>Growing Demand for Liquefied Natural Gas Raises Safety Questions
>January 24, 2005 -- By H. Josef Hebert, Associated Press
> COVE POINT, Md. -- Once or twice a week, a tanker unloads
>millions of gallons of frosty liquid at a terminal on the Chesapeake Bay,
>bringing to the United States a fuel that many economists believe will
>help temper energy prices in the coming decades.
>LNG cannot explode and is not flammable as a liquid.
This is a PR utterance, designed to deceive. All these liquids
must be mixed with air before combustion becomes possible; and only a
limited range of mixtures is indeed combustible.
You might as well say LPG is not flammable, or even petrol. Hebert
should be ashamed to promulgate such deceit.
>But a government study by the Sandia National Laboratory concludes
>terrorists could blast a
>large hole into a double-hulled LNG vessel. That would release millions
>of gallons of fuel that
>would quickly turn to gas and ignite.
It is not clear that it would immediately ignite. The big fear is
that a plume of liquid methane will move off downwind for dozens of miles
before being ignited.
Prof James Fay, then chmn mech E MIT and a member of the Mass Ports
Authority, published a simple method to model these phenomena in a top jnl
(_Combust Sc & Technol_). Fay predicted that if one of the several large
tanks in a LNG tanker ship were ruptured, under some atmospheric conditions
the flammable toe of the cloud would move over the sea as far as 100 km
>The fire would be so intense that it could cause major injury and burn
>buildings one-third of a
>mile away. Within seconds, the fire could give second-degree burns to
>people who are a mile
This is similar to what's calculated for the fireball from a mere
road-tanker of LPG if ignited promptly upon release - a dozen ton of
fuel, not thousands. I was for a period 2 decade ago a leading expert on
that arcane topic LPG fireballs. I am sorry Sandia have put out these
ludicrously tiny distances. Science Applications Inc did similarly, for a
fee, in support of a proposed S. Calif. LNG proposal - just a mile or so,
*after* Fay's paper.
>"The risks of a catastrophic accident ... is a real one. Far too little
>is known about the
>vulnerability of LNG terminals and ships to terrorist attacks," says
>Philip Warburg, president
>of the Conservation Law Foundation. The group has lobbied against putting
>LNG terminals in
>populated areas in the Northeast.
But has Warburg got a grip on the 100-km hazard radius?
>Industry officials say there has never been a leak of LNG from a
>double-hull tanker and that
>protection of LNG shipments has improved since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
More weasel words. The whole plurry nation of Qatar was crippled
by a catastrophic fire in their LNG export terminal.
>Storage tanks, such as those at Cove Point, are designed so burning fuel
>would be confined
>within site boundaries, says Donovan, the Dominion spokesman.
Is he by any chance a refugee from the nookuluh trade? What he
says here is extremely deceitful. LNG 'containment' is less plausible than
Where is the Union of Concerned Scientists now that we need them?
They pubd popular-language articles on LNG in 'Environment' - but
apparently that is over the horizon of cultural memory, for AP at least.
P O Box 28878 Remuera, Auckland 1005, New Zealand
(9) 524 2949