OK, I’m “from away.” I’m a native of New Hampshire, but attitudes over there aren’t all that different. I’m not here on some extended vacation in paradise. I’m here because it’s a nice place to live, and I enjoy the decent people who are living here for the same reason.
I happen to be on the side opposing a proposed $40 million liquid propane gas terminal and storage tank, but not because I’d be offended to have to look at another tank in the Mack Point Industrial Zone. It is zoned commercial, after all, and I’m perfectly OK with Searsport’s long history as a commercial port.
Industry has its place. I see no good reason why folks who object to having a new structure sited in an industrial development should want to deprive the local economy of opportunities for jobs and tax revenues on purely aesthetic grounds. To my mind, that’s going over the top.
I’m not even opposed to the tank because it might increase congestion and wear and tear on Routes 1 and 3, or because it might have a negative impact on the tourist trade, or even because it might reduce my property value or its resale potential. I’m not planning to go anywhere any time soon.
The real reason I am opposed to the tank is safety, pure and simple. If the folks at DCP Midstream wanted to build their big, new tank and store gasoline in it, I’d be fine with that. There’s a lot of gasoline stored at Mack Point already, and I don’t see that as an issue. Gasoline is a liquid, and it won’t even burn unless it’s vaporized and mixed with air, as it is in the injectors of my car.
If a gasoline tank springs a leak, it’s usually pretty obvious, and even if leaking gasoline catches fire, it can usually be easily extinguished by a small crew with fire-suppressant, or even water, before it gets out of hand. Furthermore, gasoline burns at only about 1,650 degrees, which is well below the 2,500-degree melting point of steel, and therefore wouldn’t pose any threat to the integrity of the tank from which it leaked.
Propane, on the other hand, is a whole different animal. Although it’s a liquid as long as it remains inside the refrigerated tank, as soon as it leaks out, it becomes a gas. Not only is it harder to see and smell a propane leak, but every ounce of gas that escapes through the leak mixes instantly with air to form an explosive mixture. An expanding cloud of that explosive gas spreads outward until it encounters any ignition source, of which there are plenty in the environment. It then explodes, all at once, at a temperature of close to 3,600 degrees, which is definitely hot enough to melt steel.
What that means is that once the leaked propane explodes, there’s no way to prevent the steel body of the tank from melting, rupturing and releasing its full contents to the atmosphere, thus generating a far greater explosion. Technically, the process is known as a BLEVE (rhymes with Chevy and stands for Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapor Explosion). With the tank’s entire 22.7 million gallon contents exploding, that would be bad enough, releasing about as much energy as 33 Hiroshima-sized atomic bombs, but it wouldn’t stop there. The super-hot BLEVE would also melt all the other tanks in the farm, releasing and vaporizing their 55 million additional gallons of fuels to create an 87 million gallon Super-BLEVE equivalent to some 150 Hiroshima bombs, or a small hydrogen bomb.
That is exactly what happened near Mexico City back in 1984, when the PEMEX LPG tank farm in San Juanico developed a leak in the long supply line leading to one of the tanks. The leak wasn’t detected until the explosive gas cloud spread to the flare pit, whereupon it ignited and exploded, blowing all the tanks in the farm. It was the worst industrial catastrophe in Mexico’s history, killing more than 500 people, injuring more than 5,000 and leveling the town.
How much LPG was involved in the San Juanico disaster? 11,000 cubic meters, or 2.9 million gallons. That’s a little less than 13 percent of the capacity of the Searsport LPG tank. Now if you add the 55 million gallons of other flammable fuels currently stored at Mack Point, what went bang at San Juanico was a little less than 4 percent of what could go bang at Searsport.
Any way you look at it, that’s a lot of bang.
How big? Think the world’s biggest industrial catastrophes. Think Chernobyl. Think Fukushima. Maybe worse.
Right here, in midcoast Maine. It would put us on the map — or take us off it, for good.
David Laing, of Stockton Springs, is a retired assistant professor of geology at the University of Maine at Presque Isle.
David Laing 567 3700
Stockton Springs
Folks, this is real, not hype. I live in Belfast, and I figure, if that thing blows. I (and a lot of others) might have just enough time to see the flash, before we’re blasted off the face of the earth. It’s too big, and it’s in a place that already has too much explosive potential. But, it’s Searsport; they will have to decide.
Dangers exist in every aspect of live and while some may be much more apparent (Usually the larger things tend to be the most noticeable) any danger is equally real. Driving your car can be equally as dangerous as living next to a propane tank that ‘could explode at any moment’. The reality is however, there is some pretty nasty stuff out there that is used and stored on a daily basis. The probably of the different dangers however is not equal. I would venture a guess that the probability of dying by a car accident then massive catastrophic (And quite dramatic I would imagine) explosion or leak is much more because of the fail safe systems and regulations used in tanks.
At the end of the day opposing something because it poses a mild danger is foolish in my mind. Using that logic, one should never leave there house for fear of the dangers that exist outside. Trucks should not transport materials on our roads. Nothing should ever be build again — ever. In fact, one should move to the arctic circle to avoid these types of dangers.
As a reality check, next time you take a drive on the highway and pass all the tankers take a look at the number on the placard and then look it up online. Similarly take a look at placards on railroad tank cars. The amount of nasty stuff traveling on our transportation systems in Maine will astonish you but it is done everyday, in a quiet and safe manner.
Your example of San Juanico is tragic yes but happened outside of the US and many years ago. I believe this example is a poor scare tactic for a number of reasons. For one, the Governmental regulations of hazardous materials between both the US and Mexico, especially during this time period, vary quite significantly. Not just the policies that vary but the enforcement does as well. US regulators as much more on top of their stuff then our friends to the South.
Lastly keep in mind that propane is an everyday household fuel. Perhaps you should ask the citizens of Portland, ME or Revere, MA about living in close proximity to fuel storage facilities. As far as I can tell, none of them have been wiped off the map because of some ’33 Hiroshima sized bombs’.
At the end of the day is, why are you opposing progress with a concept of danger that is misplaced? The concept is disproved each day across our country at Propane tank facilities. Please, if you really want to create new jobs and help businesses grow, oppose the ‘bad business deals’ and support the ones that are real.
Great response Charles..
What a steaming pile…Chicken Little nonsense…Most have propane tanks outside their house too…Given your so called logic we should ban ALL combustable liquides and gases , go back to living in caves just to feel safe…Take your crap elsewhere , it ain’t flying here…
What a great response to this lope sided and ill informed commentary. I agree that comparing an industrial accident which occurred in Mexico to an industrial site in the US is apples and oranges. Not only that but there are so many more safety regulations now as compared to almost 30 years ago when this accident happened. Its funny that those who are opposed to this keep on citing catastrophe and mayhem yet to find a relevant example they have to go back almost 30 years to a country which was basically a third world nation. Do these misinformed individuals who are opposed to this think that there is just going to be a bunch of yahoos building and running this facility? This will have more safety protocols, procedures, and systems in place than will ever be necessary. There is risk involved in all aspects of life, properly managing this risk is what allows us to thrive as human beings. This tank will not pose a realistic risk to the individuals who live nearby or the surrounding towns.
You seem to be confusing several things.
First, there is a big difference between me as an individual homeowner making the decision to accept certain risks that will affect only me and my family (for example the presence of a small propane tank) and having a certain segment of people in a town sign on to accept certain risks that would affect everyone.
Second, sure we all take on risks, but generally there is a cost vs. benefit calculation involved. Will the tank improve the quality of life for people in Searsport? The jury is definitely still out on that one — and that is not even considering the potential of any kind of explosion or accident. So, why exactly, should Searsport take on this unnecessary risk?
As for the presence of tanks in Portland, ME or Revere, MA . . . that is a pretty lousy argument for saying we should accept a tank here, even if the size and makeup of those communities had any resemblance to Searsport, which they do not The point is that it is TOO LATE for citizens in those places to do anything about it. It’s not too late here.
Throw as much mud again the wall as ya can and hope some stick. Also was told the extra trucks on the road will be a danger to the people of Searsport. Tourist will no longer travel Rt. 1 and the mid-coast and the list goes on.
Really? Really? It should be notable that literally the Mexico City BLEVE was the only significant event regarding these facilities in the past 30+ years. You’d think with as much “factual” information you could have come up with some more actual data? Is this going to be one of just a handful of these facilities in the world or have I missed the news on these things blowing cities off the face of the map. Too many anti-establishment, occupiers inciting fear to force their agenda.
Can someone direct me to a truthful account of an LPG terminal disaster in America? I do not want any more references to accidents in other countries who do not have the regulatory protection we have.
I’ll wait right here.
Thank you, David. It’s good to hear from someone in the scientific community on this matter. We should not risk our beautiful coastline or the well being of it’s residents for a handful of jobs and more money for the top 1%.
I agree with Mr. Laing in that safety is a huge concern of mine pertaining to this huge tank. Perhaps those concerns have been heightened by the way DCP has been so deceptive in presenting the project as a whole…. they would not even spend the money needed to produce a 3-D model of the project! I truly feel as though they have left many questions unanswered and DO NOT have the best interests of the citizens of Searsport on their agenda. Although safety is a big concern of mine I oppose the tank for other reasons as well. I feel as though the tank WILL have a negative impact on property values in the area …. if there is anyone out there that has a valid reason to make me feel differently don’t hesitate to inform me why I should think otherwise. Please explain how it will have a positive impact on property values. I oppose the tank because I feel as though it will have a negative impact on tourism as well. This monster will be the new back drop for Anglers. The tank will be MUCH more visible than the existing tanks in town. It will be by far the tallest structure in Searsport …. I feel as though that will not have a POSITIVE impact on the tourist trade. If someone can explain to me how it WILL have a POSITIVE impact on tourism please let me know. I oppose the tank because I feel as though it will have a negative impact on the roads and traffic issues in the area as well. How will the presence of the tank have a POSITIVE impact on the roads and traffic in the area? I’m concerned about the negative impact the tank will have on all the existing vessels that use Penobscot Bay as well. How will the presence of the tank be a POSITIVE impact for fishermen and sailors? There will be new restrictions incorporated pertaining to the tankers moving this highly volatile product up and down the Bay. How will the restrictions be a POSITIVE impact on all the cruise ships that all the communities along the coast are trying to attract?
I have weighed the positives against the negatives … that is why I oppose the tank.
There’s a greater chance of Yellowstone erupting and killing millions than this propane tank exploding and wiping out Swanville.
“Gasoline is a liquid, and it won’t even burn unless it’s vaporized and mixed with air, as it is in the injectors of my car. ”
LOL There goes whatever shred of credibility you had.