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)