LNG Tankers in the Boston Harbor
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.
Ouch. I believe the residents
Ouch. I believe the residents and politicians fully understand the risk of ignition is small, even minor. But if there were no risk, the Coast Guard would not be taking such extreme safety measures.
MIT Professor, LNG expert and former chair of MassPort, James Fay, explains the risk in the same MSNBC article cited by Balsam, citing the USS Cole terrorist attack in 2000. “There’s no doubt that with a big enough bomb you can blow a hole in the side of the vessel and the cargo will burn,” Fay said. “It’s well understood that for the big fires we’re talking about that distances like half a mile or so, you can get second-degree burns to exposed skin in about 30 seconds.” There also was a severe tragedy in Cleveland in 1944 when a damaged LNG tank leaked, creating a vapor cloud in the streets and sewers before igniting and killed 128 people.
Beyond public safety in such a densely populated area, there are also a significant quality-of-life issues for the surrounding North End/Charlestown/East Boston neighborhoods.When an LNG tanker comes through the harbor, public access in the harbor and on the waterfront is harshly impeded. Further, the LNG tankers hurt our property values and are inconsistent with the area's tourist attractions. The LNG tankers negatively impact the public and recreational use of the harbor and waterfront which needs to be "secured" for extended periods every time an LNG tanker comes in and out.
Recently, the City helped arrange for most of the hazardous material trucks from going through downtown and the North End/Waterfront neighborhood. Instead, most were re-routed around the City. Those inside were directed away from the residential streets (and actually, the haz-mat trucks should even be moved off Atlantic Ave/Cross Street over to Congress Street, but that's another issue).
Just as with the haz-mat trucks, there are much preferable options including off-shore unloading and a reduction in the number of deliveries. The U.S. also has plenty of its own natural gas, so importing it from foreign countries is not necessary.
In no other U.S. city are these gigantic LNG tankers allowed near such a densely populated area. Neither should they be in Boston.
Thanks for your comments. I
Thanks for your comments.
I think it's most important to define exactly how small the risk of ignition is. There is a big difference between small and statistically insignificant. The accident you refer to was 64 years ago and did not involve an LNG tanker.
James Fay's scenario is fuzzy at best (Matt's correct - it seems that almost every article discussing LNG cite's Fay at some point). In his worst case scenario, he says the fire could spread 2/3 of a mile in three minutes. That's the worst case scenario in an event that is impossibly remote.
How many other impossibly remote scenarios can be dreamed up? Terrorist have proven that it is impossible to plan for and eliminate all risk (see Richard Reed: shoe, and Abdulmutallab: underwear).
Perhaps we should concentrate our efforts on more tangible and infinitely more deadly risks that are affecting us all. Traffic fatalities/yr: 40,000, Heart disease deaths/yr: 600,000, Cancer deaths/yr: 560,000. That's a 1 in 253 chance of dying from a car accident, heart disease or cancer each year. Compare that to a 1 in 1,022,536 chance of dying in a foreign organized terrorist attack on US soil in the last decade.
As far as Matt's other arguments, I agree that there might be some good reasons to move the regasification/offloading offshore - but risk of terrorism isn't one of them. (And who doesn't enjoy watching one of those behemoths snake its way through the harbor?)
David Foster Wallace created a compelling argument that some amount of risk is inherent with living in a free society (See: Just Asking, The Atlantic, 2007).
And Joel Johnson has a great quote summing up the issue:
"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."
Well written Adam, kudos to
Well written Adam, kudos to you for actually doing the research to point out the flaws in Mumbles fear mongering statements.
The fact is, the Coast Guard, BPD, and Mass. Environmental Police are all out there doing an inherently dangerous mission called: A Show of Force. By having them out there doing this mission you all feel safe. Realistically it is unnecessary for a dozen armed military and police boats to escort these tankers through the harbor other than to clear vessel traffic. Because of the "Constant Threat of Terrorism" that has been force fed to our nation and locally by Mayor Mumbles, these men and women comply to put on a good show.
The only concern I have is for the safety of those men and women who get underway in the Harbor in heinous weather to waste their time on these escorts.
Post new comment