
A 2009 fire on petroleum tanks in San Juan, Puerto Rico. This is one of the accidents that researchers looked at to determine that storage tanks can be breached by heavy hydrocarbon explosions. Photo credit–U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board
BY STEFANIE HERWECK
Rio Grande LNG is inviting the public to a “live demonstration” of the properties of liquefied natural gas on Wednesday, October 23 from 6:00 pm to 7:30 pm at Los Fresnos EMS and Fire Building, 100 Rodeo Dr. in Los Fresnos.
The Houston company wants to build a liquefied natural gas export terminal in the Port of Brownsville, which would be the largest single source of pollution in Cameron County. Now they have brought down “an LNG safety expert” to assuage the community’s fears of an LNG-related catastrophe.
In fact, this demonstration is a public relations stunt. In the last such demonstration, in 2015, LNG company representatives used parlor tricks. They dipped a flower in LNG to freeze it, and spilled a little LNG out to show that it’s non-corrosive. They also poured a bit of LNG in a bowl with a goldfish, drank water a short time after LNG was poured into the glass, and then doused a smoldering cigarette in the liquid.
But these tricks were easy to see through.
A goldfish is not harmed when LNG is poured in its bowl because the LNG is lighter than water, so it floats on top of the water rather than mixing with it. But as a Government Accountability Office report notes, because methane must be kept at minus 260 degrees Fahrenheit to remain in a liquid state, any living creature that comes into contact with LNG is subject to freeze burning. So, in the case of an LNG spill in the Gulf, fish are safe as long as they stay under water, but anything above the water line, such as waterfowl, dolphins or swimming humans, is not.
When LNG spills, it begins evaporating immediately, which is why you can eventually drink a glass of water into which LNG has been poured. Because the LNG does not mix with the water, just as the fish is not swimming in liquefied natural gas, the person holding the glass is not drinking LNG. Instead, a small quantity of LNG is used for this trick and allowed to evaporate before the person raises the glass.
When they douse the cigarette in LNG and say that liquefied natural gas (LNG) is not flammable they are simply lying. Liquid fuels do not catch fire below the surface. During any spill flammable liquids such as gasoline and LNG immediately begin to vaporize and mix with air, and it is the vapor rising from the liquid that is flammable. You can see many YouTube demonstrations of people dousing matches and lit cigarettes in gasoline, but we do not pretend that gasoline is not flammable.
Rio Grande LNG’s current demonstration shows community members a selective and sanitized version of an LNG chemistry lesson. In doing so Rio Grande LNG hopes to squelch the valid concerns about safety that local residents have.
But an expert in a lab coat showing that LNG can only ignite at gas-to-air concentrations of 5 to 15 percent should not make us feel safer. Reaching flammable concentrations is not some sort of rare event. As LNG evaporates a there will be always be a portion of the resulting vapor cloud that is at a flammable concentration. Remember, we use natural gas as a fuel because it burns so consistently. And when it ignites, it burns far hotter than gasoline.
If the vapor cloud evaporating above spilled LNG ignites, it burns its way back to the spill and becomes an intense pool fire. A Sandia National Laboratories report found that LNG vapor clouds could travel more than a mile on the wind before catching fire. This risk of flammable vapor clouds drifting into populated areas led Sandia to recommend that “areas of refuge” and “community warning procedures” be established in communities near LNG terminals.
By limiting their discussion about the safety of the LNG export terminals to the liquefied natural gas itself, Rio Grande LNG may be concealing greater risks to the communities of the Rio Grande Valley.
The LNG export terminal will be handling large quantities of fuel that is much more volatile than methane. Heavier hydrocarbons such as propane, ethane and butane would be refined out of the natural gas at the facilities, and some are used as freezing agents in the liquefaction process. There is a long history of catastrophic accidents where these dangerous fuels are handled, and they potentially account for more risk than the LNG itself.
In fact, it was a hydrocarbon leak into a steam boiler inlet which caused a massive explosion at the Skidka, Algeria LNG Export Terminal in 2004. Twenty seven workers died and 70 more were injured. Fortunately, the Skidka LNG storage tanks were not damaged. But LNG safety experts have expressed concern that the presence of these volatile fuels near such an enormous and concentrated amount of methane could result in a catastrophe that threatens people and property far outside of the facility’s boundaries.
The LNG feeder pipelines pose yet another risk. The Rio Grande LNG export terminal will require two 42-inch diameter pipelines which will slice through South Texas. The gas in these lines will be at high pressure and non-odorized. Pipeline accidents continue to occur with regularity—up to an average of 1.7 incidents per day in 2018 requiring the evacuation of an average of 9 people, while a pipeline catches fire an average of every 4 days. And that includes new lines. In 2015 a Pipeline Safety Trust analysis found that new pipelines are currently failing at the same rate as old pipelines that were built before 1940.
This science lesson will do nothing to address the very real concerns that Valley residents have. Rio Grande LNG is wasting time with demonstrations rather than having honest, adult discussions with residents and stakeholders on the real risks involved in LNG export terminal operations. While pushing the false idea that the facilities will be completely safe, they are not working with our municipalities to develop community warning and evacuation procedures. They are not educating first responders on what will be required in case of an accident.
If Rio Grande LNG wants to operate in the Rio Grande Valley, they need to be honest with South Texans about all the facts, not just the basic chemistry lesson. They need to discuss the real concerns that scientists have about locating LNG export terminals so close to communities and why those concerns have been raised.
A version of this article was originally published in the Rio Grande Guardian.