Natural gas – it burns more cleanly and efficiently than the coal or oil. And unlike nuclear power, natural gas is NOT radioactive. Perhaps you use it for heating your home. Perhaps it fuels the power plant that provides electricity to your business. Perhaps your town is experimenting with natural gas-fueled public vehicles. Even if none of these things apply to you, natural gas is still an important part of your life if you eat conventionally grown fruits and vegetables; anhydrous ammonia fertilizer is made from natural gas.
Demand for natural gas is rising. The EIA—The Energy Information Administration—is forecasting that total natural gas consumption in the United States will increase from 22.0 trillion cubic feet in 2003 to 30.7 trillion cubic feet in 2025. The EIA also says that natural gas is the world’s fasted growing primary energy source.
But natural gas is a finite resource and North American production is not keeping up with demand. According to Cambridge Energy Research Associates, gas production in the United States, excluding Alaska, now appears to be in permanent decline. Under NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, Canada exports about 60% of its natural gas to the United States. But last year’s EIA International Energy Outlook, reported that Canadian imports to the US dropped by nearly 8% in 2003. And the Department of Energy is estimating that Alaskan natural gas will not reach Lower 48 markets before 2018. The multi-billion dollar pipeline that would bring the gas south has yet to be built.
And Mexico is a net natural gas importer.
Tamara Young-Allen, a spokesperson for FERC, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, outlines the problem this way:
AMERICA’S SUPPLIES ARE DWINDLING AND WILL NOT BE ABLE TO MEET THE INCREASED DEMAND FOR NATURAL GAS BY THE YEAR 2008. SO, THE COMMISSION FEELS THAT THERE IS A NEED FOR ADDITIONAL LNG TERMINAL SERVICE IN THIS COUNTRY.
LNG stands for Liquefied Natural Gas. The United States currently gets over three-quarters of its LNG from Trinidad and Tobago, an island nation off the coast of Venezuela. Most of the rest comes from Algeria and Nigeria. During a press conference in Moscow on May 25, 2005, US Energy Secretary Sam Bodman said that Russia would begin supplying LNG to the United States in about 7 to 10 years.
Natural Gas is liquefied by cooling it to minus 260 degrees Fahrenheit, about minus 161 degrees Celsius, at a plant designed for this purpose in an LNG-exporting country. LNG is transported overseas in specialized double-hulled tankers, to an LNG terminal.
The FERC web site--triple w dot F E R C dot G O V--has maps listing the locations of existing, proposed and potential LNG terminals in North America. As of May 17, 2005, the FERC maps listed 5 existing LNG terminals in North America: one each in Everett, MA; Cove Point, MD; Elba Island, GA; Lake Charles, LA, and in the Gulf of Mexico.
There is also another existing terminal in Penuelas, Puerto Rico.
The construction and operation of an LNG terminal is a highly regulated business. In the United States, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the U.S. Maritime Administration and the US Coast Guard must approve the project. Canada, Mexico and the Bahamas have their own approval processes.
An LNG terminal is considered proposed when a project sponsor submits permit applications to the proper authorities.
Potential terminals are sites that have been identified by project sponsors, but have not yet been formally proposed by the sponsors to the permitting authorities.
According to the FERC maps, as of May 17, 2005, a total of 58 sites in North America: meaning Canada, the United States, Mexico and the Bahamas, were listed as potential, proposed, or approved by at least one governmental authority.
Not all the proposed sites will actually be built. According to the FERC web site “the market ultimately determines whether an approved LNG terminal is ever built. Even if an LNG terminal project receives all of the federal and state approvals, it still must meet complicated global issues surrounding financing, gas supply and market conditions. “
Or as FERC’s Young-Allen put it:
WE DO NOT SOLICIT APPLICATIONS. WE PROCESS THE APPLICATIONS THAT ARE SUBMITTED TO [SIC] THE INDUSTRY, WHICH HAS DONE THEIR OWN ANALYSES AND DETERMINED WHERE THEY WOULD LIKE TO PLACE THEIR INVESTMENT DOLLARS.
The federal government and the LNG industry both favor more import terminals, though there is some disagreement as to how many. On May 26, 2005, FERC Chairman Pat Wood III told the Natural Gas Roundtable in Washington D.C. that the United States needs 7-9 new import terminals and expansions at 3 existing terminals this decade. This statement came 11 months after Chevron-Texaco Chairman David O’Reilly made a speech to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in Washington D.C. in which he said, “most forecasts estimate that 10 to 14 new import terminals will be needed by 2015 to meet projected demand.”
FERC is currently considering proposals for terminals in populated areas, such as the Long Island Sound, which is in the New York Metropolitan area, Providence, Rhode Island, Corpus Christi TX and Long Beach, California.
But is it safe to put LNG terminals in populated areas?
In looking at this issue, it is important to note the difference between hazards and risks. A hazard is something that can go wrong with a project. A risk is the probability that the hazard will occur. Then there is a third factor: acceptability of risk, in other words: are the benefits of a project worth the risks of the project’s hazards?
When groups are at odds over the safety of a project, typically the opponents of the project emphasize the hazards, while the proponents emphasize a low risk that the hazards will occur. So it is with LNG import terminals.
For example, a proposal to FERC has been made for an LNG terminal in Fall River, Massachusetts, a town of a little over 90,000 people near the Massachusetts-Rhode Island border, about 20 minutes from Providence and about an hour from Boston.
Several towns dot the Massachusetts and Rhode Island coast. The Fall River project has raised concerns among residents of towns such as Sommerset and Swansea, Massachusetts, and Jamestown, Tiverton, Portsmouth and Newport, Rhode Island.
Gordon Shearer, CEO of Weaver’s Cove Energy, the company that wants to build the Fall River terminal, says there’s a need to site LNG facilities near populated areas:
UNFORTUNATELY, WE’RE IN A SITUATION IN THIS COUNTRY WHERE WE NEED TO GET THE GAS TO WHERE THE CUSTOMERS ARE, AND THAT GENERALLY MEANS THERE’S A LOT OF PEOPLE AROUND. AND UNFORTUNATELY, PARTICULARLY IN THE EAST COAST, WHERE WE’VE GOT THE BIGGEST DEMAND AND THE LEAST ACCESS TO SUPPLY, THE COAST IS CROWDED, THERE IS NO WAY AROUND IT.
AND THERE ARE VERY LIMITED NUMBER OF SITES THAT ARE SUITABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT FOR LNG IMPORTATION.
Joe Carvalho, of Fall River Mass, is Chair of the Coalition for the Responsible Siting of LNG Terminals. He says his group does not object to LNG per se. But:
WE DO FIND IT LUDICROUS TO THINK THAT YOU WOULD PUT THE LARGEST TANK PROPOSED IN THE UNITED STATES IN AN AREA WHERE THE CLOSEST DWELLING IS 1200 FEET AWAY. AND WHERE 9,000 PEOPLE RESIDE WITHIN A ONE-MILE RADIUS OF THE PROPOSED TANK.
N ADDITION TO THAT, THESE SHIPS ARE A THOUSAND FEET LONG, 145 FEET WIDE, AND CARRY UP TO 30 MILLION GALLONS OF LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS.
But Shearer says that opponents of the Fall River project exaggerate the nearness of the proposed terminal to people’s homes:
F YOU LISTEN TO THE OPPOSITION SIDE OF THE STORY, IT WOULD SOUND LIKE WE’RE SORT OF PLOPPING THIS DOWN BETWEEN THE LITTLE LEAGUE BALL FIELD AND THE LOCAL SCHOOL. IN FACT, THE AREA WE’RE LOCATING THIS TERMINAL IN IS ZONED FOR HEAVY INDUSTRY. IT IS THE SITE OF AN OIL TERMINAL THAT STORED 65 MILLION GALLONS OF GASOLINE. IT IS A HEAVILY INDUSTRIALIZED AREA. IT’S SITUATED IMMEDIATELY ACROSS THE RIVER FROM A LARGE COAL-FIRED POWER PLANT.
WE ARE NOT SITTING IN A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. WE ARE SITTING IN AN INDUSTRIALLY-ZONED, HEAVY INDUSTRY PORT THAT’S BEEN USED FOR STORING FLAMMABLE HYDROCARBONS FOR DECADES.
There are a number of hazards connected with LNG terminals. This story will focus on physical hazards on land, unconnected with possible terrorist attacks.
First of all, natural gas is methane. Can methane explode?
UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES, WITH METHANE, THERE’S SIMPLY NOT SUFFICIENT ENERGY FOR THE VAPOR TO EXPLODE.
Dr. Tom Spicer is head of the Ralph E. Martin Department of Chemical Engineering at the University of Arkansas.
TYPICALLY, THE SORTS OF TESTS THAT HAVE BEEN DONE ARE WHERE YOU MIX AIR AND THE FUEL THAT YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT, AND THEN PUT SOME SORT OF EXPLOSIVE CHARGE ADJACENT TO THAT FUEL MIXTURE, AND THEN SEE IF THE PEAK OVERPRESSURES THAT ARE MEASURED INDICATE THAT THERE WAS AN EXPLOSION THAT TOOK PLACE.
NOW, IN THOSE EXPERIMENTS, TYPICALLY LONGER-CHAIN HYDROCARBONS, SUCH AS BUTANE AND PROPANE, HAD TO BE PRESENT IN ORDER FOR SUCH A MIXTURE TO SHOW THIS PEAK OVERPRESSURE INCREASE THAT’S CHARACTERISTIC OF AN EXPLOSION.
NATURAL GAS, WHEN IT COMES OUT OF THE GROUND, IS TYPICALLY A MIXTURE OF HYDROCARBONS, METHANE BEING THE PREDOMINANT ONE. THOSE LONGER-CHAIN HYDROCARBONS, IF THERE’S A SUFFICIENT QUANTITY OF THEM, HAVE TO BE REMOVED BEFORE THEY CAN BE PUT INTO THE GAS TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS—THE PIPELINES.
The presence of propane contributed to a fire in an out-of-service LNG tank that was being repaired on Staten Island New York in 1973. The fire killed 40 workers.
The very flammability of natural gas, which makes it a desirable commodity, also makes it hazardous. People who oppose siting LNG terminals near populated areas fear that a gas leak from a terminal or an LNG tanker could cause a huge, uncontrollable fire that could devastate a neighborhood. If a supercold pool of liquefied natural gas spills, the LNG starts warming back into a gaseous state, forming a vapor cloud over the liquid pool. The cloud is denser than air and hugs the surface over which the LNG spills, be that ground or water. The natural gas cloud can ignite if it is mixed with 5 to 15% oxygen and comes into contact with an ignition source. Ignition sources include matches, cigarettes, candles, or live electrical wires. The cloud can then burn back towards the pool, setting that on fire.
Weather factors such as wind strength, can make a difference as to whether or not a vapor cloud poses a major threat to a populated area. Again, Tom Spicer:
BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT THE NATURAL GAS VAPOR IS DENSER THAN AIR WHEN IT COMES OFF THIS LIQUID POOL, IT ACTUALLY DISPLACES THE ATMOSPHERIC FLOW IF THE ATMOSPHERIC FLOW IS SUFFICIENTLY CALM. SO THE NET RESULT IS, UNDER THESE CALM WIND CONDITIONS, OR VERY LOW SPEED WIND CONDITIONS, YOU CAN HAVE A SITUATION THAT ACTUALLY ENHANCES THE POTENTIAL HAZARD.
OBVIOUSLY, THE OPPOSITE IS TRUE, IF YOU GOT VERY HIGH WINDS, THEN ANY SORT OF VAPOR THAT’S EVOLVED IS GOING TO BE QUICKLY DISSIPATED IN THE ATMOSPHERE.
Spicer also says that an LNG fire is not easily put out:
THERE ARE INSTANCES OF LNG FIRES THAT HAVE BEEN PUT OUT. THE ISSUE IS WHETHER THEY ARE CONTROLLED ENOUGH IN SUCH A WAY THAT YOU CAN ACTUALLY PUT THEM OUT. THERE ARE POSSIBLE SCENARIOS WHERE YOU MIGHT HAVE SUFFICIENT LOSS OF CONTAINMENT THAT THEY COULD NOT BE EXTINGUISHED. THEY WOULD SIMPLY HAVE TO BURN OUT.
When fire suppression is attempted, special chemical foams are used instead of water. Fire tugs would be needed to put out an LNG fire burning on a river or bay. Joe Carvahlo says this is a problem for smaller, poorer towns like Fall River, Massachusetts:
OUR FIRE CHIEF TELLS US THAT HE COULDN’T PUT OUT AN LNG FIRE. WE’RE A CITY THAT’S CASH-STRAPPED AS IT IS. WE DON’T HAVE A FIRE TUG.
LNG pool fires are very hot and can burn people a considerable distance away from the source. Federal regulations for LNG terminal safety have incorporated standards set by the NFPA—the National Fire Protection Association, an international non-profit organization that serves as an authority on public safety practices. A report called Liquefied Natural Gas Terminals: Siting, Safety and Regulation, issued by the Congressional Research Service on January 28, 2004, has noted that the NFPA’s limit for thermal radiation from an LNG fire would burn an exposed person within approximately 30 seconds, but not burn a wooden building. The NFPA has acknowledged to the Congressional Research Service that its thermal radiation limit was “somewhat arbitrary,” but that, based on its field experience, it saw no need to revise the limit.
And this brings us to the issue of risk.
The current track record of the LNG industry suggests there is low risk of death or injury to the public through the operation of LNG terminals. Japan, South Korea and Taiwan get virtually all their natural gas via LNG imports. The California Energy Commission has reported that in earthquake-prone Japan, 24 out of 40 LNG terminals are near major cities such as Tokyo and Osaka. And the Congressional Research Service has noted that LNG terminals have been operating in Barcelona, Spain and Fezzano, Italy since 1969, Everett, Massachusetts, since 1971 and Pyongtaek, Korea since 1986, all near populated areas,… all without a serious accident affecting the public.
Here’s a clip from a short video called “LNG: The Safe, Clean Energy Choice” released in November of 2004 by the CLNG or Center for Liquefied Natural Gas. The CLNG is a broad coalition of energy trade associations, natural gas producers, end users and others, that serves as a clearinghouse for LNG information:
THE LNG INDUSTRY HAS BEEN PRODUCING, TRANSPORTING, AND DELIVERING LNG AROUND THE WORLD. IN FACT, LNG SHIPS ARE AMONG THE SAFEST AND MOST RELIABLE VESSELS AT SEA TODAY. THEY’RE BUILT UNDER STRICT INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS, AND EQUIPPED WITH ADVANCED SHIPBOARD NAVIGATION SYSTEMS. THEY’RE DOUBLE-HULLED DESIGN OFFER ADDITIONAL PROTECTION. AND THE LNG TANKS ARE TOTALLY CONTAINED INSIDE THE INNER HULL.
LNG IS NOT PRESSURIZED TO KEEP IT IN ITS LIQUID STATE. IN THE HISTORY OF LNG, VERY FEW MISHAPS HAVE OCCURRED.
But these “mishaps,” some of which have been fatal, are worrisome to those who oppose siting LNG terminals in populated areas. The web site of the Coalition for the Responsible Siting of LNG Facilities has a short list of LNG accidents… the most disastrous of which occurred in Cleveland, OH, in 1944. At that time, the holding tanks failed, thus releasing the LNG. The ensuing vapor cloud traveled into the surrounding neighborhood and ignited. The fire devastated a one square mile area. One hundred twenty-eight people were killed, 225 were injured and 680 were left homeless.
Gordon Shearer of Weaver’s Cove Energy says that the Cleveland accident could not happen today:
THE INCIDENT IN CLEVELAND WAS ONE OF THE EARLIEST PLANTS EVER BUILT. THEY USED FAULTY EQUIPMENT FOR THE STORAGE OF THE PRODUCT. AND THEY HAD NO MEANS TO CONTAIN THE PRODUCT ON-SITE WHEN THE STORAGE TANK FAILED. SO WHEN THE STORAGE TANK COLLAPSED, WHICH IT DID BECAUSE OF POOR MATERIAL, THE LNG RAN OFF THE SITE, AND ESSENTIALLY EVAPORATED THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THEN CAUGHT ON FIRE. THAT COULDN’T HAPPEN TODAY BECAUSE WE USE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT MATERIALS. AND EVEN IN THE WORST CASE OF ASSUMING THAT THE PRIMARY STORAGE SYSTEM FAILED, THERE’S BACK UP STORAGE SYSTEMS THAT ARE DESIGNED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE PRODUCT COULD NEVER LEAVE THE SITE BOUNDARY. SO CLEVELAND COULD NOT HAPPEN TODAY.
On January 19, 2004, an accident at a gas liquefaction plant in Skikkda, Algeria killed 27 people and injured another 74. Again, Gordon Shearer says a similar accident could not happen in the United States: FIRST OF ALL, THAT WAS A LIQUEFACTION PLANT SO IT’S A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PROCESS THAN THE IMPORT TERMINALS. IT INVOLVES A LOT OF HIGH-PRESSURE GAS SYSTEMS, MAJOR STEAM BOILERS, A LOT OF OTHER HIGHLY FLAMMABLE, AND IN SOME CASES EXPLOSIVE, GASES LIKE PROPANE AND BUTANE; THEY’R USED IN THE PROCESSING SIDE OF THE EQUIPMENT. AND WHAT HAPPENED, AS FAR AS WE CAN TELL, IS THAT THERE WAS A LEAK OF ONE OF THOSE GASES NEAR A BOILER AND IT WAS SUCKED INTO THE BOILER AND CAUGHT FIRE. AND THE SPACE AROUND THERE WAS SEMI-ENCLOSED AND IT LED TO ANY EXPLOSION AND A SERIES OF FIRES THAT CASCADED THROUGH PART OF THE PLANT. HOWEVER, WHILE I THINK THERE WERE ABOUT, SADLY, 30 PEOPLE KILLED, THE CASUALTIES, THE PEOPLE WHO WERE KILLED AND INJURED, WERE ALL INSIDE THE PLANT, BECAUSE THE PLANTS ARE DESIGNED TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC. SO, THAT’S NOT TO DOWNRATE THE TRAGEDY OF THE ACCIDENT FOR THE EMPLOYEES. IT IS TERRIBLE. BUT IT COULDN’T HAPPEN IN A RECEIVING TERMINAL BECAUSE IT’S A DIFFERENT FACILITY. WE DON’T USE HIGH-PRESSURE STEAM BOILERS. AND, BY AND LARGE, WE USE MUCH MORE SOPHISTICATED GAS AND FIRE AND OTHER KINDS OF PROTECTION EQUIPMENT. SO THAT ANY KIND OF LEAK OF THE KIND THAT OCCURRED THERE WOULD BE DETECTED IN A U.S. PLANT AND THE PLANT WOULD BE SHUT DOWN INSTANTLY. I DON’T SEE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR ANYTHING REMOTELY LIKE THAT HAPPENING IN THE UNITED STATES. But could we see in the US a proliferation of export facilities that use the type of equipment and processes involved in the Algerian disaster? There is currently one LNG export terminal in the United States, in Kenai, Alaska. It exports LNG to Japan. Congress is leaving open the possibility that the United States will export as well as import more LNG, meaning that more liquefaction plants could be built on US territory. Section 320 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005—H.R. 6, covers LIQUEFACTION OR GASIFICATION NATURAL GAS TERMINALS. Section 320 would amend definitions section of the Natural Gas Act of 1938 to state that “liquefaction or gasification natural gas terminal includes all facilities located onshore or in State waters that are used to receive, unload, load, store, transport, gasify, liquefy or process natural gas that is imported to the United States from a foreign country, exported to a foreign country from the United Sates, or transported in interstate commerce by waterborne tanker.” Section 320 also sets out procedures for notice and hearing, “upon the filing of any application to construct, expand or operate, a liquefaction or gasification natural gas terminal…” FERC spokesperson Tamara Young-Allen says The Commission says that it takes the public’s concerns into account in its evaluation of proposals: WE DO THOROUGH SAFETY, ENVIRONMENTAL AND SECURITY REVIEWS FOR EACH PROPOSAL THAT IS SUBMITTED TO US. AND WE TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE PUBLIC’S CONCERNS ABOUT SAFETY AND SECURITY AND ENVIRONMENT, AND INCLUDE THAT IN ALL ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS, WHICH ARE OPEN FOR PUBLIC REVIEW AND FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. THE COMMISSION TAKES THESE ISSUES VERY SERIOUSLY. AND THEY TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNT WHEN THEY MAKE THEIR DECISIONS ON THESE PROPOSALS. A combination of factors determines whether or not an LNG terminal is sited in a specific place: government approvals, market forces, political relationships, the strength of organized opposition, and the balance between the need for the terminal and its risks. Some opponents of terminals in populated areas, like Joe Carvahlo, think the answer to the LNG problem lies offshore: WHY PUT IT IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS? THE TECHNOLOGY FOR OFFSHORE EXISTS. AS A MATTER OF FACT, APRIL, IT WAS A HISTORY-MAKING MOMENT, WHEN THE FIRST OFFSHORE FACILITY TOOK ITS FIRST DELIVERY IN THE GULF OF MEXICO. THAT WAS EXCELERATE ENERGY, A HOUSTON-BASED COMPANY, THAT GOT THE TECHNOLOGY TOGETHER AND CREATED THIS OFFSHORE, WHERE THE SHIP PULLS UP, TIES UP, AND OFFLOADS RIGHT INTO A PIPELINE THAT GOES RIGHT INTO THE SHORE. IT’S SOME 26 OR 30 MILES AWAY FROM THE COAST. THAT DOESN’T THREATEN 9,000 PEOPLE IF SOMETHING GOES WRONG. But offshoring has its hazards, risks, and opponents as well. For Global Public Media, I’m Kéllia Ramares. Transcript prepared by Kéllia Ramares.
