“The Top Trial Lawyers in the Country”
DVD Price $39.95 plus S &
H
LNG SAFETY STUDIES UNDER FIRE
May 8, 2007 AP Centerpiece: Down in the bayou, America's natural gas future? Boston Globe Tim Riley, a lawyer and consumer advocate based in Oxnard Shores, Calif., said not enough is known about the potential hazards of an LNG spill for the government to be able to continue licensing terminals safely. "The sheer volume is what makes it eminently dangerous," said Riley, co-producer of a film called "The Risks and Danger of LNG." ALSO: LNG Plants Rising to Meet Energy Demand Forbes, NY; SEE ALSO: LNG Plants Rising to Meet Energy Demand International Business Times, NY
May 2, 2006 New Sandia Report of 7 Mile LNG Vapor Cloud Emediawire “This new Sandia 7 mile ‘worst case’ scenario is even more frightening than their earlier ‘worst case’ reported in December of 2004, which determined an offshore flammable LNG vapor cloud could extend approximately 2 miles,” said co-producer Tim Riley... In their film, The Risks and Danger of LNG, the Riley’s provide a vivid and riveting counter-point to the LNG industry safety claims by exposing the documented hazards of LNG. They point out the unreliability and inconsistency of LNG computer modeling, and urge the federal government to conduct large-scale offshore LNG spill tests. In the film Hayden Riley states, "We tested the nuclear bomb, we tested before sending man into outer space, yet our federal government still hasn't conducted the necessary large-scale LNG spill tests.” “Until these tests are performed and fully understood, the LNG approval process should be halted worldwide. This is one of the strongest messages of our documentary film,” said Tim Riley who also co-wrote the compelling movie.
The Energy Industry Claims: LNG CARRIERS ARE SAFE
BASIS: SELF-SERVING INDUSTRY REPORT
Created By Lloyd's Register
WHO IS… Lloyd's Register?
Query: Are They Associated With Lloyds of London?
According to Their Own Website They Are:
"Not to be confused with … Lloyd's of London, the international insurance market, with whom we are frequently confused."
Query: Are They Associated With LNG?
According to Their Own Website They Are:
“At the forefront of LNG technology, Lloyd's Register has been associated with the development and application of gas ship systems over many years. Its experience benefits the world's LNG operators - a market-leading share of over 30% of the LNG fleet in service is classed by Lloyd's Register.”
In November of 2001,
Lloyd's Register report:
CLAIMS: Tankers are safe because they have double hulls
Concluding: That the LNG Carriers were “Sufficiently Safe”
FACT: Just One Year Later
On October 6,
2002,
a small terrorist boat in Yemen
Rammed and pierced a double-hulled
French oil tanker Limburg causing a massive fire and spilling approximately 90,000 barrels of oil.
Terrorism now suspected in French tanker blast – Washington Post
The Double-Hull Safety Claim Is For The
NAÏVE & GULLIBLE
After Enron - 9/11 - USS Cole & the Alleged California Energy Crises
No One Is That Gullible Anymore
***
UNDER FIRE
Mobile Register *
10/19/03
“Scientists challenge study used to promote LNG safety
LNG supporters promote study data, but study's lead scientist tells newspaper his work was not designed to prove tanker ships safe for nearby communities ”
By BEN RAINES and BILL FINCH, Staff reporters, Mobile Register*
Full Story: http://www.al.com/news/mobileregister/index.ssf?/base/news/1066555410127601.xml
ABSTRACTS:
"Since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorists attacks, an obscure scientific study by a little-known Oklahoma consulting company has been widely used by federal officials to ease concern in U.S. communities about the dangers of liquefied natural gas."
"But the study's mild assessment of LNG fire dangers is generating a growing controversy in the scientific community, and even the study's author acknowledged in an interview last week that it is being misused by federal officials."
"Department of Energy officials and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission documents have promoted the Quest Consultants Inc. study as evidence that the public would have little to fear from any LNG tanker spills or resulting fires.”
‘The fire that would ensue ... would be of unprecedented size and intensity,’ wrote James Fay, professor emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, in a scientifically reviewed analysis of the Boston Harbor situation, which was cited in a 2002 report to Congress.’”
“Because Quest's numbers are so out of line with other studies, and because the company's assumptions and results have never been peer-reviewed, the ‘estimates must be considered to lack the credibility necessary for public confidence,’ said Jerry Havens, a University of Arkansas chemical engineering professor, whose scientific work lies at the heart of federal regulations for LNG terminals.”
Copyright 2003 al.com
* 2002 OAKES AWARD FOR ENVIRONMENTAL JOURNALISM WENT TO MOBILE REGISTER FOR SERIES ON MERCURY IN FISH AND AWARDED TO BEN RAINES of the Mobile Register for an extended series on methylmercury contamination in the nation™s seafood supply. Ben Raines exposed the fact that federal and state government had failed to test the fish or warn the public. http://www.oakesaward.org/pdf/Oakes_Award_PR_2002.pdf
Boston Herald.com
Danger Zone: LNG Attack Could Torch Parts Of Hub
By Jay Fitzgerald
Full Story: http://www2.bostonherald.com/news/local_regional/lng11072003.htm
ABSTRACTS:
“A terrorist attack on a giant liquefied natural gas tanker in Boston Harbor likely would devastate nearby neighborhoods in Boston, Charlestown, and Everett, a forthcoming federal study suggests."
"That directly contradicts two key reports that helped the U.S. Coast Guard justify the resumption of LNG shipments through the harbor in the months after Sept. 11, 2001.”
“The reports cited by the Coast Guard two years ago were quickly compiled without scientific review in the immediate weeks after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. They minimized the impact of a major spill if an LNG tanker was attacked, saying any resulting fires would be relatively small and contained."
"But NOAA's study, a summary of which was obtained by the Boston Herald, generally sides with a more devastating scenario long portrayed by Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor emeritus James Fay, said Bill Lehr, a researcher on the NOAA study."
"Fay, whose work has frequently come under bitter attack by industry groups, has warned that a strike against an LNG tanker - such as the boat bomb used against the USS Cole in 2000 - could spark a huge inferno that would kill and scorch nearby residents, set waterfront buildings ablaze and shoot searing electromagnetic waves into neighborhoods that could spark even more fires. ”
© Copyright by the Boston Herald and Herald Interactive Advertising Systems, Inc.
TheBostonChannel.com
Study Backs Up Mayor's LNG Tanker Concerns
Tanker Owners Insist They Are Safe
POSTED: 6:43 p.m. EST November 7, 2003
UPDATED: 7:48 p.m. EST November 7, 2003
Full Story: http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/2621316/detail.html
ABSTRACTS:
“BOSTON -- Since the Sept. 11 attacks, Boston Mayor Thomas Menino has been outspoken about the potential consequences of a terrorist strike on an liquefied natural gas tanker, and Friday, a report prepared by federal scientists backed him up. ”
“‘The situation is we don't know when it is going to happen. And I'm not an alarmist, but if it did happen, would we have the equipment to deal with this issue?' said Menino."
"Menino commissioned his own report on LNG tankers in Boston Harbor that concluded that emergency preparedness was severely limited by the lack of critical input from Distrigas and the United States Coast Guard as well as the lack of critical data regarding potential thermal radiation hazards or anticipated heat exposure".
"Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor James Fay said an attack on an LNG tanker could be devastating."
“‘If it should occur, there would be a very, very large scale fire -- bigger than anything seen anywhere. Because of the size of the fire, that hot thermal radiation can move to much greater distances and still be harmful,’ said Fay."
"Fay also said the heat could instantly affect homes and people within a half-mile radius of the fire. But Distrigas said such an attack to their tankers is highly unlikely."
"‘We live in the real world, not in the academic world. In the real world, you have an 1,000-foot ship with two steel hulls and two other container systems before you get to the cargo. So, we don't assume -- you can look at things from an academic standpoint, and an academic standpoint, as we see it, is only looking at half of it,’ said Distrigas representative Rick Grant.”
"'They'll tell you they have a double hull and tanks and all that stuff, but what about coming from the air? There are all different ways (that) there can be an attack on an LNG tanker,' said Menino."
Copyright 2003 by TheBostonChannel
THERE ARE TERRORISTS WHO WANT TO DO GRAVE HARM TO AMERICA
By Jay Fitzgerald
November 8, 2003
Full Story: http://business.bostonherald.com/businessNews/business.bg?articleid=748
ABSTRACTS:
Mayor Thomas Menino yesterday demanded a ban of giant tanker ships bearing liquefied natural gas in Boston Harbor, saying that federal and industry officials were playing ``Russian roulette'' with the city's safety.
Menino said Boston simply isn't prepared to handle a major LNG blaze or the searing shock wave from such a fire that both reports say could slam into the city.”
© Copyright by the Boston Herald and Herald Interactive Advertising Systems, Inc.
Mobile Register
11/08/03
U.S. Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., Says Feds May Be Misusing Quest Study To 'Minimize' Possible Hazards
By BEN RAINES and BILL FINCH, Staff Reporters
Full Story: http://www.al.com/news/mobileregister/index.ssf?/base/news/1068286574205820.xml
ABSTRACTS:
“A senior member of the U.S. House homeland security committee said Friday that he had sent letters to the Bush administration questioning the use of "a faulty study" to assess the dangers that liquefied natural gas tankers pose to populated areas.
Markey suggested that selected study findings were being wielded to ‘minimize,’ in the public's mind, the scope of the hazards.”
Markey's letters expressed concern that numerous federal agencies, including FERC, may be using misleading data to perform the safety analysis.
“In his letter to Spencer Abraham, head of DOE, Markey called it a ‘bizarre and Orwellian rewriting of history’ that DOE officials would tell the Mobile Register that the agency was ‘not involved’ with the Quest study in any way.
Markey quoted from letters written to him by Bush administration officials in 2001 stating that ‘Quest Consultants, an engineering firm, has been hired by DOE to perform studies related to security on vessels transporting LNG and on the onshore LNG storage tanks.’
"The author of the Quest study, John Cornwell of Oklahoma, told the Register in October that he had warned DOE officials who commissioned the study that it was being used inappropriately.”
Copyright 2003 al.com
US House Representative Edward J. Markey, a senior member on the House Select Committee on Homeland Security as well as Energy and Commerce Committees, questions Bush administration on use of "a faulty study" regarding LNG safety
HYPERLINKS TO FULL TEXT OF MARKEY'S LETTERS
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
Dow Jones Newswires
12-05-03 0049ET
“Author Claims Natural-Gas Tanker-Port Study Being Misused”
December 5, 2003 12:49 AM ET
Wall Street Journal Staff Reporter Russell Gold contributed to this report.
ABSTRACT:
“A scientific report that has been cited to vouch for the safety of a liquefied-natural-gas tanker port near Boston has been widely misused in efforts to gain approval for tanker-port locations, Friday's Wall Street Journal reported, citing the author of the report.”
Copyright 2003 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Mobile Register
Study talks of possible LNG disaster as result of accident
12/07/03
By BEN RAINES and BILL FINCH Staff Reporters
Full Story: http://www.al.com/news/mobileregister/index.ssf?/base/news/107079212971420.xml
ABSTRACTS:
"A confidential study commissioned by the owner of Boston's liquefied natural gas terminal suggests that an accident involving an LNG tanker could quickly evolve into a chain reaction of explosions and fires.
Such a scenario would almost inevitably lead to a catastrophic failure of the ship and a spill of LNG that would be much larger and much more dangerous than anything so far considered in federal studies and assessments of LNG hazards.
Virtually every study used by federal regulators considers the loss of less than one-fifth of the cargo onboard a typical LNG tanker to be the "worst-case" accident scenario. Most published scientific studies estimate that such a limited spill could result in a fire a half-mile wide.
By contrast, the confidential study -- commissioned by Tractabel LNG North America LLC, which owns the Boston Distrigas LNG terminal -- proposes several scenarios in which even a relatively small rupture in one of the five cargo tanks onboard a ship could "escalate" and lead to ruptures in multiple tanks."
"The Lloyd's study, completed in October 2001, was originally commissioned to determine whether the decades-old Distrigas LNG facility in Boston Harbor could be reopened safely. That terminal was shut down following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
Since then, the study has been referenced in numerous news accounts, congressional reports, letters to members of Congress and presentations by the U.S. Department of Energy and the LNG industry. In many cases, the Lloyd's study has been cited alongside a controversial study by the Oklahoma-based Quest Consultants Inc. as proof that LNG tanker operations pose only limited threats to the public.
But the actual contents of the Lloyd's proprietary study -- titled 'Explosion and Gas Release from LNG Membrane Carriers: Generic Consequence Assessment' -- apparently have never been made available to the general public."
"Many government documents and written industry presentations that refer to the Lloyd's study mention only three or four of the 19 conclusions in the executive summary, and none reviewed by the Mobile Register focus on the disastrous scenario described above."
"In fact, the Lloyd's study predicts that a hole much smaller than the 1-meter hole could still lead to the chain-reaction fracturing, explosions and fires that would involve the entire contents of the ship."
"James Fay, professor emeritus at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, often described as the father of modern LNG hazard theory, has also expressed concerns that a breach in one compartment on a ship could lead to an escalating fire."
"Fay said in an interview earlier this year that it would be'impossible to exaggerate' the intensity of an LNG fire."
Copyright 2003 al.com. All Rights Reserved
Article published Dec 18, 2003
Full Story: http://www.timesdaily.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20031218/APN/312180773
ABSTRACTS:
Shelby, R-Ala., made the request Monday in a letter to the commandant of the Coast Guard, saying he's troubled that federal authorities may be using scientific studies improperly in a push for new terminals.
"'The lack of consensus among federal permitting agencies and the scientific community regarding the risk of a catastrophic event fuels many of the ongoing concerns raised by my constituents," wrote Shelby, describing the controversy surrounding conflicting safety studies.
He said recent comments from authors of at least one risk assessment now in use 'indicate that this assessment is being used improperly by several government entities.'
Shelby said he's 'troubled by this allegation and believes that the improper use of scientific papers and/or documents does not provide the government or the community with a proper evaluation of the possible risks resulting from an LNG event.'"
As a Result...
Mobile Register
January 24, 2004
Feds widen LNG safety study
Results could affect proposals to build two liquefied natural gas terminals in Mobile
Full Story: http://www.al.com/news/mobileregister/index.ssf?/base/news/107493938733370.xml
By BILL FINCH and BEN RAINES
Environment Editor
ABSTRACTS:
Officials with the U.S. Department of Energy said Friday that they have decided to greatly expand a liquefied natural gas safety review that had previously failed to take into account several important studies on the issue.
In early December, amid allegations that federal officials had misused and mischaracterized several LNG studies while pushing to open LNG import terminals in populated areas, Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham instructed his agency's Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico to conduct a review of LNG safety studies.
"They've gotten the message from all of their colleagues that we need to revisit all of this," said James Fay, a professor emeritus at Massachusetts Institute of Technology who is often considered the father of modern LNG hazard research. "We need a genuine scientific investigation of all that has been done in the field of LNG safety. This new announcement may provide some assurance that such a safety review will be done..."
As a Further Result...
Feds Expand Safety Study
Even Wider !!!
January 31, 2004
Federal agency calls for major LNG review
FERC seeks study of hazards from accident or terrorist attack
Full Story: http://www.al.com/news/mobileregister/index.ssf?/base/news/107554600960400.xml
By BEN RAINES and BILL FINCH
ABSTRACTS:
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission plans a broad review of the hazards posed by an accident or terrorist attack on a liquefied natural gas tanker making a delivery in a U.S. port.
Listed on a federal Web site where government jobs are described for contract-bidding purposes, FERC's solicitation of a "Vapor Dispersion and Thermal Hazard Modeling" study instructs scientists to explore many of the critical safety issues highlighted in Mobile Register reports over the last several months. The study has not been announced publicly. FERC officials did not respond Friday to requests for comment...
Markey continued, "I'm curious, however, why FERC appears to have waited so long to start asking these questions, why FERC previously has been citing studies that appear either flawed or inapplicable to many of the regulatory actions the agency is being asked to take, and how it intends to use this study once the contractor submits the final report."
The "scope of work" described in the document extends to virtually every aspect of LNG vessel safety. The core requirement is to evaluate the "flammable vapor and thermal radiation hazards created by unconfined LNG spills on water." The document even specifies the steps the contractor is expected to take in making that determination, from examining how different hole sizes in the tankers would affect the spill size, to calculating how far heat radiation from a tanker fire would spread, and what it would do to people and structures...
http://www.forbes.com/home/newswire/2004/05/14/rtr1372155.html
By Tom Doggett
WASHINGTON4 (Reuters) - U.S. regulators have no scientific models to accurately predict what may happen in an accident or act of sabotage involving a tanker filled with liquefied natural gas (LNG), a new report said on Friday.
The potential dangers of hauling LNG has raised concerns since the September 11 attacks and as energy firms propose building some 30 new LNG receiving terminals to supply the U.S. market.
LNG is natural gas chilled to minus 259 degrees Fahrenheit for transportation aboard tankers from Algeria, Trinidad, Qatar and other exporting nations.
Currently four U.S. terminals operate in Maryland, Georgia, Massachusetts and Louisiana. But with domestic gas production flat, several companies want the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to approve plans to build new terminals.
LNG now accounts for about 2 percent of U.S. gas supply, but the government estimates imports will make up 11 percent of domestic supply by 2015.
However, a new report commissioned by FERC said current scientific models don't reflect how LNG is shipped or likely to spread from a spill in various weather conditions.
"No models available were identified that account for the multi-hull structure of an LNG carrier and the physics of a release of cryogenic LNG," the report said.
The report prepared by ABS Consulting recommended that FERC use another recognized model to review the effect of spills from a hole in single-hull LNG carriers, even though LNG is transported in double-walled ships for better safety. That model can only provide a "rough guide" to the impact, it said.
FERC made the report public on Friday.
ABS also said the current method of estimating the spread of an LNG spill on open water does not account for wind, water currents and waves.
"No existing model for an LNG spill appropriately accounts for these effects. It should be recognized that the recommended model is based on the assumption of smooth quiescent water," the report said.
When natural gas is cooled to LNG it shrinks to less than 1/600 of its original volume. After it arrives at a U.S. terminal by tanker, LNG is returned to a gaseous state.
As a liquid, LNG will neither burn or explode, ABS said.
But if a tanker spill were to occur, the LNG would turn back into a gas as it reacts with air and water temperatures. The gas vapors released could ignite.
The report warned that "an event of such magnitude" to rupture an LNG carrier's outer hull, inner hull and cargo tanks "may also provide ignition sources" for the spilled LNG.
FERC said it will use the scientific models recommended in the report to evaluate the safety of proposed LNG projects, even if they don't reflect real-world conditions.
"Nobody has the real-world data to really know for sure what's going to happen" because there have been no major LNG spills, said FERC spokesman Bryan Lee. "You can't look at this (report) and draw a conclusion as to whether or not LNG is inherently dangerous or not."
Critics of LNG projects have expressed concern about the safety of residents and businesses located near a receiving terminal. They contend that an LNG tanker, or its facilities onshore, could become targets for sabotage or terrorism.
A deadly accident at an Algerian LNG complex in January has been linked to a cracked pipe that allowed the gas to escape and explode. The blast killed more than two dozen people.
"The public can take comfort in the fact that LNG has been safely transported by ship for nearly a half century," FERC chairman Pat Wood said in a letter accompanying the report.
Copyright 2004, Reuters News Service
To Read The Entire Report: Study on LNG Consequence Modeling Report Issued [PDF]
May 14, 2004
http://ogj.pennnet.com/articles/web_article_display.cfm?ARTICLE_CATEGORY=GenIn&ARTICLE_ID=204664
Maureen
Lorenzetti, Washington Editor
ABSTRACTS:
WASHINGTON, DC, May 14 -- The US Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission Friday said it wants public comment on a new technical report that
outlines the safety modeling the agency will use when evaluating future LNG
terminal applications.
The public comment period lasts 2 weeks. Other government
agencies, including the departments of transportation and energy, as well as the
US Coast Guard already reviewed and commented on the report.
Contact Maureen Lorenzetti at Maureenl@ogjonline.com.
May
15, 2004
Full
Story: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/05/15/report_cites_risk_of_wide_damage_in_lng_blast/
Report
cites risk of wide damage in LNG blast
By Bryan Bender, Globe Staff
ABSTRACTS:
WASHINGTON -- A new
government report says that a liquefied natural gas leak in Boston Harbor could
catch fire and even explode, threatening people more than three-quarters of a
mile away.
The new report, by
ABS Consulting, a risk assessment firm, concluded that if the tanker's hull and
cargo tanks were successfully breached, a pool fire could burn victims up to
4,600 feet away. Such an event could cause "severe pain" within 13
seconds, second-degree burns within 30 seconds, and third-degree burns within 50
seconds of exposure, the report said.
The ABS report also
concluded that in some scenarios, a leak could create a flammable vapor cloud
that might travel several thousand feet before dissipating into a stable state.
If the vapor leaked into a confined space inside the tanker or another
structure, it could also explode.
"It suggests
that some of the accident scenarios involve enormous fires that could cause
deaths, severe burns to people several thousand feet away, and hot enough to
burn wood and melt steel closer in," said Representative Edward J. Markey,
Democrat of Malden. The main DistriGas LNG facility in Everett is in his
district.
The latest study is
likely to renew calls to block the tankers, in part because the report says the
2001 study, which was conducted by Quest, a government contractor, did not use
sufficient models to determine the worst-case scenario of a collision or attack
that spilled LNG into the harbor.
"It
rejects the modeling methodology used in the Quest study," Markey said.
"This is important because the DOE-funded Quest study was used by federal
officials to argue for reopening Boston Harbor to LNG shipments following Sept.
11, and it has been cited by the [Federal Energy Regulatory Commission] in
several regulatory proceedings around the country."
He added, "The
fact that [the] contractor is now recommending an alternative methodology means
that we need to go back and reassess what the worst-case accident consequences
are and what they mean."
Bryan
Bender can be reached at bender@globe.com
© Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
May 20, 2004
Mobile
Register
Report
on LNG reaffirms dangers
Some
scientists, however, say the report is flawed for failing to address terrorist
scenarios
http://www.al.com/news/mobileregister/index.ssf?/base/news/1085044618295540.xml
By BEN RAINES and BILL
FINCH, Staff Reporters
Full Story:
A
much-anticipated federal report agrees with a finding by other scientists --
though seldom cited by regulators -- that a limited liquefied natural gas spill
on water could burn people as much as a mile away.
But scientists who
have examined the report, conducted by Houston-based ABS Consulting Inc. at the
request of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, said it contains some
flawed assumptions and fails to analyze what could happen if a terrorist attack
led to the catastrophic loss of an LNG tanker and its 33-million-gallon cargo.
That scenario --
which many scientists say could be similar to the attack on the USS Cole in
Yemen that killed 17 Navy sailors and blew a 40-by-40-foot hole in the destroyer
-- has been identified by numerous scientists and safety officials as the most
significant threat to public safety posed by LNG ships.
The ship damage
theorized in the ABS report involved holes no larger than 16 feet in diameter
and spills that involved no more than 20 percent of the ship's cargo.
FERC officials, who
oversee the approval process for siting LNG facilities, have indicated that the
new ABS report, which was released last week for public review, will be a
cornerstone in their decision-making.
The safety of LNG
has become a nationally contentious issue over the past year, as federal
officials and oil companies have sought to locate as many as 40 new LNG docking
terminals near communities around the nation.
Amid the
controversy, proposals by ExxonMobil Corp. and Cheniere Inc. to build facilities
near populated areas on Mobile Bay have been put on the back burner, company
officials said.
LNG is a
superchilled, highly concentrated form of natural gas that can be easily
transported long distances. But scientists note that the liquefied natural gas
has unusually dangerous properties when spilled on water.
Several scientists
noted that the ABS report is likely to end the use of a controversial study
performed by Quest Consultants Inc. It had been widely promoted by Department of
Energy and FERC officials to downplay hazards tankers pose to nearby
communities.
"It puts the
Quest report in the cemetery," said James Fay, professor emeritus at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and often described as the father of
modern LNG research.
The Quest study,
commissioned by the DOE to determine whether it would be safe to reopen a Boston
Harbor LNG facility in the days after the Sept. 11 terror attacks, predicted
fire sizes resulting from an accident that were far smaller than fires predicted
by most other scientific studies.
A Mobile Register
investigation last year found, among other things, that Quest based its fire
sizes on the assumption that large waves would limit the spread of LNG.
As the ABS
scientists note, however, the waves used in the Quest model are unrealistic,
both because they are theo rized to be essentially motionless, and because LNG
vessels frequent harbors where wave action of any kind is limited.
The new ABS study
ultimately predicts fire sizes from a limited spill that could cause serious
burns on humans who are more than 4,000 feet away, consistent with predictions
found in most of the scientific literature.
But a number of LNG
scientists who have reviewed the report said it makes some mistaken assumptions
that may need to be revisited.
The report, for
example, characterizes spills as perfect circles -- something not likely to
occur in any spill pouring from a hole in the side of a ship, according to Fay.
The scientists were also critical of the use of a surface friction model
originally designed for room temperature oil, not superchilled LNG.
Fay said he and a
number of other scientists are likely to insist that ABS and FERC reconsider
those assumptions. If they are reconsidered, Fay notes, the report could
effectively predict some of the largest hazard zones in the scientific
literature, at least for the limited ship damage considered by ABS.
But leading LNG
scientist Jerry Havens, who designed much of the software used by ABS in drawing
its conclusions, said the study has a more serious limitation, because it fails
to consider what could happen if an escalating LNG fire and explosions led to
the loss of an entire ship.
Such a scenario was
partially examined in a study of LNG hazards by the London-based Lloyd's
Register of Shipping.
"There are
more important things on the table than arguing about the fire sizes for a small
release, like they are doing in the FERC report," Havens said. "They
are simply putting off the larger, more important question, which is what is
going to happen to the tanker when it is engulfed in a fire. That's the critical
question in all of this: What is the vulnerability of the tanker in terms of
losing its entire cargo during a fire?"
FERC officials
could not be reached for comment. But the ABS reports said limited spill
scenarios were chosen because there were no existing scientific models that
accounted for the structure of an LNG ship and the effects the spilled LNG would
have on the ship.
Copyright 2004 al.com. All Rights Reserved.
Consider visiting their website: http://www.absconsulting.com/mkt_marineOffshoreLNG.html
Here are a few quotes from their website for your immediate attention:
“ABS
Consulting is a key player in the worldwide expansion of the LNG market.”
“The following are the major types of LNG-related services that our integrated company offers worldwide:
LNG Vessels and Offshore Facilities
Onshore
Production and Storage/Transfer Facilities”
“From the front end to the distribution network, ABS Consulting has extensive LNG capabilities and experience.”
Petroleum News, North America's Source for Oil and Gas News
Week
of May 23, 2004
No
undue delays for LNG projects, FERC says
http://www.petroleumnews.com/pnads/384852009.shtml
Larry Persily, PN Government Affairs Editor
The Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission says it will not “unduly” delay any of the dozen
pending applications for new liquefied natural gas receiving terminals along
U.S. shores as it works toward a final report on LNG safety risks.
FERC issued a
consultant’s report May 13 on the risk of fire and explosion from LNG tankers
coming into port or tied up at a dock, specifically looking at how much damage
could result if terrorists were able to blow a hole in a ship and its gas
storage tanks.
The commission’s
final report on LNG tanker safety is expected by the end of the year, FERC
Commissioner Joseph Kelliher said at a natural gas conference in Denver. Until
then, the federal agency would hold off approving any new terminals, he told Dow
Jones Newswires, although a commission spokesman later clarified FERC’s
position that it would not unduly delay approval of any pending applications.
The agency is
accepting public comment on the consultant’s report until May 28.
Lack of
information makes modeling difficult
The report,
prepared by Houston-based ABSG Consulting Inc., said it is difficult to predict
the effects of an LNG spill for several reasons:
• “No models
are available that take into account the true structure of an LNG carrier, in
particular the multiple barriers that the combination of cargo tanks and the
double hulls in current LNG carrier provide.
• “No pool
spread models are available that account for wave action or currents.
• “There is no
data available for spills as large as the spills considered in this study.”
But, after stating
those caveats, the report said an LNG tanker could catch fire and even explode,
threatening people three-quarters of a mile away if terrorists were able to
breach a ship’s double hulls and also its cargo storage tanks. Under some
conditions, the report said, a gas leak could create a flammable vapor cloud
that would, at the right mixture with air, ignite and travel several thousand
feet before dissipating.
“It suggests that
some of the accident scenarios involve enormous fires that could cause deaths,
severe burns to people several thousand feet away, and hot enough to burn wood
and melt steel closer in,” said U.S. Rep. Edward J. Markey, D-Mass., whose
district includes the DistriGas LNG facility at Everett, Mass.
LNG tankers were
temporarily barred from Boston Harbor and the Everett facility after the Sept.
11, 2001, terrorist attacks in New York City and Washington, D.C., and opponents
of LNG terminals proposed for the East, West and Gulf coasts worry the new
facilities could make their communities the target of terrorist attacks.
Maybe a
dozen new terminal predicted by 2025
In addition to the
12 pending FERC applications for new LNG terminals, developers have proposed
more than two dozen other sites to receive shipments of imported gas to meet
America’s growing supply shortage. Most proposals, however, are expected to
die off in the face of community opposition and/or economics. International oil
and gas consulting firm Wood Mackenzie Ltd. expects the nation could see perhaps
seven new terminals by 2010-2012, and the U.S. Department of Energy expects as
many as a dozen by 2025.
The ABSG Consulting
report for FERC noted that although communities worry about the risk of LNG
spills and fires, the industry has a good record: “These vessels have a
remarkable safety record and provide an essential link in the movement of LNG
from production locations to consumer locations.”
The report said the
lack of research and proven “pool spread models” make it difficult to
predict how much gas would spill out of a tanker, whether it would ignite or
disperse, and how far any damage might extend.
“Clearly, there
is an opportunity to develop pool spread models that consider more realistic
analysis of the spill behavior on the water surface,” the report said.
“Large-scale spill tests would be useful for providing better data for
validation of models.
“It is also
important to note that this study addresses the potential consequences of
large-scale LNG cargo releases without regard to the sequence of events leading
to such an incident or their probabilities of occurrence. As such, this report
does not and was not intended to provide a measure of risk to the public.”
FERC, in its final
report later this year, will attempt to model the risk that comes with allowing
more LNG tankers and receiving terminals in the country.
Boston
Herald
Wednesday,
June 2, 2004
Fire
official fears LNG deaths: Industry decries report while gas foes blast its
regulators
http://business.bostonherald.com/businessNews/view.bg?articleid=30222
By
Jay Fitzgerald
A
top Boston Fire Department official blasted a federal agency yesterday for being
untrustworthy and not caring enough about a possible liquefied natural gas
disaster in Boston Harbor that he says could lead to 10,000 deaths.
The
biting remarks by Deputy Chief Joseph M. Fleming came as the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission accepts comments on a new report that warns of possible
``serious incidents'' involving LNG ships and terminals.
The
report, by ABS Consulting and commissioned by the federal agency, has stirred
intense controversy as proposals to build LNG terminals across the nation are
scrutinized. LNG plants are proposed for Fall River, Somerset and Providence.
In
one comment, Suez S.A. unit Distrigas of Massachusetts Corp., importer of LNG
through Boston Harbor to a plant in Everett, said some of the report's
conclusions are ``patently false'' and too pessimistic about LNG hazards.
Distrigas,
citing what it called an excellent 40-year safety record of LNG shipments, urged
the agency to commission other studies before it makes any long-term siting
decisions concerning LNG terminals.
Other
experts have weighed in on the ABS report - pro and con - before the agency.
But
the Boston Fire Department dropped a bombshell when it said that based on a 1976
study and ABS's new calculating method, as many as 10,000 people could be killed
by a severe LNG tanker disaster. It cited ABS calculations about heat from an
LNG catastrophe.
The
1976 study indicated that the ``maximum probable number of fatalities''
resulting from a severe LNG tanker accident in the Boston area could reach
3,000. The casualties would occur from vapor clouds and intense heat sweeping
through neighborhoods, the fire department comment notes, citing what it said
was a study for Distrigas' Everett plant.
Chief
Fleming, in an interview yesterday, said he's not saying 10,000 people surely
would die. ``Part of it is extrapolation'' based on ABS formulas for the
intensity of heat, he said.
Even
though it's accepting comments on the ABS report, energy agency staffers already
have cited some of its findings in a preliminary environmental impact study for
a proposed LNG terminal in Freeport, Texas. The staff report, which recommends
approval of the terminal, has yet to be endorsed by agency commissioners.
Fleming
said he's disappointed that the ABS report is being used in the siting of
terminals, even while the agency is accepting comments on its merits.
``I do not trust FERC as far as you can throw them,'' Fleming said, noting another controversial study that was used to justify the resumption of LNG shipments through B