| Pages:
1
2 |
David K
Honored Nomad
Posts: 64480
Registered: 8-30-2002
Location: San Diego County
Member Is Offline
Mood: Have Baja Fever
|
|
Isn't sad that for a product we need to cook and heat our homes, our government prevents the facility from being in our own country?
|
|
|
Ateo
Elite Nomad
Posts: 5847
Registered: 7-18-2011
Member Is Offline
|
|
I know very little about LNG. I read a few years ago that those tankers bringing in the LNG are like mini nuclear bombs. I was wrong and I admit it.
This stuff is nasty, but it would only level and kill everyone in the local area. People on the southern greens of Bajamar would probably get 2nd
degree burns. Just by researching this online, I probably just got put back on the "Do Not Fly List". :big grin:
http://www.cfr.org/natural-gas/liquefied-natural-gas-potenti...
Natural gas is at least 90 percent methane, which is combustible. Though in its liquid state natural gas is not explosive, spilled LNG will quickly
evaporate, forming a vapor cloud, which if ignited can be very dangerous. Yet the likelihood of this happening is somewhat remote: In order to for a
vapor cloud to combust the gas-to-air mixture must be within the narrow window of 5 percent to 15 percent. Furthermore, the vapor is lighter than air,
and in the absence of an ignition source, it will simply rise and dissipate.
Nevertheless, should one of these vapor clouds catch fire, the results could be catastrophic, says James Fay, professor emeritus at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology [MIT]. Describing one scenario, he says that a hole in an LNG tanker could result in liquid leaking out of the storage vessel
faster than it would burn off, resulting in an expanding "pool fire." A 2004 study by the Sandia National Laboratory, a division of the Department of
Energy, suggests that such a fire would be hot enough to melt steel at distances of 1,200 feet, and could result in second-degree burns on exposed
skin a mile away. "This would be bigger than any industrial fire with which we have experience," Fay says. "There's no way to put out that kind of
fire." A pool fire will burn until all its fuel is gone, which takes five to eight minutes, but it could ignite a rash of secondary fires on such a
large scale that they may cause more damage than the initial blaze.
The only notable LNG accident in the United States occurred in 1944 in Cleveland, Ohio, when a full storage tank burst. The LNG spilled out, quickly
evaporated, and ignited, scorching some thirty acres of land and killing 128 people and leaving 225 injured. Since this incident, cold-storage
technology has made significant advances, and experts say the likelihood of such an incident repeating itself is remote. In 2004, a boiler at an
LNG-production plant in Skikda, Algeria exploded, resulting in a gas leak and a larger secondary explosion and a fire that left two dozen people dead.
Are LNG ships and terminals potential terrorist targets?
Yes, because of LNG's explosive potential, experts say. Al-Qaeda, for example, has specifically cited LNG as a desirable target, says Rob Knake,
senior associate at Good Harbor Consulting, LLC, a homeland-security private consulting firm. Pipelines are not as attractive because the flow of gas
can quickly be cut off and an explosion easily contained. Terminals make better targets because an attack could result in a massive fire that could
potentially kill scores of people. They are also good targets because "if you take out those terminals, you could have a significant disruption [in
the U.S. gas supply,]" Knake says.
But an attack on an LNG terminal might not be so damaging. Terminals are equipped with emergency fire detection mechanisms designed to minimize the
impact of fires resulting from terrorist attacks or accidents. The most attractive targets are the boats: 1,000-foot tankers with double hulls and
specially constructed storage tanks that keep the LNG cold. A report, put out by Good Harbor Consulting assessing the risk of a proposed LNG terminal
in Providence, Rhode Island, concluded that a successful terrorist attack on a tanker could result in as many as 8,000 deaths and upwards of 20,000
injuries. It is important to keep in mind that this is the worst case scenario. A report on LNG safety and security by the University of Texas' Center
for Energy and Economics explains LNG "tanks require exceptionally large amounts of force to cause damage. Because the amount of energy required to
breach containment is so large, in almost all cases the major hazard presented by terrorists is a fire, not an explosion."
The Sandia National Laboratories report assesses four potential ways terrorists may target an LNG tanker and the worst potential outcomes:
Ramming: Terrorists may attempt to drive another vessel into an LNG tanker or to divert a tanker into a stationary object. Unless the tanker is struck
at a very high speed or the object striking it is very sharp, it is unlikely that a breach of the hull will occur. However, if such a breach did
occur, there is a chance LNG would spill out and cause a massive fire.
Triggered Explosion: Explosives, such as mines, may be placed in the path of an LNG tanker or on the tanker itself. If powerful enough, such an
explosion could cause the cargo to spill and ignite.
External Attack: There are several ways terrorists may attempt to assault an LNG tanker. The 2000 U.S.S. Cole attack, in which terrorists detonated
explosives after pulling alongside the warship in a small vessel, is often cited as an example of such an attack. Other possible methods of attack
include firing missiles or rocket-propelled grenades at a tanker and or air strikes. Tankers are particularly vulnerable as they traverse inland
waterways en route to their destinations. The impact of an assault would vary depending on the size and location of the attack, the worst-case
scenario being a massive explosion.
Hijacking: The most catastrophic scenario involving an LNG tanker involves terrorists taking control of an LNG tanker, sailing it toward a major
population area and detonating the cargo.
What safety precautions are taken to prevent such attacks?
LNG tankers approaching U.S. waters must provide ninety-six hours' notice, allowing the Coast Guard to provide a small flotilla to safely escort the
boat to its destination. Added security detail includes local police boats, divers, firefighting tugboats, and a helicopter. Bridges along the
tanker's route are closed and nearby airports suspend flights. Any private vessels that drift too close are sternly turned away. Tankers are inspected
and screened for explosives before they are allowed to approach land, and tanker crews must pass a security check before being allowed to board the
vessels. At LNG terminals, there is also a heavy security presence; access to the terminals is controlled, and security personnel perform regular
threat-response drills.
Because of its low cost and high impact, a U.S.S. Cole-style attack remains an important security concern for defense planners. "It's not a difficult
thing to do if you're determined to do it," Fay says. "It doesn't require trained experts to evade the Coast Guard." When a passenger jet enters
restricted airspace over a nuclear plant, it is the U.S. president, Knake says, who must decide whether to repel the plane with force. Yet when a
private craft drifts too close to an LNG tanker, "you could have a petty officer in the Coast Guard making this call," he says.
What are the security implications of the rising demand for LNG?
Simply put, more LNG means more targets, which require more security. Rising demand and economies of scale are likely to put larger quantities of LNG
in a single place. Fay expects the size of LNG tankers to double in the coming years, which could make an attack even more catastrophic. As the number
of incoming tankers continues to rise, experts question whether the Coast Guard can continue the intimidating display of force it currently provides
for all incoming shipments. According to Stephen Flynn, CFR Senior Fellow for National Security Studies and a retired Coast Guard Officer, the
service's fleet of vessels and aircraft ranks among the oldest in the world and have been operating at a far higher tempo since 9/11. The number of
emergency repairs and the cost of maintaining this fleet are growing significantly, yet the program to replace them will take an estimated twenty-five
years to complete based on the current acquisition budget model. Flynn adds that the time to detect and intercept a rapidly moving small boat in a
harbor could be as little as two to three minutes. "A 'bolt-out-of-the-blue' fast boat loaded with explosives and suicide bombers is likely to evade
most small Coast Guard patrol crafts, which were designed primarily for safety patrols, not armed combat," he says.
[Edited on 2-27-2015 by Ateo]
|
|
|
mtgoat666
Select Nomad
Posts: 17295
Registered: 9-16-2006
Location: San Diego
Member Is Offline
Mood: Hot n spicy
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by David K  | | Isn't sad that for a product we need to cook and heat our homes, our government prevents the facility from being in our own country?
|
Dk,
You got it wrong. No government banned building such a facility in the USA. Sempra simply found it more economical and more expedient to build it in
mexico. In Southern California there was no undeveloped coastline suitable for an LNG terminal. Rightfully so, no so cal community wanted it in their
backyard, and there was no suitable undeveloped coast for such a terminal. There is undeveloped coastal land in so cal, but it is mostly military
bases or public parks, public open space.
I think LNG has been a bust for Sempra, price of gas has been low since they completed the plant, so economics of bringing LNG to west coast via
tanker are not there, this decade. Same thing with Alberta tar sands, keystone Xl is no longer economical with low price of oil. No one wants to mine
dirty Alberta tar sands if petroleum is cheap.
Don't try to manufacture governmental bogeymen where none exist.
|
|
|
Ateo
Elite Nomad
Posts: 5847
Registered: 7-18-2011
Member Is Offline
|
|
David, there are LNG terminals in the USA. Obama didn't issue an Executive Order preventing these inside the USA. Ha ha ha.
Here's a powerpoint presentation put together by Chevron:
http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/02/ngt/quil...
|
|
|
Mexitron
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3397
Registered: 9-21-2003
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Member Is Offline
Mood: Happy!
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by David K | | Quote: Originally posted by Bajahowodd | This is somewhat similar to the current battle nob about the keystone pipeline. It involves foreign fuel sources that will travel to another country.
In the case of the Sempra project, the bulk of what they offload will find its way out of Mexico. In the case of the Keystone project, we are looking
at a Canadian project that contains horribly toxic crude. They don't want to run that through there country, but opted to create this pipeline that
will send this toxic stuff to the Texas gulf coast, where it will be refined, with great environmental damage to the area, and then ship it out to
China and alike. None of this has ever been destined for American consumers, but we are supposed to handle the potential damage of a pipeline breach
and deal with the pollutants release in the refining process, just so it can be shipped overseas.
The Canadians are taking us for fools. |
The rest of the story...
The Keystone Pipeline would bring the bounty discovered under North Dakota that can make America energy independent. Currently, all that North Dakota
black gold is transported by train cars... the MOST dangerous and costliest way to move petroleum to the refineries in the south. The owner of that
railroad has heavily financed the Obama reelection and democrats to keep his sweet deal while endangering any one along his rail lines to Louisiana
and Texas. There is no sound reason to not use a pipe instead of a train to get the energy we use to create jobs and prosperity.
|
Why not build a refinery in North Dakota and distribute it locally then.
|
|
|
bajaguy
Elite Nomad
Posts: 9247
Registered: 9-16-2003
Location: Carson City, NV/Ensenada - Baja Country Club
Member Is Offline
Mood: must be 5 O'clock somewhere in Baja
|
|
I'm sure that would be a possibility except the EPA would probably shoot down the plan
|
|
|
danaeb
Senior Nomad
Posts: 991
Registered: 11-13-2006
Location: San Diego; El Centenario
Member Is Offline
Mood: groovy
|
|
Actually David, North Dakota has opted not to stabilize the explosives from the Bakken crude, making it far more dangerous to transport.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/north-dakota-fracking-behind-the...
Experience enables you to recognize a mistake every time you repeat it.
|
|
|
David K
Honored Nomad
Posts: 64480
Registered: 8-30-2002
Location: San Diego County
Member Is Offline
Mood: Have Baja Fever
|
|
All the more reason to get it off the train tracks!
|
|
|
bledito
Nomad
Posts: 420
Registered: 7-6-2013
Member Is Offline
|
|
In chicago we had what were called peak shaver units basicly LNG storage tanks for use when demand was extremly high. I would have more concern of
being within close proximity to one of the high pressure pipelines carrying natural gas if one of these split open it would take hours for it to burn
off even after valving off. had many years of emergency operations training where different scenerios would be played out for preperation in the event
of such incidents. lotta stress in being responsible for an entire city. thankfully retired from that without having to be reponsible for securing a
major event. I have been involved in many incidents after the initial failures and have witnessed two hundred foot fires pouring out of 22 pound
pressured pipeline. can't fathom to imagine what a 180 pound line blaze would look like. having worked in emergency situations with natural gas all
around you in flash suit and breathing apperatus is no fun.
|
|
|
Bajahowodd
Elite Nomad
Posts: 9274
Registered: 12-15-2008
Location: Disneyland Adjacent and anywhere in Baja
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by David K |
Gas storage tanks have exploded in a few places, right... they never flattened a 50 mile radius, did they? It isn't a nuclear bomb... and there is no
town there... I doubt if it would even harm BajaMar, over the hill??? |
So wrong. The Keystone pipeline is for the toxic Canadian tar sands crude. It has nothing to do with North Dakota. The folly is that this very toxic
crude would be piped down to the Texas gulf where it would be refined into gasoline shipped offshore to customers such as China. None of this crap
would be available to the US. And, in fact, we do not need it.
The Canadians did not have to deal with the toxic crap, which they could have easily pumped over to the British Columbian coast where they could had
refined it and shipped it to China.
|
|
|
David K
Honored Nomad
Posts: 64480
Registered: 8-30-2002
Location: San Diego County
Member Is Offline
Mood: Have Baja Fever
|
|
What has a oil pipeline have to do with a natural gas facility???
|
|
|
TMW
Select Nomad
Posts: 10659
Registered: 9-1-2003
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Member Is Offline
|
|
It is true that the Keystone pipeline would transmit Canadian oil for the Gulf coast refineries and much if not most would be shipped overseas. Who is
employed by the pipeline, Americans, who works the refinery, Americans. Why is most sold overseas? Because the US government does not allow American
oil to be sold outside of the US. If the pipeline is not use to sent oil to the refineries how does it get there. By trains going thru your
neighborhoods. Feel safe now?
|
|
|
J.P.
Super Nomad
Posts: 1673
Registered: 7-8-2010
Location: Punta Banda
Member Is Offline
Mood: Easy Does It
|
|
D.K. I was born in 1939 at that time my Father was a PIPELINER he worked all over the U.S. Laying Pipelines until he retired. In later years he was
supervising a LEAK REPAIR on a old line that previously carried Crude Oil at the time of the Incident it was carrying Natural Gas a Spark set off a
Explosion and a Fire that Killed most oh the Crew working on the Leak and Severely Burned my Father.
The point I am trying to make the old lines that were laid as much as 75 years ago are carrying Dangerous and Toxic Chemicals they were not designed
for, all over our country and worse yet through our community's.
|
|
|
bledito
Nomad
Posts: 420
Registered: 7-6-2013
Member Is Offline
|
|
we have and had pipelines in our system older than that 100 years and older. depending on what soil conditions they are set in they can look as good
as the days they were put in or as deteriorated as looking at swiss cheese. most were cast iron. as time went on ductile was used and steel came in as
well. now most of the lower pressured pipe is polyethelene high or low density. most leaks occur due to enviormental conditions stessing the pipe or
improper installation proceedures or not enough cathodic protection. although some relate to manufacturing defects.
|
|
|
durrelllrobert
Elite Nomad
Posts: 7393
Registered: 11-22-2007
Location: Punta Banda BC
Member Is Offline
Mood: thriving in Baja
|
|
Towards the end of the Vietnam conflict i worked on the development of a 2000 pound Fuel Air Explosive (FAE II) weapon intended to replace that nasty
napalm. The weapon was essentially a fuel tank containing 2000 pounds of a liquid fuel not unlike LNG. A proximity sensor mounted on the nose of the
weapon started a chain of events at a predetermined height above the ground:
1. A miniature rocket with a detonator attached on the side and a small parachute mounted on the nose was expelled upward
2. A second mechanism caused the fuel tank to burst open and dispense the fuel
3. The fuel mixed with the available oxygen in the air to form a football field size vapor cloud
4. The rocket/ detonator/ parachute descended into the vapor cloud and the detonator was fired
5. The resultant explosive over-pressure and heat destroyed every structure, vehicle and living thing (including humans) within 100 yards of the cloud
perimeter and sucked the oxygen out of the air within a 1/4 mile radius. Here is a short video:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmRASCHJe2Q
Bob Durrell
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2 |
|
![[*]](images/xmbforum/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
