Earthquake Survivors Take Refuge In Peruvian LPG Plant
by John Laumer, Philadelphia on 02.21.08
One more for the "you just can't make up stuff like this" file. On on August 15, 2007, it is reported, an earthquake destroyed all or parts of 80% of the buildings in and around the Peruvian City of Pisco, 'killing more than 500 people and injuring more than a thousand others.' The area is now recovering. From this disaster comes an object lesson for those contemplating which energy sources are most desirable.
Remarkably, Pluspetrol’s nearby liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) plant and terminal, including the subsea cryogenic pipeline that joins them, withstood the quake.
Numerous citizens took refuge on the LNG facility property and some remain there as the cleanup continues.
According to Tom Glagola, AMEC Paragon’s project director, the plant was strategically placed onshore one kilometer from the shoreline, beyond the 100-year estimated tsunami run-up wave line. Based on early feasibility studies, the team applied conservative design safety parameters for the foundations, considering the Peruvian coast was prone to earthquakes and tsunamis.
See also: "Real Treehuggers Support Adding LNG Terminals"
Via::Yahoo Finance, "Pluspetrol LPG Plant Survives and Provides Shelter After 8.0 Magnitude Earthquake Devastates Pisco, Peru" Image credit::Business Wire.
"From this disaster comes an object lesson for those contemplating which energy sources are most desirable."
What would that object lesson be... perhaps it's more of an anecdotal lesson, which for some reason tend to be lessons that merely reinforce whatever one already believes.
I assume the lesson you have taken is that LGN is relatively safe, which is one I'd agree with. I live in an area that has recently had a battle over a proposed LNG facility, and the concerns I certainly believe were overblown. But, I would ask you in all seriousness... if these same engineers that had done the risk analysis to design this facility were to tell you that a nuclear electric plant were similarly safe... would you accept that lesson from them?
Certainly we all know that one good outcome such as this proves nothing more than one bad outcome such as Three Mile Island. If one flips a coin once and it turns up heads... does that mean it always will? If one flips it three times and it is heads each time... does that certainly mean it's a one sided coin? What are we to learn from these real world news events? Do we as non-specialists in the fields really have the capability to asses the relative risks? If no, how do we make decisions? Is it possible that some scientists/engineers represent things incorrectly because of self interest... certainly. Who can we trust?
I think the real lesson is that city planners find LNG terminals more important than people.
"I think the real lesson is that city planners find LNG terminals more important than people."
quoted for truth.
All in all, the cost for rebuilding a power plant and the cost of rebuilding a house are significantly different. Also, the environmental repercusions of a power plant falling to an earthquake and a house falling to an earthquake are also significantly different. So does it make sense that more money would be spent on reinforcing a power plant than a house? Of course! There is no lesson other than money. The entire city could have been built to withstand the earthquake, but do these people have enough money/technology to do it? probably not.
In many countries with extreme seismic activity, there exist little or no seismic load requirements on new construction. If they don't have to spend the money on making their building earthquake proof, they won't. I've seen this all over South America and central Asia.
I think they are crazy. I would be as far from that plant as I could get. And 100-year tsunami line? What's that, one and a half life spans? Sounds weak to me.