ReeferMadness Posted February 27, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 27, 2016 Fortunately, we haven't had a dilbit leak. Yet..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted February 27, 2016 Report Share Posted February 27, 2016 Perhaps they would have responded had somebody at Enbridge bothered to tend the alarm and alert someone. The first indication anyone locally had was when oil began to flow down a street in a subdivision. Firefighters and a Michigan Utility employee were onsite investigating three hours after the alarm and they didn't find a leak. They concluded the smells were coming from a different area. The Utility didn't come back until more people started complaining. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted February 27, 2016 Report Share Posted February 27, 2016 Firefighters and a Michigan Utility employee were onsite investigating three hours after the alarm and they didn't find a leak. They concluded the smells were coming from a different area. The Utility didn't come back until more people started complaining. And that has exactly what to do with the fact Enbridge didn't respond to the alarm for 18 hrs.? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted February 27, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 27, 2016 Three area firefighters were sent to the scene about three hours after the time of the first alarm. They found nothing. The utilities group then found the leak at 11:15 am the next morning. Your desperate attempts to deflect accountability are duly noted. As is the irony of your handle. The rural firefighters (likely volunteers since it is a rural area) were unable to find the source of the leak in the dark. They may or may have not known about the existence of the pipeline. This is somehow surprising?? So, what's missing in this story? Oh, yeah. It's the gross negligence and/or incompetence on the part of the employees in the Alberta control centre who actually had evidence of a leak and did NOTHING until the next day when somebody called them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 27, 2016 Report Share Posted February 27, 2016 Firefighters and a Michigan Utility employee were onsite investigating three hours after the alarm and they didn't find a leak. And what about the people who had alarms going off at their headquarters? The people who knew exactly which sensors were tripping alarms. Where were they? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted February 27, 2016 Report Share Posted February 27, 2016 So, what's missing in this story? Oh, yeah. It's the gross negligence and/or incompetence on the part of the employees in the Alberta control centre who actually had evidence of a leak and did NOTHING until the next day when somebody called them. And that has exactly what to do with the fact Enbridge didn't respond to the alarm for 18 hrs.? And what about the people who had alarms going off at their headquarters? The people who knew exactly which sensors were tripping alarms. Where were they? As I have already clearly stated (even though some on here apparently can't comprehend basic English), Enbridge took the lion's share of the responsibility and they should have. What I am saying is that contrary to what you guys imply, Enbridge did not do this out of malicious intent or gross negligence. The alarms went off and the thought was the line was plugged, hence the reason why they tried pressurizing and flushing the line twice overnight which resulted in over 80% of the actual spill. As per the aptly article titled : A LESSON FOR BC: MICHIGAN 911 SYSTEM FAILED DURING THE KALAMAZOO SPILL, NTSB SAYS Enbridge had been working on restarting the pipeline all night. In Edmonton, at 10:16 am, the Enbridge control room spoke to the regional manager based in Chicago to send someone to walk along the pipeline, upstream and downstream of the Marshall pumping station. According to the NTSB, the Chicago regional manager replied, “I wouldn’t think so. If it’s right at Marshall—you know, it seems like there’s something else going wrong either with the computer or with the instrumentation. …you lost column and things go haywire, right?” He went on to say, “…I’m not convinced. We haven’t had any phone calls. I mean it’s perfect weather out here—if it’s a rupture someone’s going to notice that, you know and smell it.” The Chicago regional manager told shift lead C1 that he was okay with the control centre starting Line 6B again. In hindsight the folks in Alberta should have just shut it down until they had visual confirmation. However at the time they felt it was not a rupture and this was also seen in the Chicago manager who felt it was instrumentation error. Now I know you armchair specialists like to think you know exactly what you would do in that situation however the reality is that many things went wrong that night: - Firefighters and a Michigan utility responded 3 hours after the rupture and found nothing - several other 911 calls went unchecked - No communication to Enbridge happened until 11:17 and they shut it down immediately. - the American standard for pipelines was seen as not adequate which was a factor for the rupture Just so Reefer doesn't have to go and smoke a reefer to calm down....this is Enbridge's pipeline and they are largely responsible for the events. However there were contributing factors that at least two of you three would never admit to. More so, no argument pushed forward can suggest that this one time event is what we should expect. Pipelines have a 99.99% efficiency rating and are known to be the safest mode of transporting crude. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 27, 2016 Report Share Posted February 27, 2016 It seems like pressurizing a line that could be leaking is gross negligence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted February 27, 2016 Report Share Posted February 27, 2016 It seems like pressurizing a line that could be leaking is gross negligence. You beat me to it, why have alarms if you are going to ignore them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted February 27, 2016 Report Share Posted February 27, 2016 It seems like pressurizing a line that could be leaking is gross negligence. They didn't think it could be leaking. They thought it was plugged or instrumentation error. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 27, 2016 Report Share Posted February 27, 2016 They didn't think it could be leaking. They thought it was plugged or instrumentation error. Assuming such a thing would constitute negligence, I would think. There's a reason they had to take most of the blame. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted February 27, 2016 Report Share Posted February 27, 2016 There's a reason they had to take most of the blame. Maybe because it's their pipeline? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 27, 2016 Report Share Posted February 27, 2016 Maybe because it's their pipeline? The monitoring system built in to which they completely ignored. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted February 27, 2016 Report Share Posted February 27, 2016 The monitoring system built in to which they completely ignored. The error code said low pressure which could also indicate a blockage. They certainly did not ignore it as the article says, they worked all night trying to correct the error. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 27, 2016 Report Share Posted February 27, 2016 The error code said low pressure which could also indicate a blockage. It seems like you would err on the side of of caution, doesn't it? This doesn't give me warm and fuzzy feelings about the pipeline industry in general and Enbridge in particular. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted February 28, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 28, 2016 Firefighters and a Michigan Utility employee were onsite investigating three hours after the alarm and they didn't find a leak. They concluded the smells were coming from a different area. The Utility didn't come back until more people started complaining. How is any of this in any way relevant? The only reason any of them were there is because incompetent or negligent Enbridge employees ignored the alarm bells. It was left to the local people to tell the idiots at Enbridge their pipeline was spouting oil into the environment. You're attempting to somehow deflect criticism by implying that they weren't able to figure it out soon enough. If in the 21st century Enbridge lacks the capability to figure out it's losing a million gallons of its biotoxic, mutagenic, carcinogenic, explosive product, it shouldn't be in the business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted February 28, 2016 Report Share Posted February 28, 2016 It seems like you would err on the side of of caution, doesn't it? If you think there might be a leak...then yes. However I read somewhere that they had this error message before and it was a plugged line. Again, troubleshooting remotely is not an easy task and usually goes down to experience. I trust this error message going forward will carry a much different tone. This doesn't give me warm and fuzzy feelings about the pipeline industry in general and Enbridge in particular. Cars have been recalled due to safety measures, yet you still drive. Planes have crashed but we still fly. Restaurants have served tainted food but you still eat out. Any of these not true? What's important is that pipelines deliver their product safely 99.99% of the time. And after this ONE incident we can expect a good lesson to be learned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted February 28, 2016 Report Share Posted February 28, 2016 The only reason any of them were there is because incompetent or negligent Enbridge employees ignored the alarm bells. They didn't ignore the alarm bells. Please stop spewing your ignorance. They continued to correct what they thought was causing the alarms based on previous experience. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 28, 2016 Report Share Posted February 28, 2016 If you think there might be a leak...then yes. However I read somewhere that they had this error message before and it was a plugged line. Again, troubleshooting remotely is not an easy task and usually goes down to experience. Then they should have more people to respond to alarms. A leak should always be verified first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted February 28, 2016 Report Share Posted February 28, 2016 Then they should have more people to respond to alarms. A leak should always be verified first. Yes...when they believe a leak is happening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 28, 2016 Report Share Posted February 28, 2016 Yes...when they believe a leak is happening. That would be the first think you'd check if you had a drop in pressure - always. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted February 28, 2016 Report Share Posted February 28, 2016 That would be the first think you'd check if you had a drop in pressure - always. Sounds like you have a career waiting for you in pipeline operations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted February 28, 2016 Report Share Posted February 28, 2016 The error code said low pressure which could also indicate a blockage. They certainly did not ignore it as the article says, they worked all night trying to correct the error. Whilst the Kalamazoo river filled up. Pressure drops are the first sign of a leak. Wishful thinking that it is not a leak should not be part of any sensible response. Confirmation should be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 28, 2016 Report Share Posted February 28, 2016 Sounds like you have a career waiting for you in pipeline operations. No, but I do have plumbing in my house. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted February 28, 2016 Report Share Posted February 28, 2016 As in my previous post about my experience at being at a pumping station, the automatic shutoff system seems like a good one. Then woe be it to any employee who re-opens a valve before confirming that the cause was not a leak. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted February 28, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 28, 2016 Sounds like you have a career waiting for you in pipeline operations. No, actually it sounds like the geniuses at Enbridge had no business operating a pipeline at all. I'm trying to imagine how all of this went down. Operator: There is an alarm that may indicate a leak. We should shut it down until someone can visually verify. Manager: No way, that will cost us too much money. Just pressurize it and shut it off. Operator: That didn't work. Manager: Well just keep on doing it for another 18 hours. If there's really a leak, someone will tell us about it. Michigan resident, phoning Enbridge: Ummm, could you tell us when the toxic sludge pouring into the river is going to stop? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.