Classical Gas...

[GRG55]

Four confirmed dead, five missing, 50 injured and 37 'Frisco homes demolished. The wonder is that the toll isn't higher given the amount of energy that was released when that 30 inch trunk line ignited.

The other wonder is that the letters BP are nowhere to be found in any of the reports. Given BP's status as the "Goldman Sachs" of the hydrocarbon business , and the widely circulated reports about how the rest of the industry only accounted for 3% of the safety violations , it's hard to imagine something like this happening without them.

My bet is that the investigators are going to find either internal corrosion, the results of which should have been detected by the inspections before the line ruptured, or external mechanical damage [a dent or a holiday in the protective coating] that eventually compromised the capability of this section of pipe to withstand the hoop stress.

And once again, shzt happens. This is neither the first nor last natural gas pipeline explosion. As a society we make choices, and live with the consequences...

At least 5 still missing after California gas blast

SAN BRUNO, California | Sat Sep 11, 2010 11:37pm EDT

(Reuters) - At least five people were still missing on Saturday after a gas pipeline explosion destroyed a neighborhood in a San Francisco suburb two days ago, killing four people.

The remains of the fire site are still being searched and at least five people are known to be missing, said Neil Telford, chief of police for the city of San Bruno, California...

...The ruptured 30-inch (76-cm) steel gas transmission pipeline belongs to utility Pacific Gas & Electric Co, whose parent company is PG&E Corp.

The company is still looking into why the pipeline ruptured. It said it is working quickly to examine other lines to ensure that they are safe.

The section of the gas line was installed around 1956, said Geisha Williams, senior vice president of energy delivery for PG&E. Pipelines are checked annually for leaks, she said, and the line in question was inspected earlier this year...

[c1ue]

Re: Classical Gas...

The other wonder is that the letters BP are nowhere to be found in any of the reports. Given BP's status as the "Goldman Sachs" of the hydrocarbon business , and the widely circulated reports about how the rest of the industry only accounted for 3% of the safety violations , it's hard to imagine something like this happening without them.

It may not have been BP, but then again PG & E isn't exactly the angelic chorus either:

http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthr...ds-requirement

Perhaps some of that $40+M spent on cementing its power supply monopoly in California could have been deployed elsewhere?

[c1ue]

Re: Classical Gas...

And PG&E gets better - more "heads we win, tails the customers lose"

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...DDD8.DTL&tsp=1

State regulators will take their first look today at a proposal backed by Pacific Gas and Electric Co. that would require customers to pay all costs of catastrophic fires, such as last week's gas-line explosion in San Bruno, that exceed a utility's insurance coverage.
It's not clear whether the plan, if approved by the state Public Utilities Commission, would trigger a PG&E rate increase to help pay the utility's cost from Thursday's disaster. In a filing Monday with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the utility said it has $992 million in fire insurance and a $10 million deductible, and "believes that most of the costs related to the San Bruno event will be covered."
Even if the company has enough insurance, however, the proposal would make rate hikes more likely if PG&E caused fires in the near future.
Under current rules, utilities in California can seek a rate increase if the costs of a disaster exceed their insurance coverage. But the PUC can veto the request and force utility shareholders to pay the bill.
More than wildfires

The new proposal would require utility customers to bear the uninsured costs of catastrophic fires. It is titled a "wildfire expense balancing account," but the application defines "wildfire" to include any uncontrolled fire, urban or rural, that is larger than an acre and destroys houses or other buildings.
San Diego Gas & Electric Co. introduced the proposal in August 2009 in response to fires in 2007 that caused more than $1 billion in damage. The utility intended to address "wildfires in Southern California caused by extreme weather conditions," said a spokeswoman for the company, Stephanie Donovan.
But Nicholas Sher, a lawyer in a Public Utilities Commission staff division that opposes the plan, said the San Bruno explosion and fire "would fit within the wildfire definition."
He also said the proposal would allow utilities to charge its customers for the costs of past fires - possibly including San Bruno.
First-step hearing

A PUC commissioner and a hearing officer will preside over today's session in San Francisco, the first step in a process that could lead to a commission vote next spring or summer.
PG&E and California's other investor-owned utilities say the change is needed because disaster insurance is becoming more expensive and harder to obtain.
The proposal was "prompted by the utilities' inability to obtain sufficient insurance at a reasonable cost" for wildfire damage, the utilities said in their application. Donovan said the San Diego utility's wildfire insurance premiums rose more than 300 percent after the 2007 fires.
Opponents say the plan favors shareholders over customers and could increase the risk of fires by reducing utilities' incentives to maintain safe conditions.
"Their profits are based on the fact that they incur some risks," said Nina Suetake, a lawyer with The Utility Reform Network, a consumer group. "It's not fair to ratepayers that they make all this money ... and the minute those risks occur, they come back to ratepayers."
Michael Aguirre, a San Diego lawyer and former city attorney who is challenging the proposal on behalf of a local utility customer, said that "utilities need to reduce their risk profiles and not use ratepayers as insurers."
No effect on liability

The PUC's action on the proposal will not affect PG&E's liability, up to the limits of its insurance coverage, for damage caused by Thursday's explosion and fire.
Because gas transmission is legally classified as an "ultrahazardous" activity, the utility is responsible for all harm that it caused, even if it is not found to have been negligent, said David Levine, a law professor at UC Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco.
He said PG&E would have to reimburse insurance companies that are now arranging payments to families and businesses in San Bruno. The utility will be obliged to pay additional sums to residents, Levine said, including deductibles in their insurance policies and certain losses not covered by private insurance.
Some coverage may be disputed, Levine said, such as whether residents who were not injured can seek compensation for emotional trauma. But he said he expects all such issues to be resolved in a year or two.
Unlike some calamities, such as earthquakes, Levine said, "this disaster is heavily insured."

[jk]

Re: Classical Gas...

"Their profits are based on the fact that they incur some risks," said Nina Suetake, a lawyer with The Utility Reform Network, a consumer group. "It's not fair to ratepayers that they make all this money ... and the minute those risks occur, they come back to ratepayers."

the risk, apparently, is purely political.