Liquefied Natural Gas

Liquefied Natural Gas

Moss sphere ship being moved into position to unload--Lake Charles LA

The Conservation Leaders Network brought Dr. Jerry Havens of the University of Arkansas, the leading national expert on liquefied natural gas safety issues, to Astoria and Portland in August. Click on the link above to view his PowerPoint presentation.

The news couldn’t be scarier for the coast. The issue of coastal industrialization has been exploding in the past several months:

· The Energy Bill, signed into law in August, changed all the rules in the game. Local governments and local advocates need our help to determine how they can effectively protect their communities.

· An explosion of an LNG pipeline burned over 10 square miles and killed 11 people in Nigeria in August.

· Late last year, a new terrorism study showed LNG facilities should not be built in or near a populated area.

Local economies which rely largely upon commercial and sport fishing and coastal-dependent tourism are once again threatened by industrial projects. New leasing in these areas would transform the coastline, bringing both offshore industrialization and toxic water pollution as well as related onshore oil and gas processing facilities.

Local governments have an important role to play in these far-reaching decisions.

California, Florida, North Carolina and Oregon are four high-risk states. The Conservation Leaders Network has begun working in Oregon and hopes to expand our efforts to California, North Carolina and Florida.

The Coast Guard is considering promulgating regulations establishing thermal and vapor dispersion exclusion zones for marine spills of liquefied natural gas.

There is now sufficient data for the Coast Guard to develop regulations for minimum security zones surrounding LNG tankers in transit and in port. These regulations should be based on the best scientific information available and they should include a precautionary factor to allow for uncertainty in modeling. Such regulations should not preclude additional security measures or larger exclusion zones at specific sites, but would provide a baseline when considering possible locations for import terminals.

In addition to standard thermal and vapor dispersion exclusion zones, we must also consider the possibility of terrorist attack on LNG tankers, both at sea and in port. Public safety should be the highest priority.

Maintenance of existing uses should be next. If public safety and existing economic uses can not be assured, LNG should not be expanded.

We know now that the economics for developing the LNG import business on the west coast do not mesh with the free market. There is no demand for increased LNG on the west coast; in fact, demand has dropped significantly in the last five years. With a focus on renewables and conservation, demand will drop even more. The US Department of Energy estimates that the US has at least 60 years of natural gas reserves at today’s rate of use.

Does hurting existing operations—whether fishing, tourism, or small businesses—to accommodate the public health and safety risks involved in LNG make sense? Does increasing our dependence on foreign fuels after 9-11 make sense?

For more information on Liquefied Natural Gas, see Pacific Environment's website and type LNG in the SEARCH box.

Home