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.

Politics : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bearcatbob who wrote (18658)	4/27/2004 8:21:08 PM
From: CalculatedRisk	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 81568

OT: Ahhh ... memories. I was involved in the initial safety studies for bringing LNG into Port Hueneme (never built due to safety concerns) and a follow on study for Boston Harbor. The worst case scenario would be if the LNG tanker was breached without ignition. The LNG would spill and vaporize, but remain near the surface because the gas is cold and dense. If the prevailing winds blew the cloud into population areas before encountering an ignition source, the models predicted hundred's of thousands of deaths. Very scary stuff. That is why Boston Harbor is completely shut down whenever an LNG tanker arrives until the tanker is safely docked at the receiving facility. New proposals for LNG facilities are to build them away from unpopulated areas or to build them offshore. They always have an ignition source near the facility (better to lose the facility than a large number of people). BTW, the vapors from LNG will only explode if confined. It is more likely to get a truly massive conflagration. There is no comparison to the North Korea accident. That was an explosive event, and it was also small potatoes (in terms of energy) compared to an LNG tanker event.