By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - A terror attack on a tanker delivering liquefied natural gas at a U.S. port could set off a fire so hot it would burn skin and damage buildings nearly a mile away, government scientists say in a report expected to influence where new multibillion-dollar terminals will be built.

The report from a government nuclear weapons lab, a 160-page unclassified version of which was obtained Monday by The Associated Press, characterizes an LNG tanker spill from a terror attack as a low probability. If successful, however, it would become "a high consequence event" that could produce massive injuries and property damage, the report said.

The yearlong study by scientists at Sandia National Laboratory, a premier federal research facility, provides the most detailed analysis to date of the potential public safety impact of a terrorist attack on an LNG transport tanker.

While the report does not recommend prohibiting tankers from carrying LNG through heavily populated areas, it says those shipments should occur only after "the most rigorous deterrent measures" are in place to reduce the probability of an attack.

The tankers, each of which carries up to 30 million gallons of LNG, arrive every few days at four U.S. terminals: one on Boston's outskirts, another in Maryland and two on the Gulf coast. All are expanding as regulators weigh the merits of putting more than three dozen more such facilities at U.S. ports, many in urban areas.

In its minus-260 degrees liquid state, LNG cannot explode and is not flammable. If a missile or explosive should tear a hole in a tanker or a storage tank, however, the escaping liquid would be transformed instantaneously into a gas and probably would ignite in a massive fire.

The Sandia report said terrorists, using readily available weapons and technology, could blast a 10-foot hole into the side of an LNG tanker.

The assessment evaluates a range of scenarios that would result in release of millions of gallons of LNG from a transport tanker. The scenarios include a takeover of a vessel by an insider or hijacker, external attacks using explosive-laden boats, triggered explosions or rocket-propelled grenades or missiles.

Under some circumstances an attack could produce cascading damage that could result in failure of as many as three of a ship's five LNG cargo tanks, which would increase the fire's intensity and lengthen its duration.

Detailed discussions of specific threats were included only in the classified version of the report, but the unclassified version examined the general impact such an attack and LNG fire on water would have to people within a mile of the spill.

"We are not recommending that there be any kind of `no ship zone,'" said Mark Maddox, a deputy assistant secretary at the Energy Department, which commissioned the study. "What we've learned is that we can significantly reduce the likelihood of a terrorist attack occurring with security planning and mitigation."

Even with many details left out of the unclassified version, the report describes a harrowing potential for disaster if a terror attack were to succeed in releasing millions of gallons of LNG from a double-hulled vessel that typically carries more than 30 million gallons of the frosty liquid fuel.

The Sandia scientists identified "several credible" terror scenarios that the report said would result in at least one — possibly as many as three — of a tanker's five cargo tanks being breached. That would ignite a pool of fire to spread several hundred yards in all directions, the report said.

While "the most significant impacts to public health" and the most severe destruction of buildings would be within a 550-yard radius of the fire, heat that could burn the skin and damage houses could extend to nearly a mile away.

Shouldn't we at least make those guys think this stuff up on their own? I mean, WTF?

Why doesn't the AP just email this to Al Queda directly?

They don't have the Email address!

If they did, they probably would. :?

Hells yeah! Let's restrict the freedom of speech we value so much because "Loose Lips Sink Ships!" f--- yeah ... abridging my constitutional freedoms because the government* is unable to provide adequate security everywhere!


In the words of one of our founding fathers: "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security." (B. Franklin)

coylec

This is the typical idealist, sounds great in a hypothetical vacum, type of response I would expect from you. It's completely detached from reality.

What does this pic have to do with the topic of the thread???????????

I am not in favor of censorship. I am more in favor of journalists and politicians using some restraint and common sense in what they report. I really don't see how it is a good idea to have an AP news release about how vulnerable our LNG shipping is--and how much damage an explosion of one of these ships could create. I think HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson's comments about the safety of our food suppy was similarly irresponsible.

Curt

I am not in favor of censorship. I am more in favor of journalists and politicians using some restraint and common sense in what they report. I really don't see how it is a good idea to have an AP news release about how vulnerable our LNG shipping is--and how much damage an explosion of one of these ships could create. I think HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson's comments about the safety of our food suppy was similarly irresponsible.

Curt

I think most people would give up certain liberties, if doing so was for the benefit of society as a whole and if we could be guaranteed that this was a temporary situation that would be reversed in the future. Unfortunately, goverments/bureaucracies rarely relinquish power. The opposite is more often the case.

I am not in favor of censorship. I am more in favor of journalists and politicians using some restraint and common sense in what they report. I really don't see how it is a good idea to have an AP news release about how vulnerable our LNG shipping is--and how much damage an explosion of one of these ships could create. I think HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson's comments about the safety of our food suppy was similarly irresponsible.

Curt

I am not in favor of censorship. I am more in favor of journalists and politicians using some restraint and common sense in what they report. I really don't see how it is a good idea to have an AP news release about how vulnerable our LNG shipping is--and how much damage an explosion of one of these ships could create. I think HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson's comments about the safety of our food suppy was similarly irresponsible.

Curt

Unfortunately, what this leads to is a lack of accountablity for governance. When everything goes into the black hole of the DHS, and nothing comes out, those people are not longer under the oversight of the people. And without inforamtion, people can't effectively use their power to vote to hold them accountable.

Democracy depends on an educated electorate.

[edit] And, Bluto, while an ad hom is a nice distraction, I'm looking for some freaking rebuttal, not your unconditional retreat! [/edit