<Longwall Mining of coalThe Oil DrumExtrapolating World Production>

92 comments on Empire On the Edge--Betting On LNG **

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

nth on January 23, 2006 - 1:13pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
To play devil's advocate, LNG ships
have the safest records of any fuel
delivery ship at the moment.  We have
never seen a LNG ship explode into
pieces.  Because LNG ship accidents
are pretty minor, we do not really
know what happens when a LNG ship
is hit with a bomb like USS Cole
or a tragic accident like Exxon Valdez.

To claim it is too dangerous is without
evidence.  What is to say that a major
accident won't just make the ship into
a burning island?  Why does it have to
explode and destroy the port and the
people living nearby?

Actually, I have not come across a super
explosion that wiped out nearby buildings
for NG storage facilities.  Albeit, they
are mostly underground.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
jkissing on January 23, 2006 - 1:47pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Unlike most bombs, an lng "exlosion" needs oxygen. So it first quickly burns oxygen in surronding air, causing a tower of hot air (actually, products of combustion) that rises, sucking in air at the base. Accordingly, at low levels it creates a partial vacuum and acts as an implosion, the opposite of a bomb.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Halfin on January 23, 2006 - 2:12pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I remember an influential article in the Los Angeles Times back probably in the 1970s when they were considering putting an LNG terminal in at Long Beach. The article vividly depicted the consequences of an explosion and fire at the transshipping facility. A wave of burning, evaporating methane gas would roll across the city, creating a fire miles on a side that would reach almost to city hall. The conflagration would be almost nuclear in its consequences. I don't know how accurate the story was (or my memory of it for that matter), it may be exaggerated, but it had an impact and that was the end of the idea back then.

Now they are trying again to put in an LNG terminal at Long Beach, and faced with opposition there they are looking at going about 70 miles up the coast to the Ventura/Oxnard area. The Ventura facility would be built offshore to avoid the fire risk, with an undersea pipeline bringing the gas inland (not sure if it would be liquified or vapor at that point). So far that plan is not exactly being welcomed either. It is a real NIMBY situation, nobody wants to get barbecued.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Peaknik on January 23, 2006 - 2:34pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I don't have any hard data to back up this, but a professor of Energy Resources in the University of Barcelona told me once that there was a study that simulated the effects of an explosion in the regasification terminal here in the port of Barcelona, the effects were pretty similar to those described below. In any case, it depends on what is in the surroundings of the exploding tanker. Here in the Barcelona harbour we have a lot of gas and oil depots...
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Gets IT on January 23, 2006 - 3:23pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Cold boiling liquid escapes radially from a point source and flows along the ground or sea until it flashes into cool vapor.  Until it has mixed with sufficient atmospheric oxygen, its is not an explosive mixture.  If you light a match, the match is extinguished.  As the cool vapor expands on heating from surface contact and atmospheric mixing, it continues moving outward from the source until it is eventually heated to ambient air temp.  At that point it becomes lighter than air and starts rising.  As the gas  mixes with the oxygen in the air, it eventually reaches explosive limits and starts looking for an ignition source.  <At this point it is very important to extinguish all smoking materials>  If no ignition source is encountered, the gas rises into the air and <"harmlessly"> contributes to the greenhouse effect.  If ignition occurs, rapid combustion follows and heated expanded vapors quickly cause an updraft usually sufficient to pull back any remaining gas mixture in the surroundings near the ground and all is sucked into the updraft and rising fireball.  Consequently, surrounding gas now well mixed with atm O2 is rapidly displaced upward into contact with fireball causing even bigger and more spactular fireball that rises several hundred meters into the air, as radiated heat converts all nearby objects <if there are still any nearby> into melted crispy critters.  Just digging into a large pipeline with a backhoe can cause fireballs and flames that can easily reach 200 meters high and melt the backhoe and unfortunate operator in a few ms.  Happening on the scale of an LNG tanker would be a hell of a photo opportunity.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Glenn on January 23, 2006 - 2:51pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
What about Algeria in 2004?

What about Cleveland in 1941?

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
nth on January 23, 2006 - 4:55pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Thanks.  I forgot about the Cleveland
incident, but Cleveland incident happen
in 1944.  It was not a LNG tanker accident,
but a storage tank not built to specification
due to war effort and shortage of metal.
The new storage tank was not air tight, so
the resultant LNG mixed into the sewage
pipes and exploded killing hundred plus people.
LNG tanks build with 9% nickel has never
display a crack in 35 years of history.
This example was not built to 1941 US gov't
code for proper storage tank.  Of course,
accidents will occur if people are not
building according to regulations.

Talking about accidents in US.  There are
at least 2 other accidents involving deaths.
None of them involve tanker explosions.

As for Algeria's accident, that didn't cause
a nuclear like explosion.  This accident
results in damage similar to refinery plants.
Those things explode, too.  None of these
severly damage towns, etc.

The Cleveland incident is the worse one.
Hopefully, today's regulators and inspectos
will do a better job.

FYI: I am not an advocate of LNG.  I was
just playing devil's advocate.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.