Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
18 minutes ago, Captainant said:

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.

and yet millions of cars passed by this area safely over the last 22 years. Millions of cars pass by similar sites every day without incident. This was a unique event. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted (edited)

A coworker had to evacuate and of course Centerpoint lost power in the area. The fire + heat caused the poles, wires, and transformers to catch fire.

While she was house hunting, I strongly recommended she live in Clear Lake if she wanted to be south. Why anyone with means would willing choose to live in Deer Park is beyond me. 

Edited by billfromlaketravis
Posted
5 minutes ago, Hate said:

and yet millions of cars passed by this area safely over the last 22 years. Millions of cars pass by similar sites every day without incident. This was a unique event. 

yes or no: installing bollards is burdensome and an overreaction

Posted
14 minutes ago, Hate said:

and yet millions of cars passed by this area safely over the last 22 years. Millions of cars pass by similar sites every day without incident. This was a unique event. 

Have we really not learned from this flawed thinking, yet? 

Sent by Copilot:

It’s a common misconception to believe that we can't prepare for a catastrophe simply because it hadn’t occurred in the past "22 years".

 

This overlooks the inherent unpredictability of rare events and the importance of being prepared for the unexpected, especially when impact is possibly high.

 

We have plenty of examples of unprecedented events, highlighting the need for robust preparation and contingency plans.

 

Recognize that past stability is not a guarantee of future safety, and proactive measures are essential to mitigate potential risks.

 

This area should have been fortified due to nearby risks, regardless of "who was there first".

Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, Captainant said:

yes or no: installing bollards is burdensome and an overreaction

A physical barricade like that is a protection against accidental problem, not against bad intent.  How many accidents would these have stopped in the last 10 years?    If the number is 1 or 2 then yes, it's an overreaction.  If half the purple dots on the Houston map above would have been prevented by these then it's not an overreaction.

If you put these up and a motorcycle goes right between them are you going to claim it's common sense to have a wall around the valves? What if a small plane crashes into one, will you claim it only makes sense to have a hardened dome?

Show there is an actual problem that barriers would fix and people will support it, otherwise is seems like an overreaction. 

 

 

Edited by 0xdeadbeef
hit save too soon...
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
41 minutes ago, 0xdeadbeef said:

A physical barricade like that is a protection against accidental problem, not against bad intent.  How many accidents would these have stopped in the last 10 years?    If the number is 1 or 2 then yes, it's an overreaction.  If half the purple dots on the Houston map above would have been prevented by these then it's not an overreaction.

If you put these up and a motorcycle goes right between them are you going to claim it's common sense to have a wall around the valves? What if a small plane crashes into one, will you claim it only makes sense to have a hardened dome?

Show there is an actual problem that barriers would fix and people will support it, otherwise is seems like an overreaction. 

20 minutes ago, Hate said:

What Oxdeadbeef said.

So yes, you both think installing bollards in response to the surrounding area changing and becoming more residential is an overreacton?

I don't think chain link fence meets the regulatory minimum of: 

Section 192.317(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. 

Because it seems pretty empirically obvious that their chain link fence 100ft from the road did not protect from accidental damage from vehicular traffic. Miss me with the slipperly slope argument taking it to the absurd for aircraft strikes - and candidly, a chainlink fence would probably be enough to stop a bike. Even moreso if there were bollards present to help catch the fence and act like a net.

 

It's genuinely shocking to see so many O&G folks recoil at the idea of proactive risk reduction measures in the face of a giant pipeline cooking a neighborhood in Houston for days on end.

Edited by Captainant
Posted
37 minutes ago, pacman said:

Have we really not learned from this flawed thinking, yet? 

Sent by Copilot:

It’s a common misconception to believe that we can't prepare for a catastrophe simply because it hadn’t occurred in the past "22 years".

 

This overlooks the inherent unpredictability of rare events and the importance of being prepared for the unexpected, especially when impact is possibly high.

 

We have plenty of examples of unprecedented events, highlighting the need for robust preparation and contingency plans.

 

Recognize that past stability is not a guarantee of future safety, and proactive measures are essential to mitigate potential risks.

 

This area should have been fortified due to nearby risks, regardless of "who was there first".

Who should bear the cost? The pipeline company?  A pigging station that had been way out in the boonies when it was built? 

There are several idoits, on this thread that would buy a new house built by a fifty year old airport, and then bitch that the airport needs to spend millions on sound abatement.

CHIEF

  • Like 1
Posted
7 minutes ago, Captainant said:

So yes, you both think installing bollards in response to the surrounding area changing and becoming more residential is an overreacton?

I don't think chain link fence meets the regulatory minimum of: 

Section 192.317(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. 

Because it seems pretty empirically obvious that their chain link fence 100ft from the road did not protect from accidental damage from vehicular traffic. Miss me with the slipperly slope argument taking it to the absurd for aircraft strikes - and candidly, a chainlink fence would probably be enough to stop a bike. Even moreso if there were bollards present to help catch the fence and act like a net.

 

It's genuinely shocking to see so many O&G folks recoil at the idea of proactive risk reduction measures in the face of a giant pipeline cooking a neighborhood in Houston for days on end.

 Vehicular “traffic”?? There was no “traffic”. An old person most likely had a medical event that sent the car into an area where there is no “traffic”.  You are over reacting. 

  • Like 1
Posted
7 minutes ago, Captainant said:

So yes, you both think installing bollards in response to the surrounding area changing and becoming more residential is an overreacton?

I don't think chain link fence meets the regulatory minimum of: 

Section 192.317(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. 

Because it seems pretty empirically obvious that their chain link fence 100ft from the road did not protect from accidental damage from vehicular traffic. Miss me with the slipperly slope argument taking it to the absurd for aircraft strikes - and candidly, a chainlink fence would probably be enough to stop a bike. Even moreso if there were bollards present to help catch the fence and act like a net.

 

It's genuinely shocking to see so many O&G folks recoil at the idea of proactive risk reduction measures in the face of a giant pipeline cooking a neighborhood in Houston for days on end.

Based on the fact that cars hitting pipeline valves seems to be exceptionally rare, I would strongly argue that the part of the regulation above "  by being placed at a safe distance from the traffic  " is clearly working.

Here's a page that has a seperate page for each year with pipeline accidents: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents_in_the_United_States   I scanned a bunch of them, and I'm not seeing cars hitting pipelines as any type of problem.

If you want to jump on the maintenance issues as causing pipeline accidents, you might have a good argument as there seems to be a lot of those.  But cars hitting pipelines just isn't a happening. 

 

 

Posted
16 minutes ago, Captainant said:

. Miss me with the slipperly slope argument taking it to the absurd for aircraft strikes 

A aircraft strike is an absurd case, but as far as I can tell, there is only one less aircraft strike than car strikes in recent years.  'Proactive' regulations that don't actually solve problems are rarely a good use of time/energy/money/focus.

Posted (edited)

I went back and looked, but the screenshot of the area didn’t post before. This is the area in question. 

 

IMG_2138.jpeg

IMG_2133.jpeg

Edited by Hate
Posted
2 hours ago, Hate said:

For shits and giggles I looked at the site of the explosion in Google maps. Using the past images feature, I was able to see that the pipeline was installed somewhere between 1995-2002. The houses that were near the explosion were not there at the time. Let’s assume that it was 2002 when the pipeline was installed. That means the pipeline existed without issue for at least 22 years including during a period of extensive construction near the site. Like I said, there is no reason to over react to this incident. 

There's demand for cheap(er) housing. Developer finds acreage near a pipeline that perhaps no one really wants. Build homes and the home buyers are ok taking the risk even though they truly don't understand the risk. 

In the greater scale of risk, living in this area comes with many risks. Shelter-in-place seems to be a relative regular occurrence with nearby accidents. Then add in the long term health concerns of living near petrochemical plants. 

Posted
28 minutes ago, CHIEF said:

Who should bear the cost? The pipeline company?  

Of fucking course.  All this guys have made too much money.   Propose an adder to the end user and this righteousness goes right the fuck away.  

Posted
17 minutes ago, 0xdeadbeef said:

A aircraft strike is an absurd case, but as far as I can tell, there is only one less aircraft strike than car strikes in recent years.  'Proactive' regulations that don't actually solve problems are rarely a good use of time/energy/money/focus.

I've never been in a car crash while I'm driving. I guess I don't need my seatbelt then because it doens't actually solve a problem and isn't a good use of my time to click and unclick every time I get in the car.

Posted

I don't think that any rational set of people would say that a pipeline company should have to spend a billion dollars to make their entire system bulletproof against even the most unlikely scenarios (nuclear-fueled sharknado or some shit).

What folks are instead asking is whether they should spend much smaller dollar amounts to make the system more resistant to risks that are known enough that they are embedded in existing regulations (protection against vehicle strikes).  Just did some intergoogle research, so it's as reliable as the rest of the internet, but 6" diameter bollards cost around $1,000 each to install.  4" may have even been enough.  A $4,000 (or less) set of four bollards here would have provided significant protection against a vehicle strike.  It's not complex or super expensive.

rs=w:400,cg:true

The facts and circumstances of this event will surely be thoroughly probed in enforcement and litigation actions to follow.  Determining whether it was reasonable to not install vehicle strike protection after/once it was known that there is vehicle traffic nearby will be part of that process.

People have little faith in energy-related enterprises/electric utilities/etc. doing even the bare minimum to make their facilities more robust and resilient. There's a lot of daylight between "be a cheap fucking bastard" and "spend so much on resilience against the unlikeliest of risks so that we go bankrupt."  In that daylight is what is reasonable compliance with the duty of care.  Each case is specific.  But the lack of trust in these players is understandable and not misplaced.

 

  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted
2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I don't think that any rational set of people would say that a pipeline company should have to spend a billion dollars to make their entire system bulletproof against even the most unlikely scenarios (nuclear-fueled sharknado or some shit).

What folks are instead asking is whether they should spend much smaller dollar amounts to make the system more resistant to risks that are known enough that they are embedded in existing regulations (protection against vehicle strikes).  Just did some intergoogle research, so it's as reliable as the rest of the internet, but 6" diameter bollards cost around $1,000 each to install.  4" may have even been enough.  A $4,000 (or less) set of four bollards here would have provided significant protection against a vehicle strike.  It's not complex or super expensive.

rs=w:400,cg:true

The facts and circumstances of this event will surely be thoroughly probed in enforcement and litigation actions to follow.  Determining whether it was reasonable to not install vehicle strike protection after/once it was known that there is vehicle traffic nearby will be part of that process.

People have little faith in energy-related enterprises/electric utilities/etc. doing even the bare minimum to make their facilities more robust and resilient. There's a lot of daylight between "be a cheap fucking bastard" and "spend so much on resilience against the unlikeliest of risks so that we go bankrupt."  In that daylight is what is reasonable compliance with the duty of care.  Each case is specific.  But the lack of trust in these players is understandable and not misplaced.

 

Setting aside issues like liability, I would think the disruption of operations and waste of product in an event like this would be enough to warrant this relatively meager proactive step. I'd say it was almost certainly an oversight that this particular valve wasn't already protected. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, Bill Brasky said:

I want bollards that are at an angle so when granny has a cardiac event she goes flying over the pipes like the Dukes of Hazzard 

Saw that happen on Mopac southbound over Barton Creek (because the guardrails are at an angle).  Behind a drunk dude weaving all over, I'm on with 911 narrating where he is and what he's doing....as he drifts off to the left, hits the guardrail going 60+.  Dude goes WAY airborne - like a good 8-10 feet up, flying forward at high speed.  Hits a light pole which just shatters, then plunges down into the creek.

Took EMS a while to find him, he went so far down the creek.  Apparently, he lived.  So, maybe a better outcome than if he'd hit an immovable vertical barrier?  I dunno.  I ain't a physicist.

Posted
3 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

 

 

 

I just learned we’re about 500 feet from a natural gas transmission pipeline in Austin. I suppose it could be worse, there are tons of houses and apartments essentially on top of it. 
I will continue not worrying about this. 

Posted
2 minutes ago, B00M said:

I just learned we’re about 500 feet from a natural gas transmission pipeline in Austin. I suppose it could be worse, there are tons of houses and apartments essentially on top of it. 
I will continue not worrying about this. 

Generally speaking, it's not the pipeline itself that is the risk.  It's where it pops above ground (valves etc.).  That said....yeah, the line as a whole CAN blow, it happens.  But if the line itself blows, it's usually the result of a dumbass digging and hitting it, or something like that.  A straight-up gas pipeline explosion on the line itself, without a third-party hitting it, is pretty rare.

And shit, those of us with natural gas to our homes have smaller lines running right by, and to, our home.  Which yes, can ALSO blow (it's happened here in Austin, and it's happened up in the metroplex) when the company doesn't give a proper shit about the state of its local distribution lines.  But transmission lines usually get more attention and maintenance.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

I don't think that any rational set of people would say that a pipeline company should have to spend a billion dollars to make their entire system bulletproof against even the most unlikely scenarios (nuclear-fueled sharknado or some shit).

What folks are instead asking is whether they should spend much smaller dollar amounts to make the system more resistant to risks that are known enough that they are embedded in existing regulations (protection against vehicle strikes).  Just did some intergoogle research, so it's as reliable as the rest of the internet, but 6" diameter bollards cost around $1,000 each to install.  4" may have even been enough.  A $4,000 (or less) set of four bollards here would have provided significant protection against a vehicle strike.  It's not complex or super expensive.

rs=w:400,cg:true

The facts and circumstances of this event will surely be thoroughly probed in enforcement and litigation actions to follow.  Determining whether it was reasonable to not install vehicle strike protection after/once it was known that there is vehicle traffic nearby will be part of that process.

People have little faith in energy-related enterprises/electric utilities/etc. doing even the bare minimum to make their facilities more robust and resilient. There's a lot of daylight between "be a cheap fucking bastard" and "spend so much on resilience against the unlikeliest of risks so that we go bankrupt."  In that daylight is what is reasonable compliance with the duty of care.  Each case is specific.  But the lack of trust in these players is understandable and not misplaced.

 

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.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
6 minutes 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.

Except.....that's not what is called for at all.

The regulation at issue was cited above, I'll paste it here:

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. 

So, there is no need to install bollards around all valves on all "3 million miles of natural gas pipeline."  Having the valve be a "safe distance from the traffic" is sufficient.  Hell, that's the BEST safety mechanism.  I've been out on a shitload of ranches with pipelines running through them with valves and other structures aboveground at spots.  No need for bollards there, because there is no traffic.  The vast majority of pipeline miles are already at "a safe distance from traffic."  And as for those valves that are NOT a safe distance from traffic, many of them already have bollards or other barriers (because that's what you're supposed to do).  This isn't an approach where anyone needs to "start from scratch.'

This isn't a "do it for all three million miles" problem.

It also isn't a "start from zero, install barriers on every aboveground structure that's near traffic all at once," because decent operators have already done that for most such locations.

Instead, this may be (we shall see as the facts develop) a "cut some corners and avoid a cost at a few locations" move, which is dumb as shit.  Penny wise, pound foolish.

Posted (edited)
29 minutes 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.

Nobody is saying every station everywhere should have bollards. Stop repeating this mischaracterization. If a valve is next to a 4 lane road and between neighborhoods, maybe there should be more than a chain link fence at that specific site?

Edited by Captainant
Posted
3 hours ago, Captainant said:

I'm moreso just baffled how such a critical and sensitive valve has zero physical protections in place. Doesn't heavy equipment operate on those sites? It's shocking that there would be no bollards or physical barrier protecting that infra.

Is it standard procedure to run a 1400PSI pipeline through a residential area with effectively zero physical protection? I am incredulous that it could be just normal to have giant exposed weak points all over the country running in between neighborhoods.

The odds of a pipeline rupturing are probably higher than an SUV driving in a field and hitting a block valve station hard enough to rupture a steel pipe.

Schematically, the block valve is similar to every single residential gas meter in the country, though I'm not sure if the Deer park station had a meter or if it was just a valve. A residential distribution behind a city gate is a lower pressure line than a transmission line, but they are still similar in nature. They are much more exposed to vehicular traffic; should we put pig-pens around all those valves also? 

3 hours ago, Captainant said:

And I again ask: is it normal to have these massively high pressure pipelines laid in between neighborhoods? It seems like a MAJOR operational security risk, not to mention the ongoing disaster that was getting entire homes close to autoignition temperature. 

That's one hell of a public subsidy breach of fiduciary duty by a government official to approve and allow construction of a residential area adjacent to an existing, extremely hazardous pipeline, without consideration for the general public. through a residential area.

Pretty much every Green Belt in a master planned community in Texas is a hydrocarbon pipeline corridor. The Phillips NGL pipeline from West Texas to South Houston crosses immediately north of the Chase Bank and the Slaughter & Mopac intersection. It crosses a lot of metro  infrastructure along the way. That pipeline was 15 miles south of town. Now its not.

Operational security risk? don't think I've ever heard of a car running into a pipeline in a field.

Whatever pipeline modifications were made in consideration of development, they are as agreed upon between the parties. Most landowners, both farmers and developers, want to minimize above ground infrastructure. Most times a chain link fence will suffice; it keeps the honest people out.

Re Subsidy? FIFY

2 hours ago, Captainant said:

Buried and underground, I understand running through a residential area. If you need to come above ground and expose it near neighborhoods, that's one hell of a public subsidy to not require those firms to carry a ton of insurance and/or harden the weak points in case of what's still burning in Deer Park.

Most large companies are self insured. The premiums to cover the act of one person making a bad decision that incurs a $40 billion judgement is prohibitive.

2 hours ago, Rex Kramer said:

But there is often very little communication between upstream and midstream. They’re totally different businesses. Midstream I view as a tollway charging a tariff. They don’t often take commodity price risk. Upstream is totally different.  Midstream players are not a part of the oil and gas industry. They’re part of the pipeline, midstream or infrastructure industry. 

Way, way wrong. There is constant, and real time communication between upstream and midstream, as the coordination of production volumes to current operating capacity is paramount.

Exploration & Production (Upstream) and Refining & Petrochemicals (Downstream) do not work without Midstream in the middle.

The lines between each are not absolutes, but determined on a case by case basis.

image.png.bcb29d6080c11bab12888a603b50dee5.png

2 hours ago, royiv said:

WTF does this protracted discussion of what is or isn’t O&G have to do with the current events in Deer Park? This discussion is a beating. 

Surly gonna Surly.

1 hour ago, Captainant said:

My bad for being surprised that it's perfectly normal to have zero physical barriers to protect a valve holding back 2 days (and counting) worth of 1400psi gas in the middle of residential area.

 

There is usually a barrier of sorts around every above ground facility. Not necessarily SUV proof.

Surprised?

image.png.4f879d516dfdbfd821342a1682f2d835.png

1 hour ago, Hate said:

The accountable person likely died in the explosion. 

In almost all the training video's I saw many years ago, they found the camera's. Sometimes they found the photographers body.  

1 hour ago, sidis said:

i have to say that in my years on surly, debating whether or not midstream and downstream are part of o&g may actually be the peak of utter fucking stupidity in the debates that exist here. anyone that does not think that midstream and downstream are part of the o&g industry need to have their fucking heads examined because that is genuinely some of the stupidest shit i have ever read...and a bizarre hill to destroy your credibility over.

truly bizarre that this is being debated.

I agree, that's some aggy level shit. 

40 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Holy shit YGIFS has returned!

And I just posted the safety standard a couple posts up for above ground pipes and valves: if the operator says it's good, then no further questions asked. Which is to say: there is effectively zero standard for safety. I appreciate your depth of experience and passion for your field, but you're acting like it's an act of god to put up more than a chainlink fence to protect a critical valve that's 100ft away from a 50mph road. Of course there can always be something bigger that would hit a valve and overwhelm its protection, and putting bollards in around the pipeline in the greenspace in your example doesn't make sense because it's not common for there to be heavy vehicles in that area. But even so, when the area around a site changes over time it's irresponsible to refuse to update your own safety posture.

Always PTINS, never anything else.

As Denton Cooley said, "I have no peers."

We hired the best and the brightest (lot of math). We built to DOT guidelines. We followed to ASME codes. In some cases, we developed our own construction standards, in excess of government and engineering standards. We solicited and adhered to best practices.  We did not need any non-industry,  non-professional people advising us how to do our jobs, safely.

To boil that down to "... there is effectively zero standard for safety" is insulting to everybody I met and worked with for 40 years. Safety is not simply words on paper, it is a learned behavior that is practiced every day and reinforced at every opportunity.  

The Highway Department used to put "Deer Crossing" signs where there had been a deer-vehicle occurrence. Why don't they just put them couple of hundred feet on every road in Texas, so the deer know they can't cross the road? 

Ok. Deer Park has had an incident where a car drove through a field and hit a pipeline facility. I don't doubt that some companies are asking the same question as you.  At the same time, there are hundreds of block valve sites all over the place in cultivated fields, with trucks and tractors and combines and all kinds of farm equipment in close proximity all the time.

You can't prevent people from doing stupid things.

22 minutes ago, pacman said:

Have we really not learned from this flawed thinking, yet? It’s a common misconception to believe that we can't prepare for a catastrophe simply because it hadn’t occurred in the past "22 years".

This overlooks the inherent unpredictability of rare events and the importance of being prepared for the unexpected, especially when impact is possibly high.

We have plenty of examples of unprecedented events, highlighting the need for robust preparation and contingency plans.

Recognize that past stability is not a guarantee of future safety, and proactive measures are essential to mitigate potential risks.

This area should have been fortified due to nearby risks, regardless of "who was there first".

You can identify and analyze every eventuality, but it is not practical to protect for every thing that might happen. Airplanes would be too heavy to fly and cars too expensive to buy.

I don't recall ever hearing about an SUV hitting a pipeline facility in a field. But, I did read about an airplane hitting a house and a whale jumping on a boat.  Perhaps we should start building protective covers for boats and houses.

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, PTINS said:

There is usually a barrier of sorts around every above ground facility. Not necessarily SUV proof.

I would not classify a chain link fence as a "barrier" concerning cars. A car blows right through that sucker, just ask Deer Park. 

5 minutes ago, PTINS said:

To boil that down to "... there is effectively zero standard for safety" is insulting to everybody I met and worked with for 40 years. Safety is not simply words on paper, it is a learned behavior that is practiced every day and reinforced at every opportunity.  

I'm not talking about how your organization does things. I'm pointing out that the standard is officially "every shop sets their own safety standards". I cited the correspondence and official guidance up thread. 

The result of that is that there WILL be operators that cut corners to save costs, because the risks are SOOOOO small anyways right?

IDK, I just don't have alot of sympathy for arguments that its too expensive when they made two and a half billion off of Texans freezing to death in 2021. It's not a matter of funds. It's a matter of not giving a shit and thinking "good enough is good enough because we've always done it this way"

Posted
42 minutes 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.

You wouldn't do it everywhere. But I'd say one in the 4th largest city in the country probably has a higher likelihood of encountering a vehicle. Personally, I would start there. 

Posted

Jesus Christ.  Do you let your children play in the front yard of your house? If so, you should put some bollards around them because they are closer to "traffic" flow than this pipeline station is.  It's over 100 feet away from the road.  There is no reasonable expectation that you would ever have traffic where the station is.  You just want to point the finger at big bad oil and capitalism.  That's it. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 3
Posted
2 hours ago, B00M said:

I just learned we’re about 500 feet from a natural gas transmission pipeline in Austin. I suppose it could be worse, there are tons of houses and apartments essentially on top of it. 
I will continue not worrying about this. 

Username and stuff 

  • Haha 2
Posted
7 minutes ago, Hate said:

Jesus Christ.  Do you let your children play in the front yard of your house? If so, you should put some bollards around them because they are closer to "traffic" flow than this pipeline station is.  It's over 100 feet away from the road.  There is no reasonable expectation that you would ever have traffic where the station is.  You just want to point the finger at big bad oil and capitalism.  That's it. 

If my front door was 100 feet from a 45mph four lane road, I would probably be less than enthusiastic about them playing in the front yard, yeah. And also, my child doesn't pose a public health and safety risk to thousands of families and homes should she be ran down by an out of control car. It wouldn't lead to mandatory evacuations and shelter in place orders, because the public risk exposure is significantly different in your scenario. 

But dude. C'mon now. You're just putting words in my mouth and doing fattyflatty and GRUhorn's work for them to put words in my mouth. I had figured you'd be better than that.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
45 minutes ago, Hate said:

Jesus Christ.  Do you let your children play in the front yard of your house? If so, you should put some bollards around them because they are closer to "traffic" flow than this pipeline station is.  It's over 100 feet away from the road.  There is no reasonable expectation that you would ever have traffic where the station is.  You just want to point the finger at big bad oil and capitalism.  That's it. 

 

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. 

Edited by Dahobbs
Posted

No, I'm generally trying to figure out why you feel that something over 100 feet away from a road with 2 fences around it is unsafe.  It took an unbelievably rare event for this to happen.  There is no evidence of something like this ever happening before despite there being millions and millions of opportunities for it to have had occurred.  

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
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
Posted (edited)
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
Posted
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
Posted (edited)
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
Posted
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
Posted
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! 

Posted
1 hour ago, Captainant said:

You're just putting words in my mouth and doing fattyflatty and GRUhorn's work for them to put words in my mouth

You diarrhea dumb thoughts constantly comrade, no need to put words in your mouth. 

Posted
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. 

Posted
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? 

Posted (edited)
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

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...