July 13, 2006

Suffolk Moves to Ban Floating LNG Facilities Northender - Oyster Bay, NY Suffolk County Executive Steve Levy and the leaders of the Suffolk County Legislature announced today that they were filing a bill that would prevent the construction of LNG (Liquified Natural Gas) facilities in the waters of the Long Island Sound off Suffolk's north shore. The officials insist that there are several provisions within New York State Law that give the County regulatory authority over the Long Island Sound and its tidal waters within its borders.

July 12, 2006

Governor signs law restricting LNG tankers from Narragansett Bay Eyewitness News - East Providence, RI  PROVIDENCE, R.I. Rhode Island Governor Don Carcieri has signed a law effectively banning liquefied natural gas tankers from Narragansett Bay. Representative Raymond Gallison Junior says the law could hinder plans to build a 250-million dollar L-N-G terminal at Weaver's Cove in Fall River. The proposed site sits along the Taunton River. Rhode Island and Massachusetts officials have called the project dangerous. They say an accident or an attack on an L-N-G tanker moving through coastal waters could cause a massive fire or explosion.

June 21, 2006

Control Sought Over LNG Proposal Suffolk Life Newspapers - Riverhead, NY In response to New York State legislation that would put the Long Island Sound under state control, Suffolk County officials have announced their support of the bill, which they believe will aid in preventing a liquefied natural gas terminal from being built in the waters off Long Island.

Council blocks LNG facilities near homes Examiner.com The Baltimore County Council passed a bill Monday banning liquefied natural gas facilities within five miles of homes — essentially blocking the proposed LNG terminal at the Sparrows Point Shipyard — but project supporters are questioning the bill’s authority.

April 19, 2006

Sheriffs call for CHP Back-up at LNG Hearing in Malibu

The Rich, Famous and Typically Laid-Back Malibu Community Was in a Major Uproar Against LNG

CHP and Sheriff's deputies are called to control the angry crowd. Malibu Times by Hans Laetz   Catcalls, jeers and hisses greet Australian officials and ship captains who favor a proposal to anchor a liquefied natural gas ship off the shore of Malibu. CHP and Sheriff's deputies are called to control the angry crowd. From fears of the LNG tanks exploding and sending a fireball more than 14 miles wide to transfer pipes leaking and possible danger to wildlife from the use of seawater to cool the ship's generators were expressed at the meeting. Tim Riley, an Oxnard attorney who has fought LNG terminals for three years, noted that "the techniques for transferring this cryogenically frozen LNG from one ship to another has never been demonstrated anywhere on earth, and we will be the guinea pigs for this grand experiment that they assume will work out of the box."  

California dreaming draws flak for BHP  Sydney Morning Herald , Australia September 10, 2005 Environmentalist heat is blistering plans to export Australian gas to the US West Coast "With billions of export dollars at stake, Macfarlane, Woodside and BHP have suddenly discovered the dangers of underestimating the power of California's environmental lobby."  "Tim Riley, a lawyer who lives by the beach in Oxnard Shores and works in Malibu, has helped lead a movement in actively opposing the project in his spare time. While some citizens have organised rallies, Riley has used his multimedia talents to spur opposition."

February 23, 2006

EHRLICH, RUPPERSBERGER FIND FAULT WITH LNG PROPOSAL Dundalk Eagle - Dundalk, MD Two of the state's top elected officials have joined the mounting criticism over a liquefied natural gas (LNG) plant being proposed for the former Sparrows Point Shipyard... Across the water, about 150 people showed up at the monthly meeting of the Wells-McComas Community Improvement Association on Feb. 15 to watch the 45-minute film The Risks and Danger of LNG produced in California about the dangers of LNG plants. “They didn't want an [LNG] plant 14 miles off the coast of Oxnard [Calif.],” Well-McComas president Fred Thiess said after watching the film. “And [AES] wants to put one less than 2 miles from homes here on the bay.” After watching the film, an executive from AES Corp. and one from Ecologix, a Baltimore-based firm that is working with communities on the project, fielded questions and were subjected to a barrage of criticism from the standing-room-only crowd.

    NOTE: Others who are also interested in obtaining usage rights to the film for public screenings must contact the Law Office of Tim Riley at 805-984-2350 to discuss the fees and terms for such authorization which must be in writing. The licensing fees help us offset the administrative costs in providing vital information worldwide about the risks and danger of LNG.

February 9, 2006

COMMUNITY LEADERS WATCH MOVIE, OBJECT TO GAS PLANT Dundalk Eagle - Dundalk, MD "Some community leaders hope a 45-minute movie will help put the kibosh on a proposed liquefied natural gas plant at the former Sparrows Point Shipyard, according to Carolyn Jones, president of the Greater Dundalk Alliance.... About 60 people showed up at The Poplar restaurant Saturday morning to view the film LNG: Its risks and danger, (The Risks and Danger of LNG) produced by California-based filmmakers Tim and Hayden Riley..."

October 12, 2005

LNG firm seeks quick OK on plan from state: Foes question motive for fast-track effort  HULL - The energy company planning a liquefied natural gas terminal on a Boston Harbor island wants state legislators to clear the way for the project by the middle of next month, prompting skeptics and opponents to fire off accusations that the approval process is being rushed.  Residents will have the opportunity to watch a film that chronicles fiery, deadly disasters at LNG structures in Cleveland and Algeria, courtesy of Selectman Ronald Davy, who arranged the screening. The tag line is ‘‘the LNG movie the energy industry doesn’t want you to see.’’ ‘‘The Risks and Danger of LNG’’ was produced by Tim and Hayden Riley, a pair of anti-LNG activists from Oxnard Shores, Calif. 

UPSTREAMonline.com  November 14, 2003

"Tide Turns as LNG Protests Grow"  

“Hot topic: the prospect of LNG landing facilities in the vicinity of metropolitan areas along the US Gulf coast and near Los Angeles (top) have stirred up a hornets nest as protesters mobilize to block the plans due to safety concerns. California's new governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, whose constituents have experienced major fires up close in recent weeks, will face tough decisions as the state's massive energy needs are counterbalanced by protesters' cries that an LNG mishap could lead to even greater devastation than that caused by the forest fires.”  Montage by Christian Andvik

UPSTREAMonline.com http://www.upstreamonline.com/news/ticker/splashticker.jsp  

"Industry is forced into rethink as opposition grows... " By Dann Rogers  Abstracts:

   ‘The Alabama lawyers are also going to sue the Port Authority to stop the sale of the property on the grounds that it is being undersold,’ says California personal injury lawyer Tim Riley, whose website TimRileyLaw.com is an unofficial US chatroom for anti-LNG campaigners. In California, Riley is promoting a letter-writing campaign to local lawmakers to oppose two offshore LNG plants proposed by BHP and local group Crystal Energy.

    At public hearings, he talks of a catastrophic LNG future filled with mass destruction and death as the super-cooled natural gas is ignited by either accident, negligence or a terrorist act.

    ‘Only the construction of nuclear energy plants on our beaches could be worse for all the communities from Santa Barbara to Malibu,’ says Riley on his website.

    ‘We can get by without the new LNG terminals if there is better regulation and penalties for the manipulation of the energy trading markets to artificially raise prices as was done a few years ago. I think things will be a lot better off for everybody without them,’ he says.

      Citizens say ‘not in my back yard’ for a variety of reasons, including fear of deadly explosions, traffic being halted if a tanker goes under a bridge, destruction of wetlands, disturbance of fishing grounds, devaluation of tourism potential and because many find mega-industrial facilities an eyesore."

                *About Upstream http://www.upstreamonline.com/news/frameset.jsp?page=live “Launched in November 1996, Upstream is one of the most respected newspapers in the oil and gas industry. The new 24-hour online service is generated by the very same expert reporters who consistently deliver top-quality stories. The service will provide round-the-clock news, five days a week, published 'real-time' from our offices in Asia, Europe and America. 

DOW JONES NEWSWIRE 11-19-03   1614 ET

As LNG Imports Soar, Safety Concerns Are Hotly Debated By Spencer Jakab of  Dow Jones Newswires   Full Story:

NEW YORK (Dow Jones) -- Surging U.S. imports of liquefied natural gas are facing a public backlash over the safety of the huge tankers used to transport the fuel.

Analysts expect LNG's market share to grow from just over 1% of overall gas supply last year to about 13% by 2025. Much of it is shipped in tankers that typically hold the equivalent of 20 billion gallons of natural gas and which some worry could be the target of terrorists.

"It's such a tremendous source of destruction that they don't need a bomb," said Tim Riley, a lawyer in Oxnard Shores, Calif., who has been a vocal critic of plans to build an LNG receiving terminal near his community.

Foes of LNG development point to the fact that the potential energy content of a single LNG tanker, which contains natural gas that is supercooled to 260 degrees Fahrenheit and concentrated to 1/600th of its normal gaseous volume, is equivalent to 700 tons of TNT or about 55 times the atomic bomb that destroyed Hiroshima.

But representatives of the industry and the U.S. Department of Energy insist that LNG has an admirable safety  record since large-scale commercial shipment began in the 1960s.

Doug Quillen, an executive with ChevronTexaco Corp. (CVX), writes: "Liquefied natural gas tankers have been run aground, experienced loss of containment, suffered weather damage, been subjected to low temperature embrittlement from  cargo spillage, suffered engine room fires, and been involved in serious collisions with other vessels - no cargo  explosions reported."

Critics, however, cite an LNG spill in Cleveland in 1944 of 5% of the volume contained in a modern tanker that left 128 people dead and 225 injured. The industry counters that it has since learned much more about how to safely store the  supercooled liquid, including the use of double-hulled nickel-alloy tanks, and that storage and unloading facilities are no longer located near residential areas. "LNG tankers are inherently much more robust than typical crude, fuel and chemical tankers," according to Quillen.
 
Studies Say Tanks Could Be Ruptured
 
Opponents such as Riley are unconvinced. "Look at the USS Cole – forget double hulls." A study prepared for the Pentagon in 1982 by Amory and L. Hunter Lovins on energy security concluded of LNG tanks that "proneness to brittle fracture implies that relatively small disruptions by sabotage, earthquake, objects flung at the tank by high winds, etc. could well cause immediate, massive failure of an above grade LNG tank." A General Accounting Office study similarly concluded that "tanks afford limited protection even against non-military small arms projectiles."

But the industry's safety arguments point out that even if such an incident cannot be ruled out, LNG is not explosive, as proven by both laboratory tests and years of practical experience. A video statement by chemistry Nobel Prize recipient Dr. Alan Heeger on Shell's website says that  "anything capable of piercing a double-hulled carrier or storage tank would almost certainly ignite the escaping gas," thus limiting the fire to the immediate vicinity. Shell is part of Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. (RD).

Indeed, many countries, especially in East Asia and Europe that are far more dependent on LNG imports than the U.S. have never experienced such accidents. LNG is only flammable once it has turned back into gaseous form and only once it has reached a concentration between 5-15% in the air, its so-called "lower flammability limit" or LFL.

But LFL is what makes LNG so dangerous according to Riley. He points out that a local study done in 1977 said a severe 125,000 cubic meter tanker spill could create a vapor cloud that would spread up to 30 miles before ignition.

Energy executives, the DOE and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission have cited a study by Oklahoma-based QUEST consultants that analyzes various scenarios involving tank punctures and atmospheric conditions and concludes that any fire would remain relatively close to its source, about  470 feet, and would create "radiant flux levels" harmful to  humans within roughly 1,770 feet for a 5 meter puncture. This study was cited when LNG tankers were allowed to reenter Boston Harbor after a brief ban following the Sept. 11 attacks.
 
QUEST Study Becomes Source Of Controversy

As if the subject were not rancorous enough, now the QUEST study itself is a source of controversy. Prominent scientists, notably Dr. James Fay of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, have disputed its findings and have pointed out that it was never subject to peer review or submitted to a scientific journal. The author of the study even expressed surprise in an interview at its widespread use and said that it was done on short notice for what he understood to be internal purposes. For reasons that remain unclear, the DOE at one point denied commissioning the study but later backtracked when QUEST confirmed it was hired by the department.

Rep. James Markey, who represents the district in Massachusetts where one of the four U.S. LNG import facilities is located, demanded clarification in public letters to Energy secretary Spencer Abraham and FERC Chairman Pat Wood on Nov. 7. "It's peculiar given that the author of the study said it was a quick and dirty study and not meant for these purposes," said Jeff Duncan of Markey's office.

Professor Fay, an expert on hazardous material dispersion, says the extent of spills could go well beyond proposed site boundaries for sites being planned. He wrote earlier this month: "For all credible spills, including terrorist attacks on the storage tank and LNG tanker, the danger zone for humans extends nearly two miles from the terminal site," a distance several times greater than the QUEST study suggests.

Whatever the outcome of the safety debate, observers of the industry doubt that development can be halted due to the  pressing economic need for such facilities. The only exception would be if there were an accident that put a chill on development the way that the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl events stopped the nuclear industry in its tracks.

Ben Smith, an LNG expert and managing partner of gas industry watcher Enercast.com, thinks that protests may delay development or make it more expensive but won't halt it. "You have to compare it to the alternatives and right now LNG is the best option," he said. Still, he says that concerned citizens such as Riley play an important role. "We  need these people out there lobbying so that the right precautions are in place."

By Spencer Jakab, Dow Jones Newswires; 201-938-4377;
spencer.jakab@dowjones.com
 
(END) Dow Jones Newswires

            Ask Yourself...

Should we willingly permit such a dangerous industrial enterprise into our residential communities?

Should we be forced to live with the dangers of LNG and take such devastating risks of losing our homes, lives and families just so the energy 

industry can pipe its profits through our residential neighborhoods?  

Should we as patriotic Americans stand idly by while energy consortia try to make us more dependant on foreign fuel? 

Should we willingly invite major terrorist targets into our peaceful communities? 

Should we believe the energy industry when they say LNG is safe?

Should we believe the energy industry has our best interests at heart?

March 12, 2004 PLATTS.com Inside FERC’s Gas Market Repor    Full Story: http://www.platts.com/Natural%20Gas/Resources/ 

McMoRan proposes offshore LNG plant as Opposition mounts against offshore plants    Abstracts:

“According to Tim Riley, an Oxnard-based attorney who has concerns regarding the dangers posed by LNG terminals, the bottom line is that “the danger is in the massive quantity of this dangerous gas in one place.”

Riley believes that offshore LNG terminals are potentially more dangerous than onshore terminals. “In terms of offshore, LNG is far more dangerous in water than on land,” he asserted.

Riley explained there is no way to confine an offshore spill and prevailing winds, which is typical in the vicinity of an ocean, will exacerbate the situation, he said. “As I read old [U.S.] Bureau of Mines reports and Coast Guard reports, they are mindful that vapor fumes will drift with the wind. The water source is going to act as a huge boiling space until it reaches an ignition source” that would most likely be on land, Riley noted.”

“Riley argued that Platform Grace would be a safety hazard as it was situated “in unprotected seas where there could be gale force winds and tremendous current.” He also pointed out that with a floating platform, both the platform and ship would be moving with the water as LNG is being unloaded, thus increasing the chances of a potential accident. “These offshore LNG terminal projects are untried and unproven. LNG is far too dangerous for trial and error,” Riley said. Renewable energy is the way to go, he added.”

March 16, 2004 LA Times  Full STORY: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lng16mar16,1,7853845.story?coll=la-headlines-california

Residents Decry Plan for Gas Platform

Government officials are urged to reject a proposed facility off the Ventura County coast.    Abstracts:

    Dozens of upset Oxnard residents urged state and federal officials Monday to kill an Australian company's plans for a liquefied natural gas facility 14 miles off the Ventura County coast.

     ...to most of the more than 200 residents at the afternoon meeting, the plant's purported benefits would pale beside its perceived dangers: terrorism, massive clouds of flame, environmental havoc in the waters off Channel Islands National Park, plunging property values and soaring public expense. 

    The safety of the LNG plant, the tankers supplying it and the pipelines leading from it were far and away the crowd's biggest concerns. A number of speakers cited an environmental report commissioned by the city of Oxnard when an onshore LNG facility was proposed there in 1977. The study forecast that as many as 70,000 people could die in a cloud of flame if an LNG tanker spilled its contents. 

    "Lives should trump economics," said Oxnard Mayor Manuel Lopez, who was a city planning commissioner during the previous LNG debate. "With 900 miles of coastline in California, it should be possible to find a place where people won't be put at risk."

    Tim Riley, an Oxnard attorney who has rallied LNG opponents through a website devoted to the issue, sounded the same theme. He pointed to the January blast at an Algerian LNG plant that killed 27, and to the 1944 LNG explosion that decimated downtown Cleveland and caused 128 deaths.

     "LNG does not harmlessly evaporate into the sky, as I hear ad nauseam in press releases," he said. "It can become an inferno and incinerate communities."

    "We're being presented with a guinea-pig project," he said. "What's going to happen 10 years from now? Will they say, 'Oops! We made a mistake!' ?"

      Riley also objected to the Coast Guard being given the responsibility for determining the project's safety — especially from terrorism.

    "You're between a rock and a hard place," he told Joe Angelo, the Coast Guard's director of standards. "No American military person will ever admit they can't protect America."

March 30, 2004  MSNBC.com  http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4629513/ 

Environmentalists plot battle to block liquefied natural gas plans

Declaring the issue to be as dangerous to the coastal environment as offshore oil drilling, about three dozen local activists and representatives of statewide environmental groups met Monday in Santa Monica to develop a unified strategy to fight a handful of proposals to establish liquefied natural gas terminals in California.

"This issue is the next offshore oil, and the public is largely uninformed," said Susan Jordan of Santa Barbara, director of the California Coastal Protection Network. "The public just doesn't understand what this issue is ... We have to raise the public profile before we proceed."

The meeting was the first time statewide environmental groups have come together to discuss the issue, in response to individual energy proposals in Oxnard, Long Beach, Eureka and along the Baja California coast. Until now it has been mostly debated on the local level.

Among those attending were representatives of the Sierra Club, the Environment Defense Fund and the Natural Resources Defense Council.

A decision last week by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission asserting exclusive federal jurisdiction over the siting of liquefied natural gas terminals added urgency to the meeting, Jordan said.

"We have significant concerns at the federal level," she said. "There are elements in the energy bill that make liquefied natural gas in California a foregone conclusion. It's another 'punish California' move. Not only are they pushing it, but they're taking control."

The group will urge Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's administration to lobby Congress to examine the cumulative effects of the various California proposals and to fight the FERC ruling that would strip state agencies of the authority to decide where terminals and processing facilities should be situated.

Proponents of LNG say it is essential that the United States develop processing facilities so that it can import natural gas. The process of liquefication, in which gas is cooled to minus 259 degrees, makes it economically feasible to ship natural gas in tankers, since the liquid form occupies only one six-hundredths of the space of the fuel in its gaseous form.

There are four terminals in the United States where liquefied natural gas can be pumped from tankers, returned to gas and then distributed via pipeline to power plants, businesses and homes that use the fuel for generating electricity, powering machinery or heating and cooking. None of the terminals is on the West Coast.

Two of the California proposals envision offshore facilities that would include underwater pipelines that would come ashore underground in Ventura County.

BHP Billiton proposes to establish a floating terminal 14 miles off the county's southern coast. Crystal Energy seeks to convert Platform Grace, an existing offshore oil platform 12.6 miles due west of Oxnard, to an LNG terminal. In each case, the liquid would be converted back to gas at the facility, then shipped through pipelines to a Southern California Gas Co. facility near Ventura.

Supporters say the technology has been safely implemented internationally and is a safe and reliable way for the United States to meet its demand for natural gas now that domestic supplies have become more scarce.

Opponents say the potential for a catastrophic fire -- set off, perhaps, by an earthquake or a terrorist attack -- is too great, and that the billions that would be spent to build terminals would increase domestic reliance on imported energy and divert potential investment in alternative energy sources.

Oxnard attorney Tim Riley, a leading opponent of the local proposals and a critic of the LNG industry nationwide, was at the meeting Monday.

He said most who were there were concerned that the Bush administration "is going to use California as an energy dumping ground."

Riley agreed that it is essential for opponents to educate the public about the nature of the proposed operations and the potential for accidents.

"The more people learn about it, the more the groundswell of opposition grows and grows," he said. "I have to trust in the intelligence of the people. So far, they're only hearing about this issue from the energy industry's side."

The group plans to meet again in a month. Members did make one strategic decision on Monday: They decided to always refer to the substance as "liquefied natural gas" rather than its acronym "LNG."

"We want people to stop using an acronym that conveys nothing," Jordan said.

Copyright 2004, Ventura County Star. All Rights Reserved.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Strong Community Opposition Works.  You Can Help Stop ¤LNG¤ By Contacting Your Local Officials

The City of Vallejo Rejected LNG... 

  June 25, 2003      LA Times     

“Recent LNG projects in California have had a rough time.  A terminal proposed… near Vallejo, Calif., was abandoned in January in the face of significant community opposition and a weak economy.”

September 24, 2003

The Associated Press

http://www.turnto10.com/news/2508592/detail.html 

Fall River, Massachusetts City Council Votes to

Oppose LNG Terminal

    The resolution passed overwhelmingly 7-2, and declared opposition to a proposed liquefied natural gas importation terminal and docking facility.

    Majority declaring that the LNG importation facility would be "located too close to residential areas in the event of a major accident or terrorist attack."

April 19, 2004

The Providence Journal  

projo.com

LNG hearing draws new foes of terminal

http://www.projo.com/massachusetts/content/projo_20040419_fr19lng.1d51ca.html  

 BY JESSICA RESNICK-AULT

     FALL RIVER -- The concerns were the same, but new voices were added to the mix on Friday as politicians and residents slammed a plan to build a liquefied natural gas import terminal in the city's North End.

     More than 100 people packed a small staff lunch room at Bristol Community College, testifying before state legislators who serve on the Homeland Security and Public Safety Committees.

May 4, 2004

Herald News 

Thousands speak out against proposed LNG

Full Story: http://www.heraldnews.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=11433652&BRD=1710&PAG=461&dept_id=99784&rfi=6

DANIEL FOWLER

 ABSTRACTS:

             FALL RIVER -- While representatives from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the agency that will decide whether Weaver’s Cove Energy, LLC can construct a liquefied natural gas facility in Fall River, are in the city today to tour the proposed site, during the past seven weeks thousands of people have signed a petition opposing the project.

            The Coalition for the Responsible Siting of LNG Facilities, a local group that formed to oppose Weaver’s Cove’s plan, last week sent copies of 4,000 signatures to the FERC, Attorney General Thomas Reilly, Gov. Mitt Romney and the local senatorial and congressional delegation.

May 5, 2004

Herald News

Demonstration Fortifies Opposition 

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=11441502&BRD=1710&PAG=461&dept_id=99784&rfi=8

DANIEL FOWLER , Herald News Staff Reporter 

FALL RIVER -- Though it remains to be seen if it will help persuade the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission not to approve the proposed liquefied natural gas facility slated for the former Shell Oil site, opponents of the project turned out at the site en mass Tuesday afternoon to protest the plan.  

The rally, organized by Mayor Edward M. Lambert Jr. attracted roughly 200 people including residents of Fall River and surrounding communities, area politicians like Rep. David B. Sullivan, D-Fall River, city councilors and aides for both U.S. Reps. Jim McGovern and Barney Frank, D-Mass.

The demonstration took place just prior to a site tour by FERC representatives so they were there to witness the community’s resistance. 

According to Robert Arvedlund, one of the four FERC officials on-site Tuesday, the commission was already aware of the opposition to the project, but the demonstration "will fortify it."

 "I think it was a healthy turnout," he said. "I will report back to the commission the opposition."

Arvedlund said the commission would take the community’s concerns into consideration when deciding whether to approve the project.

"They have a right to be concerned from a safety standpoint," Arvedlund said.

May 10, 2004 

Letter Regarding Fall River LNG Proposal 

FROM  MASSACHUSETTS  STATE  REPRESENTATIVE  DAVID B. SULLIVAN

May 12, 2004

The Herald News

http://www.heraldnews.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=11631493&BRD=1710&PAG=461&dept_id=99784&rfi=6

 In related news, Lambert announced Tuesday that the Bristol Town Council, voted to support Fall River’s opposition to the LNG facility.

On March 24, Lambert sent a letter to the Chairman of the Bristol Town Council and to the Bristol Town Administrator asking the council to take a vote to go on record in opposition of the proposed LNG facility.

The council voted unanimously to oppose the facility late last month.

"Certainly a more remote area seems to be the appropriate place to consider constructing such a facility," Council Clerk Diane Mederos said in a letter to Lambert.

Lambert said he was pleased with Bristol’s stance.

"It further demonstrates that opposition to this ill-conceived proposal to site an LNG terminal in a heavily populated, urban neighborhood is growing," Lambert said.

"I hope that other communities in Rhode Island that I have contacted will also follow up by taking similar votes."

Lambert sent letters to Town Council presidents and town administrators in a number of Rhode Island communities along the proposed LNG tanker route to Fall River.

The communities include Bristol, East Providence, Jamestown, Middletown, Newport, Portsmouth and Tiverton.

"We need to continue to demonstrate a strong and growing opposition to this proposed LNG project to all of our state leaders and agencies in both Massachusetts and Rhode Island and to the federal government," Lambert said.

"The importance of a united front in this battle cannot be overstated."

©The Herald News 2004 

June 11, 2004

The Herald News

Mayor contacting Hess LNG

 http://www.heraldnews.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=11933118&BRD=1710&PAG=461&dept_id=99784&rfi=6

 DANIEL FOWLER , Herald News Staff Reporter  

ABSTRACTS

FALL RIVER -- After months of telling officials from both the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and Weaver’s Cove Energy that the city opposes having a liquefied natural gas facility sited in Fall River, Mayor Edward M. Lambert Jr. began the process Thursday of informing Amerada Hess Corp., the newest player in the saga, of the city’s resistance to the plan.

 Last week, Amerada Hess purchased a 50 percent stake in the project from Poten & Partners LLC, the parent company of Weaver’s Cove.

 "I have a call in to their CEO, Mr. John Hess," Lambert said. "I expect he’ll get back to me. I just want to introduce myself to talk about the community’s opposition and to express a willingness on my part to meet with him and his people in New York, if necessary, to make a case for the community’s opposition."

 "I want to make sure they made an informative investment," Lambert said. "I’m going to make it very clear that we think this is a dangerous project for the city and that their (participation in it) would create ill will toward the company."

 ©The Herald News 2004 

June 26, 2004,   Community Opposition to LNG in Fall River, MA

April 18, 2004

Camden Village Soup