Protestors are fighting against new liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals, afraid that the new terminals — or the tankers that deliver the LNG — might become terrorist targets. From Fears of Terrorism Crush Plans For Liquefied-Gas Terminals:
The main opposition group, Green Futures, has published a series of brochures based on Dr. Fay’s findings that show how an attack against a tanker and the proposed terminal might trigger an enormous LNG spill.Upon contact with the relatively warm water, the liquid would begin vaporizing back into a gas, and under some circumstances a spark could cause part of the gas to ignite. Green Futures argues that the resulting fire would incinerate as much as five square miles of Fall River and another four square miles of Somerset, Mass., just across the Taunton River from the terminal site. Buildings would catch fire, and humans exposed to the heat radiation could suffer severe skin burns, the group warns.
[...]
The night after the meeting, Green Futures sponsored a meeting at a local church hall where one of its members, Alfred Lima, told the audience that an LNG tanker carried the explosive equivalent of “55 Hiroshimas.” “My family overlooks that facility,” said a woman rushing out the door during his presentation. “They could all be wiped out!”
Naturally, there’s another side to it:
Mr. Katulak, a chemical engineer, says that Dr. Fay’s calculations assume that the entire cargo of a 900-foot LNG tanker spills into the water. But “it would take a huge amount of explosives” to achieve that, he says, since the tankers contain five separate compartments and have two hulls separated by 8 feet of protective materials.Mr. Robinson, the FERC official, says LNG won’t explode and won’t burn in its liquid state. In a spill, the product can be ignited, but only after it vaporizes and combines with a mixture of air ranging from 5% to 15%. Mixtures outside that range are either too lean or too rich to burn and most of the gas, being lighter than air, quickly dissipates.
Some background:
The vocal opposition to LNG terminals comes as the fuel grows ever more crucial to the U.S. Demand is rising for natural gas in this country — but most North American supplies are flat or in decline, leading to soaring prices and the growing risk of heating-fuel shortages and blackouts. Ninety-six percent of the world’s natural-gas supplies are located in places that are geographically remote, such as West Africa or Qatar. To get that natural gas to other markets, it is first cooled to reduce its volume. The cost of cooling and shipping LNG has plummeted in recent years, allowing companies to deliver it halfway around the world at competitive prices.At the city-council meeting, Mr. Shearer, president of Weaver’s Cove, and other company officials presented the industry’s standard response to public concerns. Ships carrying LNG have made more than 33,000 voyages over 40 years without a significant spill. The Japanese receive 10 LNG shipments a week in Tokyo Bay.
New England — increasingly dependent on gas for heat and electricity — has received shipments of LNG by truck for decades. One storage tank has operated quietly for years in Fall River, nestled in a residential neighborhood. Government tests, so far, tend to back up industry claims that LNG risks are relatively small and that tankers carrying propane or gasoline pose relatively greater hazards.