From: ahk@chinet.com   
      
   Sancho Panza  wrote:   
   >On 5/15/2014 3:43 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:   
   >>Sancho Panza   wrote:   
   >>>On 5/15/2014 9:05 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:   
      
   >>>>For those of you on Usenet so enamored of the safety record of pipelines   
   >>>>for transportation of oil, you may not want to read about last night's   
   >>>>disaster:   
      
   >>>>A ruptured oil pipe near the suburb of Glendale has spilled about   
   >>>>10,000 gallons of crude oil onto streets; initial reports had the spill   
   >>>>at 50,000 gallons. The leak from a 20 inch pipe was reported as 12:15   
   >>>>am. Thursay, May 15, 2014. It was shut off remotely within 10 minutes of   
   >>>>firemen arriving. Despite the shut off, the spill continued for at least   
   >>>>45 minutes.   
      
   >>>>A strip club had to be evacuated.   
      
   >>>>The pipe was under pressure; oil was seen shooting 20 feet into the sky.   
      
   >>>>The oil came from Bakersfield. It's a pumping transfer station sending   
   >>>>oil to a storage facility near Bakersfield.   
      
   >>>Seeing as how no cause has yet been offered and the proximity of the   
   >>>rupture to the San Andreas Fault, seismic activity is not out of the   
   >>>question.   
      
   >>Pipelines aren't planned to be compatible with know, significant seismic   
   >>activity? That gives me every confidence about pipelines.   
      
   >Earthquake Protection   
      
   >With Alaska being one of the most seismologically active regions in the   
   >world, TAPS engineers incorporated earthquake protection in the pipeline   
   >design. . . .   
      
   Terrific. So why were you guessing the ruptured pipeline in Glendale   
   wasn't designed for known seismic activity?   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)