A local Boston TV program did a program on the facility in Everett, Massachusetts. They got a tour and interviewed one of the company big-wigs. Mayor Menino has actually expressed his view that he would like to get this thing out of here due to the "safety" concerns.

What the company representative said, however, contradicts some of what has been written here regarding an LNG tanker explosion.

I have done some quick, online research in the past and what I found out generally confirms what I heard on the TV show. However, I don't claim to be an expert on LNG - so if what I say is crap, please let me know.

LNG in liquid form is not flammable. It needs to be in the range of between 15-25% concentration of the atmosphere/oxygen around it to explode.

In the movie Syriana, the terrorists were using what appeared to be a shaped-charge armor-piercing SRAW anti-tank rocket. This round is fully capable of piercing the outer hull of the tanker. However, I am guessing that there is a gap between the outer hull and either a second hull, or the LNG cooling container within. It is doubtful that this round could penetrate the second wall, having exhausted it's charge on the first.

Even if the rocket did produce a hole in the LNG compartment allowing LNG to escape to the outer atmosphere, that liquid would have to completely regasify and drift into a cloud where the methane was between 15-25%(taking who knows how long) - and then be independently ignited by some other source for there to be an explosion.

Again, this is conjecture based on some things that I have heard and trust. Any contradictory info would be greatly appreciated since this is an issue of national security that deserves full discussion.

Don't know about the rocket, but the liquid would instantly gasify on contact with the water.  The water would eventually freeze into an ever-expanding ice floe, and the liquid methane would run out across the floe.  The flowrate through the tanker hole would essentially be gravity driven; the tanker would depressurize quickly.

What happens next depends on the wind speed and direction.  The cold methane will hug the ground; on land it will follow low points like valleys or streets.  As it starts to mix with the surrounding air an opaque cloud will form from the condensation of water vapor.  How fast it mixes depends on the wind turbulence.  You would first get a severe asphyxiation danger from the cloud and then an explosion danger.  If the cloud reaches the explosive limit then something like a automobile distributor could set it off.

Great info Dave!

Question: how much BCF can be on one tanker, and if there was a problem, what is the size that that gas would expand to? In other words, how big is a billion cubic feet of gas in the air? I assume 1 billion cubic feet is 1000x1000x1000 so is a cube the size of three lengths of football fields on each side (per bcf)

When the gas industry says cf of gas they usually mean standard cubic feet, which is at 60 deg F and 14.696 psia.  So a billion standard cubic feet of gas at normal ambients occupies close to a billion cubic feet of actual volume (or water volume).
Largest LNG tanker now holds 'bout 145K m3 of tank vol => 3 BSCF (billion standard cubic feet)

probably increasing in future to 200K m3 of tank vol => 4 BSCF

Tanks are thinner towards the top and looks like future tankers will be using aluminum tanks to save weight.

Sandia Labs study classifies a successful terrorist attack on an LNG tanker as a, "Low probability, high consequence  event." Radiated heat would be damaging within a 1 mile radius.

The tops of the LNG tanks are protrude about 30% above the deck.  Just shoot high and no hull to slow it down.  The spherical tanks are mostly well inside the hull, only getting near the hull at 3 tangent points, so a hit on a tank after hull impact would need accurate placement on the tangents.  The LNG tank itself is an outer steel shell, about 3 ? feet of expanded perlite type insulation, and an inner steel shell.  Shell thickness is about 50mm (2") steel. No way near like hardened armor.  I'm  no explosive expert, but seems like anything that can get through the first layer <rocket qualifies>, would still have enough momentum to make it the rest of the way, as the inner tank will have high specified Sharpy V-notch toughness, but at low temps could be pretty brittle for a head on impact from hi vel chunks.  I'd think you'd want to keep all the little rubber boats away from these things.    
I have not seen the movie Syriana yet, and I am a little dubious of Hollywood's representation of weaponry.  (These are the same guys who are trying to figure out how many shots are in a six-shooter.)

That being said, a SRAW (or Short Range Assault Weapon) would be an excellent choice, but a bit of an overkill (and kind of expensive given the price of RPG-7s).  The SRAW is American and RPG-7s are cheap, cheap, cheap.

Most hand-held rockets of this type use a shaped charged warhead.  If you think of the pointy end of an RPG rocket, this is actually a hollow, copper cone.  The explosive behind it is also hollowed out, so there is a cavity.  When the warhead explodes, this crushes the copper into a bit of plasma and shoots it forward (This is called the Monroe effect for those still reading).

The average RPG-7 will burn through about 330 mm of steel.  The good news is, it will burn through about 330mm of air too once the round explodes.  A common defense is to put a grate or something up to make the round explode before it hits the tank.  The latest upgrades to the US M-1s have a louver across the back to protect the engine.  So long as you have a foot or so for the plasma to burn up, you are good.  Reactive armor works in a similar fashion by using an explosion to disrupt the plasma jet.  (Friendly infantry don't care for this though).

The bad news is, a rocket can have 'stacked' warheads, so one explodes, disrupts the louvers, and the second one goes through.  Another solution is using multiple rockets.

Would an anti-armor rocket work against a LNG tank?  I don't know.  The insulation between the two tanks would certainly disrupt the plasma jet.  However, the explosion will make one hell of a hot spot on the tank and surely crack the tank.  I just know I don't want to be there when it happens.

I guess I won't ask what you do in your spare time...
I love TOD just for stuff like this!
Ya with a name like that; better you don't.
Everyone needs a hobby.