Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on July 1, 2009 at 2:56

VSC, companies such as BP, Statoil and BG are investing in gas shale plays for one primary reason - to learn the technology and apply in other areas of the world.

BG stated another reason is to supply US markets with shale gas which frees up LNG supply for other markets in Europe and Asia. It is also a great long term investment opportunity.

There is not sufficient LNG supply to "flood" the US market plus it would not make economic sense. The only issue is the next 2-3 years due to the temporary downturn in the global economy.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by sesport on July 1, 2009 at 4:24

VSC - I've been reading some on this link, and in other places. There's a good FAQ section. IMO, it looks to me like the rest of the world wants/uses more LNG than we do. Hope this helps.

sesport :0)

http://www.energy.ca.gov/lng/international.html

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Martin on July 1, 2009 at 5:24

ShaleGeo --
Do you have any further information on this event? Link, etc.? I recall reading articles in the general press when LNG tankers were first noticed out side of the industry In the early 90s? The articles always closed with comments about how much energy would be released if a tanker blew up. The magnitude of the potential explosion was always in the nuclear weapon range. After reading some of the information given at sesport's link, they must have arrived at the numbers based on the yield if all the LNG was vaporized and had an optimum air/fuel ratio mix. Still not pretty.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on July 1, 2009 at 10:04

Jay, just to re-iterate your correction above. The explosion did not involve LNG. By the way, LNG tankers have have very little risk of explosion. Just one of those myths created by opponents.

http://www.lngfacts.org/Media-Center/063009_italian_train_explosion...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mac Davis on July 1, 2009 at 10:53

That sounds a little disingenuous.

If you rupture a large LNG tank and the natgas spreads out, isn't it a still big hazard? After all, we get rather concerned when there's a large natural gas leak. Houses do explode from natgas leaks.

Wouldn't we be rather concerned if a natgas pipeline leaked a LNG tanker's worth of natgas?

I'm not saying that an LNG tanker is an atomic bomb waiting to go off, but the idea that they're not an explosion hazard seems to be a little bit of creative ignorance on the part of the industry.

The other question I would have would be deliberate use of an LNG tanker as a weapon. Use it like a fuel-air bomb. Use an explosive to scatter the LNG, then strike a spark.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on July 1, 2009 at 11:21

Mac, please just consider some of these mitigating factors:

- LNG tankers are not under pressure, so release rate is not the same as a pipeline rupture.
- LNG is a liquid so any spillage rate is slow and as vapors form they dissipate quickly.
- LNG tankers have double wall construction which is more protective than pipeline's construction.
- Methane is lighter than air as opposed to LPG which is heavier than air.
- The leakage is not in a confined space such as a house.
- Most LNG receiving terminals in the US are in remote areas away from population centers.

The industry recognizes the hazards which is the reason for rigorous safety standards for the design and operation of tankers and receiving terminals.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mac Davis on July 1, 2009 at 11:59

Valid points, but -

LNG tankers move and can hit rocks or other ships get caught in hurricanes, etc., so there's some risks that aren't present in a pipeline.

I'm not entirely convinced about the "lighter than air" argument. Yes, lighter than air is a good thing, but Nitrogen is 13% lighter than oxygen, but we don't end up with pure oxygen at the surface, and nitrogen aloft. Even though the methane will tend to dissipate upwards rather than run along the ground, won't some of it still be near the ground? Especially if the methane is coming from cryogenic liquid methane and is colder than air.

Spillage may be slow if there's a small leak, but not for a major rupture of the vessel. Also, there's a lot more methane in a given volume of LNG than for a given volume of gas from a pipeline. What happens if an LNG tanker sinks or rolls over and ruptures the tanks, and water gets in, boiling off some of the LNG, creating more pressure, squirting out quantities of liquid LNG into the water, where it will flash boil?

Remote area is nice, but they could be off-course due to storm or terrorism. I wonder if we have the gumption to sink an LNG tanker if it starts heading for a populated area by accident or unknown reasons. Suppose terrorists take over, and then claim that they're having mechanical trouble or simply don't respond. Do the LNG tankers pass close enough to get to a populated area before we'd decide to sink it?

Somalia shows us it's not that difficult to hijack a mega tanker.

I'm not really that concerned about LNG tankers. (Hey, I live 200 miles away from the ocean.) However, I have my doubts about some of the reassurances.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on July 1, 2009 at 14:53

Mac, the bottom line - it is just not that easy to rupture or pierce into the actual LNG cargo container for the tanker because it is double-hulled plus has a lot of insulation space. Some heavy duty technical studies (Sandia Institute) concluded it would some type of rocket launcher to actual pierce a hole into the cargo. There would be no explosion but rather a small hole. Hence my slow leakage example.

Terrorists are far more likely to go after a crude oil, gasoline or LPG tanker or maybe a ship carrying fertilizer. Check Texas City disaster.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Martin on July 1, 2009 at 5:16

Sesport --
Very informative.... This has the first reference to US LNG generation capacity nthat I've seen.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by sesport on July 1, 2009 at 5:35

Thanks, Les B. lent me his "library card." lol My POV is that the HS play is going to influenced by local, national and global factors. I'm not an "expert" but I do try to take all influences into account.

best - sesport :0)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by sesport on July 1, 2009 at 5:46

Martin - I have to be honest here ... Les B. didn't actually "lend" me his card, I kinda "borrowed" it ... all right "hijacked" it. Geez, I put it back before he even noticed, not like I was going to keep it.

(Okay, I'll quit now.) :0)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on July 1, 2009 at 10:06

Sesport, is that what those Somalia pirates were doing in my office?

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page