terrorism

LNG Tankers in the Boston Harbor

Submitted by adam on Wed, 02/03/2010 - 22:03:48
Related Terms :

I'm tired of all this nonsense and political posturing regarding LNG tankers offloading in Everett.

Background

Distrigas of Massachusetts LLC has operated a liquefied natural gas (LNG) import and regasification facility located on the Mystic River in Everett, Massachusetts since 1971. They have received over 600 shipments of LNG imported from various international sources. To reach the facility, LNG tankers must pass through Boston's Inner Harbor.

About LNG

LNG is natural gas (widely used in the US for heating and producing electricity) that has been converted temporarily to liquid form for ease of storage or transport. Liquefied natural gas takes up about 1/600th the volume of natural gas in the gaseous state.

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. LNG tankers have sailed over 100 million miles without a shipboard death or even a major accident.

Local Opinions

The route LNG tankers must navigate through Boston's Inner Harbor to the Everett processing plant takes the ships within a few hundred yards of densely populated neighborhoods, notably The North End and East Boston. The giant tankers, carrying what we know to be flammable in a different state, are quite foreboding. Many residents, not knowing the facts about LNG see this as a major threat and security risk - especially following the domestic terrorist attacks on 9/11 nine years ago.

The Yemen Factor

On Christmas Day, 2009, a Nigerian born terrorist, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, attempted to detonate an explosive device on board a Northwest Airline's flight from Amsterdam to Detroit. Abdulmutallab attended school in Yemen in 2004, 2005, and 2009. This is where Abdulmutallab was introduced to radical Islam.

It was announced on Feb 3 2010 that the Everett facility would be receiving its first shipment of liquefied natural gas from Yemen this month. Due to this announcement, the fear of a terrorist attack on a tanker traveling through the harbor has grown. Specifically the tanker originating in Yemen.

Political Posturing

Many local politicians, including Boston Mayor Thomas Menino and District 1 City Councilor Sal LaMattina have expressed their fear of an attack and disappointment with the Coast Guard for allowing the tanker to travel through the harbor.

While it is understandable for local residents to have apprehensions about giant LNG tankers floating a few football fields away from their frond doors, I think it is the responsibility of politicians to learn the facts before taking a stand.

Sal LaMattina:

"In today's dangerous world, it does not make sense to have such a risk so close to Boston's dense population."

Thomas Menino:

"I’m about helping protect people’s property and lives. They’re saying they will be as safe as any other LNG ship. I say they’ll be as unsafe as any other LNG ship."

The Real Deal

In order to ignite the LNG, it would have to be broken free from the multiple tanks which hold it on the ship, released and mixed with air (at a specific ratio - about 1 part NG to 9 parts air) and then be ignited.

I have never seen a credible scientific paper published that proves this is even possible much less probable.

Furthermore, Lieutenant Erik Halvorson of the US Coastguard (the branch of our Military responsible for and entrusted with guarding us from such attacks) released the following statement:

"we established a level of security to ensure the ship remains safe"

Are Mayor Menino and Councilor LaMattina then implying that we can't trust the US Coast Guard? If so, we have a much bigger problem. Personally, I think there is a problem with Menino and LaMattina.

Conclusion

The real problem I have here is the blatant disregard for science, educated decisions, and risk analysis. Science tells us that it is very difficult to convert LNG into a flammable state; and Lt Halvorson tells us that this ship movement is safe. The integrity of those we entrust with securing our coastlines and the legitimacy of the scientific method are being questioned.

Summation

From Boston Globe reporter Andrea Estes:

"Opponents of the plan worry that terrorists could board the ships as stowaways and potentially ignite the flammable gas"

There is no gas on board an LNG tanker (hence the first letter in the acronym) nor is the cargo flammable.

This issue is not about risks. It is about xenophobia, spurious ties to Yemen, and political posturing.

This is just silly

Submitted by adam on Mon, 12/28/2009 - 18:19:10
Related Terms :

US Department of Homeland Security Aviation Security Directive.

Boarding Gate
  1. Perform thorough pat-down of all passengers at boarding gate prior to boarding, concentrating on upper legs and torso.
  2. Physically inspect 100 percent of all passenger accessible property at the boarding gate prior to boarding, with focus on syringes being transported along with powders and/or liquids.
  3. Ensure the liquids, aerosols, and gels restrictions are strictly adhered to in accordance with SD 1544-06-02E.

In Flight

  1. Passengers must remain in seats beginning 1 hour prior to arrival at destination.
  2. Passenger access to carry-on baggage is prohibited beginning 1 hour prior to arrival at destination.
  3. Disable aircraft-integrated passenger communications systems and services (phone, internet access services, live television programming, global positioning systems) prior to boarding and during all phases of flight.
  4. While over U.S. airspace, flight crew may not make any announcement to passengers concerning flight path or position over cities or landmarks.
  5. Passengers may not have any blankets, pillows, or personal belongings on the lap beginning 1 hour prior to arrival at destination.

Joel Johnson sums it up well:

I don't want to die on an airplane. I don't want to die in my home while eating an organic bagel infested with parasites that lay eggs on my liver. I don't want to die from starvation or bad water or a thousand other things that I pay our government to monitor and regulate.

But I also 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.

And here is an excellent article on the numbers of terrorism by Nate Silver. Some highlights:

  • Odds of being on a plane which was the subject of a terrorist incident in the last decade: 1 in 10,408,947
  • Odds of being struck by lightning: 1 in 500,000
  • Distance traveled on commercial airlines between terrorist incidents: 11,569,297,667 miles - or 24,218 round trips to the moon - or two round trips to Neptune
Syndicate content