Posted on 03/14/2012 12:24:59 PM PDT by Hojczyk
I thought if you were responsible for it you might know the miles or the flow rates.
It would have been interesting for a scale comparison.
My perception, as being outside of the water pipeline work, that their regard to leaks is far less than the petroleum industry. But it is easy to think that from the outside looking in. Numbers would have been more reveling.
Cheers
NY TIMES = ZERO CREDIBILITY
Right, as with BP in the Gulf, they are going to have to clean up and fully compensate for any damage. Seems to me the Alaskan pipeline has operated for a very long time with only relatively minor spills.
It’s a very small operation...only 30 shares. Sorry if I gave the impression that it was large. I’d guess that the miles of pipe are around ten or so.
But with thirty homes being without water it can turn into a pretty frustrating “big” deal at times.
And with Murphy’s law always functioning, it generally breaks on a Sunday afternoon or holiday, when people to help with it are unavailable.
So I’m just saying that having quality repairs every time becomes kind of a big issue for me.
Fair enough, lots of places depend upon a system like that.
But if we take 806*10/15,294 we get a comparable single leak per 20 years for your operation. To me that is a proportional comparison, ignoring the higher volumes and flow rates.
Would you say 1 leak per 20 miles per decade is a sign of poor construction, cheap and sloppy work from the installers?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.