Wednesday, February 2, 2011

The Geography of Disaster: The LNG tanks of Everett, Massachusetts

While the Commonwealth continues to debate the wisdom of onshore LNG plants in Somerset and Fall River and while the populace cries foul at Cape Wind over price concerns, the Department of Energy recently and quietly painted a frightening picture of the onshore LNG industry. Liquefied natural gas, exposed to air or water, forms a pool of superheated, inextinguishable fire. Its burn rate depends on the amount of the spill, wind, waves, and currents. By its own assessment, the DoE, working in conjunction with the Sandia National Laboratory, estimated that a breach of only 3 of the 10 compartmentalized tanks on a typical LNG tanker would kill anyone within a ½ mile radius in less than 20 seconds. In 8 minutes, a breach would cause 2nd degree burns within a 2.5 mile radius.


Using Census Bureau and City of Boston estimates of workday populations under the 3 tank DoE scenario, over 80,000 people would die within 20 seconds with an additional 540,000 people suffering severe burns, many fatal, within 8 minutes. Within 12 minutes, fire would engulf all of Charlestown, East Boston, South Boston, the South End, the North End, North Station, Beacon Hill, the Back Bay, the West End and the towns of Chelsea, Everett, all of East Cambridge and over one half of Somerville.


Those are the aftermaths of breaches in tankers. The actual tanks at Everett, at equal if not greater risk of a similar breach, contain over 125,000,000 cubic meters of LNG, ten times the amount carried in a single ship.


There are 9 operating LNG plants in the United States. As the table below shows, Everett is the only plant located in a populated area and the only plant served by passage through a narrow, active harbor.


The Geography of Risk: The Relative Location of Existing Liquefied Natural Gas Plants in U.S.A.




Location of LNG Plants     Surrounding Area   Nearest Major City      Distance (miles)


Sabine, LA                         Island in lake              Shreveport                   72


Kenai, AK                       Port on Cook Inlet        Anchorage                    65


Freeport, TX                     Isolated bay                   Houston                      61


Cove Point, MD              Isolated riverfront      Washington DC               46


Cameron, LA                   Isolated bayou              Lake Charles                24
  
Lake Charles, LA            Island in lake               Lake Charles                 18


PeƱuelas, PR                    Offshore ocean                Ponce                         7


Elba Island, GA       Unpopulated Island in river     Savannah                    6


Everett, MA            Heart of major city port            Boston                       1/4

2 comments:

  1. Jim,
    Thank you for providing such valuable information.

    I know that they have discussed moving the facility to one of the Boston Harbor Islands in the past. That was met with resistance from the Friend of Boston Harbor Islands. Typical NIMBY response to anyone doing anything. Even tough it has the potential of saving hundred of thousands of lives.

    I know the tanker ships are under heavy escort when they come in and the timing is well thought out. Timing is critical in order to mitigate the risk.

    So do you have an idea or proposal as where you would relocate it?

    The Graves Island is at the entrance to the harbor but would have to be built out to accommadate a facility.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. please read. Topix Everett ma. under. LNG. 6/25/2012 updated

      Delete