LNG: Put People Above Profits

Wednesday, February 23, 2005

The Mississippi Press

To the editor:

We've heard a great deal from the advocates of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) in recent months suggesting that it is non-toxic, clean, very little risk to our environment, and that they are "assessing" the risk of accidental or purposeful terrorist catastrophes associated with its transportation and warehousing. I should like to shift the burden of proof on those that seek to profit from this venture.

I would like to request a copy of the independent research on humans claiming non-toxicity, as the only research I could locate was on fish by Dr. Stanislav Patin, which seems to contradict this statement:

"Medical toxicology distinguishes between three main types of intoxication by methane:

Light: results in reversible, quickly disappearing effects on the functions of central nervous and cardiovascular systems;

Medium: manifests itself in deeper functional changes in the central nervous and cardiovascular systems and increase in the number of leukocytes in the peripheral blood; and

Heavy: results in irreversible disturbances of the cerebrum, heart tissues and alimentary canal, as well as acute form of leukocytosis.

The results of these observations indicate the existence of a cause-effect relationship between mass fish mortality and large amounts of natural gas input into the water after the accidents.

The Gulf Coast recently received and "F" in air quality from the American Lung Association and currently has one of the highest cancer rates in the country. Despite America's obesity epidemic, cancer has now surpassed heart disease as the No. 1 killer of individuals under the age of 85, according the National Cancer Institute.

Two industries in the area, DuPont and ChevronTexaco, have already requested an increase in air emissions despite the increased risk for asthma, yet another increasingly common chronic disease exacerbated by pollution.

Mississippi's Coast is already at capacity for industrial pollution. ChevronTexaco cannot in good conscience allow for more contaminants in our children's air and water.

In regard to risk assessments concerning the community surrounding this facility, ChevronTexaco may have failed to mention a few LNG "mishaps."

The first LNG facility was located in Cleveland and had only one major accident. It incinerated one square mile of Cleveland, killing 128 and leaving 680 people homeless. Some compared it to Hiroshima after the bomb. The volume of this explosion represents only 5 percent of the capacity current tankers are able to hold. Industry will tell you it learned from this mistake, but once again, facts indicate otherwise.

In 1988, 30,000 gallons of LNG were spilled in Boston where the gas hung around for hours due to lack of wind. Only luck kept this from igniting.

January 2004: An LNG explosion in Algeria kills 24, causing $1 billion dollars in damage.

July 2004: A natural gas explosion near Belgium kills 15 and injures 120.

Lastly, there are a few environmental concerns that should be addressed briefly.

As early as Jan. 24 of this year, The Associated Press reported that global warming is at a critical point. Methane is yet another fossil fuel that contributes to this dangerous trend. To say natural gas is "clean" is extremely deceptive. Just because one of my children is covered in mud from head-to-toe does not make the other child who's merely muddy from the waist down "clean." Trees are clean. Methane gas is not.

And, for the nature lovers out there who somehow believe our ecosystem requires balance for the long-term survival of our own species, you may be interested to know that LNG "pipeline highways" are destroying habitats in fragile ecosystems in the Amazon, Russia and Asia.

LNG's extraction and transportation processes endanger the breeding habitat of gray whales, which are near extinction off of the coast of Russia. The Amazon basin is being destroyed and human rights violations of indigenous populations are yet another product of the extraction and transportation of LNG. And, drilling for gas in Bintuni Bay will have long-term impacts on the largest remaining mangrove reserve in Southeast Asia, the world's second largest mangrove ecosystem.

For additional information on the negative effects of LNG, I invite you to search the Web site www.LNGwatch.com.

As a graduate from the University of Maryland's College of Business and Management, I am fully aware of the necessity of hard work and profit. But a moral conscience must prevail.

First, do no harm. In 2003, ChevronTexaco's CEO, Dave O'Reilly, boasted net profits of $7.2 billion. In a country that can afford $35,000 sport utility vehicles whose fuel "inefficiency" hover around 12 miles per gallon and where the size of a new home has doubled in the past few decades, poverty is not as big a threat to this country as industrial accidents, cancer, asthma, global warming and species extinction.

How much profit must a multi-national corporation make before it will pursue renewable energy sources that will help alleviate these threats instead of looking for its next cash cow?

These issues are certainly a greater priority than the 50 average-wage jobs a new LNG facility will employ in this area. Does ChevronTexaco not boast the most hard-working and intelligent among us with the financial resources to make a real difference to life on this planet? Or, are they simply opportunists following nature's path of least resistance to yet more unprecedented profit?

Our children do not need the latest electronic game to sustain them. They need clean air, food and water.

Say no to additional industry along Mississippi's Coast. We have given more than our fair share of clean air, water and profit to this state.

Brenda Songy, Gulf Coast Chair, The Sierra Club

Liquefied Natural Gas: Caution!