The December issue of Newsmax just arrived. The futurist who predicted the 9/11 attacks discusses 30 possible/probable scenarios for future attacks. Among them:
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Newsmax Article: Goodbye Boston!
- Thread starter Optimistic Paranoid
- Start date
When LNG burns it moves slow enough that a person can walk away from the ball of fire.* There is no explosive blast short of the initial tank rupture.
* this information came from a person who in trained as a ship board firefighter and studied how to deal with LNG.
* this information came from a person who in trained as a ship board firefighter and studied how to deal with LNG.
Though I don't buy the "50 Hiroshima Bombs" theory, I do remember a gas explosion video from Tacoma I think on one of those "Worlds Wildest Videos" shows...It was pretty amazing....
Yeah, that's a bit far fetched. It's based on calculating the energy potential of the 40 million gallons of LNG in the tanker. Yes, that energy is more than 50 Hiroshima Bombs. But to assume that it's all going to be released in a single explosion it ridiculous. You'd have an initial explosion as the build up in pressure ruptured the ship, and then you'd have burning off of the majority. Still a bad, bad situation. But not a 750 megaton explosion.
Last edited:
Amen - it will be a bad scene to be sure, but it's one of the many reasons I live in the sticks. I don't even have a gas grill, so the only thing Al Qaeda would hit is my bag of Kingsford and my Bernzomatic in the shed...
![[wink]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/002.gif "Wink [wink]")
Last edited:
Sorry, you're absolutely right. I mistyped mega when I meant kilo.
Knob Creek
NES Member
Hmmm...given the current state of Boston...would it be so bad if it got blown up by Al Qaeda? I mean really...we could then rebuild it and repopulate it with normal people instead of its current leftist dingdongs.![[laugh]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/012.gif "Laugh [laugh]")
Some of us conservatives have to travel to work in Boston. If you look at Boston during the workday its a lot more people there that just its residents.
Hmmn. But the attack would occur when the ship is hooked up to a terminal. How many tanks in the terminal? How many gallons in them? And what would be the effect of the ship setting off a chain reaction of explosions among them?
Many years ago - ok, many, MANY years ago, sigh. - when I was pumping gas for a living (30 cents a gallon, and I was called a thief cause the guy down the road was selling it for 28 cents!) the driver of the tank truck that delivered our gas told me that part of his training was a demonstration that involved using a torch to set fire to a full tanker. Said fire was easily put out by closing the lid and cutting off the air. FULL tanks were in no danger of exploding. It was the partially full tanks, full of VAPORS, that would go off like a bomb.
How many partially full tanks in a terminal that's being refuelled from a tanker?
Yes, and this is exactly my point. In order to burn NG (or gasoline) it has to be oxygenated. No oxygen, no combustion. So, as you rightly point out, it's the vaporized gas that will burn and cause the explosion. The remaining, non-vaporized gas (which is the majority) will not burn right away and so won't contribute to the initial explosion (caused by pressure of the fast expansion of gases due to the combustion in an enclosed tank).
Again, I'm not trying to say that igniting explosives in a LNG storage area wouldn't cause massive destruction. Only that the comparison to an atomic bomb, which releases all of it's energy very quickly and efficiently, is overstating the matter.
P-14
NES Member
I live within sight of the LNG terminal and see the boats come in under the Tobin Bridge. The escort DHS helicopters usually fly over my house when the LNG boats enter and leave. My attitude: Don't worry - Be happy! ![[smile]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/001.gif "Smile [smile]")
The article neglects to include the Coasties that are patrolling the Mystic river using a 25-foot Defender-class boat with a water exclusion zone around the LNG boat. They always have a M240 machine gun on the front of the boat that appears loaded and ready to go. IMO, the Coasties would probably open up on a plane diving on the boat.
The article neglects to include the Coasties that are patrolling the Mystic river using a 25-foot Defender-class boat with a water exclusion zone around the LNG boat. They always have a M240 machine gun on the front of the boat that appears loaded and ready to go. IMO, the Coasties would probably open up on a plane diving on the boat.
small airplanes at Hanscom?
BTW do any small planes even fly out of Hanscom any more? I live under the flight path and before 9/11 they could be quite annoying. Since then I don't see/hear many at all.
How big a box is that much explosive? Could you get it onto the plane without being seen?
Bill
BTW do any small planes even fly out of Hanscom any more? I live under the flight path and before 9/11 they could be quite annoying. Since then I don't see/hear many at all.
How big a box is that much explosive? Could you get it onto the plane without being seen?
Bill
P-14
NES Member
LNG Tankers a la USCG
www.weaverscove.com/files/USDE LNG Properties workshop Feb 2002.ppt
It gets interesting about Slide 11. Conclusion: LNG tankers would burn not explode.
I feel better!
www.weaverscove.com/files/USDE LNG Properties workshop Feb 2002.ppt
It gets interesting about Slide 11. Conclusion: LNG tankers would burn not explode.
I feel better!
kevin9
NES Member
Yes, quite a few. IIRC, there are two different flight schools there. Much of the traffic is private jets, but there are still single engine pistons that operate out of Hanscom.
Never been near the LNG depot, but I'm guessing there is storage of liquefied product there - would something like this come into play if it got hot enough?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcmmLvAYqkI
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLEVE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcmmLvAYqkI
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLEVE
A couple of years ago, there was a huge fuel depot file in the UK. It was bad, but not devestating.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Hertfordshire_Oil_Storage_Terminal_fire
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Hertfordshire_Oil_Storage_Terminal_fire
LPG is much more volatile than LNG and burns off more than explodes. It has to be in a gas first and at the proper air fuel mixture before it can burn. A good example is light your gas stove and watch the flame walk around the element. then light your Propane grill and see how fast it flashes.
Being partially trained in the whole shipboard firefighting/LNG thing (I'm currently at the Mass. Maritime Academy), this is what I have been taught, as well.
MFA Flammable Gas Firefighting School 2000
The flames surrounded by white powder is a pool of LNG that we had to put out with hand held dry chem extinguishers. The other fires are propane and required the fog patterns of 3 - 2 1/2 lines to control.
The flames surrounded by white powder is a pool of LNG that we had to put out with hand held dry chem extinguishers. The other fires are propane and required the fog patterns of 3 - 2 1/2 lines to control.
I live within sight of the LNG terminal and see the boats come in under the Tobin Bridge. The escort DHS helicopters usually fly over my house when the LNG boats enter and leave. My attitude: Don't worry - Be happy!
The article neglects to include the Coasties that are patrolling the Mystic river using a 25-foot Defender-class boat with a water exclusion zone around the LNG boat. They always have a M240 machine gun on the front of the boat that appears loaded and ready to go. IMO, the Coasties would probably open up on a plane diving on the boat.
The White House has Secret Service Agents, Machine guns, and rocket launchers on the roof and somehow, just about once a year, a plane gets within its off limits airspace.--none have been shot down yet. Don't be so sure that someone intent on destroying it will be detered by "security."
Some of us still live here as well. I plan to stay and survive against all odds, fight until I drop. There are a lot of good people in Boston. We're just not grabbing the headlines. So Jim, please don't wish any more ill upon us. We have enough to contend with from City Hall and Beacon Hill.
![[frown]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/003.gif "Frown [frown]")
Oh, I don't doubt that the energy release would be 750KT. Of course, most of it would be expended in generating a very tall column of flame over the site, rather than as an explosion. Still, the scenario has always had my attention ever since I used to watch the tankers come into the harbor from my office window.
Essentially zero at any point in time. The tanks are designed to collapse when the contents drop in order to avoid the air pockets that would otherwise form.
Ken
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,502
- Likes
- 33,494
BLEVE?
This is just a fearmongering article, written by a person with no science background.
If you mixed ALL the LNG with air so that the mix was more than 5% and less than 15% (the lower and upper explosive limits) there would be a massive BANG-Whoosh! and thousands would die.
But in the scanario presented in the article, very little of the LNG-air mix would be in that range (a 25% LNG-air will not go bang or even whuff).
There would be an initial burn, maybe a bang and a fireball, then a huge fire as the LNG burned. But no massive blast.
It's not under great pressure when it's liquified, and when that pressure is taken off, the temperature of the liquid drops to its boiling point (-200 F iirc), which slows evaporation.
If someone with evil intent had unrestricted access to a tanker for long enough, a bigger explosion could be arranged, but that's unlikely.
A fuel-air bomb is a very complex machine with precise timing and special conditions to produce a well-mixed cloud before detonation- an LNG tanker is not set up to explode (for quite obvious reasons).
If you mixed ALL the LNG with air so that the mix was more than 5% and less than 15% (the lower and upper explosive limits) there would be a massive BANG-Whoosh! and thousands would die.
But in the scanario presented in the article, very little of the LNG-air mix would be in that range (a 25% LNG-air will not go bang or even whuff).
There would be an initial burn, maybe a bang and a fireball, then a huge fire as the LNG burned. But no massive blast.
It's not under great pressure when it's liquified, and when that pressure is taken off, the temperature of the liquid drops to its boiling point (-200 F iirc), which slows evaporation.
If someone with evil intent had unrestricted access to a tanker for long enough, a bigger explosion could be arranged, but that's unlikely.
A fuel-air bomb is a very complex machine with precise timing and special conditions to produce a well-mixed cloud before detonation- an LNG tanker is not set up to explode (for quite obvious reasons).
