RE:RE:RE:RE:Murphy Oil Fined for pipeline leaknot at all
sicilian2 You missed the point of the post which was the fines are to lenient. Hindsight is always 100%. If you know that the leak was going to be exactly there, sure then monitor that spot. Until the leak happens, you don’t know where it is going to be. You can't just monitor one spot you need to monitor miles if not hundreds of miles of pipe (at the very least multiple locations but now you risk a miss). Don't want to sound like a tree hugger but the environmental impact is devastating when on off these pipes go. A true cost is never captured. They play the odds, and it is cheaper to allow a leak than to monitor hundreds of miles of pipe (for which there is no guarantee). Which brings me back too ... nothing going to change until it cost more money to cause a spill than to have one.
The answer, maybe, government legislation dictating specific "high risk" locations that
must be monitored such as the joint or elbows, valves etc. Areas where there is seismic activities. Areas located within a certain distance for fresh water or protected sanctuaries - lots to choose from.
At the end of the day the world runs on oil - stupid unrealistic legislation is pointless, asking them to monitor 100% of the line, again unrealistic - there is a cost to that and it is a business and in the end consumers will pay for all of it. There is a better compromising solution and monitoring must be part of that. The fines could marry the quality of the records that were maintained pertaining to a leak. In being reasonable if it could be proved (this is something AAO can assist with) that a reasonably amount of care was taken to prevent a leak then sure $172K fine and clean up is warranted but neglect need to cost a lot more than it would have cost of monitor the line. Until the MoE, engineers and Oil exec sit down and work this out … What I am sure about is oil companies will not self regulate in the best interest of bambi.