals will still be met.

Those shares aren't gonna buy themselves back, I hear ya. Gotta make line go up. They're entitled it, after all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Residents are returning homes that are partially melted and took a ton of water damage due to shingles melting off

https://www.click2houston.com/news/local/2024/09/19/deer-park-couple-returns-to-homes-devastating-damage-from-intense-pipeline-fire/

Just a titanic amount of damage to protect with only a chain link fence in a residential area. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Bad decision that costs company lots of money?  Zero consequences for execs and shareholders, big consequences for captive consumers.  "No matter how stupid we are, YOU get to pay for our stupidity" is....what's the term folks like to use?  Oh yeah....socialism.

This bad decision was made by one of the “captive consumers”. Why didn’t the developer that encroached this ROW pay for bollards, because profit.  Why should ET shareholders hold the bag when it could come from the person who caused it, or their insurance?     lol, at “most”.  I agree, but it’s sad that most isn’t all. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Which is one of the things that make it even worse.

Bad decision that costs company lots of money?  Zero consequences for execs and shareholders, big consequences for captive consumers.  "No matter how stupid we are, YOU get to pay for our stupidity" is....what's the term folks like to use?  Oh yeah....socialism.

Most folks around here don't have a problem with profits.  They're good, they motivate positive market activity.  What we have a problem with is that this shit works like a one-way crab trap: privatized profits, socialized losses.  Things go well?  PROFIT.  Things went south?  STILL PROFIT, BECAUSE SOCIETY WILL PICK UP THE COST.

It's like what was said up above, if you build things that can withstand every possible scenario that can fuck it up, planes would be too heavy to fly, and cars would be too expensive to buy. Making everything idoit proof is a very expensive and wasteful endeavor. Ultimately it comes down to risks people are willing to accept, like people living  close to pipelines to save money on their housing location. People living close to petrochemical plants because they work there, and want to be 10 minutes from work. The Polly Anna-ish take that any and all hazards must be eliminated or mitigated in all aspects of everyone's daily lives is asinine. I know most on here accept that, but not all.

CHIEF

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, CHIEF said:

It's like what was said up above, if you build things that can withstand every possible scenario that can fuck it up, planes would be too heavy to fly, and cars would be too expensive to buy. Making everything idoit proof is a very expensive and wasteful endeavor. Ultimately it comes down to risks people are willing to accept, like people living  close to pipelines to save money on their housing location. People living close to petrochemical plants because they work there, and want to be 10 minutes from work. The Polly Anna-ish take that any and all hazards must be eliminated or mitigated in all aspects of everyone's daily lives is asinine. I know most on here accept that, but not all.

CHIEF

But that isn't the issue here. Cheap and solved solutions are available to mitigate this risk. This isn't about "every possible scenario" or "any and all hazards," and it isn't about perfect protection. It is about a solution that (1) is already employed in many locations, (2) is extremely cheap and easy to implement, and (3) addresses a demonstrable risk in certain more highly developed areas. What you're talking about is protecting pipelines from something like meteor impacts, missile strikes, or cloned dinosaur attacks.  I agree, those would be silly and uneconomical to mitigate against. This situation isn't that. Just because it is relatively rare, doesn't mean mitigation is not worthwhile. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, CHIEF said:

The Polly Anna-ish take that any and all hazards must be eliminated or mitigated in all aspects of everyone's daily lives is asinine. I know most on here accept that, but not all.

That's literally not what I or brisket or Dahobbs are saying. Y'all are running it to the extreme and then tilting off on that straw man and then insinuating I'm a communist pollyanna. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Which is one of the things that make it even worse.

Bad decision that costs company lots of money?  Zero consequences for execs and shareholders, big consequences for captive consumers.  "No matter how stupid we are, YOU get to pay for our stupidity" is....what's the term folks like to use?  Oh yeah....socialism.

Most folks around here don't have a problem with profits.  They're good, they motivate positive market activity.  What we have a problem with is that this shit works like a one-way crab trap: privatized profits, socialized losses.  Things go well?  PROFIT.  Things went south?  STILL PROFIT, BECAUSE SOCIETY WILL PICK UP THE COST.

Since the pipeline predated the homes being built, perhaps the developer should be at fault for not paying ETP to put up bollards around the valve in the middle of the field.  I mean, they have to pay to put in streets and and water lines and other such shit.   Shouldn't the be a consideration.  

 

 

And Captainant, guess what guards every wind turbine you see on the horizon....

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Trey3216 said:

And Captainant, guess what guards every wind turbine you see on the horizon....

Last time I checked, those don't explode and aren't in residential areas. C'mon, man. That's apples and oranges. Although both can give you cancer depending on who you ask...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Last time I checked, those don't explode and aren't in residential areas. C'mon, man. That's apples and oranges. Although both can give you cancer depending on who you ask...

It's merely an example.  Hell, most military base perimeters are primarily chain link fencing.   Most gas stations only have bollards at either end of the fuel pump with 10-15 feet in between where the pump actually sits.  Let's start a bollard war against every small time business owner who doesn't have enough bollards or only employs chain link fence.

 


Yes, I'm being hyperbolic, but the absurdity of it is equivalent to your wanton blame-casting....which is of no surprise.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...