Talk:Siberian pipeline sabotage

Origin
This content was originally in the Trans-Siberian Pipeline article, due to some confusion between the two pipelines, but was split off to form this new article. There is some debate as to the worthiness of this subject to have an article, and to whether the supposed sabotage ever even happened, but at least that question can be properly separately addressed here. - Eric (talk) 10:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This discussion could be also relevant.Beagel (talk) 21:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Expect fire, not explosion
The energy release seems plausible, but as a fire and not an explosion. 3 kilotons = 1.2x1013 joules. Natural gas burned gives off 3.9x107 joules per standard cubic meter. Big pipelines run at about 100 atm pressure, and have roughly 1 m2 cross section, so it takes about 3 km of pipeline to have enough gas to release this much energy. This would take at least 10 seconds to leak out of even a large failure (speed of sound is 340 m/sec). But to explode, rather than burn, it would all need to be mixed with air at the correct proportion, between 5 and 15 percent - see [http://www.truenergy.com.au/Residential/Resources/HomeSafety/PropertiesOfNaturalGas.xhtml What is Natural Gas? Natural Gas Properties]. If it leaks fast, the area around the leak could not have nearly enough oxygen. If it leaks slowly, the natural gas would rise since it's mostly methane which is lighter than air. So even if there was some ignition source, you'd likely get a big fireball, but not an explosion.

Also, this type is accident is fairly common, just by accident and not sabotage. See, for example, Industrial Control Systems Killed Once and Will Again, Experts Warn. by Ryan Singel. So even if it did happen, an accident could explain it as well. LouScheffer (talk) 16:18, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Any discussion of what "would" happen or what "would have to happen" or what you'd "expect" is almost certainly novel synthesis, and there's a reason WP has a policy against novel synthesis: It amounts to an untested hypothesis. Unless some prominent figure is quoted, it's novel synthesis, which you're always welcome to publish elsewhere so someone else can cite your work here. Dcs002 (talk) 02:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * wasn't the biggest explosion supposed to be the Halifax Explosion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.48.95 (talk) 21:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

American technology?
The first paragraph tells us that this was a CIA operation to counter the theft of American technology. The article then goes on to tell us repeatedly that the technology was from a Canadian company. So which is true? Presumably the latter...67.68.47.3 (talk) 15:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Doesn't need to be either/or. During the Cold War, Americans shared technology with NATO nations that they would not share with the Soviets or Eastern Bloc nations. So it could be American technology being used at a Canadian company. While I have no specific knowledge in this case, such practices were common, and remain so today concerning nations the U.S. deems friendly (as opposed to nations such as N. Korea and Iran). Hope this clarifies. :o)  Dcs002 (talk) 02:20, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Alternate explanations?
The previous section title was "Hoax theory." Both words are charged, and neither describes the section, which I consider an NPOV issue and an issue of relevance. I renamed it "Alternate explanations," but that's still not exactly what the section contains. In any case, the section doesn't describe a hoax or a theory, unless you count the April Fool's Day prank, which was not intended as a true hoax, at least not the way it's described in the article. Any suggestions for a neutral title? Or perhaps a different presentation of the information? Dcs002 (talk) 02:28, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no actual proof it ever happened, esp. not the "observed" parts. Thus there is a theory (as in scientific theory) that this is a hoax. It certainly isn't an "alternative explanation". Lars T. (talk) 18:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The text says nothing to the end that someone called it a hoax. May be it was. But until the "hoax" issue reasonably elaborated from reliable sources, I suggest an on-the-fence neutral title "Doubts raised". Lom Konkreta (talk) 00:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * By the way, I deleted a large chunk from a writer Patrick Mackeown's online writing who alleges that those who wkote about this report knew that it was a hoax. I removed this as an unverifiable claim: first, Mackeown does not present a slightest hint on a prove that these people "knew it was a hoax"; second, there is no evidence that he is a recognized expert in Cold War ways. Lom Konkreta (talk) 00:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The dossier, under the name of Farewell, reached the CIA in August 1981. The construction of the Trans-Siberian pipeline was started in 1982 and it was commissioned in 1984. The explosion was already in June 1982? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.227.223.159 (talk) 19:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory.... requires better title
Since this is a conspiracy theory, our conventions require a better title, for example:


 * Siberian pipeline sabotage conspiracy theory

This would naturally be added to Category:Conspiracy theories. If no one objects, I'll make that change soon. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Are there any suggestions for a better title than what I've suggested? -- Brangifer (talk) 18:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Conspiracy theory seems a bit out of place here, seen as it seems to have been the result of a specific operation dictated by policy, and I'd ask to see a good strong source calling it as such. I'd go for "Siberian pipeline sabotage allegations". The mayor of Yurp (talk) 20:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the needed input. I like your suggestion. I was a bit uncomfortable about mine, but a change needs to be made. Shall we go with that and see if it meets any resistance? As far as I'm concerned, you're welcome to do it, or I'll do it if you'd rather not. Let me know what you think. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

opinion of the expert
The material about opinion of the expert was placed. The material Not objectively is removed. The different points of view are necessary. Ольга Кряжич (talk) 19:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Propaganda
As editor LouScheffer correctly explained above, there is no possibility to organize an actually large explosion from a mere gas pipeline in the open - let alone let it happen by chance or sabotage. This whole article is phony, only to sponsor a novel, which itself is some kind of propaganda.--Environnement2100 (talk) 10:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Except that there is: the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline explosion (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-12-10/mysterious-08-turkey-pipeline-blast-opened-new-cyberwar.html). If hackers can do that then there is no reason to believe that the CIA could not have done something similar with trojaned hardware/software.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.1.216.95 (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Topic mentioned in "A Patriot's History of the Modern World, Vol. 2"
On page 337 of Larry Schweikart's "A Patriot's History of the Modern World, Vol 2" (2013), the authors present this story as fact. The footnotes mention Reed's "At the Abyss" as the sole supporting document. It didn't make much sense to me, hence my check on Wikipedia. Thank you for the discussion here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.47.46.243 (talk) 20:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)