Why are there so many oil and gas pipeline explosions

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

There have been many who wonder about the number of pipeline explosions. This is what I learned by listening on my daddy's workplace:

For the rollover, they took down lots and lots of automated systems for monitoring if those systems could open/close values on their own. So everybody is on manual.

Now if some of the workers act like my dad, then it would have been better if the automated systems were still in place.

Assuming the automated systems work, of course. Does anybody know if they got all the bugs out of the things?

-- Bart Simpson (simpsons@sundayniteonfox.com), January 30, 2000



Well, that's the $64,000 question, isn't it? (I guess I'm dating myself -- I should ask whether you want to be a millionaire...).

We also know that the Russians switched their national power grid over to manual on New Year's Eve, because they made a big point of saying so.

What we don't seem to know about any of these systems is whether they have been switched back to automatic or not. Or, to put your question in a slightly different perspective, are the higher-than-usual number of failures due to human error with the manual operations, or undiscovered Y2K bugs when those systems are switched back over to automa

-- Ed Yourdon (ed@yourdon.com), January 30, 2000.

Hey, Something smells fishy here. I might not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but Bart doesn't your dad work for a nucler power plant and not the railroad?

-- Butt Nugget (catsbutt@umailme.com), January 30, 2000.

Ed, you never learn, do you? It's not "Y2K undiscovered bugs"! It just can't be!

It's just "Statistically High Significant Incidence of Accidents and Failures Of Unknown Origin Some Months Before And After The Century Date Change Absolutely Unrelated To Y2K"

Get it?

Take care

-- George (jvilches@sminter.com.ar), January 30, 2000.

George, do you have a reliable source of information that the accident incidence rate is higher than normal? I mean one besides justpeace.org or Marcia Peters/nckodokan?

-- Mikey2k (mikey2k@he.wont.eat.it), January 30, 2000.

-- Mikey2, what reliable source would you accept???


-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), January 30, 2000.

Ray, I'd like to see a report by an organization that's been in the business of reporting for several years and doesn't have an axe to grind. Besides major news organizations such as CNN, examples would include other magazines such as Business Week and industry publications. Would even accept some government statistics from a government agency that met the standards in the first paragraph.

I would give more credibility to a "reporter on the reports" like Matt Drudge or if it met the same standards. But even then I'd want to see if their reporting was not distorted by the growth in the web or an increase in the number of their people hunting the web. Marcia Peters and justpeace.org don't even come close to being a credible source.

Do I totally reject the possiblility of significantly more accidents. No, but I live closely enough to Missouri to say "Show Me".

-- Mikey2k (mikey2k@he.wont.eat.it), January 30, 2000.

Ray, forget it. Some folks won't accept evidence until a pipeline blows up under their own house.

-- elskon (elskon@bigfoot.com), January 30, 2000.

What does Greg Caton have to say about this subject?

-- Butt Nugget (catsbutt@umailme.com), January 30, 2000.

-- Mikey2k, since you don't accept the FACTS presented by marcia Peter's site and since NONE of the sources you named have provided any data nor will ever do so would you be so kind as to take it upon yourself to gather the FACTS and report back to the forum??????

Many Thanks in advance for your efforts.


-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), January 30, 2000.

CNN? Business Week??? Are they in the reporting business? Analysis?

-- Mara (MaraWayne@aol.com), January 30, 2000.

Any accurate information that manages to slip past the editors of CNN and Business Week is simply a case of a broken clock hitting the correct time twice a day.

-- cgbg jr (cgbgjr@webtv.net), January 30, 2000.

elskon, I stated what it would take to convince me, maybe you should read it.

Ray, let's make sure what we're talking about:

Your position: Marcia Peter's site at link are proof that there are an unusual number of incidents. The number of incidents were low in the early 90's but the number of incidents has skyrocketed in the past year as shown by the graph on Marcia's page and this is reliable information. (Marcia's site presents "FACTS")

My position: Maybe there are an unusual number of accidents, but Marcia Peter's site and justpeace.org are unreliable sources for this information.

So Ray, I've stated what it would take to convince me that the number of incidents is much higher than normal, and the burden of proof is on the person making the assertion. I have looked for such sources, but I'm not going to devote my life to proving a negative. But Ray, since your assertion seems to hang on Marcia's web page and I have asserted that it is unreliable, what would it take to convince you that it is unreliable?

-- Mikey2k (mikey2k@he.wont.eat.it), January 30, 2000.

Mikey2k, are you related to Flint??

Obviously you do not want to put ANY effort into determining the FACTS about these explosions yourself but you are quick to call those who have expended a considerable amount of effort as unreliable. Pretty sad Mikey2k.

Mikey2k, keep watching CNN and reading News Week for FACTS!!!


-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), January 30, 2000.

Ray, you didn't answer my question. What would it take to convince you that Marcia Peters' site is unreliable?

-- Mikey2k (mikey2k@he.wont.eat.it), January 30, 2000.

Mikey2k, a retraction by all the news agencies represented.

Now Mikey2k, why don't you take all the effort you use in attempting to rebuke things posted here and do some real research of your own. Show folks that you are capable of this kind of effort. After you have posted your results we can discuss them, until then your wasting my time and I believe many of the other folks who post here.

Get a life friend!!


-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), January 30, 2000.

Ray, I have never disputed that the reports that Marcia has on her site actually did occur.

What I am disputing is that it is a complete record of all such incidents since January 1, 1990. I am disputing the graph on the top of the page which shows that such incidents have steadily increased and skyrocketed over the last 10 years. Marcia should never have included the justpeace.org data, disclaimers or not, and should never have included the graph, disclaimers or not.

So Ray, do you accept that Marcia's graph based on the justpeace.org date is incorrect. If not, what would it take for you to accept that the justpeace.org data is incomplete?

With disrespect to your challenge for me to do some research, what research have you done?

-- Mikey2k (mikey2k@he.wont.eat.it), January 30, 2000.

Mikey2k commented:

"What I am disputing is that it is a complete record of all such incidents since January 1, 1990."

Mikey2k, get off your butt and show me that there were 64 problems in January 1995 or show me there were a total of 90 problems in all of 1993. It's time to put up or shut up Mikey2k!!!!!

The FACTS have been presented, disprove them or MOVE ON.


-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), January 30, 2000.

Ray, I can show you that the justpeace.org data is incomplete. That is, I can show you problems that are not included in their data. But I doubt that I can find data for 64 problems in Jan 95 or 90 problems for 93. That's not an admission that there weren't that many problems during those periods. That's an admission that I don't have the resources of data to prove that many. To collect equivalent data to what Marcia has on her site, one would have needed to collect the data in real time, with the same criteria, and also have access to an equivalent number of reporting sources.

I don't have time machine to go into the past, but even that wouldn't help. Over the 10 years since 1990, there have been quite an increase in news organizations reporting on the web. I imagine that most of these sources didn't have an internet presence in 1990. While there were more of them on the web by 1995, any reports they may have put online at time are no longer available exept perhaps in archives that require a fee to access.

Ray, an INCOMPLETE set of FACTS have been presented, but are being accepted as complete. Again, I have found problems not included in the justpeace.org data which proves that it is incomplete. But you have put the bar too high, but in the end if I were able to find archives with enough data to meet your challenge I doubt that you would accept them. Frankly Ray, you wouldn't be worth the effort anyway.

-- Mikey2k (mikey2k@he.wont.eat.it), January 30, 2000.

I've remained silent for several hours and in the meantime have enjoyed the civilized debate revolving around the original question that Mikey2k asked me re "a reliable source" that would prove the increased incidence of accidents, etc., etc.

Now then, both friends and foes will probably find this hard to believe, but I do agree (honestly) with Mikey2k, in that any such source does not exist (yet). Why, because... (legal, lying, lack of awareness, etc.).

Still, common sense does exist Mikey2k. I can't prove it, you're right, but still exists. The only thing I can say in my favor are Galileo's famous words: "Eppur si muove" which means "It still moves" (you a**holes).

Take care

-- George (jvilches@sminter.com.ar), January 30, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ