4 ms·

Explosion would require a degree of air fuel mixture so that the reaction can go quickly. The vapor from evaporation of the oil could explode but not a million

Explosion would require a degree of air fuel mixture so that the reaction can go quickly. The vapor from evaporation of the oil could explode but not a million barrels of oil itself. So the number may have been used to conjure up a misleading picture if the intention is to emphasize the magnitude of a possible explosion. That being said, oil spill and uncontrolable fire are all very real risks, just not as exciting as explosions.

DrBazza 5y ago
Can (presuambly) crude oil "explode" if it's not mixed with air? It's been many years since I did chemistry but I have a vague recollection about "rapid exothermic" reactions requiring certain conditions, and crude oil in its thick gloopy liquid state definitely doesn't have that no matter how much oxygen you throw at it. It will just burn.
fergie 5y ago
"Before inerting became a commonplace safety measure, in the nineteen-seventies, tankers blew up surprisingly often, and with lethal consequences: in December, 1969, three of them exploded within seventeen days, killing four men"
- yread 5y ago
  Interesting, I had no idea. The tabloids can now run "10 resons why millennials think their tankers cannot explode"
- mlindner 5y ago
  He didn't say they couldn't explode, he said the fuel itself can't explode, because there's not enough air and it's not vaporized. Liquids can't burn in air, only gasses can. (Technically it's possible to make a liquid oxidizer and evenly mix it into the fuel, in which case it should be able to burn, but that's not something that can happen normally as there are very few room temperature liquid oxidizers. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triethylborane https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triethylborane and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triethylaluminium https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triethylaluminium ))
  - AstralStorm 5y ago
    Every surface area of a liquid is essentially a gas due to vaporization, which is why oil spills burn. More importantly, high enough temperature and if you're unlucky the metals in the ship turn out to be thermite...
    - mlindner 5y ago
      Metals aren't thermite, even more so you need tremendously high temperatures, and it needs to be sustained. Finally, liquid surfaces only burn if there is enough air firstly and enough temperature to sustain the flame. Dumping a match into a vat of kerosene will put out the match.
lutorm 5y ago
Yeah, the CNG ships seem a lot sketchier than an oil tanker.
bjarneh 5y ago
> The vapor from evaporation of the oil could explode but not a million barrels of oil itself. So that scene in "The Equalizer" when Denzel Washington blows up that oil tanker would in reality become a massive oil spill, or fire? That would have been a strange plot twist, the equalizer himself being the cause of a massive environmental disaster :-)
- TeMPOraL 5y ago
  Not the first movie where the writers fell asleep behind the wheel just as they were arriving at their destination. Remember when the protagonist in Surrogates caused sudden, global economic and infrastructural collapse, possibly killing billions of people off-screen, just because he wanted to have richer sex with his wife?
  - bjarneh 5y ago
    > just because he wanted to have richer sex with his wife? Who can blame him :-)
- short_sells_poo 5y ago
  Your suspension of disbelief may survive with nothing more than superficial burns if you assume that Denzel Washington's character has planted a large amount of high explosives on board which dispersed and ignited the fuel that was on board :)
  - bjarneh 5y ago
    So it could be true; that's reassuring :-)
techdragon 5y ago
The primary explosion risk is from fuel vapours (from the stored oil) however the ensuing heat and shockwave forces should the fuel vapour detonate has several potential knock on effects. The initial primary explosion could cause significant enough destruction to the ship that it acts like the “scatter charge” in a thermobaric weapon, spreading the undetonated oil sufficiently into the air that a larger percentage of the onboard oil is detonated as part of a “single event”… However the more likely and no less disastrous outcome is the primary explosion of the fuel vapour damages the ship without sinking it (the explosion will be centred on the upper portion of the storage tanks) most likely blowing the top off of one (or more) of the storage tanks and potentially damaging the structural integrity of the ship without sinking it. An extremely likely outcome from this will be ignition of whatever remains of the oil in a burst storage tank, (which even if not “burst open” will likely have been structurally damaged so that fresh air can get in) leading to a fire onboard and due to the established lack of maintenance, that fire has a high likelihood of spreading through much of the ship (possibly aided by any oil movement induced by the primary explosion) which will heat up any undamaged storage vessels and turn them into (depending on the state of the pressure relief valve maintenance) potential pressure cookers full of fuel or sources of further burning fuel vapour… So I don’t think they were trying to necessarily mislead as much as simplify the scenario for the audience. Most people don’t find it interesting to dissect cascading failures and map out the energetic potential effects. Most people would be fine saying “it blew up” even if it was technically two or three individual explosions interspersed between hours of being on fire before one final still in tact hot tank of oil went off like a pressure cooker turning into a fuel air explosion that shredded the ship into shrapnel.
- refurb 5y ago
  The initial primary explosion could cause significant enough destruction to the ship that it acts like the “scatter charge” in a thermobaric weapon, spreading the undetonated oil sufficiently into the air that a larger percentage of the onboard oil is detonated as part of a “single event”… Oil doesn't detonate, even if scattered by an explosion. Fuel-air explosions require very specific conditions it's entirely unlikely those conditions could be met with crude oil. Thermobaric weapons use chemicals like ethylene oxide that are: 1) highly volatile, 2) easily dispersed [no thick like oil], 3) have a very broad air-fuel mixture range which is flammable. Could the vapor explode and spread burning oil everywhere? Sure. Could it explode, distributing microscopic oil particles in such a way to sustain a fuel-air explosion? Highly unlikely.
iamthemonster 5y ago
The cargo tanks would normally have a vapour space made of exhaust gas (inert gas) from the boiler which is less than 5% oxygen. However, this ship's inert gas system broke down years ago so it probably has a flammable atmosphere in its cargo tanks. Potentially the crude has weathered off so much over the years that it's no longer degassing, and less scientifically I think if the tank vapours haven't found an ignition source yet, they probably won't. However corrosion never sleeps. The cargo tanks don't leak straight into the sea; you have ballast tanks too. If I had to guess, the next threat might be a leak into the pump room resulting in fire. But ships have a periodic inspection regime under that they call "class rules" - this ship hasn't been in class for 5 years. That is an insane period of time to be carrying hydrocarbon while being out of class. There are hundreds of threats to this tanker and it is difficult to predict how it could fail, including complete loss of the vessel.
- AstralStorm 5y ago
  Most likely scenario is a breakdown of the containment and spill or fire, potentially huge. During the fire, multiple explosions may occur worsening it. Explosion in the first place requires enormous amounts of oxygen. Even with inert atmosphere replaced with air, the volume is just too low.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Cthulhu_ 5y ago
I'm no expert but, reading other comments, there'd be an explosion from various vapors, but that would only represent a fraction; if the oil catches fire it'd be huge, and the rest would spill out causing a massive environmental disaster.

DrBazza 5y ago

Can (presuambly) crude oil "explode" if it's not mixed with air? It's been many years since I did chemistry but I have a vague recollection about "rapid exothermic" reactions requiring certain conditions, and crude oil in its thick gloopy liquid state definitely doesn't have that no matter how much oxygen you throw at it. It will just burn.

fergie 5y ago

"Before inerting became a commonplace safety measure, in the nineteen-seventies, tankers blew up surprisingly often, and with lethal consequences: in December, 1969, three of them exploded within seventeen days, killing four men"

yread 5y ago
Interesting, I had no idea. The tabloids can now run "10 resons why millennials think their tankers cannot explode"
mlindner 5y ago
He didn't say they couldn't explode, he said the fuel itself can't explode, because there's not enough air and it's not vaporized. Liquids can't burn in air, only gasses can. (Technically it's possible to make a liquid oxidizer and evenly mix it into the fuel, in which case it should be able to burn, but that's not something that can happen normally as there are very few room temperature liquid oxidizers. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triethylborane https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triethylborane and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triethylaluminium https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triethylaluminium ))
- AstralStorm 5y ago
  Every surface area of a liquid is essentially a gas due to vaporization, which is why oil spills burn. More importantly, high enough temperature and if you're unlucky the metals in the ship turn out to be thermite...
  - mlindner 5y ago
    Metals aren't thermite, even more so you need tremendously high temperatures, and it needs to be sustained. Finally, liquid surfaces only burn if there is enough air firstly and enough temperature to sustain the flame. Dumping a match into a vat of kerosene will put out the match.

lutorm 5y ago

Yeah, the CNG ships seem a lot sketchier than an oil tanker.

bjarneh 5y ago

> The vapor from evaporation of the oil could explode but not a million barrels of oil itself. So that scene in "The Equalizer" when Denzel Washington blows up that oil tanker would in reality become a massive oil spill, or fire? That would have been a strange plot twist, the equalizer himself being the cause of a massive environmental disaster :-)

TeMPOraL 5y ago
Not the first movie where the writers fell asleep behind the wheel just as they were arriving at their destination. Remember when the protagonist in Surrogates caused sudden, global economic and infrastructural collapse, possibly killing billions of people off-screen, just because he wanted to have richer sex with his wife?
- bjarneh 5y ago
  > just because he wanted to have richer sex with his wife? Who can blame him :-)
short_sells_poo 5y ago
Your suspension of disbelief may survive with nothing more than superficial burns if you assume that Denzel Washington's character has planted a large amount of high explosives on board which dispersed and ignited the fuel that was on board :)
- bjarneh 5y ago
  So it could be true; that's reassuring :-)

techdragon 5y ago

The primary explosion risk is from fuel vapours (from the stored oil) however the ensuing heat and shockwave forces should the fuel vapour detonate has several potential knock on effects. The initial primary explosion could cause significant enough destruction to the ship that it acts like the “scatter charge” in a thermobaric weapon, spreading the undetonated oil sufficiently into the air that a larger percentage of the onboard oil is detonated as part of a “single event”… However the more likely and no less disastrous outcome is the primary explosion of the fuel vapour damages the ship without sinking it (the explosion will be centred on the upper portion of the storage tanks) most likely blowing the top off of one (or more) of the storage tanks and potentially damaging the structural integrity of the ship without sinking it. An extremely likely outcome from this will be ignition of whatever remains of the oil in a burst storage tank, (which even if not “burst open” will likely have been structurally damaged so that fresh air can get in) leading to a fire onboard and due to the established lack of maintenance, that fire has a high likelihood of spreading through much of the ship (possibly aided by any oil movement induced by the primary explosion) which will heat up any undamaged storage vessels and turn them into (depending on the state of the pressure relief valve maintenance) potential pressure cookers full of fuel or sources of further burning fuel vapour… So I don’t think they were trying to necessarily mislead as much as simplify the scenario for the audience. Most people don’t find it interesting to dissect cascading failures and map out the energetic potential effects. Most people would be fine saying “it blew up” even if it was technically two or three individual explosions interspersed between hours of being on fire before one final still in tact hot tank of oil went off like a pressure cooker turning into a fuel air explosion that shredded the ship into shrapnel.

refurb 5y ago
The initial primary explosion could cause significant enough destruction to the ship that it acts like the “scatter charge” in a thermobaric weapon, spreading the undetonated oil sufficiently into the air that a larger percentage of the onboard oil is detonated as part of a “single event”… Oil doesn't detonate, even if scattered by an explosion. Fuel-air explosions require very specific conditions it's entirely unlikely those conditions could be met with crude oil. Thermobaric weapons use chemicals like ethylene oxide that are: 1) highly volatile, 2) easily dispersed [no thick like oil], 3) have a very broad air-fuel mixture range which is flammable. Could the vapor explode and spread burning oil everywhere? Sure. Could it explode, distributing microscopic oil particles in such a way to sustain a fuel-air explosion? Highly unlikely.

iamthemonster 5y ago

The cargo tanks would normally have a vapour space made of exhaust gas (inert gas) from the boiler which is less than 5% oxygen. However, this ship's inert gas system broke down years ago so it probably has a flammable atmosphere in its cargo tanks. Potentially the crude has weathered off so much over the years that it's no longer degassing, and less scientifically I think if the tank vapours haven't found an ignition source yet, they probably won't. However corrosion never sleeps. The cargo tanks don't leak straight into the sea; you have ballast tanks too. If I had to guess, the next threat might be a leak into the pump room resulting in fire. But ships have a periodic inspection regime under that they call "class rules" - this ship hasn't been in class for 5 years. That is an insane period of time to be carrying hydrocarbon while being out of class. There are hundreds of threats to this tanker and it is difficult to predict how it could fail, including complete loss of the vessel.

AstralStorm 5y ago
Most likely scenario is a breakdown of the containment and spill or fire, potentially huge. During the fire, multiple explosions may occur worsening it. Explosion in the first place requires enormous amounts of oxygen. Even with inert atmosphere replaced with air, the volume is just too low.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

Cthulhu_ 5y ago

I'm no expert but, reading other comments, there'd be an explosion from various vapors, but that would only represent a fraction; if the oil catches fire it'd be huge, and the rest would spill out causing a massive environmental disaster.