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.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Epic American Credit and Bond Bubble Laboratory -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (12806)	4/28/2004 9:55:52 PM
From: Elroy Jetson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 110194

If you read the Chevron-Texaco study, you discover the 20 square mile incineration is a mid-level catastrophe. This is the result of a failure of one cell in an LNG tanker on a windless day. A large catastrophe would involve failure of all three or six of the tanker cells, depending on the size of the tanker. The largest catastrophe possible would be six times larger - the incineration of 120 square miles. You suggest that most accidents will occur on windy days which will carry the flammable plume, from a one-cell disaster, much further than 2.5 miles from the tanker but will not form a circle. The area incinerated may cover a smaller area or merely an area with a different shape. A fire igniting closer to the tanker would incinerate a smaller portion of the city as the heat from the fire would accellerate the phase change of the LNG from liquid to lighter than air gas. An LNG fire which ignites sooner could limit the incineration zone to an area as little as 80 square city blocks. This happy coincidence could minimize the number of people incinerated to as few as 35,000. If the tanker port were located in the business district, the number of deaths would be even smaller if you could arrange for the tanker accident to vaporize the business district outside of business hours. The last time an LNG tanker port was proposed, an isolated region of Baja California in Mexico was the obvious choice. A fifteen mile exclusion zone can be fenced off and Mexico at the time was more than pleased to have the investment in an empty desert. Australia has sited their LNG export port on an uninhabited island 35 miles or so offshore. Frankly I think you're either high on some bad drugs.

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (12806)	4/28/2004 11:21:10 PM
From: mishedlo	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 110194

Comments on LGN from BI on the FOOL ===================================== Mish to BI.... BI what you make of this Message 20070395 ======================================================== From BI on the fool .... ======================================================== My opinion, this guy doesn't know LNG. He needs to talk to Dr. Chenwa back at ChevronTexaco who is a world leading expert on cryogenic liquids. Because LNG is a cryogenic liquid, it doesn't take that much heat to shift it from a liquid to a gas. The idea that a spill could cover 20-30 sq. miles before vaporizing is simply insane, it simply couldn't happen on this planet (maybe pluto, but not earth). Once LNG has vaporized it is lighter than air and goes straight up. There are NO LNG pipelines, they exist only from the liquifaction facility to the ship and from the ship to the onshore storage facility. The accidents the author is talking about would make sense for LPG pipelines or natural gas. Further, he is citing the Quest consulting study. I've seen it, read it, and I know all about it. A presentation put some of the studies results results into the public in summary form, without any of the context around the study. Doug Quillian of ChevronTexaco spilled some of the info in this presentation, netl.doe.gov The study as of 6 months ago was still classified. It was done on behalf of the department of homeland security very shortly after september 11th and it assumed the worst of every possible condition and then some. I know doug and he regrets that presentation very much because his speakers notes did not go with the presentation and the slides themselves can be misleading. Every LNG basher in the country uses this one presentation to kick projects, this one thing has become a major industry headache, and because it was a goverment presentation it can not be retracted from the public record. However, if a tanker had a 5 meter wide hole in it and spilled 25,000 cubic meters of liquid LNG (it is a 600 to 1 ratio of liquid LNG to natural gas) and it was set on fire in the worst conditions a fire would last for 37 minutes before it burned out. What produces a 5 meter hole in a LNG tanker? An anti shipping missle with a 1000 lb warhead! If you want the best primer on LNG safety go here, energy.uh.edu and pick the LNG Safety and security article. I was the graduate researcher who supported the project. ===================================================== Since I know you guys don't read long papers, just watch this video by BP. The best part is when the put the cigarete directly into the LNG and nothing happens... bplng.com