AP: Tanker Blast Would Impact Mile Radius

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041220/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/lng_terrorists

A terror attack on a tanker delivering liquefied natural gas at a U.S. port could set off a fire so hot it would burn skin and damage buildings nearly a mile away, government scientists say in a report expected to influence where new multibillion-dollar terminals will be built.

The report from a government nuclear weapons lab, a 160-page unclassified version of which was obtained Monday by The Associated Press, characterizes an LNG tanker spill from a terror attack as a low probability. If successful, however, it would become "a high consequence event" that could produce massive injuries and property damage, the report said.

The yearlong study by scientists at Sandia National Laboratory, a premier federal research facility, provides the most detailed analysis to date of the potential public safety impact of a terrorist attack on an LNG transport tanker.

While the report does not recommend prohibiting tankers from carrying LNG through heavily populated areas, it says those shipments should occur only after "the most rigorous deterrent measures" are in place to reduce the probability of an attack.

again so that BUSHCO can have their- - - --


(Please excuse the above message. Agent Nikepallas has lost her mind and gave away our master plan... you did not see anything.)

that perhaps they alreay have thought about it?

My first thought was "Why in the hell are they telling us?!"

:eyes:

AP: Should explosives be placed, by someone, on load-bearing beams in major structures at the ground floor, and then doused in jet fuel, it would be fairly easy to take down many buildings in large cities.

Here is a list of security inconsistencies in New York and how a terrorist could potentially manipulate them into gaining access to each building:




Damn. Whatever happened to that good old lie from the run-up to the Iraq war, "we can't release sensitive information about the WMD because it would expose our sources"? This is much fucking worse.

The airwaves (even Air America Radio) are filled with Homeland Insecurity 'public service' ads steering people to a website so they are prepared for a terrorist attack or 'bad weather' which I think might be the result of a hostile political climate.

Unfortunately, the neo-con fascists are up against the wall and realize that their '9/11'-syndrome is wearing off and they haven't finished weaponizing the American public for World Empire or establishing a permanent footprint on the middle eastern oil spigot.

Consequently, they are probably preparing for a second dose of domestic 'friendly fire' for re-adrenalizing the public, firming up the police state against dissent, preventing the military's mass mutiny, and keeping other countries from taking advantage of the US military being caught in the bear-trap called Iraq.

and NO security from what I've seen.

I can watch the tankers go by from my office :scared:

I do my reading while sitting on the levee as huge oil tankers come to and from the ME every day.

There is NO security. :scared:

I don't think they will be able to get the LNG tankers up the Mississippi. They barely fit into the port of Boston. Due to both the draft and height of these vessels.

Oil tankers coming from the ME offload Offshore. Our ports are too shallow for them to come in. Ships like "Iran Delvar" draw over 100 feet of water.

I'm not sure if it remains that deep past Baton Rouge though. Many of the refineries in the US are between New Orleans and Baton Rouge... that's why it's called "Cancer Alley." We have the highest cancer rate in the US (certain types of cancer).

Keeping a 9 ft channel is a challenge in some places.

And when the river wants to move we can only stem the tide, so to speak.

How far North are you talkin'? I don't know for sure, but I doubt if there are many oil refineries North of Louisiana.

We have some very large ships pass by here but no "supertankers."

http://www.nps.gov/miss/features/factoids/

From there north it is mostly big shallow puddles between the dams.

away. "they" have been talking about the vulnerability of the LNG tankers in Boston since 9-11. The security is tight for every shipment, but that doesnt mean that dimson couldn't get through security and do some damage in another blue state.

:cry:

This is what they do, weren't there stories about planes hitting buildings floating around as well? Jerks....I'm so sick of this terror BS when we all know alCIAda is behind it....

:scared:

nuke, anthrax, concentration camps....we're all at risk :-(

See where it's gotten us?

to grab the cannon fodder they need for Iraq, Iran, Venezuela, and all those small third-world countries that just happen to have oil?

He's just ITCHING for an excuse to ramp up the expected invasions...but just in case, they want to be ABSOLUTELY sure that any possible weakness isn't forgotten about (by the terra-ists)

The Cleveland 1944 LNG fire was caused by a link of LNG into the Sewer system of Cleveland. Once the Natural Gas found a flame it burst into flames causing one of the worse Man-made disasters in History

For more on the Cleveland LNG fire see:
http://www.timrileylaw.com/LNG.htm

Totals for the Disaster were as follows:
DESTROYED
79 Homes
2 Factories
217 Cars
7 Trailers

Left 680 Homeless
Injured 225
Killed 131

And remember this was just a LEAK into the system not a full scale explosion of a tanker.

Some more comments on LNG:
http://www.mindfully.org/Energy/2004/LNG-Terror-Target6apr04.htm

One comment, when you are reading the reports on LNG I see a lot of over simplication. For example many of the stories report that Natural Gas is "cooled" till it is liquid (and is thus LNG) and than "heated" to turn LNG to regular Natural Gas.

This is an over simplication. Natural Gas is Compressed by giant compressors to become Ligidified Natural Gas (LNG). This process of compression occurs in your refrigerator, the Feron in your Refrigerator is compressed by the Refrigerator's compressor into a liquid state. If you feel your refrigerator's compressor is is always very hot this is why. The Compressor is hot for heat is being released as the compressor compresses the Feron back into a liquid. From the Compressor the Feron goes into the Refrigerator Proper. Inside the Refrigerator the now liquid feron is premitted to expand (and thus absorb heat) producing the cold you feel in the refrigerator. The now gaseous Feron than goes back to the Compressor where the cycle starts all over again.

Natural Gas becomes LNG the same way, it is compressed into a liquid and as a result of that liguidification heat is relasesed (and LNG becomes very cold). As explained above when any gas is compressed, as the gas changes to liquid Heat is released (and the resulting Liquid is colder than what it was as a gas). The opposite occurs when the LNG is decompressed back into gasous state, a lot of heat is heat by the LNG as it converts back to a Gas state.

This is the rule of Compression/Conversion. Thus you are NOT heating the LNG to make it Natural Gas, they are just leaving it expand naturally. As part of that expansion back into a Gas, the Gas will absorb any heat that is around. Thus heat is the byproduct of de-liquidification not how the de-liquidification is done.

The same when Natural Gas is Compressed into a liquid. The Compression makes the resulting LNG very cold. Heat is removed from the LNG (Which becomes very cold) but that removal is a byporduct of the Compression NOT how LNG becomes LNG.

Technical statement as to the oversimplication but an important issue for LNG is kept LNG by pressure and once that pressure is removed it will expand pulling in heat. Furthermore since LNG WANTS to expand it will and it will want to expand even more if it catches on fire. Thus a quick way to start a fire is to lauch a HEAT (High Explosive Anti-Tank) round into the side of a LNG tanker. HEAT round work on EXPLODING and "biting" into armor, an explosion that will have a flame. Thus you will have a leak and a flame, which all you need to have an almost instant fire ball.

Nothing knew here anyone who knows anything about HOW LNG is made into LNG would have told you of this risk.

The largest man-made explosion the world has ever seen..

"Buildings within a radius of half a mile of the explosion were totally destroyed and that up to one mile they were very largely rendered uninhabitable and dangerous. No section of Halifax city escaped serious damage…
More or less severe damage was caused as far away as Sackville and Windsor Junction, 9 or 10 miles (away from) the explosion… At Truro, 62 miles, and New Glasgow, 78 miles, the shock was sufficient to jar buildings very appreciably, and even to shake articles from shelves. Even as far away as Charlottetown, 135 miles, and North Cape Breton, 225 miles, the explosion was distinctly felt or heard."

Source: Prof. Howard Bronson of Dalhousie University, in a paper for the Royal Society of Canada, 1918.

http://www.cbc.ca/halifaxexplosion/he2_ruins/he2_ruins_explosion.html

Most people accept Explosives are dangerous, this thread is on the dangers of LNG which is generally NOT treated as an Explosive.

While the Halifax fire was large even compared to Port Chicago (a similar mass explosion of explosions but in 1944 in San Francesco Bay) we are discussing LNG. Explosives generally are treated with great respect and care, often having their own loading docks AWAY from populated areas (such as Port Chicago) but LNG are often put near population centers so you have a greater chance of death than if an ammo dump would go off. Thus the concern in NOT how big would be the explosion but what protection should be adopted to prevent a large lost of life (Which may include forbidding LNG, something you do not need to do with explosives). Remember with Explosives you do not have to have the loading and unloading near populated areas, in fact most are AWAY from populated areas unlike LNG terminals which tend to be near population centers.

On Port Chicago Disaster:
http://www.usmm.org/portchicago.html

PV=nRT is it?

wish I could remember my physics, but don't worry - I believe you.

There is absolutely nothing in this story that hasn't been common, open knowledge for years and years. Somehow I don't think the "terrorists" are waiting to read each day's AP stories to get clues as to how perpetrate their next strike.

Being a terrorist does not in any way equate to being stupid.

Now, what *is* a legitimate question is what purpose this story serves. Are we better off for knowing this, if we didn't already? Does it go to stopping such an attack? Does it bolster Chimpus Khan's position? Or does it give the citizenry a reason to ask why nothing preventative has been done to counter such an attack?

:shrug:

Wow.

The things they never taught you in High School chemistry class.

The best we ever did was burn sugar with Hydrochloric acid.

My school was too cheap to spring for an oiltanker.

Do you think the terrorists know yet that you can crash planes into stuff?

when they first started shipping LNG. There is truly NO new news here.

we may thank * every day for keeping us safe (retching sounds here). But an "unintended consequence" might be that they inspire some homegrown nutjob (ala McViegh, Unabomber, etc.) to do something that they might not have thought of...

There are also copy cat crimes initiated by those who get the idea from any number of places.

Not all 'terrorists' are smart. Remember the 'shoe bomber' who couldn't get his shoe lit with matches?

If he'd had a lighter the passengers might not have noticed in time to stop him.

oh man <hits head> Friday morning was it? I didn't get to hear the whole thing, I just remember hearing the advocates' response to the question of safety...something to the effect that the tankers are great, the record is great, look at all the money saved, yada yada.

sorry I didn't pay more attention -
was the show and this reports timing a coincidence?

"In the hours after the Sept. 11 attacks, Richard Clarke, then America's top counterterrorism official, rushed to get the US Coast Guard to close Boston Harbor. His main fear: Al Qaeda might attack a huge liquid natural gas tanker as it glided past downtown buildings."

http://www.mindfully.org/Energy/2004/LNG-Terror-Target6apr04.htm

There is a proposal to construct a LNG terminal in my community. My activist organization is working like hell to prevent it by educating our fellow citizens.

Presently there are a number of LNG proposals in the U.S. To date, Harpswell, Maine; San Diego, CA, Eureka, Ca; and Vallejo, Ca have been able to defeat their proposals.

This is serious shit, guys. Keep your ears open. One may be coming to a neighborhood near you.

Oh this is just a bit tiresome, the weekly, "terrorists might do"
story to keep us all in a fear cloud.

What we do know about the terrorists, is that they had deliberate and
clear political targets, in every single attack. The attacks on
embassies are very carefully thought out, to be symbolic of the intent
of these guys, as in fact, they are nothing if not predictable.

Japan attacked pearl harbour, the main base of fleet operations running
a blockade against their mainland. It was not overly a stretch to
conceive that they might attack the source of such an act.

Similarly, the AQ types have gone after specific embasssies in places
where the US is extending its dirty fingers, and the world trade center
where the financial attacks on several nation states were conceieved
as well, the pentagon, source of mass murder inc.

So hmmmm, when did they last attack a civilian target just to create
deaths... never. Despite the american propaganda's objectives to
dehumanize osama, he's definitely followed a certain code of war,
attacking only what has attacked him and his cause.

In a real war, it is easily conceivable that a nation might launch
high intensity bombing of US fuel ports in a sweeping submarine
missile attack, and shut the US economy down for some time. But
since when does AQ have that kind of resource...

Those boys at Sandia Labs have been hanging out in the desert too
long smoking good New Mexico weed. They are geopolitically ignorant,
and are technologists, so they are suggesting how a war-making
technologist would attack the US... not how a politically minded
guerilla force will pursue a political adgenda.

To win a guerilla war, you do not attack the core of the herd, you
attack the weaker beasts on the fringe. This would be the american
allies in the WOT, to ensure that distrust of the american adgenda
of eternal war and empire is further undermined. SO in this regard,
attacks will likely be timed to coincide with alliance matters.

When bush visits europe, expect some fireworks... not necessarily
where he is, but anywhere that has supported him, where support is
wavering (everywhere that is), and places that newly sign up to
support him.

Say Turkey makes a bid to base US aircraft for a potential war on
syria or iran, then the AQ might consider the LNG stunt in the
straight that passes right through constantinople, to block shipping
and screw up the black sea economy. ...

Remember the attack on the british embassy in turkey timed to blow
at exactly the same time bush shook hands with blair in britain?
An attack at the eastern gates of the occident, where christianity
has historically faced off with islam for hundred of years? yes.

Every single AQ attack is similarly planned, to be symbolic, and to
cause, in the social and political repurcussions, even more stupid
behaviour by the uncontrolled egos of the american elite. The
result is an empire nibbled away bit by bit at the fringes, and more
war expendature to bankrupt a once-noble nation.

THe american propaganda is charged with making AQ seem random, as
otherwise, fear is harder to instill. As well, it makes the "enemy"
seem less civilized and coherent, so they can claim to "be that" and
claim moral superiority. AQ is very clear in its statements and
actions, as indeed, for all his faults, osama and his tribe are
clear about their religion to respond to evil war in kind, not to
make it out of nothing.

pointed out that this is also true of the attacks on the oil lines and wells in Iraq and Saudi Arabia. They are hitting bushie and the oil cartel where it hurts them the most. If there was any one bushie/oil target in the USA then that would be their target not the people of just any vulnerable city they can find. This war has been between the bushies and their oil/energy companies and Osama from the very beginning.

On 9/11 the terrorists could have crashed their planes into a nuclear reactor, or one of the massive chemical plants inside Houston, for example. They would have killed many,many more people. Instead they chose the primary symbols of American capitalism and military might...

:kick:

Problem solved.

Don

Lasers aimed at the eyes of airliner pilots just as they're landing.

I swear, terrorists get their best ideas just listening to all the fearmongers. I'll bet they're starting a big binder of news clippings as we speak.

maybe we should draw a 1 mile circle around LNG tanks and no one is allowed inside it. then, if someone got within the mile circle, they would probably be a terrorist and easily dealt with.

there are so many dangerous facilities spread out across the U.S. many with population centers that you could replace "LNG" with anything and this story would still make sense. many of these facilities have such sparse security it makes me cringe.

remember a few weeks ago it was "stolen propane tanks" that were the threat. remember the scuba divers who were going to destroy the ports. imagine if scuba divers swam up to a freighter and filled it with stolen propane.


i'm more concerned about the things in freighters that we don't know about, never mind the clearly marked tankers that have been safely carrying lng into ports forever. a small nuclear device in a tanker is going to cause more problems than an LNG tanker.

our homeland security efforts seem to focus on advertising threats rather than confronting them.

> maybe we should draw a 1 mile circle around LNG tanks and no one is
> allowed inside it. then, if someone got within the mile circle, they
> would probably be a terrorist and easily dealt with.

"Hot dayamm! There's a terrist over by the LNG tank! Quick - open fire!"

Oops ...

I hope the deliveries don't conflict with the Red Sox game schedule.

Good Luck Mets! The NY press will have fun anyway.

One of the largest non-nuclear explosions ever, and one of the largest industrial accidents in US history occured when a ship containing ammonium nitrate fertilizer exploded in Galveston Bay in 1947.

See: http://www.texasoutside.com/galveston/texascity.htm

Quit recycling the fear stuff! It will lose every bit of its effectiveness in the midterm elections in 2006!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Didn't you GET Karl's E-Mails?

possibilities from likely sources? Something is indeed wrong with the system and our media!!