Do *whatever* it takes to get more LNG. Sad that it must come to this, but there are too many NIMBY's being influenced by too many anti-U.S. agitators who organize around each local LNG application today.
Posted on 07/27/2005 11:06:11 AM PDT by AzaleaCity5691
Do *whatever* it takes to get more LNG. Sad that it must come to this, but there are too many NIMBY's being influenced by too many anti-U.S. agitators who organize around each local LNG application today.
These LNG terminals are a HUGE ticking timebomb for terrorists. Probably enough energy there to rival a small nuclear device.
In recent years America's gas market has been primed for volatility largely because of declining domestic supplies. To keep prices in check and limit the global influence of the oil cartel, many have advocated increasing imports of liquefied natural gas (LNG), natural gas cooled at extremely low temperature and high pressure until it contracts into a liquid which then can be transported worldwide by tankers. The liquid is unloaded at regasification terminals which turn it back into gas fed into pipelines for distribution. The U.S. Department of Energy expects LNG to account for 15% of U.S. gas consumption by 2025, compared to 1% today. Consequently, LNG imports into the U.S. are expected to grow by about 8.2% a year over the coming decade. U.S. Federal Reserve Bank chairman Alan Greenspan testified repeatedly before Congress that LNG was the only solution on the horizon for the projected chronic natural gas shortage.
However, LNG is highly volatile and in the era of terrorism may offer more opportunities for terrorist strikes on vulnerable energy infrastructure targets located near residential neighborhoods. One such disaster scenario was developed by James Fay, a professor emeritus of mechanical engineering at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, a former chairman of the Massachusetts Port Authority and a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists. Fay is indeed concerned. He predicts parts of Rhode Island and Massachusetts could be devastated by an attack on LNG tankers regularly passing through navigation canals close to residential areas in Boston and the Rhode Island shoreline on their way to the terminal in Everett, Mass.
In an interview with Energy Security Fay said a terrorist attack by a boat bomb - such as the one used against the USS Cole in 2000 or the French tanker Limburg off the coast of Yemen in 2002 - could cause at least half a cargo hold's worth of LNG to seep out of the ship and ignite. "In just over three minutes, the fire could spread two-thirds of a mile from the ship," Fay said. "There is nothing safety officials can do in such a case. They would have no time to evacuate people or to put out the fire." Fay also predicts damaging thermal radiation within a mile radius of the tanker which could set fire to thousands of homes and cause significant losses of blood and treasure. "Like the attack on the World Trade Center in New York City, there exists no relevant industrial experience with fires of this scale from which to project measures for securing public safety," he says. Fay insists the methodology of his modeling is sound.
Fay's analysis, as well as that of other experts, has sparked a debate in New England as well as in other states where LNG terminals operate or are under consideration. In addition to the Everett facility there are operational plants at Cove Point in the Chesapeake Bay, Maryland, in Savannah, Georgia, and in Lake Charles, Louisiana. LNG tankers are very conspicuous. Their distinctive storage tanks jut like humps on the decks; their identity cannot be mistaken. Terrorists attempting to target such a ship will have no problem identifying it. Furthermore LNG installations can be attacked onshore by truck bombs with similarly damaging consequences.
Alabama Governor Bob Riley sent letters to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Alabama Port Authority saying he will block sale of state-owned land to ExxonMobile for use as an LNG terminal "until an independent safety study has been completed and evaluated," specifying it should be "a study that considers the most credible worst-case scenario." Gov. Riley's letter states that “Only in this way can [..] all parties concerned by apprised of the actual possible outcomes of an accident or terrorist attack.”
Boston Mayor Thomas Menino recently decided to rid Boston Harbor of its long-standing LNG facility over safety concerns. "Everyone should be concerned about it because the Coast Guard, Boston fire department and other agencies do not have the equipment if something did happen with an LNG tanker. Everyone says there is no problems, but what happens when something does happen?" Menino said this past December when the national threat level was elevated to orange. Menino and other representatives of Boston-area communities had mounted an unsuccessful lawsuit to halt the LNG operations after Sept. 11, 2001. Professor Fay agrees. "Federal officials are at a state of denial right now. They ignore the scenario of tanker spill as a problem they have to deal with." Menino has no jurisdiction in the harbor so the tankers are still coming.
The Coast Guard however is not ignoring the threat. It has taken some precautions to minimize the risk of attack against LNG tankers. Fast escort boats shepherd each gas tanker as it travels to the terminal. A security zone extending 500 yards on each side, two miles ahead and a mile behind the tanker is imposed and other vessels are instructed to give the tanker a wide berth during its passage and 12-hour unloading process. Violators face arrest, fines of up to $25,000 and prison terms of up to 10 years. But these penalties are unlikely to deter suicide terrorists such as those who flew planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. It is not clear what procedures the Coast Guard would be willing to use once a terrorist boat penetrates into the security zone. Nor it is clear how rapidly security officials could respond to the threat. After all, well armed and vigilant military targets like the USS Cole could not prevent such an attack.
 |
| LNG tanker |
Don't get me wrong, I am not against the LNG terminals. They just need to be sited very intelligently.
That's why you build them offshore. If you *don't* build the LNG terminals offshore, then the LNG tankers have to come in to your harbors...bringing those ticking timebombs in to your port cities.
Build the offshore terminals!
Agreed. Where do they place the stockpile? Preferably below ground somewhere.
"These LNG terminals are a HUGE ticking timebomb for terrorists. Probably enough energy there to rival a small nuclear device."
Actually, it would be a quite large nuclear device.
I propose calling the first tanker the "Heninburg."
As long as it is FAR offshore, with a nice long pipeline, no biggie, however.
But it's not as if there's a conservative sitting in the White House who gives a rat's patoot about domestic production.
We're stuck with a transnational corporate puppet who's happy as a clam to send all our industry offshore.
But those tankers have to pump their contents somewhere for buffer storage awaiting demand. Where is the proposed buffer storage? Seems they could put it nearly anywhere in the U.S. Maybe destribute them throughout the country.
The LNG is thawed offshore. Far offshore (well, if you get the LNG terminals built, at least). Once thawed, it is no longer "Liquid," so the "L" in "LNG" goes away and you've then got simple natural gas flowing thorugh pipelines just as gas goes to homes across the U.S. already.
In other words, once LNG is thawed offshore and put into pipelines, you've got the same situation that the U.S. has had for the last century with natural gas being transported underground in our existing pipelines.
Documented in a book written/published in about 78-80...
Called Technological Terrorism..
Good read, we have a copy in our corporate library..
You haven't been paying attention. President Bush ahs done quite a bit to increase domestic production, such as:
President Bush opened up an additional part of Alaska for domestic oil drilling. In 2004, the National Petroleum Reserve, an area west of the existing Prudhoe Bay field, was approved for new energy exploration and production.
Also Increased U.S. Oil Drilling Permits 70% Above Clinton-era
ANWR is not in the Energy Bill, but will appear in a major bill later on, where it probably will be approved.
So the tanker sits at the terminal and relies upon demand to the grid for offloading? Must be murder for scheduling deliveries. Seems the tankers would wanna dump their load ASAP so they can go back for more. Maybe the normal grid demand outweighs the maximum rate at which the LNG can be offloaded, in which case, no buffer storage depot is necessary. Guess I gotta read up on this a little more. Add it to my list of things to do.
The "buffer" storage exists in plentitude already --- generally underground in salt caverns, which are, thanks to God's designing nicely located near the Gulf Coast.
There are so used for domestically-produced gas all day long.
As a petroleum engineer, I think the key would be making sure the terminal itself has very little storage, so it is not much of a target.
The full boats would hence be the targets --- probably get restricted "sea space" around the offload point to give the coast guard time to respond; then make the tankers relatively fast to avoid open sea dangers.
The vulnerability would thus be the on-load point, which is someone else's problem.
One of those LNG terminals was going to be "in my backyard"
They wanted to put an LNG terminal on Hollinger's Island. Located within the blast radius was an elementary school not to mention some very expensive waterfront property. If Hollinger's Island goes down, then so will my area because the only reason this area has managed to stay afloat is because people from Hollingers Island have to shop up here.
Jeff Sessions has opposed Congress all the way on this, and I applaud him for it. I'm glad I voted for him 3 years ago.
The reason LNG was stopped here is because the opposition was bi-partisan and cut across all dividing lines. A story printed in the Republican Register even managed to bring up the point that under a bill passed in the late 1970s, there is not a location in this county suitable for these kind of plants
In fact, the reason LNG was stopped here is because the effort was spearheaded by our Republican paper.
Locals should have a right to make decisions in these matters because it affects their community, their property values, even their lives.
If you want to build an LNG plant in a populated area, build it in a slum (I even wrote Exxon telling them where a good location would be), don't locate it in a nice area where there is something to be lost
WSJ: The Ethanol Party - Republicans see Tom Daschle, and raise him.
CAFTA Would Increase Ethanol Imports, New Report Finds
Prepare for big ethanol imports under free-trade agreements
Actually, the proposals in this area were
Cheniere Energy, Pinto Island, Downtown Mobile
ExxonMobil (who came up with this idea after the state won a landmark judgement against them) Hollingers Island, very close to my house
Some other company, 12 miles offshore of Dauphin Island.
The reason I oppose that one is because I like to fish. There are plenty of rural areas in NW Florida and Texas for these things to be built in, we don't want them here.
More could be done if he just told the EPA to go to hell, and began constructing more refineries and uncapping wells down here
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.