4 ms·

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

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.
- techdragon 5y ago
  That’s a good point about it being crude oil and crude oil not detonating. Detonate was probably the wrong word to use later on in the chain of events, they will have much more in common with a movie/tv special effects “explosion” (lots of smoke and fire with a smaller boom) than a proper “explosive detonation” but minus the point about supersonic detonation shockwaves there’s still a terrifying chain of events that all start with either fire or fuel vapour explosion and lead to lots of fire, spilled oil and almost likely a sunk ship.
- Aeolun 5y ago
  Jet fuel can’t melt steel beams either, and yet… Regardless of the failure mode, there’s probably a few that people haven’t thought of yet.
  - jquery 5y ago
    And yet it can weaken them severely beyond design limits.
Isinlor 5y ago
It's extremely unlikely that dispersed oil will detonate. It can deflagrate i.e. burn rapidly in a great fireball.
- berkes 5y ago
  Which, when looking at Hollywood movies, is considered "an explosion" by most "common people".
  - Isinlor 5y ago
    Yes, but when explaining it to more advanced audience you should not use technical vocabulary in a wrong way.
- richardatlarge 5y ago
  Some examples here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Largest_artificial_non-nuclear_explosions https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Largest_artificial_non-nucle...

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.

techdragon 5y ago
That’s a good point about it being crude oil and crude oil not detonating. Detonate was probably the wrong word to use later on in the chain of events, they will have much more in common with a movie/tv special effects “explosion” (lots of smoke and fire with a smaller boom) than a proper “explosive detonation” but minus the point about supersonic detonation shockwaves there’s still a terrifying chain of events that all start with either fire or fuel vapour explosion and lead to lots of fire, spilled oil and almost likely a sunk ship.
Aeolun 5y ago
Jet fuel can’t melt steel beams either, and yet… Regardless of the failure mode, there’s probably a few that people haven’t thought of yet.
- jquery 5y ago
  And yet it can weaken them severely beyond design limits.

Isinlor 5y ago

It's extremely unlikely that dispersed oil will detonate. It can deflagrate i.e. burn rapidly in a great fireball.

berkes 5y ago
Which, when looking at Hollywood movies, is considered "an explosion" by most "common people".
- Isinlor 5y ago
  Yes, but when explaining it to more advanced audience you should not use technical vocabulary in a wrong way.
richardatlarge 5y ago
Some examples here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Largest_artificial_non-nuclear_explosions https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Largest_artificial_non-nucle...