Could Al Qaeda Blow Up LNG Tankers on 2/11?

Blogger.com ^ | 2/3/2010 | eRtwngr

[eRtwngr]

I was listening to a debate on talk radio whether two Liquefied natural gas (LNG) Tankers should be allowed into Boston harbor on 2/11/10. Boston Mayor Thomas Menino had asked that they not be allowed in due to security concerns. But others say it's perfectly safe, that there's plenty of security and so on.

And my first impulse was to think, how likely is it that there would be such an attack on a known target with everyone watching?

[Doogle]

..not to worry, Odumbo has called it in,or has he?

[OB1kNOb]

IMO, they want everyone watching so that if they can successfully pull it off, it makes the feeling of being terrorized that much greater to the intended public target, because the public realizes that the governmental agencies can’t protect them from such harm.

[thackney]

You might freeze some fish if it leaks but you are not going to be able to make LNG explode.

[buccaneer81]

For LNG to burn, it must first vaporize, then mix with air in the proper proportions (the flammable range is 5% to 15%), and then be ignited. In the case of a leak, LNG vaporizes rapidly, turning into a gas (methane plus trace gases), and mixing with air. If this mixture is within the flammable range, there is risk of ignition which would create fire and thermal radiation hazards.

[The KG9 Kid]

Texas City Disaster -- April 16, 1947

[Blue Jays]

Tankers in a harbor would likely not be nearly spectacular enough for bloodthirsty dirtbag terrorists.
Those ships are big and very valuable, yet have tiny crews and contain very sophisticated fire suppression systems.

[massgopguy]

LNG explodes when it comes into contact with water.

[The Comedian]

Relax.

Napolitano has eliminated the threat by outlawing BBQs within 200 miles of the barges.

Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.

[El Gato]

Texas City Disaster -- April 16, 1947

That was ammonium nitrate, in an explosives configuration. Somewhat like what the OK City bombing was done with. It was not LNG.

[buccaneer81]

Are the Dorchester gas tanks still there?

[thackney]

And now that the lighter-than-air gas in a one to ten ratio mixture with ambient temperature air, outside...

Where do you think most of the methane is going to be?

[buccaneer81]

1944, 20 October. The East Ohio Natural Gas Company experienced a failure of an LNG tank in Cleveland, Ohio.[19] 128 people perished in the explosion and fire. The tank did not have a dike retaining wall, and it was made during World War II, when metal rationing was very strict. The steel of the tank was made with an extremely low amount of nickel, which meant the tank was brittle when exposed to the extreme cold of LNG. The tank ruptured, spilling LNG into the city sewer system. The LNG vaporized and turned into gas, which exploded and burned.

[thackney]

I have read the safety reviews of that event.

Sewer gas was also a major factor in the ignition.

Not a lot of sewers on the water.

[thackney]

Also the gas in too rich a mixture and still very cold, was able to accumulate in sewers, where it then was more contained until it further mixed to an ignitable mixture along with the other gases.

[thackney]

Found one of the reviews of the incident from the Nation Fire Protection Agency.

- No evidence of gas-air explosion
- Many homes exploded from gas entering from sewers

http://www.southerngas.org/EVENTS/documents/LNGCleveland-Lemoff.pdf

[thackney]

LNG explodes when it comes into contact with water.

No, it does not.

[buccaneer81]

Not a lot of sewers on the water.

You've obviously never been to (insert crummy city here.) ;-)

You're right. If there was a real danger from LNG tankers, at least one would have blown by now, and they've been in service for almost 50 years.

[ArrogantBustard]

Yesterday was noteworthy for its lack of exploding LNG tankers.