Re: Gas Explosion Shakes Texas

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 09:14:47 -0500, jonathan wrote:

> Ya know that explosion in Britain, they've claimed it was
> an accident, but that conclusion seems suspicious coming
> so soon. Even while the fires were still burning.


Yes, I do know that major oil depot explosion in England that
registered 2.9 on the Richter.

The fires are not still burning. A new one did break out after the
original one and those that started as a result of a chain reaction
were put out, but the new one is contained and is being allowed to
burn itself out.

The investigations are still going on but a lorry driver detected a
vapour leak and flicked an isolation switch. He thinks that maybe a
spark from the switch ignited the vapour. That there was a vapour
leak from somewhere is supported by a security guard working at
Fujifilm who could smell fumes strongly inside the building. When he
opened a window, he could smell it even stronger. The driver hasn't
been blamed and what he's said has been noted while the investigation
is continuing. No firm conclusions have been drawn as yet and the
possibility of terrorism is only one thing that is being considered.
At the moment there is nothing to suggest that it was terrorism. If
it wasn't deliberate, then it was an accident.

Vapour leaks happen and you should already know that it's the vapour
that burns, not the fuel. As a trained motor race marshal, who's also
be trained as a motor race fire marshal, I've seen cigarettes put out
in petrol many times without any explosions or the ignition of the
vapour - but it has to be done very quickly.

> Damaging oil pipelines and setting off oil wells is something
> that has a long history in the Middle East.

England isn't in the Middle East. It's a long way away from there.
Our oil pipelines are mostly under the sea and our oil wells in the
North Sea.
>
> Hmm, I wonder!

Wonder away but you're well wide of the mark.
.