LNG Operations Risk Analyses: Evaluation and Comparison of Techniques and Results

  • Lloyd L. Philipson


This paper surveys the results and compares the techniques that have been employed in LNG risk analysis for three prospective sites of large scale LNG import terminals. Risks may arise from LNG vessel operations near populated areas and from operations at the terminal. The probability of an accident occurring in LNG operations, that would be a significant threat to the public, is very small. Should such an accident occur, nevertheless, its consequences could be great. Moreover, it has to be recognised that, with a view to the differences in the models and hypotheses on which computations are based, significant uncertainties may affect final estimates.


Pool Fire Vapour Cloud Terminal Operation Ship Accident California Public Utility Commission 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    L.L. Philipson, “The systems approach to thé safety of liquefied natural gas import terminals,” A report prepared for the California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission, Calif., (May 1977).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    “Pacific-Indonesia Project. Draft and final environmental impact statements”, U.S. Federal Power Commission, Washington D.C. (May 1976 and Dec. 1976 ).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    “Environmental impact report for the proposed Oxnard LNG facilities”, Socio-Economic Systems Inc., Calif. (July 1977).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    “LNG terminal risk assessment studies for Los Angeles, Oxnard and Point Conception, California and for Nikiski, Alaska”, a report prepared by Sciences Applications Inc., for Western LNG Terminal Co., Calif. (Dec. 1975–Jan. 1976 ).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    “Draft environmental impact report for proposed Point Conception LNG project”, a report prepared by A.D. Little for California Public Utilities Commission, Calif. (Feb. 28, 1978 ).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    “Reactor safety study”, WASH-1400, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington D.C. (Oct. 1975).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    C. Starr, “Benefit-cost studies in Socio-Technical Systems”, in: “Proceedings of Conference on Hazard Evaluation and Risk Analysis”, Houston, Texas (Aug. 1971 ).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1980

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lloyd L. Philipson
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Safety and Systems ManagementUniversity of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations