Hey, there! Log in / Register
LNG through Boston Harbor: Safe or unsafe?
By adamg on Fri, 02/05/2010 - 8:48pm
Adam Balsam says Tom Menino and Sal LaMattina should stop their posturing, listen to the Coast Guard and admit giant LNG tankers are safe.
Matt Conti, who lives in the North End, acknowledges the risk of a neighborhood-consuming fireball is low, but notes all the precautions the Coast Guard takes and says Boston shouldn't have to be the only city in the US where giant LNG tankers are allowed in a densely populated area.
Neighborhoods:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Tankers
Had a long conversation with the maritime expert last night. Told me the way the LNG's are setup that an explosion would have to be set off by a very advanced device, which would be almost impossible to go unnoticed on a LNG carrier going into Boston(because the entire ship would have to be in on the act, and that the boarding CG crew would have to miss as well). Furthermore, as New England has very little LNG infrastructure relative to the rest of the country, this would greatly drop heating prices to the region. While I'm usually on Menino's team, this is either a) misinformation from his people, b) scare tactic, or c) large donations from local oil suppliers (think Burke heating or a similar supplier).
I never heard of Burke
I never heard of Burke heating oil. Help me out here
http://www.burkeoil.com Those
http://www.burkeoil.com
Those annoying "B-U-Y Burke!" ads on the radio are now ringing in my head.
As someone who works in the
As someone who works in the Schraftt's Building in Charlestown, directly across from the LNG facility, I see first-hand the precautions taken. State Police boat patrols and diving teams scour the water above and below. Massport shuts down the Tobin Bridge while helicopters circle overhead. If it as Mr. Balsam says, and if it is extremely unlikely the LNG could be ignited, why bother with all the protection? If it is unnecessary window dressing, isn't it needlessly causing the anxiety the Mayor is rightful addressing? (I hope Mr. Balsam is not taking the Mayor to task for addressing this anxiety - he would be a poor mayor if he didn't respond to a very real fear people have, justified or not. And politics be damned - he was only just re-elected).
My concern is not a Yemeni stowaway with an explosive device, so much as a large airplane loaded with jet fuel or a small airplane loaded with high explosives being directed into the tanker. Can Mr. Balsam assure us nothing would happen in this case either? The scenario is not inconceivable given the events of the last 15 years. I can't help but think of some expert reassuring the public that the Twin Towers couldn't possibly be destroyed by an airplane strike 'unless a specific and unlikely chain of events were to occur'.
Remember, even molasses could kill 21 people and injure 150 under the right unlikely set of conditions!
No, I cannot
You're correct. I can't assure you that nothing would happen if an airliner filled with jet fuel were to hit one of the tankers. Nor can I assure you nothing would happen if an airliner filled with jet fuel struck the Hancock tower. Or Gillette Stadium. Or Downtown Crossing at midday.
Some amount of risk is inherent with living in a free society. I don't expect the government to protect from the literally endless possibilities and threats that could occur at any point to end my life or the life of the few I love.
You're quite right - I would
You're quite right - I would not expect the government to protect me from the infinite disasters that could occur - that would be unreasonable. But I don't think it's unreasonable for the government (or private business for that matter) to keep large amounts of potential explosive away from densely populated urban areas, as they seem to be in other cities.
Think of a fire marshal that's asked to shut down all the bars in any given county because there's a chance they could catch fire with a lot of people inside. That would be unreasonable. But if one of those bars had highly flammable exposed soundproofing on it's ceiling, and a performing band were to set off pyrotechnics toward the ceiling in said bar, I would expect that fire marshal to shut that bar down if he got wind of it.
It seems you've missed the
It seems you've missed the point. Mr. Balsam is pointing out the unfortunately common misconception that LNG is flammable. To quote his post, "In its liquid state, LNG is not explosive and can not burn. For LNG to burn, it must first vaporize, then mix with air in the proper proportions and then be ignited." So for your RI night club analogy to work, the ship would need to be transporting the explosive natural gas, not the nonexplosive liquefied natural gas. There are other reasons to oppose the tankers march through Boston's inner harbor, but throwing around misinformation as fact muddles the arguments.
I believe Mr. Balsam when he
I believe Mr. Balsam when he says that LNG itself is not ignitable. I just want to know if an explosion could cause the the LNG to vaporize, mix with air and ignite. That is to say, could the temperature produced by the burning of jet fuel over a long period of time change the natural gas from a liquid to a gaseous state? Would there be anyway to put that vaporization process in place by sabotage?
I'm no expert in any form of
I'm no expert in any form of natural gas, but I see CNG buses roaming around Boston all day, and as far as I know, they've never been a problem. Should we be worried about a backpack bomber blowing up the 8 bus as it rolls past a crowded fenway stadium?
BRAVO
Some amount of risk is inherent with living in a free society.
FINALLY, someone with a brain!
Fine - but as I'm working
Fine - but as I'm working directly across from the terminal, I'm exposed to an elevated level of risk on a daily basis, not just 'some'.
"If it as Mr. Balsam says,
"If it as Mr. Balsam says, and if it is extremely unlikely the LNG could be ignited, why bother with all the protection? If it is unnecessary window dressing, isn't it needlessly causing the anxiety the Mayor is rightful addressing?"
Oh come on. You do know the concept of security theater right? The MBTA needlessly conducts random searches every full moon. Please tell me you don't think it's necessary or even helpful?
Why shut the bridge down? Because people like security theater and it makes the police think they're doing a good job.
Exactly my point - if there
Exactly my point - if there is no danger, why the needless window-dressing? It doesn't alleviate fears, it increases them. But if it is truly meant to be seen as a deterrent to a potential terrorist, how effective is it against a hijacked jet directly hitting the tanker? It's a lose-lose.
... and if the Terrorists™
... and if the Terrorists™ would have driven hovercrafts through the streets dispensing a crippling nerve toxin, we would have spent the last decade duct-taping our windows shut and beating the hell out of anyone who ever read a Tom Swift book.
It's all just show business.
People also seem to forget
People also seem to forget that since it is a dense urban area that even with all the precautions people will still be within several hundred feet of the tanker, easily. You work in the Schraffts building and have a line of site to the ships, others live on the water. It is hard for people to appreciate how close these areas are to these ships until they have seen how close these ships really are. I used to have an apartment where I would wake up in the morning and would look out the window before putting my glasses on, the first time I did that I could have sworn the houses across the street were moving (I was on the side of a hill) but it was just a massive oil tanker a few blocks away, it dwarfed the houses. The other side of the hills face where the LNG tankers come. That means two things, if something were to happen they would be in trouble AND there is no way to lock down all those windows with line of site to the tankers.
I live in an area where we have oil farms and all sorts of other flammable materials in large quantities and while I do not like it there is a big difference. If the oil ignites , even under the worst conditions, for the most part it will stay away from residential areas even as it takes an army of fire fighters to keep it under control. An LNG tanker exploding under the worst conditions can not be contained. There is a higher risk of the oil farms having issues but worst case scenario is manageable while the risk is lower with the LNG tankers with an unmanageable worst case scenario.
Would you parade an nuclear bomb without its trigger through the streets of downtown Boston once a month?
Actually they do that...
In many cities they do drive around with nuclear bombs. Such as when they deliver them to the submarine bases in the middle of such dense urban areas as Groton, Norfolk, San Diego, Honolulu, etc.
Not bothered one bit.
And incidentally Menino lost all his credibility for any topic when he first started postulating moving City Hall to the industrial wasteland.
Window-risk
Matt,
I'm guessing this is Matt Frank, Chelsea City Councilor. While I understand your concern for your constituents, this LNG issue is important for our region's energy security. Matt, you're bringing up the issue of line-of-sight problems with windows. So I'm guessing you're assuming that an RPG, stinger missle, or high-caliber rifle could be fired from one of those windows, through the LNG tanker's outershell, and into the in inner tank area itself, rupturing the 1' LNG bulb and causing ignition.
Again, fear mongering.
RPG's explode on contact with their first primary resistance. This is why new US armored vehicles have "flake" armor outside, which causes the RPG to explode outside the main steel area of a humvee. Similarly, the LNG ships do not have the bulbs exposed, which would mean the RPG would explode on the outer shell of the ship, not on the 1' bulb. Its unlikely than an RPG would be able to penetrate the 1' shell, even with a direct hit.
There are other types of single person-fired explosive projectile, many of which are made here in Massachusetts(by Raytheon). These are designed to take out field artillary. Furthermore, they are designed to be sight-less, and top-down, intending to hit the weakest point of a tank, that being the hatch. These are also unlikely to breach the 1' steel.
There is cheap(ish) techonlogy that can breach the steel, and it is similar to the road-side bombs used by Iranian-trained militias in Iraq and Afganistan. However, this requires a large amount of explosive, specific metal caps on the explosive (which melt, and then penetrate the steel) and a direct proximate placement of that explosive onto the steel shell(which is why road side bombs are so effective, they're directly next to the Humvee). I'm not aware of single-person projectiles that can acheive this.
I'm impressed with your
I'm impressed with your Googling. I am actually , as the Boston Globe would say, currently "retired" due to my not running for reelection. My statements were those of a citizen and not an elected official, I have also not come out (not being elected at the moment) with an official response or stance on this issue. I would note that my neighborhood and home are on the opposite side of the hill from where the tankers will be.
I believe you read quite a bit into half of a sentence in my answer and decided to focus on that instead of the overall comment.
Whoa whoa let's add a dose of
Whoa whoa let's add a dose of reality to the Menino spin here. Simply out of spite and petty vendetta's this man has put the residents of Boston in danger MANY times by mucking up the police, ems and fire strengths, and he continues to do so today.
Now we are expected to believe that this big, high profile, perfect opportunity for a soundbite, LNG situation is a major concern for him? Likely he just hasn't found a way to get a cut yet.
Airplane Threat
The way the LNG is set up within the tanker would make the airplane threat almost impossible to implement. The LNG is surrounded by foot-thick steel bulbs(for loss of a better word), within the tanker. It is then cooled to approximately -220 degrees(really hard to heat up to make it incindiary). So an explosion outside the LNG bulbs would not cause the LNG bulbs to rupture and explode. For the LNG bulbs to explode, you would need a pre-arranged attached (very advanced) explosive device placed either directly upon the bulb itself, or aimed directly at the bulb with a great velocity and two-stages(steel penetration, then explosion, which would have to heat up the LNG to the point where it would be combustible).
Again, this is unnecessary fear-politics halting a proven improvement to the livelihood to our region. For example, France's energy needs are met by clean nuclear power. But the US hasn't installed a new plant in decades. The key is to wean ourselves off of coal and oil for our heat, and while LNG is still a hydrocarbon, its our best first step away from petroleum dependence (particularly for automobiles).
Never say never - I see what
Never say never - I see what you mean, and I'm sure the risk is probably minimal. The thing is, unless somebody could test the airplane scenario, there's really no way to know what could happen. There's no precedent to go by. The uncertainty creates fear. The only frame of reference I have is the consistent effect two airplanes laden with jet fuel had on the Twin Towers when they crashed into them - the jets penetrated the steel superstructure, and the fires raged long and intensely enough to the melt steel supports. Why is it inconceivable that a tanker's steel bulbs could be compromised by a direct hit, and the LNG not brought up to a sufficient temperature by resulting fires of that kind of intensity and duration? I suppose what I'm asking for is proof, not theory. The problem is, how do you supply the proof if you dare not go through with a test? Again, I work directly across from the terminal, so thinking about this kind of thing is more than just an armchair hobby for me.
Do you really not understand
Do you really not understand that the basic physics of an airplane impact (which is what you're worried about, right?), can be estimated without actually crashing an airplane into a tanker to 'prove' that this isn't a issue? We're not talking about a UFO attack or some other unknowable event here. Also, to be clear, you are worried that a terrorist will seize control of an airplane (through the locked cabin doors) at the exact time of the month when a LNG tanker is coming in and then successfully get the plane to full speed and hit the tanker in the exact right spot to cause the 1' thick LNG storage bulbs to explode?
they could have their own plane
filled with whatever they can get too though right?
Basically the same stuff you have to worry about with nuculear power plants I would assume.
I'll concede it's improbable
I'll concede it's improbable if you'll concede it's possible. I think if I were to ask 10 years ago how unlikely it would be for a team of terrorists to hijack 4 jets simultaneously and get three of those jets to hit relatively small targets at high speeds and low altitudes without crashing accidently beforehand, or being shot down, or being overtaken by passengers, most people would say it's highly unlikely. Lab physics are one thing, but that's no substitute for real life, and it's not going to make me sleep any better.
Also, since we have seen al- queda sympathizers infiltrate the US Army, whose to say if there are any flying jumbo jets? Remember the Air Egypt crash where the Muslim pilot deliberately crashed his jet? What if he wanted to take more people with him and he knew of an LNG facility next to a large city? What if a Yemeni buddy of his infiltrated the outfit sending these tankers here and gave that pilot a schedule of when the ship was coming in? As I said improbable, but don't tell me it's impossible.
re: your
re: your hypothetical:
Foreigners are better educated than Americans. Presumably then, your hypothetical terrorist wouldn't be stupid enough to fly a plane into a vessel so unlikely to explode.
Your guy wants to murder/injure as many people as possible. If he gets so far in his mission as to control an aircraft, he wouldn't just "hope" the tanker would explode and injure thousands along the channel. Instead, he'll first fly into an office building or other populated area where an explosion would be a secondary benefit to the primary mission of killing/injuring as many as possible.
Cripes.
The main goal of terrorism
Actually, that isn't the major goal of a terrorist. The terrorist wants to terrify as many people as possible. That means crashing planes into shopping malls, which so many of us do go to from time to time. That means killing people in giant office towers - which many of us work in and can relate to.
It isn't how many people you actually kill ... it is how many people you actually scare into submission.
Murderist
Otherwise they'd call him a murderist, innit?
it USED to mean
what Swirly said, but then W decided that anything he wanted to profile was "terra."
explosion at gas-fired electrical plant in CT
"felt" at several communities in the area:
MIDDLETOWN, Conn. - A large explosion at a power plant on Sunday [Feb 7] has killed an unknown number of people and injured many others, officials report. [...]
People from several communities in the area reported feeling the explosion.
A gas line exploded, according to Reuters, at the Kleen Energy plant in Middletown.
The Middletown Press said on its Web site ambulances and a helicopter were on the scene. It said the explosion was at the Kleen Energy plant.
Middletown is south of the city of Hartford.
link
... apropos of nothing ...
... apropos of nothing ...
if 5 people can die in an accident
at a natural gas fueled electrical power plant explosion in Midletown CT, then many more can be killed in a planned attack on an LNG depot located in the middle of a city with population 620,535.
Locating a fuel depot in the middle of of the 21st biggest city in the US doesn't really make a lot of sense in the age of terrorism, no? We have a bug network of natural gas pipes in the US than can deliver gas from a depot afar to customers near.
Fire officials voice concerns on LNG threat By Mac Daniel:
Boston fire officials told a state panel yesterday they are unprepared to deal with the potential disaster stemming from an explosion aboard one of the giant tankers that carries liquefied natural gas through Boston Harbor.
Officials said the hazardous situation results in part from a lack of communication with the US Coast Guard, along with questions about the chain of command if such an event took place, and conflicting reports about the impact an LNG explosion would have on nearby communities.
"We feel that the risk is more than the Boston Fire Department could deal with," Fire Commissioner Paul A. Christian told the House Committee on Homeland Security and Federal Affairs, which is studying tanker safety. "We have a lot of serious and grave concerns."
[...]
Richard L. Grant, president and CEO of Tractebel LNG and Distrigas, which operates the Everett facility, minimized the risks posed by the weekly gas shipments, saying that even if an LNG tanker were attacked, any explosion would be confined to the damaged section of the double-hulled ship.
"Unquestionably, alarmist views exist," Grant said, adding that there has never been a recorded collision, grounding, fire, explosion, or hull failure that has breached the cargo tank of an LNG ship.
[Note:Grant recognizes the risk as an accident or attack that breaches the cargo tank.]
Testimony also focused on the cost of the security escorts for the tankers. State Police officials said a "low-ball" estimate of state security costs -- including sending divers under piers to check for bombs and placing snipers on nearby rooftops -- has totaled well over $1.4 million for about 120 LNG deliveries since October 2001.
The cost and risk are high enough that Police Commissioner Kathleen O'Toole suggested that the federal government place Boston Harbor on an "indefinite high alert" to make the state eligible for federal aid for the LNG patrols.
Panel members said they would take the proposal under advisement.
Boston is the only port in North America where LNG tankers travel near highly populated areas.
French Toast too
The cost and risk are high enough that Frequent Commenter Kaz suggested that the Adam Gaffin government place Universal Hub on an "indefinite high alert" to make the website readers eligible for Internet Dollars for always having bread, eggs, and milk in our houses at all times.
Panel members said they would take the proposal and shove it in the waste bin.
"Some amount of risk is
"Some amount of risk is inherent in a free society." Riiiiight, and that's why those inherently risky things should be kept far away from highly populated areas. If you can't minimize the risk of the materials, you can at least minimize the danger they pose to a large number of people. I know, I know, it would negate the economic advantage, by making us have to tranport it ourselves. The "funny" thing is that if you look around the country all these "inherently risky" things are generally situated in places that aren't particularly wealthy, to put it mildly.
safe haven
I guess my question is simple. Should the unthinkable happen, is there a place to hide that is safe? I know that the government hasn't really talked much about that for fear of creating mass hysteria but the question has to be addressed..............Is there some place that is safe?
Hide?
Do you mean like "under your desks during a nuclear blast" placebo or "you maniacs! you blew it up!" Land of the Apes/Omega Man style survival?
Oh, no, wait, I'm sorry...I think you're more "is it safe?" Marathon Man paranoid crazy.