LNG:
More Harm
Than Help




LNG Investigation, Paul Moyer reports on potential dangers
associated with an alternative fuel that's coming to California.
KNBC


LISTEN UP! NOW HEAR THIS! FREMONT NORTH CANNOT WIN!

In its formal application for Clearwater Port, a liquefied natural gas (LNG) regasification project at Platform Grace, NorthernStar Natural Gas Inc. would route 36-inch, 1,200 psi pipelines next to our neighborhood. One of these, marked in red on the map, begins at the Mandalay Power Plant. It doglegs on Harbor Blvd. and crosses the fields eastward to Victoria Ave. where it travels north to Gonzales Rd., turns right and goes all the way to Del Norte Blvd. The other possibility starts out the same way but continues to Doris Ave./Camino del Sol eastward to Del Norte. Please understand that there are high-pressure natural gas pipelines all over Oxnard. These are 8- to 12-inch pipes under 250 psi or less according to Ken Ortega, Oxnard's Public Works Director. A 36-inch, 1,150 psi line is a whole 'nother thing! All the proposed pipelines start off using City of Oxnard rights of way. Our City Fathers could simply say "no" right now thereby saving NorthernStar a lot of money and us horrendous dangers.

Map showing NorthernStar's three possible pipe routings through Oxnard

NorthernStar's full-scheme proposed pipeline map.
PICTURE THIS HOLE AT GONZALES AND VENTURA!

This 30-inch natural gas pipeline took out 12 campers in the desert. How many folks would perish, how many people burned, disfigured, and otherwise injured, were this to occur in Oxnard?


NorthernStar Natural Gas Inc. took over Crystal Energy's Clearwater Port proposal. One of their options is to run a high-pressure natural gas pipeline from the Mandalay power plant area across Gonzales Road to Del Norte Blvd. and then north to the gas pumping station north of Mesa School. This means thousands of Oxnard residents would be in constant danger from potential explosions as pictured above. The Ventura County Fire Chief has publicly stated that there are an average of six (6) natural gas pipeline accidents each month somewhere in our county. Why do we humans persist in pursuing the most dangerous methods of energy production? Southern California deserts are capable of producing enough electricty to power all energy needs (24/7/365) in the Continental United States via commercial solar operations! This technology exists: Small such electricty generating plants are now being constructed, others have been running for 20 years or so. The only real deterrents are cost and slow returns on investment. Just as with personal computers (the original IBM 8086 PC cost $4,000) these costs and returns will greatly improve as their use widens. Let's 'Go Solar' thereby saving our planet and, incidentally, saving thousands of human lives!

Corrosion of Natural Gas Pipeline
Rupture and Fire Near Carlsbad, New Mexico, Aug. 19, 2000
Accident Synopsis: At 5:26 a.m., mountain daylight time, on Saturday, August 19, 2000, a 30-inch diameter natural gas transmission pipeline operated by El Paso Natural Gas Company (EPNG) ruptured adjacent to the Pecos River near Carlsbad, New Mexico. The released gas ignited and burned for 55 minutes. Twelve persons who were camping under a concrete-decked steel bridge that supported the pipeline across the river were killed and their three vehicles destroyed. Two nearby steel suspension bridges for gas pipelines crossing the river were extensively damaged. According to EPNGS property and other damages or losses totaled $998,296.


The U.S. Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) has counted 6,377 accidents between 1986 and August 2001. These incidents caused 376 deaths, 1,699 injuries, $1,140,697,582 in property damage, and a gross loss of 2,777,205 barrels of various oil fuels. (OPS can't quantify the loss of natural gas.)
  • Pipeline Accidents, 1969 - 2005NTSB – 20070608


Woodside OceanWay Costs
Rising But Remains Viable

Woodside Petroleum Ltd. (WPL.AU) Chief Executive Don Voelte said Wednesday the company still believes its proposed OceanWay liquefied natural gas terminal off the coast of California remains viable but the cost of the project is rising. Voelte said the project was still being studied and talks were ongoing with the Californian Government over approval of the development. "As the requirements of the Californians go up, that makes it too costly to do, they're basically cutting off their own opportunities out there," he said. "The concept is viable, at this point we think it is a good project, we might as we said take on a partner somewhere along the way, but until we get a permit we won't even think about the ability to build it." The Californian Government last year rejected a separate LNG terminal plan by BHP Billiton Ltd.(BHP.AU) after the proposal met with strong public opposition and was targeted by celebrities. SmartMoney – 20080827



Unexpected natural gas boom
may ease U.S. energy crunch

American natural gas production is rising at a clip not seen in half a century, pushing down prices of the fuel and reversing conventional wisdom that U.S. gas fields were in irreversible decline. The new drilling boom uses advanced technology to release gas trapped in huge shale beds found throughout North America - gas believed just a decade ago to be out of reach. Shale gas could ultimately be important beyond North America. The rest of the world has shale formations on an immense scale. Many of them, including beds in Europe, Russia and China, are known to contain gas, but exploration and assessment of those fields with the new production techniques is just beginning. The trend has significant long-range implications for U.S. consumers and businesses. A sustained increase in gas supplies over the next decade could slow the rise of utility bills, obviate the need to import more gas from elsewhere around the globe, including liquefied natural gas delivered in tankers, and make energy-intensive industries more competitive. International Herald Tribune – 200808231145


U.S. LNG importers turn to export markets for help
The U.S. liquefied gas market, traditionally an import-only business, may be poised for some big changes that would allow under-utilized regasification terminals to export the super-cooled gas to more profitable overseas destinations, industry experts said. Freeport LNG recently requested permission from the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Fossil Energy to export LNG from its terminal located near Houston. "They're trying to get this done as quickly as they can to take advantage of the (higher-priced) Asian market," said Steve Johnson of Waterborne Energy in Houston, noting storing LNG at underused facilities will also help keep equipment cooled. While the nation's only liquefaction plant in Alaska has been exporting LNG for 40 years, and some natural gas is exported by pipeline to Mexico, LNG has not yet been shipped overseas from the continental United States and may heighten concerns about having enough supply to meet future demand. Reuters – 200808230925


Should Congress OK new nuclear power plants?
Yes: We must replace natural gas
Observations by Prof. Mark J. Perry

If ever there was a question about the need for nuclear power, it has certainly been dispelled now with the rising cost of fossil fuels. The high price of oil, natural gas and coal should be a wake-up call to all regions of the country that the era of boundless use of cheap fossil fuels is over - and that nuclear power will need to play a larger role in supplying electricity to homes, business and industry. Although natural gas is now the fuel of choice in electricity generation, its price has quadrupled in recent years and supplies are extremely tight. Not too long ago, the expectation of rising imports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) led many to conclude that more abundant gas supplies and greater use of alternative fuels would end the long run of soaring gas costs. But the pause in increased gas costs proved temporary. Natural gas prices are once again rising rapidly - 93 percent since last August. Major industries that require large amounts of gas for space heating and as a feedstock in making consumer products are once again in crisis. So now is the time to point out that one-quarter of the gas supply is wasted on electricity generation. Since 1990, virtually all of the new electric-power capacity in the country has used natural gas, and that has driven up the price of natural gas. Bradenton Herald – 20080721


FERC Okays California ISO's First Step in Clearing Backlog of Power Plant Requests to Hook Up to Grid
Second Boost from FERC to Give ISO Ability to Advance Renewable Power
In an important step toward streamlining the process of interconnecting renewable resources to the power grid, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued an order yesterday granting the California Independent System Operator Corporation (California ISO) the ability to launch the first part of a two-step process to clear a logjam that has hindered renewable projects attempting to connect to the California grid. "The good news is that renewable power projects are clamoring to supply electricity to California consumers," said California ISO President and CEO Yakout Mansour. "The better news is we can take the first step toward freeing bottlenecks that have prevented these exciting projects from coming online." This is the second lift FERC has given the California ISO as it works swiftly to help green power developers get their projects on the grid. Late last year, FERC approved the ISO proposal for a new hybrid-financing tool that is reducing cost barriers facing renewable developers and paving the way for transmission "trunk lines" to reach remote and renewable-rich areas. Business Wire – 20080715



$80 Million And 7 Years Later,
SES Abandons LNG Terminal Plan

After spending seven years and $80 million trying to bring a liquefied natural gas import terminal to the Port of Long Beach, Sound Energy Solutions is closing its offices at the end of the month. SES - a subsidiary of Mitsubishi Corp. and ConocoPhillips - was created to develop, build and operate the LNG reception terminal at the Long Beach port. In stark contrast to the major presence the company has maintained in Long Beach and within the goods movement industry since it came to town, SES is making a quiet exit with no formal announcement. SES had planned to build its LNG reception terminal on a 25-acre site on Pier T that would have provided up to 1 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas to Southern California. Based on the company's most recent estimate, the project represented an $800 million investment. The Cunningham Report – 200805231814


Is LNG flame burning out?
Critics say liquefied natural gas is difficult to secure, expensive
to produce and not much cleaner than coal-generated power

Domestic production of natural gas is falling as demand continues to shoot up, a situation that over the past few years has positioned liquefied natural gas as an energy saviour. Have no fear, the industry has argued, there are massive reserves of clean-burning natural gas around the world just begging to be tapped. If that gas can be cooled to the point where it becomes a liquid, is shipped across the ocean to North America and turned back into a gas, then worries about domestic shortages become a non-issue in the context of global supply. LNG, according to a recent white paper from the Canadian Gas Association, "is becoming an increasingly effective part of the Canadian and Ontario natural gas supply bundle." Such overseas supply will meet 15 per cent of North American natural gas demand by 2020. The National Energy Board, at the same time it announced an anticipated 15 per cent decline in domestic natural gas production between 2007 and 2009, confidently asserted last October that over the long term, "Canadians should rest assured" that their natural gas needs will be met as unconventional sources, including LNG, enter the market. Or maybe not. Toronto Star – 200804120130



What's behind LNG proposals
Commentary by Thomas Elias
Take a good look at the leading advocates of the three major proposals to build multibillion-dollar liquefied natural gas receiving facilities in California and you can't help wondering about state agency decisions that make those plans seem feasible. That's because some of the same people who made or recommended key LNG reports and rulings by the state Energy and Public Utilities commissions are now leading players in bids enabled by those decisions. No one knows if there are any quid pro quos at work here, secret promises made by companies to important regulators for high-paying jobs if they make the decisions those companies want, decisions that promise tens of billions of dollars in corporate profits over 30 years or more if they are allowed to persist. But it's very clear where some key players have landed. Most obvious is Joseph Desmond, who was Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's choice to chair the Energy Commission in 2004 and served as Schwarzenegger's deputy resources secretary for energy after the state Senate refused to approve his nomination. Desmond put in a full year as commission chairman before he was thrown out and during that time, the commission issued a report saying California will soon need LNG, a conclusion far more urgent than any projection of the federal Department of Energy. Press-Telegram – 20080410



FERC doesn't have last word on LNG terminal safety
Analysis by Hans Laetz
While the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) says the Energy Policy Act of 2005 gives it supreme authority over safety issues surrounding liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals, U.S. states actually do have the legal authority through the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) to prevent unsafe LNG terminal siting, according to the LNG Terminal Siting Standards Organization (LNGTSS). In a recently published white paper, LNGTSS notes that shoreside LNG terminal projects require permitting from several sources, including FERC, state agencies, Army Corps of Engineers and, though not technically a permit, the U.S. Coast Guard. States' permitting authority is for air and water quality, as provided by NEPA, as well as coastal zone management. The air and water quality permitting are the trump cards that states hold over terminal siting. "FERC wants the public to believe that they are the ultimate determiner of what new LNG facilities will be built. The truth is that they are one of only many determiners," said Robert Godfrey, an LNGTSS representative. California LNG News – 200803271344



Instead of fossil fuels, invest
dollars in clean-energy supplies

Commentary by Rory Cox and Robert Freehling
Re: Joe Desmond's March 2 commentary, "Radicals, energy policy don't mix." Pacific Environment has just published a new report called "Collision Course" that makes a case for what is really common sense: California cannot reduce greenhouse gases while at the same time increasing its commitment to consuming fossil fuels. Importing liquefied natural gas from overseas would be a huge commitment, tying us to long-term fossil-fuel purchase contracts amounting to many billions of dollars. A better choice is to invest these same dollars in clean energy, and state law already commits us to do this. The main problem is that many people think that needing energy means that this need must be met with fossil fuels. But there are other options. Ventura County Star – 20080311



LNG harmful energy choice, group says
In a full-frontal attack on the dozen liquefied natural gas terminals proposed along the coast of California and Oregon, a Bay Area environmental group says the purported "clean energy" is as bad as coal and will harm the state's much-vaunted push to cut greenhouse gases in the coming decades. The authors of the report — "Collision Course: How Imported Liquefied Natural Gas Will Undermine Clean Energy in California" — said Tuesday that importing the superchilled fuel is too costly, will cause too much pollution and ultimately, they say, the fuel is unnecessary. "LNG is the wrong choice," said Rory Cox, of Pacific Environment and a co-author of the report with Robert Freehling of the group Local Power. Ventura County Star – 20080227
   •
LNG and Clean Energy Laws on Collision Course in Calif.California Progress Report – 20080227



Japan May Face $3.5 Billion LNG Bill, Paring Profits
So much for the "affordability" of LNG locally.
Japanese importers of liquefied natural gas may have to pay an extra $3.5 billion to suppliers after fuel prices rose more than expected the past four years, said an official involved in the contract talks. Tokyo Electric Power Co. set aside $371 million to cover the higher costs for the year ending March 31. Osaka Gas Co. spokesman Toru Kinukawa said the utility may owe money to suppliers. Australia's North West Shelf LNG venture is negotiating higher prices with customers, operator Woodside Petroleum Ltd. said. Fuel costs already exceed limits set in gas contracts, said the official, who asked not to be named because of confidentiality agreements. The price for Japan's LNG imports is rising at the fastest pace in at least eight years, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The estimated increase would be 38 percent of last year's profits for Japan's biggest utilities. Bloomberg – 200802191725



Another LNG ruse from state PUC?
Commentary by Thomas Elias
When it comes to liquefied natural gas from distant foreign points, the California Public Utilities Commission wants it, and as soon as possible. The agency, designed early in the last century to protect consumers against rapacious utility companies, used deception to reach the 2004 decision that sparked the current round of plans to bring hyper-expensive LNG to the state in the face of federal forecasts indicating there is no need for it in the foreseeable future. Now two companies (Kern River Gas Transmission Co. and Spectra Energy Corp.) actively propose building new pipelines to bring far cheaper domestic natural gas from Wyoming to California, and the state Lands Commission maintains there is no established need to run pipelines across state coastal lands from offshore LNG terminals. Yet, the PUC will apparently spend much of this year on yet another misleading proceeding designed to allow utilities to make big profits on LNG. Long Beach Press-Telegram – 200802132105



US LNG tankers vulnerable to attack
The powerful US Government Accountability Office has questioned whether the
US Coast Guard can adequately monitor the safety of LNG tankers supplying the US.

In a special report on maritime security and federal efforts needed to address challenges in preventing and responding to terrorist attacks on energy commodity tankers, the GAO says the Coast Guard lacks the means to meet its own criteria for protecting LNG tankers. The report comes as the US Coast Guard is in the process of assessing Woodside's innovative OceanWay LNG receival proposal off Los Angeles. The GAO study results from the US's heavy dependence on ship-based energy imports and the aftermath of September 11, 2001. The GAO report said the LNG supply chain faced three main types of threat: suicide attacks, such as by explosive-laden boats; "standoff" attack with weapons launched from a distance; and armed assaults. In the past five years, Australia has been stressing to US authorities the safety record of the industry as the US looks to increase LNG imports to meet its growing demand for natural gas.The Australian – 20080111
   •
MARITIME SECURITY ... Preventing and Responding to Terrorist Attacks
       on Energy Commodity Tankers
GAO
   •
U.S. lacks resources to guard LNG tankersReuters UK – 20080109
   •
Sempra puts LNG terminal project on holdSDU-T – 20080110



Natural gas supply is unreliable
Commentary by Thomas Elias
For many years, promoters of liquefied natural gas have billed their pet projects as a reliable new potential source of energy for California. So far, they've been stymied in all their efforts to build receiving and rewarming facilities in California for the subfreezing liquid gas they'd like to import from Indonesia, Malaysia, Australia and elsewhere. But no one in California could prevent San Diego-based Sempra Energy from building an LNG plant on the west coast of Baja California, Mexico, just north of Ensenada. About half the gas coming through that facility is earmarked for use in Mexico, mainly to help fuel the many maquiladora factories near the border. Sempra, parent company of both the Southern California Gas Co. and San Diego Gas & Electric Co., wants to bring much of the rest into California and last summer won permission from state authorities to extend its North Baja pipeline to a point near El Centro, from which gas could enter existing lines for use in California and Arizona.Press-Telegram – 20071129



NorthernStar LNG plan suspended
Coast Guard seeks answers to 400 questions
Stopping the clock in what was to be an accelerated environmental review process for a proposed offshore liquefied natural gas terminal, the Coast Guard has asked the company behind the Clearwater Port plan to address more than 400 safety and environmental issues before restarting the review. In a letter to Houston-based NorthernStar Natural Gas, Coast Guard and U.S. Maritime Administration officials who oversee deepwater port reviews said the company needed to provide more information on such things as why an offshore natural gas facility is needed and to what extent it would affect the environment. ... A joint state and federal environmental review and risk assessment for the proposal is currently under way. The public weighed in during meetings on issues the environmental review should explore, and the public will have a handful of other opportunities to comment on the proposal. Kira Schmidt, executive director of the Santa Barbara ChannelKeeper environmental group, said the decision to stop the clock was welcome news, giving her organization and others time for a more complete review. Under the accelerated review process, a final decision on the project could have been made by next summer, Schmidt said. That seems highly unlikely now. "Given the number of questions and the depth and difficulty of what was brought up, I don't see how those issues could be addressed in a short time," she said.Ventura County Star – 20071103

Oxnard councilman John Zaragoza. Beacon Foundation representative Jean Rountree, and CAUSE VP Carmen Ramirez listen to Port Hueneme Mayor Maricela Morales speak at an anti-LNG rally at Ventura Harbor. - Photo: Roger Pariseau
Oxnard city councilman John Zaragoza, Beacon Foundation representative Jean Rountree, and CAUSE VP Carmen Ramirez listen to Port Hueneme Mayor Maricela Morales speak against NorthernStar's proposed Clearwater LNG Port today at Ventura Harbor. The rally, attended by representatives from many area economic and ecologically-oriented organizations took place adjacent for NorthernStar's "whale watching" cruise out to Platform Grace.

New LNG plan off Oxnard revives debate
The battle over liquefied natural gas off the Ventura County coast revved up again Thursday with opponents and proponents squaring off over a new proposal. ... On Thursday, NorthernStar took about 115 people out on a boat ride to see the platform and watch whales. Less than 50 feet away from where the boat was docked at the Ventura Harbor, about 25 opponents waved signs and decried the company's Clearwater Port project. Critics said it would hurt marine wildlife in the nearby Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary, disrupt shipping and recreational boating, pose a security threat and possibly be damaged in an earthquake. They also questioned the need for liquid natural gas.Ventura County Star – 20070914
  • Video: No Clearwater PortMike de Martino – 20070915





What Is Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG)?
(California Energy Commission)

• LNGPOLLUTES.org •


• Coastal California Protection Network •


• EDC Anti-LNG Page •




Clearwater Port Application and related documents can be viewed at http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=Docket-
Detail&d=USCG-2007-28676
(Docket number 28676).

Questions regarding the proposed Project, the license application process, or the EIS/EIR process may be directed to: Ray Martin, USCG, (202) 372-1449 (Raymond.W.Martin@uscg.mil), Kevin Tone, USCG, (202) 372-1441 (Kevin.P. Tone@uscg.mil), Mr. Scott Davies, U.S. Maritime Administration, (202) 366-2763 (Scott.Davies@dot.gov), or Crystal Spurr, CSLC, (916) 574-2774 (spurr@slc.ca.gov).

Email Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger: governor@governor.ca.gov.
Email the Governor's Resources and EPA Chiefs:
   • Mike Chrisman: mike.chrisman@resources.gov
   • Terry Tamminen: tt@CalEPA.ca.gov



  Does NorthernStar have the money
     to build an LNG project?


  New Sandia Report of
     7 Mile LNG Vapor Cloud


  Leaks in new LNG fleet spur fears

  MUST READ! USGS Comments on
    Potential Geologic and Seismic
    Hazards Affecting Coastal Ventura
    County, California (USGS)
 



  USCG Standards/Links
  FERC Gas Pipelines
  FERC Consequence Assessment
     Methods for Incidents Involving
     Releases from LNG Carriers

  CA Energy Commission
  CA LNG Projects
  State Lands Commission
  Public Utilities Commission
  NorthernStar's Clearwater Port
  LNG Law Blog
  NASA Flywheel Battery Project  
  Tribology Systems, Inc. (Flywheel
     Batteries)
  Eaton Powerware (Flywheel
     Batteries)

  Pacific Environment's California
      Energy Program

  LNG: County caught in the crossfile
  Decision means natural gas stays high
  LNG: Danger to our Communities
  LNG-related Links
  Ratepayers for Affordable, Clean Energy

  The Methanol Economy
  LNG no early gas savior
  A new fuel fix: boon or bane?
  NPR: Oil vs. Alternatives?
  Risks/Reward of LNG
  Competing for Energy Resources, Part 1
  Competing for Energy Resources, Part 2
  LNG: Energy source, or target?
  FERC backs bogus study
   The bogus study itself (note long
        disclaimer at beginning!)

  Hazardous Seas
  Engineer lays out LNG risks
  LNG: Impact on Prices
  LNG liability limited
  Wildfires, Inversions, and LNG Spills

  Fiction: How it could happen...
  US lags on solar
  Hydrogen closer?
  Too much LNG?




Call (805) 488-0422 to learn how
you can help protect us and our
ocean from these projects.













Electricity does not explode. Direct current does not kill. Oxnard gets a lot of sun: Solar power is our answer.

One of the smaller LNG tankers
At three football fields in length, this is one of the smaller LNG tankers. These ships do not themselves run on natural gas but rather on maritime diesel fuel (high sulfur content, high flash point, low cost). So do most ocean-going vessels. "These ships run the dirtiest fuel available," Earthjustice attorney Martin Wagner said, pointing to the high-sulfur, metals-containing heavy bunker fuel used on ocean ships. Federal records prove that the EPA attempted to go much farther with this regulation but the Bush administration forced the agency to back off on both the stringency of the standards and the deadlines," Bluewater's Russell Long says. New regs are due in 2007. (Diesel Fuel News, May 12, 2003) So much for our air quality. . .


Some quick thoughts and some
hard questions about LNG:

The current Administration wants more natural gas to meet more than current and anticipated demands. The state likewise is leaning in that direction despite the absolute fact that California has no need for additional natural gas supplies. The Administration wants to fuel its hydrogen power program. Power cells and all that. Well, natural gas, by itself, is a cleaner and safer vehicle fuel than processed hydrogen. Go figure!

Some other ponderables:

  • The developers promise lower electricity rates should LNG be imported into California. That's a bald-faced lie. If the price of natural gas drops, the LNG operations will fold — there wouldn't be enough profit in it then for them. The proponents' other promises are equally invalid upon serious inspection.

  • When they strip methane for hydrogen, what's left? What happens to what's left?

  • When LNG spills into the ocean, what happens? Who is sure about this? Can they prove, rather than aver, their answers?

  • How would an LNG tanker stand up to fire from an M19-3 40mm Grenade Machine Gun? (Range is 1.5 miles; weapon weighs 72.5#; rate of fire: 350 rounds per minute)

  • How would an LNG tanker stand up to fire from an M252 81mm Mortar? (Range is 3.5 miles; rate of fire up to 30 rounds per minute; weapon weighs 90#)

  • How would an LNG tanker stand up to fire from shoulder-fired surface-to-surface missiles? (Range generally 3.5 miles; various types and warheads)

  • Please note, all the above weaponry can be handled by only two persons riding on a simple raft. Each is readily available on the Black Market.

  • U.S. Says 'Thousands' of Missiles Missing

  • There are no reliable records of LNG accidents involving ships of foreign registry outside US waters. On the other hand, there are no reported LNG-related accidents of LNG tankers under US registry anywhere in the world. Question is, how many LNG tankers have US registry? Answer: None.

  • LNG operations appear safe — at least on the surface — but what records that do publicly exist show many 'incidents' concerning older LNG plants. This is the normal course of human events: Something's been working well for a long time so the worker-bees and their bosses assume all remains o.k. Then the bad stuff happens.

  • Likewise, ultra-high-pressure gas pipelines have a similar track record but the length of time between installation and 'incident' is much less. No one responsible for installing these pipelines can be held responsible for such incidents. Local gas authorities, who do hold themselves responsible, do not begin to have deep enough pockets to recompense the damages.

An LNG tanker passed by condominiums in Charlestown on its way out of Boston Harbor. Mayor Thomas M. Menino has declared the LNG shipments too dangerous to continue.
Just to put things into proper perspective! This is Boston Harbor. Photo courtesy the Boston Globe.

Algerian LNG blast after it cooled enough for fire fighters to try to put it out.


Firemen try to douse LNG-caused fires at an Algerian reliquefication plant in January 2004. There's no hiding land-based accidents. . .





The Algerian cooling field as firemen squirt out flareups.







The cooling field. Initially thought to have been non-LNG related, officials later confirmed this blast was due to a leaking LNG tank that was ignited by an non-LNG related operation. Well, gee, let's see: Both local proposals have their pipelines entering Oxnard at electric generating plants. Both will have ground level structures for metering and the clean-out pig access. Surely there's not a spark to be found around them!


Algerian LNG blast at night Belgium LNG blast in daylight The pit left by the Belium LNG pipeline blast.
LEFT: Algerian fires at night.
CENTER: Fires from an LNG blast rise over Ath, Belgium, on July 30, 2004.
RIGHT: Blast pit from Belgium pipeline blast.

 
Bulgarian LNG-caused fires from afar long after the blastBulgarian LNG-caused fires from afar long after the blast
Fires and dense smoke rise over Belgium for most of the day on July 30, 2004. The blast killed 17 persons and injured more than 200 in the town of Ath, about 25 miles southwest of Brussels.

Page Originated: 12 Aug 04

Fremont North Neighborhood Council / LNG: More Harm Than Help / Webmaster                                                   544,896