LNG
 

Waddahey, this is a political NG, that sometimes mentions boats .....
Question. There are a number of proposals to create LNG terminals in
various areas of the country, which will/may impact the boating
public..... any thoughts?

otn

LNG
 

On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 03:35:54 GMT, otnmbrd
wrote:
Waddahey, this is a political NG, that sometimes mentions boats .....
Question. There are a number of proposals to create LNG terminals in
various areas of the country, which will/may impact the boating
public..... any thoughts?
====================

Yes. My thinking is that they should be kept away from metro areas
and away from major boating centers. They are too dangerous for a
populated region, and the required security zones and procedures would
make them a major pain to pleasure boaters. Perhaps off shore
unloading platforms with underwater pipes going inland?

The technology to do that surely exists and it solves some of the
issues.

LNG
 

Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 03:35:54 GMT, otnmbrd
wrote:

Waddahey, this is a political NG, that sometimes mentions boats .....
Question. There are a number of proposals to create LNG terminals in
various areas of the country, which will/may impact the boating
public..... any thoughts?

====================

Yes. My thinking is that they should be kept away from metro areas
and away from major boating centers. They are too dangerous for a
populated region, and the required security zones and procedures would
make them a major pain to pleasure boaters. Perhaps off shore
unloading platforms with underwater pipes going inland?

The technology to do that surely exists and it solves some of the
issues.


My understanding is that the Aussie proposal is exactly that for
california, but alas even before the preliminaries the greenies are
against it, just as they are against almost everything, except giving up
"their" use of energy of course, because they get theirs from the
fairies at the bottom of the garden.

K

LNG
 

On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 03:35:54 GMT, otnmbrd
wrote:

Waddahey, this is a political NG, that sometimes mentions boats .....
Question. There are a number of proposals to create LNG terminals in
various areas of the country, which will/may impact the boating
public..... any thoughts?

My thoughts on this mirror Wayne B's. While expensive and I'm sure
there would be a ton of environmental nazis who would oppose it, it
sure seems like the best idea would be to put these floating bombs
offshore and pipe the LNG inshore. I know in Boston, the entire city
can be shut down by an LNG tanker delivery because the channel runs
over all major tunnels and the Bridge plus runs close to part Logan.

In Providence, an LNG tanker going up would be a humungeous diaster
cutting off 95 and destroying a large part of the city proper. And
these beasts have to traverse the East Passage and go under the
Newport Bridge which, oddly, is a major route.

I know they try to make passage at night on weekends when the impact
isn't as major, but there are times when that just isn't possible thus
creating a major mess for everyone.

I saw an impact study once of an LNG tanker lighting off halfway up
the Fort Point Channel in Boston and the devastation was calculated in
the TRILLIONS and that was a conservative estimate. Not to mention
the explosive pattern that would leave East Boston/Boston pretty much
flat out to a mile radius.

Yeah, I think offshore would be a much better idea. :)

Later,

Tom
S. Woodstock, CT
-----------
"Do fishermen eat avocados? This is a question
that no one ever thinks to ask."

Russel Chatham, "Dark Waters" (1988)

LNG
 

On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 23:09:42 +1100, "K. Smith"
wrote:

Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 03:35:54 GMT, otnmbrd
wrote:

Waddahey, this is a political NG, that sometimes mentions boats .....
Question. There are a number of proposals to create LNG terminals in
various areas of the country, which will/may impact the boating
public..... any thoughts?

====================

Yes. My thinking is that they should be kept away from metro areas
and away from major boating centers. They are too dangerous for a
populated region, and the required security zones and procedures would
make them a major pain to pleasure boaters. Perhaps off shore
unloading platforms with underwater pipes going inland?

The technology to do that surely exists and it solves some of the
issues.


My understanding is that the Aussie proposal is exactly that for
california, but alas even before the preliminaries the greenies are
against it, just as they are against almost everything, except giving up
"their" use of energy of course, because they get theirs from the
fairies at the bottom of the garden.

LOL!!

Later,

Tom
S. Woodstock, CT
-----------
"Do fishermen eat avocados? This is a question
that no one ever thinks to ask."

Russel Chatham, "Dark Waters" (1988)

LNG
 

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 23:26:33 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 03:35:54 GMT, otnmbrd
wrote:
Waddahey, this is a political NG, that sometimes mentions boats .....
Question. There are a number of proposals to create LNG terminals in
various areas of the country, which will/may impact the boating
public..... any thoughts?
====================

Yes. My thinking is that they should be kept away from metro areas
and away from major boating centers. They are too dangerous for a
populated region, and the required security zones and procedures would
make them a major pain to pleasure boaters. Perhaps off shore
unloading platforms with underwater pipes going inland?

The technology to do that surely exists and it solves some of the
issues.

I agree with you.

Later,

Tom
S. Woodstock, CT
-----------
"Do fishermen eat avocados? This is a question
that no one ever thinks to ask."

Russel Chatham, "Dark Waters" (1988)

LNG
 

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message

I saw an impact study once of an LNG tanker lighting off halfway up
the Fort Point Channel in Boston and the devastation was calculated in
the TRILLIONS and that was a conservative estimate. Not to mention
the explosive pattern that would leave East Boston/Boston pretty much
flat out to a mile radius.

There's no question that an LNG tanker *could* be dangerous. Beyond that
statement, there is wide disagreement. There are lots of studies around,
yielding a wide range of prognoses. The long list of supporting assumptions
renders virtually all studies questionable. Hyper-dramatic claims by many
parties do nothing to help the issue.

The people formulating the study must also be competent. Anyone postulating
an LNG tanker exploding halfway into the Fort Point Channel in Boston didn't
do much homework.

JG

LNG
 

On Sat, 6 Mar 2004 09:18:24 -0500, "John Gaquin"
wrote:
There's no question that an LNG tanker *could* be dangerous. Beyond that
statement, there is wide disagreement. There are lots of studies around,
yielding a wide range of prognoses. The long list of supporting assumptions
renders virtually all studies questionable. Hyper-dramatic claims by many
parties do nothing to help the issue.

The people formulating the study must also be competent. Anyone postulating
an LNG tanker exploding halfway into the Fort Point Channel in Boston didn't
do much homework.
=====================

I think history has proven that tankers can explode just about
anywhere and it doesn't take a terrorist act. Given planning and
malice, just about ANY tanker can be turned into an incredible weapon
of mass destruction. The planes that hit the WTC were carrying about
10,000 to 12,000 gallons of fuel. Interstate highway overpasses are
routinely destroyed by accidental tanker truck fires involving 6,000
to 8,000 gallons of fuel.

How much fuel on a large tanker?

LNG
 

In this area the locals want an LNG plant. Almost all the gas from our
offshore is shipped by pipeline to New England
creating very little benefit to locals. The favoured area seems to be Port
Hastings in the Strait of Canso.

LNG
 

"Wayne.B" wrote in message

The people formulating the study must also be competent. Anyone
postulating
an LNG tanker exploding halfway into the Fort Point Channel in Boston
didn't
do much homework.

Sorry, Wayne, I didn't make my point clearly. The study that Short Wave
cited made reference to an LNG tanker in the Fort Point Channel. The Fort
Point Channel is a small offshoot from Boston Harbor dating from colonial
times. In present day it has no connection whatsoever to any kind of
shipping, and anyone who would put such a reference in an impact study
clearly did not take the time to learn much about Boston Harbor or its
environs.


I think history has proven that tankers can explode just about
anywhere and it doesn't take a terrorist act. Given planning and
malice, just about ANY tanker can be turned into an incredible weapon
of mass destruction.

I'm not sure if there is enough historical data to predict the process for
an LNG tanker, but what history has shown is that liquid fuel tankers rarely
explode -- sometimes, but rarely. Even during the North Atlantic convoys in
WW-II, tankers were a big problem because the usual chain of events was that
the tanker would be hit, and then burn hugely and brilliantly, with towering
flames sometimes hundreds of feet high, for a long time, illuminating the
rest of the convoy as if in daylight. Burning tankers would often be sunk
by their own escorts, if possible, to try to protect the rest of the convoy.

LNG
 

Wayne.B wrote:


Yes. My thinking is that they should be kept away from metro areas
and away from major boating centers. They are too dangerous for a
populated region, and the required security zones and procedures would
make them a major pain to pleasure boaters. Perhaps off shore
unloading platforms with underwater pipes going inland?

The technology to do that surely exists and it solves some of the
issues.


Keeping them away from "metro areas", should be a given, but isn't.
(Existing in Boston and proposed Long Beach).
Of the numerous expansions and new build proposals going around, there
are two on the California coast, which would be offshore and generally
fill your requirements...... naturally, there is a vocal movement
against them.

otn

LNG
 

Wayne.B wrote:


I think history has proven that tankers can explode just about
anywhere and it doesn't take a terrorist act. Given planning and
malice, just about ANY tanker can be turned into an incredible weapon
of mass destruction. The planes that hit the WTC were carrying about
10,000 to 12,000 gallons of fuel. Interstate highway overpasses are
routinely destroyed by accidental tanker truck fires involving 6,000
to 8,000 gallons of fuel.

How much fuel on a large tanker?


There are "tankers", and then there are "tankers".
Tankers, such as the one which just blew up off Virginia (?) are one such.
LNG tankers, are another, but it would take someone experienced in them
to spell out the differences. My own understanding is that none of these
have "exploded" and in fact, as carried, the cargo is neither explosive
or flammable ( it first has to be converted from a liquid to a gaseous
state and then be diluted enough with air to become flammable..... kinda
good news, bad news).

otn

LNG
 

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 23:26:33 -0500, Wayne.B wrote:

Yes. My thinking is that they should be kept away from metro areas and
away from major boating centers. They are too dangerous for a populated
region, and the required security zones and procedures would make them a
major pain to pleasure boaters. Perhaps off shore unloading platforms
with underwater pipes going inland?

The technology to do that surely exists and it solves some of the issues.

http://www.offshore-technology.com/c...roduction/fmc/

But, it might be too little, too late. Do a search on "natural gas cliff".

LNG
 

On Sat, 6 Mar 2004 09:18:24 -0500, "John Gaquin"
wrote:


"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message

I saw an impact study once of an LNG tanker lighting off halfway up
the Fort Point Channel in Boston and the devastation was calculated in
the TRILLIONS and that was a conservative estimate. Not to mention
the explosive pattern that would leave East Boston/Boston pretty much
flat out to a mile radius.

There's no question that an LNG tanker *could* be dangerous. Beyond that
statement, there is wide disagreement. There are lots of studies around,
yielding a wide range of prognoses. The long list of supporting assumptions
renders virtually all studies questionable. Hyper-dramatic claims by many
parties do nothing to help the issue.

The people formulating the study must also be competent. Anyone postulating
an LNG tanker exploding halfway into the Fort Point Channel in Boston didn't
do much homework.

I misspoke - that was my fault. I was talking to somebody who lives
in that area and had it on the brain. My bad.

However, I have done some work in this area for a couple of reasons
and I'm not a rabid nut job envitronmentalist by any stretch of
imagination.

Having said that, the problem is not somebody dropping a car full of
explosive off the Mystic River Bridge and tanker goes kablooie. The
potential is if the tanker starts leaking and/or is caused to have a
massive leak of gas - the resulting gas cloud explosion has amazing
explosive potential - almost to the level of low yield tactical nukes.
A lot of TNt.

I don't know if you've ever seen what an FAE Bomb or a grain elevator
dust explosion can do, but I have and we're talking a miniscule amount
atomized fuel as compared to what is contained in a LNG tanker.

I'm also not as sure about the "wide" area of disagreement on this as
you may think.

Later,

Tom
S. Woodstock, CT
-----------
"Do fishermen eat avocados? This is a question
that no one ever thinks to ask."

Russel Chatham, "Dark Waters" (1988)

LNG
 

On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 17:29:57 GMT, otnmbrd
wrote:



Wayne.B wrote:


I think history has proven that tankers can explode just about
anywhere and it doesn't take a terrorist act. Given planning and
malice, just about ANY tanker can be turned into an incredible weapon
of mass destruction. The planes that hit the WTC were carrying about
10,000 to 12,000 gallons of fuel. Interstate highway overpasses are
routinely destroyed by accidental tanker truck fires involving 6,000
to 8,000 gallons of fuel.

How much fuel on a large tanker?


There are "tankers", and then there are "tankers".
Tankers, such as the one which just blew up off Virginia (?) are one such.
LNG tankers, are another, but it would take someone experienced in them
to spell out the differences. My own understanding is that none of these
have "exploded" and in fact, as carried, the cargo is neither explosive
or flammable ( it first has to be converted from a liquid to a gaseous
state and then be diluted enough with air to become flammable..... kinda
good news, bad news).

You have it right. The gas in super cooled (relatively) and carried
in the liquid state. In that state, it is relatively harmless,
but..... :)

Later,

Tom
S. Woodstock, CT
-----------
"Do fishermen eat avocados? This is a question
that no one ever thinks to ask."

Russel Chatham, "Dark Waters" (1988)

LNG
 

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:



I misspoke - that was my fault. I was talking to somebody who lives
in that area and had it on the brain. My bad.

However, I have done some work in this area for a couple of reasons
and I'm not a rabid nut job envitronmentalist by any stretch of
imagination.

Having said that, the problem is not somebody dropping a car full of
explosive off the Mystic River Bridge and tanker goes kablooie. The
potential is if the tanker starts leaking and/or is caused to have a
massive leak of gas - the resulting gas cloud explosion has amazing
explosive potential - almost to the level of low yield tactical nukes.
A lot of TNt.

I don't know if you've ever seen what an FAE Bomb or a grain elevator
dust explosion can do, but I have and we're talking a miniscule amount
atomized fuel as compared to what is contained in a LNG tanker.

I'm also not as sure about the "wide" area of disagreement on this as
you may think.

Later,

Tom
S. Woodstock, CT


The wide area of disagreement may involve some earlier studies which
suggest that the gas cloud must/will need to move some 30-40 miles
before it becomes diluted enough to create a fire and that it will
explode, rather than burn (I have a feeling that this is a technical
rather than realistic difference).
At any rate, there are a number of proposals and it will be interesting
to see how many make it, under what conditions.