Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Big Dog's Boom Boom Room -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bearcatbob who wrote (24048)	6/21/2003 9:08:08 PM
From: Fiscally Conservative	Respond to of 206326

as per my first post,my intention was to show that the use of propane by many homeowners can have a greater risk potential than NG(compressed or not).

To: Bearcatbob who wrote (24048)	6/22/2003 12:15:42 PM
From: Archie Meeties	Respond to of 206326

OT. Many ways to store Hydrogen besides compression/liquid. fuelcellstore.com Most promising - Buckyballs and nanotubes. garmi.science.unitn.it ncnr.nist.gov

To: Bearcatbob who wrote (24048)	6/23/2003 9:06:01 AM
From: Ed Ajootian	Respond to of 206326

Harbor cargo hazard surging: More tankers to hit Hub with terror-targeted fuel by Donna Goodison and Jules Crittenden Sunday, June 22, 2003 High demand and soaring prices for liquefied natural gas means the number of tankers coming into Boston Harbor is going up 20 percent at a time when terrorism fears and concerns about the potential for a fiery disaster remain high. The same market dynamics have shippers viewing new facilities in Fall River and elsewhere in New England, even as Boston officials push to have the massive orange tankers unloaded outside the harbor because of their fears about a massive fire. Last year, LNG tankers, each carrying 10,000 tons of highly flammable fuel, pulled into the harbor on average once every 7.6 days. This year, the ships are arriving every 6.3 days. Experts say the increased exposure is minimal at a time when security is high. ``It's a target that is being protected,'' said Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino, who dropped his staunch post Sept. 11 opposition to LNG tankers in the harbor once stringent security procedures were developed. But he said, ``We're always concerned. Our goal is to have them offloaded offshore.'' Boston's status as one of only four LNG terminals in the United States has been a significant factor in its post-911 security profile, requiring the harbor to be virtually shut down as heavily armed boat and shore patrols are deployed, and traffic is stopped on the Tobin Bridge. The newly expanded Distrigas terminal in Everett supplies 20 percent of natural gas fed into New England. The increase in shipments is tied largely to a new $4 billion contract to supply two recently fired-up Exelon Corp. power plant units that will consume 26 LNG tanker loads a year. ``There's no hotter topic out there now in the natural gas industry than LNG,'' said Rick Grant, Distrigas' chief executive. ``Over the next 10 to 15 years, natural gas demand is supposed to double.'' But he insists shipments won't increase by that amount, because Distrigas has stopped selling to wholesalers. ``Are there more LNG deliveries because of (the Exelon plants?) - yes, absolutely,'' Grant said. ``Is it ever going to go from 60 ships to 100 ships a year? No, because we're a local market.'' Some industry observers and advocates have downplayed the risk of a harbor disaster, saying that LNG will only burn, not explode. But MIT Professor Emeritus James Fay, who has studied LNG hazards, said the size and speed of the fire could cause widespread damage. Fay said he doesn't consider a 20 percent increase in ship arrivals to be significant. But he said that as long as any of the ships are coming into the harbor, a boat or plane bomb strong enough to breach a tanker's hull would release a massive burning cloud and set fire to waterfront buildings within half a mile in minutes. Superheated air could cause first-to-third-degree burns and start fires a mile beyond that. Boston Fire Commissioner Paul Christian said that while security has been heightened and the ships are robust, with a good safety record, he would also prefer that the ships not come into the harbor. He agreed that a breached tanker fire probably would be too fast and massive for firefighters to contain. ``We haven't received a satisfactory mitigation plan yet,'' Christian said. ``Our concerns will never be allayed,'' agreed Boston Police Supt. James Hussey. ``Our harbor is attached to residential and business communities - it's a serious concern to us.'' But the growing reliance on natural-gas-fired power plants is pushing demand for more LNG terminals elsewhere. ``We're studying the feasibility of constructing a terminal very seriously,'' said Glenn Herchak, spokesman for TransCanada, in Calgary, Alberta. ``There are a few New England states we're considering. You can probably get an LNG facility sited and constructed within five to seven years, which is appealing to us.'' Meanwhile, a revamped federal permitting process could land additional terminals in other Northeast ports. So far, only Fall River has been publicly named as a potential new Bay State LNG terminal port. Weaver's Cove Energy, a New York company, is eyeing a former Shell Oil tank farm there. Fall River Mayor Ed Lambert calls that a dangerous idea. ``It's in the middle of a residential neighborhood,'' he said. ``Despite all the assurances from those companies that (LNG terminals) pose no danger, I think we all admit that after 9/11, some of the things we thought were unthinkable are thinkable.''