LNG ports proposed for Pascagoula pose unacceptable safety risks

By LOUIE MILLER, State Director of Sierra Club

It has been likened to a new gold rush. This time the “gold” is Liquified Natural Gas (LNG), a super-cooled form of natural gas imported from other countries. There are currently about 40 proposals for new LNG ports in the U.S.

Natural gas is a cleaner burning fuel than coal. Sierra Club is not opposed to all LNG ports. But it does oppose offshore “open loop” LNG terminals that propose using millions of gallons of seawater per day to heat up the LNG so it can be transported as gas in pipelines. The open loop system could result in major negative impacts to aquatic life in the already troubled Gulf of Mexico. One such open loop terminal is planned south of Dauphin Island, Ala.

In a best case scenario, LNG is imported into the U.S. safely, and is used to meet the energy needs of the country.

But what about a worst case scenario? Let’s consider Pascagoula, where onshore LNG ports are planned by Gulf LNG Energy and ChevronTexaco. These two ports are planned in close proximity to Naval Station Pascagoula; Northrop Grumman, one of the nation’s largest Navy shipyards; the ChevronTexaco refinery that produces 5.5 million gallons of gasoline per day; and other heavy industries such as DuPont First Chemical and Mississippi Phosphates.

Northrop Grumman and Naval Station Pascagoula increase the possibility of a terrorist attack. Northrop Grumman is where the USS Cole was built and then rebuilt after it was heavily damaged in a terrorist attack. A similar attack to the USS Cole where a small boat loaded with explosives was used to ram the Cole could be used against an LNG tanker. Only explosives wouldn’t be needed. The Department of Energy (DOE) has determined that a catastrophic release of LNG could result from a vessel collision. It has been estimated that the minimum beam-on striking speed to penetrate LNG cargo tanks is only three knots.

A terrorist attack on an LNG tanker “would have the force of a small nuclear explosion,” according to the chairman of Lloyd's, a British insurer.

There are concerns about the ability of the Coast Guard to adequately safeguard the LNG tankers. With huge resources going to the Iraq war, the Coast Guard has inadequate funding. Even if the Coast Guard was successful in guarding marine approaches, internal sabotage, a rocket-propelled grenade, or a kamikaze flight are other ways a LNG tanker could be turned into a huge bomb.

A LNG tanker accident could set off a fire so hot it would burn skin and damage buildings a mile or more away. A vapor cloud from a ruptured LNG tanker could potentially travel up to seven miles, depending on wind speeds, before igniting, according to the government Sandia research study (See http://fossil.energy.gov/programs/oilgas/storage/lng/sandia_lng_1204.pdf). That puts an even larger area at risk.

If a fire from LNG vapors spread to the ChevronTexaco refinery, it would create a catastrophe of the first order. It is taking an unjustified risk to locate a LNG terminal close to any other major industry with large quantities of flammable material onsite.

Because of safety concerns, LNG terminals should be at least two miles and preferably five miles apart from any other facility which uses flammable material. Terminals onshore should not be located within two miles of populated areas or military facilities that could attract terrorists.

For all these risks, what would be the benefits? There would be economic benefits during construction, and 30 to 50 permanent jobs at each facility. For that, we risk the entire population of Pascagoula and neighboring cities? The Naval Homebase? Northrop Grumman? And the ChevronTexaco refinery? The state’s most visited tourist attraction, the Gulf Islands National Seashore? This seems foolhardy even if you only consider economics.

The ChevronTexaco LNG terminal should be considered in light of the accident at First Chemical (now owned by DuPont) in October 2002. A First Chemical explosion sent a 2,000-pound piece of flaming metal flying 1,000 feet to land near Chevron fuel tanks. The Chemical Safety Board said Pascagoula narrowly escaped a major disaster.

The First Chemical incident shows a devastating accident with LNG could happen even if there are no terrorists involved and no errors on the part of the LNG company. While these tankers sit for the long hours it takes for them to be unloaded, what happens if there is a fierce storm that comes up, a ship coming into the harbor losses power, and it rams into the LNG tanker? What about safety during hurricanes? And how much marine area will have to be put off limits to recreational boaters and fishermen to protect the LNG shipments?

Another sobering consideration is what would happen to the price of gasoline if the U.S. if a major refinery producing 5.5 million in gas per day was destroyed. The resulting gasoline shortages could lead to drastically higher prices, and widespread harm to the economy.

Closed loop offshore LNG terminals are the best bet for safety. Closed loop systems provide opportunities to recover waste energy from the process of decompressing liquid natural gas, which can be used to generate electricity or otherwise do useful work.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has issued official orders stating unequivocally that the federal government, not the states, has the final say over where new LNG terminals can be built. To oppose the onshore LNG terminals for Pascagoula, contact Sen. Trent Lott at 228-762-5400 and Rep. Gene Taylor at 228-872-7950.

Liquefied Natural Gas: Caution!