LNG Explosion Potential

I am involved in LNG plants as the company I work for is heavily into the LNG business both in design, construction, and operation of the loading a off loading facilities.

Japan's source of natural gas is primarily LNG, and tankers travel from the middle east, Indonesia, and Australia daily to fulfill their need for fuel.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/analysispaper/global/importers.html

The Wiki article is not bad either

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LNG

I would have to say that it is pretty well proven technology, and there is little to fear. Populations and other factors are part of the process of selecting a site. Sounds like politics to me...

The residents of Ft Lauderdale seem to be in the same 'boat' as the residents of Benfleet and Canvey Island. Were the Coryton complex to 'go off bang', there wouldn't be much left in a 30 mile radius.

However, there is a Liberty Ship sunken off Sheerness with 1.5 kilotons of high explosive on board, of which they seem completely oblivious...

Hi PWSlack.

When I was as engineer in the Merchant Navy (1960-1967) we used to pass that bloody great bomb on a regular basis, and I remember in 1964 when we went into Rochester on the Medway, we passed within 30 yards of the bloody thing. But since then I always thought that they had got rid of it. Is it still there?

Spencer.

Potentials for explosions generally relate to the degree of QC/QA exercised by the design, procurement, construction/commissioning, operations, and maintenance - you pay for what you get.

ThreeMileIsland and ExValdez show what can go wrong with the more stringent QC in the world...and when complacency which creeps into the operations (nothing has gone wrong so nothing WILL go wrong)...Valdez ran aground and spilled at one of the recognized risk points in the channel to the open sea...but someone had disbanded the 24-hr/rapid response spill control teams because nothing had happen for 25 years and the oil went everywhere.

Similarly Mid-Term nuclear wastes are an orphan becuase no one wants to pay for the protection, monitoring, rehabiltiation for 1000 years...The US taxpayers are insuring the nuclear industry for damage liabilities for nuclear power plants as insurance companies WON'T...does that tell us anything??

Why do ALL LNG (and many others) facilities have to comply with API/UL certifications if there is NO RISK??

LNG risks go back to the "dense gas cloud" explosion scenario...Before vaporization a leak of LNG is NOT bouyant and spreads along the surface, more like the C6+ gases. One project required gas monitors on the ground and at the top of face as we had BOTH methane - Hi - and gasoline - Low. Differences relate to the expansion effects as the dense cold gas warms and expands. If the leaks - and it will leak - starts at at 10pm on a cool Florida night and no one notices losses of 1% throughput of the LNG (accuracy on instrumentation of cold expanding liquids), you can have a real bomb due to gas expansion and eventually mixing with air to get the methane levels down to the explosive range. Before it gets to the explosive range the gas level is too high to get explosion, fire yes, but the platform and ship are certified and open sea doesnot have an igniter.

The water is warm and begins to warm the underside of the cloud. The water is smooth and the winds may be near calm (0.5m/sec)= no turbulence mixing and the slug cloud spreads slowly, if you have a low onshore wind the cloud doesn't not mix well but is warming and expanding and increasing the perimeter front moving toward wherever the near-calm winds may take it...Over the water where is the spark (you got the fuel, you are getting the air, but where is the igniter over open water or on the certified platform and tanker). When it find the ignition source, puka lantern??, the flash follows the entire front whereever the explosive range of gas/air mix is appropriate and then continues until the gas becomes bouyant or exhuasted....not a pretty scene if over land.

Suggestions

Get someone to do the gas expansion/rise based on night conditions and sea water temps, 5%ile meteorological conditions or probabilities for the worst case met condition, and the expanded cloud front length when it gets to an ignition source.

Mitigation - put some monitors and igniters, say about 500m from the platform - those who cause the situation should suffer the damages.

A 100-year Performance/Damages Bond based on costs of damages and costs incurred by the adjacent city for maybe 1000m of ocean front property and residents/visitors (a lot less than for a Nuc-Valdez).

Hope it helps - dense gas clouds are really wonderful studies of environmental interactions

Tom

I would much rather live near a nuclear power plant than an LNG facility. A 777 pilot friend of mine and a pro nuclear kind of guy said that a large airliner colliding with a nuclear containment vessel would result in a lot of bent aluminium and burnt fuel but the damage would be confined to the plant site.

A nut-bar in a smaller plane or maybe with an RPG could penetrate the LNG container. The resulting fuel air bomb could do much widespread damage.

If you are looking for an igniter in the open ocean, try lightning. South Florida is the lightning capitol of the U.S.

Just plug lightning into your scenario and then tell me how large the explosion will be.

Mind, your's was the best answer, and I appreciate the time it took to write it all out, but I really would like to know how your scenario plays out when you add lightning as your igniter.

Thanks,

/Ari (Orpheuse)

Lightning usually requires cumulus nimbus which generally relates to a front passage and turbulent winds/air flows...if you have a hurricane then the LNG probably would have very low concentration due to mixing and turbulence.

Dry lignthing like we get in the west and some central location - then yeh it is an ignition source...static electricity on ships and platforms is usually grounded by various sinks.

TOM

Never underestimate the treason committed by greedy politicians.

Electricity comes out of an outlet in the wall. That's about as far as some people can see.

"Never underestimate the treason committed by greedy politicians." - Taganan Post #7

That's great my friend, I agree completely, but I live in Ft. Lauderdale. To make matters worse, we've had Republicanism forever, it seems.

Charlie Christ, our beloved Republican governor, has signed a law which allows registered handgun owners the permission to carry their guns in the glove compartments of their cars.

What do you think a guy like this will do with Liquid Natural Gas?

I apologize to any who may take offense regarding my comments about the G.O.P.

/Ari (Orpheuse)

I have no problem with the owner of a registered handgun being able to take his gun with him in his car. Honest citizens register their guns and are not the ones involved in criminal activity. Only criminals carry unregistered handguns in their cars, therefore it allows another criminal charge against them. Even if carrying handguns in cars was illegal, the criminals would still do it and the rights of honest citizens would be restricted.

Are you afraid he will let people carry LNG in their glove compartments? The comparison is ridiculous.

I mean no offense to any anti-gun Democrats either.

What I mis-said, or tried to say via metaphor, was that I feel that it is irresponsible to keep a gun in your glove box. That situation will accomplish only two evil results.

1. People who are won't to do so will begin breaking into cars to steal handguns. You know how the rest plays out.

2. Road rage becomes road murder. Disgruntled employees who shoot up their offices now have the excuse that the gun was too close and didn't give the suspect time to 'cool' down, therefore, it was a crime of passion.

In an atmosphere of irresponsibility, graft will surely make an appearance, and 'cutting corners' becomes standard operating procedures.

Think in terms of the most absolute worst case scenario. Where is the point that shoddy workmanship combine with other 'natural' factors to create a disaster on either end of the pipe?

Don't rule out sabotage and terrorism. How 'easy' will it be to attack the pipeline? If the planet was a bit more peaceful we could sit down and try out scenarios to attack the pipe. I'm afraid if we try that now, one of us will get a visit from the FBI.

Welcome to my nightmares,

/Ari (Orpheuse)

Orpheuse - I doubt criminals will start breaking into more cars just on the off chance someone may have left a gun in the glove box. A responsible gun owner will not be obvious about having a gun in his car, nor will he normally keep it there. He should be circumspect about it and not advertise it. I doubt it would cause more car break-ins. However freedom has more risk than slavery to the state.

The type of personality who registers his gun is not normally the type of person who has road rage. Disgruntled employees seldom use registered weapons and often conceal them, which is in itself illegal. Going to ones car to get a gun involved premeditation, therefore it cannot be a "crime of passion". Laws do not stop criminals, since by definition a criminal is one who does not obey the law.

Since the LNG terminal is needed to supply energy, then it would be more productive to demonstrate to get independent oversight to stop graft and cutting corners. There is no way to rule out sabotage or terrorism, but as two other posts have said, LNG does not explode, it just burns as a jet of flame. Stop imagining it will be like the unrealistic "disaster" movies, have pleasant dreams, you'll live longer and enjoy life more.

ctwilliams and Spiffy both seem to know what they are talking about. With good safety regulations, inspections and no slacking just because nothing ever happens, there should be no reason not to build the facility. The protesters are those who think electricity comes from a wall outlet, water from a faucet and gasoline from a service station pump and have no concept of reality. Many of them are probably anti-energy people, PETA members, vegans, organic food supporters and anti-CO2 types who would have us live in a stone age without fire if all their ideas were carried out.

I doubt there is any real explosion potential here, just a lot of people who are afraid over nothing,

Keep to the facts and issue to help those in Florida who have requested assistance from people who should know more than they may.

I have protested the LNG terminal in Santa Monica Bay and NG facilities eslewhere, I know where electricity come from, and have a fairly good concept of reality, not anti-energy (have both thermal and photovotaic electrics), and have seen Soylent Green in reality - in Cairo, Calcutta, Kenya, etc.

Operations and maintenace are generally the major issues in automobile "malfunctions" and deaths resulting therefrom...therefore don't dismiss the issue. In LA, we have two underground methane storage facilities and numerous secondary recovery oil fields which are being closed down, held responsible for surface explosions and injuries, and are releasing gas to the surface - visible bulbing through ponds and channels. I spent three day helping the fire department control a gas explosion/fire site in Farifax LA...The applicant's must demonstrate through data, info, and analyses that they know what they are doing...and there are many without such - "Trust Me, There is NO Problem..."

TOM

Then you also know what must be done to make it as safe as possible. Spiffy also seems to know about it. If distance would help, or more independent oversight, it should be done. As I see it, a lot depends on how it is built, its safety features and its ongoing maintenance. Those issues are too important to leave entirely in the hands of the company building it. Perhaps a citizens group could get oversight through protests.

Want to apply for the job?