Posted on 04/14/2002 5:58:25 PM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection
Are they bringing LNG tankers back into the terminal in New England? I know they suspended that for a while. Would LNG really explode, or just burn back to the tank, and then gassify the LNG as it came out and burn in a spectacular fashion?
A very good question.
Regards
J.R.
Or how about maybe five or ten such containers goingoff at the same time on the same train with all the other stuff aboard such a freight train? Such is possible and easily arranged.
Are they bringing LNG tankers back into the terminal in New England? I know they suspended that for a while. Would LNG really explode, or just burn back to the tank, and then gassify the LNG as it came out and burn in a spectacular fashion?
When they brought up the whole issue in public hearings a few years back it was pointed out that given a sufficent breach of the tank it would be possible to have the tanker explode and have a total detonation of about 15 to 20 twenty KT equivalent. According to Local notice to mariners they have resumed.
Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown
Do the same for the middle east.
Check back in a decade, and see who has a tightened belt, and who has starved to death.
Imagine that HAZMAT train in the tunnel under the city, with the ANFO containers detonating at each end.
A GLOBAL FUEL IN ITS OWN RIGHT
MAY, 1997
SIDEBAR: A new "big bang" theory
Mention oil and the environment, and it is easy to conjure up images of exhaust fumes and the tar strewn beaches around the Exxon Valdez. Natural gas, on the other hand, has a much better reputation. It burns more "cleanly" than other fossil fuels, and if a liquid natural gas (LNG) tanker goes aground, its cargo reverts to gas and escapes into the air.
Why then, are cargos of the eco-friendly fuel treated with such caution. Because as Lieutenant Commander Mark Skordinski of the United States Coast Guard in Boston points out, "There is a great potential for energy." The chances of a disaster transporting LNG gas are widely regarded as minimal, but there is a caveat-if it happened, the cost would be measured in human lives rather than environmental damage.
Natural gas-largely methane-is much more explosive than crude oil, and experience storing and transporting it on dry land has shown that catastrophic accidents can happen. In 1973 an LNG storage tank on Staten Island, New York, blew up, killing 40 people. Eleven years later, 334 people died in Mexico City when a gas storage area exploded, and over 600 died in 1992 after a pipeline explosion in the former Soviet Union.
To prevent a LNG tanker from exploding near an urban area, elaborate precautions are taken. Most LNG tankers, though large, are double hulled and the LNG is contained in separate compartments further limiting any large scale leaks.
When a LNG tanker calls on the port of Boston, where the city surrounds the harbor, everything stops. It can only enter the harbor after it has passed a stringent safety inspection, transit only during daylight hours under good visibility and proceed very slowly while all other vessels stand clear up to a minimum of 2 miles ahead and 1 mile astern of the ship. And when it passes by Logan International Airport, all planes must be rerouted so as not to fly over the tanker.
The flight restriction over these vessels is not only in place to protect the ship from any crashing planes-they also aim to protect the aircraft. The LNG inside the ship could unexpectedly and embarrassingly vent, creating a gaseous cloud which would rise up to greet incoming planes. If the weather is still that day the gas cloud might not dissipate and could be ignited by the planes engines.
-By Omar Younes
Regards
J.R. © The WorldPaper (US). All Rights reserved.
Yes,I see a better and less complicated method of attack utilizing the same material,and NO,I will NOT comment on it.
As for "protection to prevent it",there ain't no such critter,other than luck. Granted,you make a lot of your own "luck" in the intelligence business by the way you conduct yourself and treat your assets,but even then there are no guarantees. The sooner people wake up to the fact that the government can NOT give them 100% protection for all harm,the better off everybody will be.
Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed -Yorktown
It will not give you much hope that the limp wristed PC analyst clones running CIA ops worldwide could find their rear ends with both hands, since they don't speak the languages, never leave the embassy rows, and consider getting down into the allies dirty, dangerous, and to be totally avoided at all costs.
ROFLMAO -The level of security is better than nothing but not very high. It is a disaster waiting to happen.
Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown
It sounds like something "our guys" should be considering for delivery of a powerful "bitch slap" to our former friends and allies in the desert.....
Semper Fi
It's a grim situation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.