On Jul 12, 1:23*pm, Bob wrote:
On Jul 11, 2:36*pm, DaveS wrote:





On Jul 11, 10:44*am, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

There's a Godfather quote for every conceivable circumstance:

"That's all right. These things gotta happen every five years or so, ten
years. Helps to get rid of the bad blood. Been ten years since the last
one. You know, you gotta stop them at the beginning. Like they should
have stopped Hitler at Munich, they should never let him get away with
that, they was just asking for trouble."

--
Ken Fortenberry

Bottom line on this spill is . . .
When the river crossing was put in the company took the cheapest
possible allowable method using the available loopholes of the moment
as is SOP for Exxon, BP etc..

Specifically after having done all they could to block regs requiring
enclosure of the pipe WITHIN an independent armored conduit, and
larding as many pols with contributions and whores, the oil company
took the cheapest, most chancy option possible. It is consistant with
the way these orgs work. Then *according to SOP, when the **** breaks
down the corp have their most reasonable sounding hirelings left alive
make whatever statements their over-bosses want. Most often these are
what normal people consider to be lies, but reality is that most of
the hirelings usually only know what they "need to know," so the
"spokesperson" doesn't believe they are a part of the lie. If the
spokesperson finds out and balks the company just buys them off or
fires them. For some who know little of life outside big corps or
govt, the "go along to get along" method suffices and little notice
need be given to the soul destroying consequences, much less to the
social damage done.

Anybody who has had to fight the lawyers of a large corporation
(Verizon in my case) knows that what I say here is the most reasonable
explanation for the obscene, treasonous behavior of most large
corporations and the individuals who get caught up in the moral
bankruptcy of bandit capitalism and corporate kleptocracy,

Dave
Who is glad that a good fishing friend, closely involved at very high
and hands-on level with the construction of those Japanese Nukes, is
not alive to bear the shame of sincere but failed assurances. His best
efforts and honest assurances could not compensate for the corrupt
corporate culture. R.I.P. friend.

No argument with your characterization of Exxon,etc., and the likely
scenario of the pipeline installation. However, at this point, unless
you have specific information to the contrary, we don't know whether
or not the pipeline was in fact armored. Even if it were, this rupture
may have occurred.

In addition to making the pipeline crossing robust, what should have
been done & what the regs should have required was "planning for
failure". In this case that would have meant requiring and installing
automatic emergency shutoff valves adjacent to any high risk area, and
requiring that they be tested and inspected often. That apparently
didn't occur in this case - the latest reports are that it was upwards
of 50 min. from detection of rupture to shutoff.

The power of large volumes of water running down a high gradient is
almost beyond human comprehension (think carving of Grand Canyon). *I
have seen truck sized boulders being moved downstream at several miles
an hour by western rivers in full flood. *If the regs require and the
project is engineered and built to withstand for instance a 50 yr
storm, sure enough eventually you will get a 100 yr storm (100yr get
200 yr storm, 200yr get 500yr, 500yr get 750 yr, etc.).

If irreplaceable important assets may be lost upon failure of the
project, there are only two prudent options- avoid construction of the
project all together. or if that is not truly an option, incorporate
measures to prevent or drastically limit damage to those assets in the
event of project failure.

The bottom line is that, as has been hinted at by at least one
individual in a position to speak with some level of authority in this
discussion, the effects of this environmental disaster
(notwithstanding the hand-wringing of those few poor souls near the
point of impact {as it were} who can now no longer claim {for the time
being} that their cows or their Ram 3500s are the leading source of
toxic effluent in the Yellowstone.....in their immediate
neighborhoods) exogenous toxic injections into the Yellowstone are
pretty much restricted to an increase on the order of something like a
very small fraction of one percent.....for one day.....for the river
as whole.

Characteristically, the doughboy appears to characterize this as yet
another greatest environmental catastophy in Merkin history. Not all
that surprising for a view from under a barstool.

Aside from that.....yawn.

g.
or.....what globe-trotting flyfisher REALLY wants to get deeply mirred
in an environmental ethics imbroglio here?