VOLUME 4, ISSUE 1
1ST QUARTER 2005
“EN 1473 requires sizing of
relief valves for
rollover based on 100 times
the boil-off rate.”
Inside this issue:
Managing LNG Rollover
Security Vulnerability Analysis 1
for LNG
LNG Seminar—Managing LNG 2
Risks “Separating the Facts
from the Myths” April 8, 2005
in Houston, TX.
ioMosaic’s Safety & Risk Man- 3
agement Services
Recent ioMosaic LNG Projects
About ioMosaic
In The News
Edited by: G. A. Melhem, Ph.D.
Email: melhem@iomosaic.com
Tel: 603.893.7009
Fax: 603.893.7885
ioView Newsletter
ioMosaic Corporation Quarterly News
Managing LNG Rollover
LNG “rollover” refers to the
rapid release of LNG vapors
from a storage tank caused
by stratification. The potential
for rollover arises when two
separate layers of different
densities (due to different
LNG compositions) exist in a
tank.
Stratification within an LNG
storage tank.
In the top layer, liquid warms
up due to heat leaking into
the tank, rises up to the sur-
face, where it evaporates.
1 Thus light gases are prefer-
entially evaporated and the
liquid in the upper layer
becomes denser. This phe-
nomenon is called
“weathering”. In the bottom
layer, the warmed liquid
rises towards the interface
by free convection but does
not evaporate due to the
hydrostatic head exerted by
the top layer. Thus the lower
layer becomes warmer and
less dense. As the densities of
4 two layers approach each
other, the two layers mix
4 rapidly, and the lower layer
5 Continued on page 2
Security Vulnerability Analysis (SVA) for LNG
In past risk assessment studies,
when considering external
events, it was generally ac-
cepted that sabotage scenar-
ios were too random and
unpredictable to warrant
inclusion and quantification in
which has been superheated
gives off large amounts of
vapor as it rises to the surface
of the tank. This phenomenon
is called rollover.
LNG rollover phenomena
received considerable atten-
tion following a major unex-
pected venting incident at an
LNG receiving terminal at La
Spezia, Italy in 1971.
Hazards arising out of a roll-
over
The main hazard arising out
of a rollover accident is the
rapid release of large
amounts of vapor leading to
potential over-pressurization
of the tank. It is also possible
that the tank relief system
may not be able to handle
the rapid boil-off rates, and
as a result the storage tank
will fail leading to the rapid
release of large amounts of
LNG.
When can rollover occur?
Stratification or formation of
layers with different densities
can be either fill-induced or
nitrogen-induced.
Fill induced stratification can
occur if the added liquid
(cargo) is less dense than the
liquid in the tank (heel) and is
added through the top of the
tank. Conversely, stratification
the analysis. The events of
9/11 radically changed this
perspective. Since then new
regulations (33CFR 104 and
105) have been enacted
which give the U.S. Coast
Guard jurisdiction over mari-
can occur when a cargo
denser than the heel is added
at the bottom of the tank.
Nitrogen-induced or auto-
stratification occurs if a suffi-
cient quantity of nitrogen,
greater than 1 %, is present.
Nitrogen is the most volatile
component of LNG. It boils off
preferentially leading to an
increase in the bubble point
of the mixture and a reduction
in liquid bulk density. In nitro-
gen-free LNG, loss of the
more volatile component
methane leads to a slight
increase in saturation tem-
perature without a significant
change in the liquid density.
The density variations result-
ing due to loss of nitrogen
lead to stratification and can
cause rollover.
Can rollover be predicted?
In order to model rollover
phenomena, heat and mass
balances, including tracking of
compositional variations and
densities, allow both the pre-
diction of the approximate
time until rollover occurs and
the total amount of vapor that
will be released in the roll-
over.
The heavier bottom layer
stores energy entering
through the tank insulation
system and its density de-
creases as it superheats. It is
time security on vessels and at
facilities subject to 33 CFR
parts 126, 127, and 154.
Hence LNG facilities are cov-
ered and must address the
requirements of 33CFR104,
part C-Vessel Security Assess-
Continued on page 3
Page 2
Typical LNG Tank
The LNG expert knowledge
and quantitative risk
assessment study experience
retained by key individuals
from
Arthur D. Little
is now available through
ioMosaic Corporation
Managing LNG Risks
“Separating the Facts
from the Myths” April 8,
2005 — Houston, TX
Managing LNG Rollover — continued
usually assumed that heat and
mass transfer across the inter-
face between the layers is
minimal. When the layer den-
sities get close to each other,
the layers spontaneously mix.
The time for the layer densi-
ties to equalize can be calcu-
lated approximately from this
simple model, as can the en-
ergy stored in the bottom
layer that will be released as
vapor when “rollover” occurs.
The rate of vapor evolution
during a rollover is much more
difficult to predict. Most re-
lief systems on storage tanks
are oversized for normal op-
erations and are likely to be
able to handle a small roll-
over event. However, the
potential for large vapor
release or even for tank dam-
age is so serious that respon-
sible tank system managers
need to track the potential for
stratification every time a
composition difference is
noted between liquid in the
tank and liquid to be added
to the tank. Some tanks have
Managing LNG Risks “Separating the Facts from
the Myths” April 8, 2005 — Houston, TX
ioMosaic has developed a
comprehensive LNG training
program, Managing LNG
Risks - Separating the Facts
from the Myths.
This one-day course provides
an overview of unique LNG
hazards such as pool forma-
tion, rollover, dispersion, fire
and explosion, etc., associ-
ated modeling techniques,
and risk management meth-
odologies. References will be
drawn to previous LNG inci-
dents, test programs and
applicable regulations
throughout the discussion. This
course is ideally suited to
anyone working for or associ-
ated with the LNG industry,
particularly those involved in
LNG project development,
operations, and safety and
risk management.
both top and bottom fill ca-
pabilities and others have
provision for inducing internal
circulation or other means of
mixing to break a potential
stratification.
Can rollover be prevented?
A detailed study on rollovers
performed by a study group
of International LNG Import-
ers Group (GIIGNL) con-
cluded that the boil-off rates
resulting from rollovers are
manageable. This study of
41 LNG rollover incidents
revealed that only in a few
cases the peak vapor evolu-
tion rate exceeded 20 times
the normal boil-off rate.
NFPA 59A requires consid-
eration of rollover during
relief sizing. EN 1473 re-
quires sizing of relief valves
for rollover based on 100
times the boil-off rate.
Density differences of the
order of 5 – 10 kg/m3 have
been reported without any
rollovers. Nitrogen-induced
Offered in ioMosaic's Houston,
TX office on April 8, 2005.
The program will be con-
ducted by some of the world's
foremost LNG specialists.
Registration for training is now
open. A brochure including
program details, course out-
line and registration forms
may be accessed through our
web site: www.iomosaic.com.
We hope you find this infor-
mation useful and look for-
ward to your participation.
Feedback From February 18,
2005 training
Nicole Whittier
Applied Science Associates
Nicole said “The training as a
whole was very good and the
instructors were great.” She
IOVIEW NEWSLETTER
stratification can be pre-
vented by ensuring low nitro-
gen content (< 1%). LNG
rollover is more likely to occur
in peak-shaving facilities
when the contents of the tank
will weather during periods of
low or no demand.
LNG operators avoid stratifi-
cation by mixing different
density liquids using jet noz-
zles, recirculation, distributed
fill systems, and alternate top
and bottom filling. A layer of
protection analysis (LOPA) is
recommended for choosing
appropriate mitigation and
prevention measures.
Tanks receiving LNG from a
single source on a regular
basis have little risk of experi-
encing a rollover. However,
as LNG trade becomes more
globalized and multiple
sources are delivered to land
storage tanks, vigilance
against potential rollover
conditions will become a ma-
jor part of facility risk man-
agement.
also said “the modeling of LNG
was the part I was most inter-
ested in, but the risk informa-
tion was most useful and helps
me get a grasp on the big
picture.”
Bob Kamb
Kamelot Marine Services
Bob’s comments were “The
content and the training as a
whole was very good.” He also
said that the aspect of the
course that contributed most to
his learning was “the organ-
ized approach and direct ap-
plication of existing knowledge
from instructors. Nice job, am
recommending to all my col-
leagues.”
Please contact ioMosaic at:
603-893-7009 or
email: support@iomosaic.com
for more details or if you have
any questions.
VOLUME 4, ISSUE 1 Page 3

Security Vulnerability Analysis (SVA) for LNG

- continued
-ment (VSA) and 33CFR105,
part C-Facility Security As-
sessment (FSA). The VSA is the
responsibility of vessel owners
and operators. The conse-
quences of vessel security
threats are covered under the
Marine Safety section of the
Environment Impact Statement
(EIS) required under National
Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA).
The FSA is the responsibility of
the facility owner/operator,
but given the public/local law
enforcement concern with
terrorist attack on an LNG
ship, liquefied natural gas
projects need to address this
early on. The LNG facility
owner/operator must desig-
nate a Facility Security Offi-
cer (FSO) with background,
knowledge and experience
specified in the regulation.
The FSO is responsible for
preparing a Facility Security
Plan (FSP) based on a FSA.
Paragraph 105.305 sets forth
the minimum requirements for
the FSA. For recent LNG pro-
ject applications, the USCG
has required the submission of
the FSP 60 days before com-
mencement of operations. A
preliminary FSA, which sup-
ports the FSP, is usually in-
cluded as part of the NEPA
EIS.
USCG Navigation and Vessel
Inspection Circular No. 11-02:
Recommended Security
Guidelines for Facilities states
that “The Coast Guard
strongly supports perform-
ance based standards and
accepts alternatives.” A per-
formance-based SVA method-
ology that is particularly rele-
vant to LNG facilities is avail-
able from the American Pe-
troleum Institute (API) and
National Petrochemical &
Refiners Association (NPRA).
This guideline Security Vulner-
ability Assessment Methodol-
ogy for the Petroleum and
Petrochemical Industries is risk-
based and draws heavily on
the AIChE CCPS® SVA meth-
odology. Furthermore, individ-
ual energy companies have
their own SVA methodologies
that can be applied.
In all cases the general ap-
proach involves similar steps:
♦ Collect background infor-
mation on hazardous mate-
rials and security systems
♦ Conduct an on-scene survey
♦ Identify desirable target
assets
♦ Identify and risk-rank possi-
ble threats based on sever-
ity of consequences and
vulnerability given existing
layers (lines) of protection.
♦ Provide additional layers of
protection to reduce risk of
attack/sabotage.
Some examples of layers of
protection include:
LNG Pool Fire on Water
♦ Physical: fencing, Jersey
barriers, trenches, berms,
lighting, etc.
♦ Internal surveillance: security
personnel, TV monitors, mo-
tion detectors, trip wires,
etc.
♦ External surveillance: local
and state law enforcement,
port authorities, USCG, FBI
While there is considerable
debate regarding the conse-
“SVA is a tool that allows a
quences of an explosive pro- systematic analysis of the
jectile impacting an LNG ship,
the bottom line is that the threats leading to practical
outcome is going to be signifi-
cant. Hence, there is a need
mitigation of the risk.”
to eliminate or reduce the
likelihood of the threats to a
level that allows LNG import
facilities to be sited. SVA is
the tool that allows a system-
atic analysis of the treats
leading to practical mitigation
of the risk.

Safety & Risk Management Consulting Services

♦ Auditing
♦ Risk Management Program Development
♦ Calorimetry, Reactivity, and Large-Scale
Testing ♦ Quantitative Risk Assessments (QRAs)
♦ Due Diligence Support ♦ Structural Dynamics
♦ Effluent Handling Design ♦ Training
♦ Facility Siting
♦ Fire and Explosion Dynamics
Software Products:
♦ Incident Investigation, Litigation Support, and
Expert Witness ioXpressKM (ioXpress Knowledge Manager is a
web-based enterprise application for corporate elec- US Coast Guard Escort
♦ Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Safety
tronic information management).
♦ Pipeline Safety
♦ Pressure Relief Design SuperChems (SuperChems is an advanced tool for
pressure relief design, consequence analysis, and
♦ Process Engineering Design and Support
thermal hazards assessment).
♦ Process Hazards Analysis
 ioMosaic Corporation is the leading provider of safety
and risk management consulting services. Since the
early 1970's, our senior staff and consultants have
ioMosaic Corporation Quarterly News
conducted many landmark studies including an audit of
the Trans-Alaska pipeline brought about by congres-
ioMosaic Headquarters sional whistle blowers, and the safety of CNG powered
93 Stiles Road vehicles in tunnels. Our senior staff and consultants
Salem, New Hampshire 03079 have authored more than ten industry guidelines and ef-
Phone: 603-893-7009 fective practices for managing process safety and
Fax: 603-893-7885 chemical reactivity and are recognized industry experts
E-mail: support@iomosaic.com in LNG facility and transportation safety.

ioMosaic Houston Office

2650 Fountain View Drive, Suite 410 ioMosaic Corporation is also the leading provider of
Houston, Texas 77057 pressure relief systems design services and solutions.
Its pressure relief system applications are used by
Phone: 713-490-5220
Fax: 832-553-7283 over 250 users at the world's largest operating compa-
E-mail: support@iomosaic.com nies. It holds key leadership positions in the process
industries' most influential and active pressure relief
Discovering Solutions to Safety and Risk Management system design, and chemical reactivity forums, and
plays a pivotal role in defining relief system design,
selection, and management best practices.
www.ioMosaic.com

Recent ioMosaic LNG Projects

Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC), 2004 -
2005
ioMosaic Corporation is as-
sessing FERC’s cryogenic de-
sign review and inspection
process for LNG facilities. This
project includes all aspects of
FERC’s authority to approve
the siting of new LNG facili-
ties and to impose more strin-
gent safety standards than
those required under 49 CFR
193. Specific activities that
are being assessed include:
the design review process,
siting and calculation of ther-
mal radiation and flammable
vapor exclusion zones, inter-
national LNG regulations,
operator reporting during
construction and operation,
and FERC inspections during
construction and operation.
Department of Energy, Nova
Scotia, Canada (DOE), 2005
ioMosaic Corporation was
awarded a contract to de-
velop a Code of Practice for
LNG Facilities by the Nova
Scotia Department of Energy.
The Nova Scotia Department
of Energy (DOE) has initiated
the preparation of amend-
ments to the Gas Plant Facility
Regulations that govern LNG
facilities. These Regulations
provide the framework for
how the operator must inter-
face with the regulators in
order to obtain approval to
construct or operate an LNG
facility. The proposed amend-
ments to the Regulations in-
clude the incorporation by
reference of industry stan-
dard CSA Z276-01, Liquefied
Natural Gas (LNG) – Produc-
tion, Storage and Handling.
Major Oil & Gas Company,
2004
ioMosaic Corporation com-
pleted a baseline reference
document summarizing current SuperChemsTM Software
and historical worldwide data SuperChemsTM is a
on LNG properties and haz-
ards, including spills on land sophisticated tool for conse-
and water, vapor dispersion,
ignition sources, fires, explo- quence analysis and can be
sions, rapid phase transition
(RPT) and rollover, that will be used to
an invaluable resource on
LNG safety. Much of the in-
analyze LNG spills, Rollover,
formation was available in dispersion, and fire hazards.
our extensive LNG library
and was supplemented by For more information go to:
conducting an exhaustive lit- www.iomosaic.com/iomosaic/
erature search. The study also products/products.html
identified gaps and limitations
in the existing data that could or contact us by email:
provide opportunities for
future technology develop- lng@iomosaic.com
ment.
VOLUME 4, ISSUE 1 Page 5

In The News
ConocoPhillips seeks LNG permit in the Gulf of Mexico
(Source: Market Watch)
ConocoPhillips is planning to setup a LNG gas terminal in the Gulf of Mexico and is seeking approval
from U.S. Coast Guard. The terminal with a capacity of 1.5 billion cubic feet will be located south of
Louisiana. The construction is expected to being late 2006 and the first delivery is expected around
2010.

Chevron Texaco to apply for LNG permit

(Source: The Mississippi Press)
Average Annual Energy Use
Chevron Texaco is planning to operate an LNG gasification facility at their refinery in Pascagoula, in the United States
Mississippi. The company is expected to pre-file papers with Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Source: Energy Information
for the LNG plant later this month. Administration

Sandia’s LNG report

Sandia National Laboratories study titled “Guidance on Risk Analysis and Safety Implications of a
Large LNG Spill over Water” is available to the public. The study discusses risk-based analysis to
assess potential threats to an LNG ship, and potential hazards and consequences of a large LNG
spill from a ship.

New peak-shaving plant in Connecticut

(Source: Hartford Courant)
Yankee Gas Service Co. is building a peak-shaving plant in Waterbury, Connecticut. The storage
tank capacity will be 1.2 billion cubic feet.
“Sandia National
GAO to study terror threats Laboratories LNG Study is
(Source: Delaware Online)
available to the public.”
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) is planning to initiate a study investigating potential
terrorist threats to LNG tankers. GAO had performed a safety study in 1978 focusing on safety in
transportation and storage of LNG and LPG.

FERC approves Sabine Pass project

(Source: Cheniere energy news release)
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) approved Cheniere Energy’s Sabine Pass project
to construct and operate LNG receiving terminal in Cameron Parish, Louisiana. The terminal has a
proposed processing capacity of 2.6 billion cubic feet per day.

Floating LNG
(Source: San Diego Union-Tribune) Existing US LNG Terminals
Moss Maritime is planning to collaborate with Terminales Almacenes Maritimos de Mexico S.A. de Everett, Massachusetts
C.V. (TAMMSA) for building a LNG vessel into a floating storage and regasification unit (FSRU). Cove Point, Maryland
FSRU is attractive because it will be less expensive and have a lower environmental impact than a
land facility. Elba Island, Georgia
Cheniere Energy acquires BPU LNG Lake Charles, Louisiana
(Source: Business Wire)
On Feb. 8, Cheniere Energy announced the acquisition of BPU LNG Inc., giving it full control of Cor-
pus LNG. Corpus LNG is planning to build an LNG receiving terminal near Corpus Christi, TX, and
FERC has issued a draft EIS for the project.

Terminal proposed near Gloucester

(Source: Boston Globe)
Tractebel LNG has proposed a $ 900 million terminal 10 miles off Gloucester, and will be seeking
permission of the Coast Guard.