LNG-ov kanadski spaljivač kiselog plina i dalje ne radi

LNG Canada’s acid gas-burning incinerator has repeatedly failed, raising concerns about its ability to safely dispose of hazardous emissions near the Kitimat site. Over an eight-month span ending in April, the incinerator for one of the plant’s two production units was offline for 139 days, with one prolonged outage lasting two consecutive months. This has left the facility relying heavily on flare stacks to handle the dangerous gases, prompting scrutiny over the effectiveness of its alternative measures. The issue began in September, when the incinerator for the first production unit was already malfunctioning for part of the month. It remained offline throughout October and November, and again for the entire month of March. In December, it was offline for about half the month. Meanwhile, the incinerator for the second production unit faced similar problems. It started up in late November but quickly broke down, remaining offline for most of December and spending nine days offline this year alone. These repeated failures have led to extended periods where the facility could not safely burn off harmful substances like hydrogen sulphide and benzene. LNG Canada’s acid gas incinerators are designed to operate under strict conditions, using high temperatures to break down toxic gases before releasing them into the atmosphere. When these systems go offline, the company directs the gases to flare stacks, adding extra gas to maintain combustion. Both LNG Canada and the British Columbia Energy Regulator claim this method ensures the same destruction process occurs, albeit through a different mechanism. However, experts challenge this assertion. Faisal Khan, a chemical engineering professor at Texas A&M University, argues that flare stacks are not a suitable substitute for incinerators. He explains that even with added fuel, variations in gas composition and environmental factors can affect how effectively the gas burns. As a result, some of the harmful substances may remain unburned, leading to visible plumes of black smoke from the flare tips. This indicates incomplete combustion and potential health risks for nearby communities. Prior to starting operations, LNG Canada had warned the provincial government that extended incinerator outages could lead to one of its worst-case flaring scenarios. The company had assured officials that such situations would be rare, occurring approximately once per year for four to six hours. Despite these assurances, the recent pattern of frequent and lengthy outages contradicts that promise, raising questions about the reliability of the system. In a pre-operation pollution modeling document, LNG Canada outlined plans to mitigate the impact of incinerator downtime. The company stated it would reduce production to minimum levels until the incinerator was back online. When asked whether it had followed this protocol during past outages, a spokesperson noted that operational adjustments vary based on the specific circumstances. This lack of transparency has fueled further skepticism among regulators and environmental advocates. The ongoing issues with the incinerators also have broader implications for air quality in the region. Pollution models developed by LNG Canada suggest that prolonged outages increase the release of volatile organic compounds, including benzene, a known carcinogen. With the incinerators frequently out of service, the risk of harmful emissions entering the local airshed appears to be rising, despite the company’s claims of maintaining safe disposal practices. As the situation continues, the focus remains on how LNG Canada will address the recurring technical failures and whether it will implement more robust solutions to prevent future outages. The community and regulatory bodies are watching closely, waiting for clear evidence that the company is taking meaningful steps to protect both public health and the environment.