Communities at Risk: Hazards of LNG

[@DoubtingT291]

If, could, might?? All the incidents listed are gas pipelines NOT LNG Carriers, there have been zero LNG Carrier incidents despite hundreds being in use. Safety standards are extremely high, the capital cost of these projects is so high they will never risk it blowing up.

[@Dragonuv2002]

Until someone invents a Star Trek transporter, people who like to eat, stay warm, be mobile, use electricity, etc, will have to accept the fact that if they like living in a civilized society, there are unavoidable risks. People bitched about coal and oil ruining the environment, so developments were made in the greener use of natural gas, and that’s all fine and dandy, but did anyone really think it just appeared out of thin air? It has to get to your city somehow. Would you rather have 500 trucks of this stuff on the highway driving through town, or one big ass ship whose journey keeps it safely away from land for 99% of its trip? Unless people want to live in teepees and burn dried cow patties for heat, light and cooking fuel, they’re going to have to quit bitching about every single thing that allows them to live a life of relative luxury.

[@Aranimda]

So, you freeze first, then suffocate, then burn if you're in zone 1.

[@-TheOracle-]

In a world that is restless, this is an insane means of shipping volatiles. Saudi Arabia's studies have come up with a similar explosion radius. Insanity is the continuation of non-renewables.

[@bimmjim]

Politicians don't understand the mathematics of RISK. The people who understand risk are Engineers and the Actuaries who work for Insurance companies. . If you live on waterfront property near one of these tanker routes, ask your home insurance provider if you are insured in the event of an LNG disaster. You might even want a Lawyer to read your policy because the Insurance Company might try to deceive you.

[@trottergraeme]

Yes, you're home insurance policy may not cover industrial disasters, but the policy of the company will. In the event of something nasty happening where the company is at fault (recklessness or accident) you will still get things fixed

[@ralfboecker3646]

@@trottergraeme Unless you where killed in the blast.

[@kephalopod3054]

What if the cryogenic system fails? And how is the cryogenisation done?

[@PortableSquid]

The chinese explosion was LPG not LNG - totally different!

[@airbear9445]

They're both NFPA 704. I fear for my children in the 500m blast radius.

[@bimmjim]

+Phil Pattenden I am a Chemical Engineer and you are wrong. Spills of LPG and LNG would have similar results. The molecular formulas and energy content for both are similar. Both contain varying amounts of CH4, C2H6, C3H8 and C4H10. (Methane, ethane, propane and butane) Because of LPGs slightly higher average molecular weight, the LPG explosion would probably be less destructive but this would depend greatly on ambient conditions of temperature, pressure and wind. If the tanker in the video had been full of LNG rather than LPG, the destruction would have been worse because the lighter gasses would have spread more quickly before igniting. Don't comment if you don't know WTF you are talking about. Look it up.

[@larizs]

Chemical composition is similar, but physical properties are different, LPG is heavier than air and when LPG is spilled it’s stay low near the ground, but LNG when evaporates is much lighter the air and therefore it rises in the air and fades away. It is easier LPG cloud to catch uncontrolled ignition source than LNG cloud. This is why LPG more dangerous than LNG. And LPG is almost is in every gas station.

[@PortableSquid]

Very nice - but having worked at sea on ships carrying over 170000m3 of LNG I do know what I am talking about. But don't let that get in the way of your views...

[@Givemeafinname]

LPG is heavier than LNG.

[@Pottsburg]

What a load a crap. What if, what if, and more what if’s

[@jb372]

2012 truck was propane, fact check.

[@ahmedaltaf12131]

underrated

[@Chopperwrench1975]

There are so many untrue statements in this video its not even funny!! "Lac Megantic Fracked oil tanker"?? really? Oil and gas are very different substances. Why is the video rendering of the LNG tanker only 100' off the shore of Horse Shoe bay? That isn't even one of the planned routes.

[@Caledonia767]

Complete and utter nonsense.

[@samschannel531]

You get Chills to narrate this?

[@don-cw1yz]

LNG would displace coal use .That would be good as NG is a clean burning fuel. Why was Lac-Mégantic brought up in the video the explosion there had nothing to do with LNG? As the video says the risk of an LNG explosion is very low . Why not explain the process safety involved in handling LNG ? This video wants us to fear LNG . Yet what are the benefits of LNG ? Low cost fuel, many Canadians heat their homes with NG with no issues . The job benefits of these plants .Construction would employ many . Maintenance staff ,ship pilots ,terminal employees . Revenue for BC .

[@beausimon3941]

don684 I agree. The by product of lng is clean and as the industry progresses, regulations would evolve to to increase that safety as with any other industry. You will never be able to make anything 100 percent safe but the risk is definitely worth the reward

[@juliaminugh8276]

If you lived within the blast zone would the risk to your life be worth it?

[@don-cw1yz]

@Cineplex Rex So we fix the leaks.

[@radicalrodent6005]

@@juliaminugh8276 - there is no "blast zone". Simples. If there was that risk, would the Japanese have so many gas terminals within their many bays, all surrounded by densely-populated areas? They've had them for decades, with just one incident, which only affected the two ships involved.

[@minughj]

@@radicalrodent6005 Do you live in the three mile radious of an LNG plant?

[@TheWizardGamez]

Well that sucks, but I live in the great pine star and this means that oil is just a part of life.

[@mdwilson4981]

Cruise lines are now being run on this gas such as royal carribean

[@vasaricorridor7989]

how do you convince someone to do evil? by convincing him, its for the greater good, the end justifies the means then you give license to yourself to commit the worst crimes imaginable

[@woohooman-fl9vq]

Are you insane? They're selling fuel. They aren't committing a genocide you lunatic.

[@don-cw1yz]

So who paid for this video Tides Foundation or Rockefeller Foundation? How about the fact that BC selling LNG to Asian countries would displace coal use for electrical power generation. How about jobs for BC residents? How about royalties for BC. Corporation tax revenue the company would pay. The fact that Canada needs to export LNG to new customers as the US is discovering more natural gas in the US by fracking technologies and will not need Canadian natural gas.A bit sensational with the LNG tanker on flames don't you think?Yet that is your objective to scare us right?

[@vasaricorridor7989]

"Don't piss up my leg and tell me its raining"?

[@skippysquirrel323]

Fact or fiction: You be the judge of this “dark parody” ~ Michael Aquino

[@tenvelli]

I saw one entering San Francisco

[@jabbaboy]

poor explanation and biased information

[@josephnafnalus8221]

Was of questionable credibility to begin with. But rife with inaccuracies and misinformation. Cannot even properly pronounce Sandia National Laboratories name...twice.

[@canucktruckerbear]

Fear porn!

[@hajdecki]

Lies..lies...lies

[@sethdavis1644]

Total false info. You clearly don't have any idea what you are talking about.

[@beausimon3941]

How many people do cigarettes kill? If your going to ban something than let's ban the common cold. Or how about obesity?

[@brandonspiegel2293]

interesting!

[@MeariBamu]

LNG = 100kt Nuke missile

[@DoubtingT291]

?