• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

LNG terminal in Boston - is the worry real?

Status
Not open for further replies.
A LNG tanker exploding is only similar to in size to a nuclear explosion. 😱
One going off will destroy anything withing maybe a few miles of it.
 
Matthiasa said:
A LNG tanker exploding is only similar to in size to a nuclear explosion. 😱
One going off will destroy anything withing maybe a few miles of it.
Click to expand...

A terrorist attack would ignite the LNG which would start one hell of a big fire but no explosion. Even a very worst case scenario (massive gas release and delayed ignition) seems to indicate the worst of the damage will be confined to about 1000-1500m
 
K1052 said:
A terrorist attack would ignite the LNG which would start one hell of a big fire but no explosion. Even a very worst case scenario (massive gas release and delayed ignition) seems to indicate the worst of the damage will be confined to about 1000-1500m
Click to expand...

I've seen up to a mile(1.609Km) listed. 😛 Really would depend on the tanker size though.

Little more searching found that a spill that was equivalent to 5% of a tanker destroyed an area of one square mile.
 
Last edited:
K1052 said:
A terrorist attack would ignite the LNG which would start one hell of a big fire but no explosion. Even a very worst case scenario (massive gas release and delayed ignition) seems to indicate the worst of the damage will be confined to about 1000-1500m
Click to expand...

Probably this. IIRC, LNG itself is not flammable or combustible. It needs to be vaporized first. So an attack might cause a hell of a fire, but the whole thing wouldn't go BOOM in one massive blast.
 
Colt45 said:
great war explosives are a wee bit more explosive than LNG, afaik.
Click to expand...

Not from what I've read.

The destruction caused by an LNG tanker exploding is quite variable.

If the tanker leaked and a cloud of LNG formed and then exploded, you would have the most devasting explosion, as it would essentialy be a fuel-air explosion. Fuel-air bombs are the militaries most powerful explosives, outside a nuke.

Just placing a bomb on the ship would not be the worst type. In fact, the danger there is rupturing the LNG enclosure. That would allow the liquid LNG to turn to gas, and spread. Depending on weather conditions this would then give you the fuel-air mixture explosion mentioned above. The gas wouldn't need anyone to set it off, any stray flame will do it.

Also, from what I have read, if the worst kind of explosion occurrs, fue-air, the results would be like a nuke.
 
I find it mildly amusing that google maps has that area of Boston blurred out, yet the streetview works just fine
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top