LNG Tanker Danger To Our Communities  Tim Riley Law .com   805-984-2350

LNG is a danger to our communities. Co-Hosts Tim Riley and Hayden Riley dedicate their website to warn America about the many LNG safety concerns, and they want to help protect America from the imminent peril of liquefied natural gas.  As consumer protection advocates, the Rileys firmly believe that Liquefied Natural Gas poses a serious danger to our American communities. Consumer Protection Attorney Tim Riley warns about the many LNG safety risks and safety hazards, and that liquefied natural gas is unsafe and threatening America's coastline. Tim Riley warns about LNG tankers, LNG spills, LNG fires, LNG explosions, and LNG vulnerability to accident, earthquake and terrorism. Importing liquefied natural gas will make America more dependent on more foreign fossil fuel.  Co-Hosts Tim Riley and Hayden Riley urge us to write letters to local officials to stop LNG from coming to our American communities. They urge that we develop renewable energy resources instead of more reliance on the foreign fossil fuel LNG, and they urge more accountability, penalties, fines and imprisonment for corporate manipulation of the energy industry and energy market.

LNG TANKERS PAGE

    I.      LNG Tanker Size and LNG Tanker Photos

    II.   LNG Tankers Holding Capacity

    III.   LNG Tanker Energy Equivalent

    IV.   LNG Tankers Maneuverability

    V.    LNG Tankers Concern the US Coast Guard

    VI.  LNG Tanker Owner Liability

I.               LNG Tanker Size and LNG Tanker Photos

How Huge Are LNG Tankers?

How Much LNG Will They Actually Hold?

To Help You Visualize How Monstrous A Typical LNG Tanker Is ... First Picture A Football Field  

Imagine An LNG Tanker Filling An Entire Football Field

  ACTUALLY,  A TYPICAL LNG TANKER IS LONGER THAN

THREE FOOTBALL FIELDS

II.  LNG Tanker Holding Capacity 

A Typical LNG Tanker Holds More Than 33 Million Gallons of LNG

Which Equals 20 Billion Gallons of Natural Gas

The Amount of Gas Released From Just One LNG Tanker Would Be  20 Times Greater

Than The Amount of LNG That Incinerated One Square Mile of Cleveland in 1944

The LNG Cleveland Disaster  

Liquefied Natural Gas

Liquefied Natural Gas

Do You Want LNG Tankers Coming Near Your Business, Home and Family?

                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Globe Staff Photo / David L. Ryan

Do You Want LNG Tankers Coming Near Your Coastal Community?

IMAGINE ...  20 Times the Volume of LNG that Incinerated One Square Mile of Cleveland

LNG - Liquefied natural gas tanker on its way to the Distrigas terminal in Everett, headed into

Boston Harbor under the flight path of Logan International Airport.

(Photo credit: Boston Globe by David L. Ryan/ Globe Staff)

III. LNG Tanker Energy Equivalent

“The energy content of a single standard LNG tanker

(one hundred twenty-five thousand cubic meters)

is equivalent to seven-tenths of a megaton of TNT, or

about fifty-five Hiroshima bombs."

Brittle Power Energy Strategy for National Security

Part 2  Disasters Waiting to Happen / Chapter 8: Liquefied Natural Gas 

[ First Prepared as a US Pentagon Study ] 

By Lovins & Lovins  

April 2008

House passes Coast Guard bill despite Bush veto threat The Associated Press WASHINGTON (AP) — Defying President Bush's threatened veto, the House on Thursday overwhelmingly approved a bill making the Coast Guard enforce security zones around eight liquefied natural gas terminals and any arriving tankers - all potential terrorism targets. Read Bill Text: http://thomas.loc.gov

February 2008

ALERT: Helpless LNG Tanker Adrift off Cape Boston Herald, United States - 2/11/08 Tug boats are racing to help a stricken Liquefied Natural Gas tanker which lost power 35 miles off Cape Cod, leaving it at the mercy of powerful winds and 12-foot high waves.  The fully laden, 933-foot long tanker Catalunya Spirit, with 29 listed aboard, was en route to Boston from Trinidad and Tobago when it lost propulsion at about 3 a.m. today, according to the U.S. Coast Guard in Boston… UPDATE: 2/12/08 Tugs assist, investigation underway; 2/13/08 repairs & investigation of computer glitch continue, electrical restored; 2/14/08 power restored, boilers activated, and testing operating system before turning on propulsion. 2/15/08 After several days of troubleshooting, repair specialists determined a malfunctioning boiler feed pump, which supplies water to the main propulsion boilers, caused the Catalunya Spirit's loss of power and propulsion. Captain of the Port of Boston reviewed and approved the final repair certification presented by Lloyd's Register and Teekay Corporation. The LNG delivery through Boston Harbor was cancelled.

January 2008

ALERT: MARITIME SECURITY (GAO REPORT) - LNG Tankers Vulnerable & Security Resources Lacking  Government Accountability Office Report LNG Tankers face three main types of threats - suicide attacks, 'standoff' attacks, and armed assaults resulting in severe threat to public safety, environmental, and energy supply chain. The Congressional report further admonishes that the US Coast Guard - the lead federal agency for maritime security - has insufficient resources to meet its own self-imposed security standards.

Coast Guard stretched thin, and it's about to get worse CBS News, Houston KHOU.com “I think it’s assuming too much the Coast Guard itself is going to come out and say ‘Sorry folks, we can’t protect you,’” said Tim Riley, an attorney who has spent the last five years investigating the dangers of liquefied natural gas. “The Coast Guard has had difficulty meeting its own self-imposed requirements for security,” the GAO report said. “We have started focusing on protecting air travel,” Riley added. “But yet our harbors are very, very risky right now. We should shore it all up before major tragedies start happening in the country.” VIDEO

LNG Tankers Vulnerable The Associated Press

LNG tankers vulnerable to attack The Australian - Sydney, Australia
 

April 12, 2007 

The California Coastal Commission unanimously voted 12-0 to sink BHP Billiton's LNG floating platform proposal. Three days earlier the California State Lands Commission,  before a packed house untied against LNG (800 inside & over 1000 outside), denied Billiton's LNG Deep Water Port pipeline license.

Click Arrow for Tim Riley's appearance before California Coastal Commission

March 2007

June 12, 2006

The newest LNG Carriers will hold more than DOUBLE the volume of LNG

Nakilat, largest LNG ships AME Info - United Arab Emirates  “The Qatar Gas Transport Company has ordered six Q-max LNG carriers which, when ready, will be the largest in the world in terms of capacity, according to Gulf News. Each carrier will have a capacity of 265,000 cubic metres. It was reported here last month that Nakilat had ordered 10 LNG carriers from South Korean shipbuilders Daewoo, Hyundai and Samsung at a cost of $5bn.”

April 21, 2005

Text from US Congressional Record  House Floor Arguments over Energy Bill H.R.6 Energy Policy Act of 2005 SEC. 320. LIQUEFACTION OR GASIFICATION NATURAL GAS TERMINALS at page H2344:  

Mr. KENNEDY (D., RI)

    “I will tell my colleagues, in Rhode Island we would welcome the chance to have our gas piped in from some other country because the fact of the matter is, our State knows, as every other State that has an LNG facility knows, that if we were to ever have that explode, it would decimate a 50-mile radius.

    We will take our lives over our jobs, over our taxes, over our security.”

Mr. Markey (D., MA,)

     “If you just want the Federal Government to decide in the middle of your district where this most attractive of all terrorist targets will be located, then you vote ``no,'' but understand the consequences on the floor today.”

FYI: Mr. Markey is also the Senior Member of House Homeland Security Committee

IV. LNG Tankers Maneuverability

LNG Tankers Are 12-Stories High, Can Travel at 20 Knots And Require 5 Miles to Halt

                             According to a retired LNG transport ship captain who served as a ship's captain for two decades. “… the ships are ‘massive’ -  Smith said it took him five miles to bring a ship to a halt…” Portland Press Herald, September 25, 2003  

LNG Tanker Hulls and Containers Block Forward View For 3/4 of a Mile

             "His position in the wheelhouse was at the rear of the ship behind the five bulbous LNG containers. The hull and containers blocked off Smith's forward view for three-quarters of a mile, making it impossible to know for sure if other ships were in the way."

         "Going through the Malacca Strait (between the island of Sumatra and Malaysia) is much harder because there's so much traffic. I had near-collisions every time I went through there. The prospect of hitting a large ship is a nightmare." Reflections of an LNG Skipper, Times Record 2/26/04

V.  LNG Tankers Concern The US Coast Guard

Does The U.S. Coast Guard  Consider LNG Dangerous?

Currently, Savannah, Georgia  has one of the eight operational LNG importation facilities in the continental US. 

Below Is A Copy Of the Coast Guard Standing Orders At The Savannah Port

[ SAVANNAH GEORGIA LNG EMERGENCY PROCEDURES ]

STANDING COAST GUARD ORDERS  

Captain Of The Port

            STEP ACTION 9999  

         "INITIAL ACTIONS TO TAKE IN THE EVENT OF A WORST-CASE DISCHARGE OF LNG

       1. Order the evacuation of all USCG personnel from affected area."

December 21, 2005

Safety fears for fleet of new LNG tankers after leaks are found Guardian Unlimited - UK "A fleet of new ships built for BG and other companies to meet Britain's growing energy needs by bringing in liquefied natural gas (LNG) from abroad has been hit by leaks and safety scares. The Methane Kari Elin, which was delivered 18 months ago from a South Korean yard, has been withdrawn from service and is heading back to the far east to try to establish what has gone wrong. A second ship - the Gaz de France Energy - is currently undergoing repairs at the Chantiers de l'Atlantique shipyard in France after gas leaks were discovered in tests, even before the vessel was handed over by the shipbuilder. One BP vessel - built to similar designs in the same Samsung yard in Seoul - is being inspected..."

December 22, 2005

Safety worry on gas supertankers  BBC News - UK Safety concerns have been raised over new supertankers due to ship liquefied natural gas (LNG) into west Wales.

December 23, 2005

Milford Haven port authority threatens to keep out BG gas ship Guardian Unlimited - UK A port authority at the centre of Britain's liquefied natural gas (LNG) industry has warned the operator BG that it will not let its vessels enter its harbour unless it is convinced they are safe. The tough words from Milford Haven - where two LNG terminals are being constructed - comes a day after the Guardian revealed that BG had found leaks in one of its new vessels. The ship - Methane Kari Elin - is on its way back to the Korean yard where it was built amid fears that a generation of new vessels could have similar problems. A second ship - built for Gaz de France - with a cargo-carrying system similar to the BG vessel has also been found to have leaks and is back at the yard of the French shipbuilder.... One of the reasons we are continually told that planners and journalists need not see the risk assessments for the marine LNG operation is that the ships are so safe an accident is almost impossible. We have continued to ask to see the risk assessments - to no avail. Now to find out that the new breed of 'super safe' brand-new ships are developing gas leaks makes the secrecy about safety adopted by the companies and the port authority entirely untenable."

VI.  LNG Tanker Owner Liability

Financial Re$ponsibility for an LNG Tanker Disaster:

According to the controlling law in the United States, Limitation of Vessel Owner’s Liability Act, 46 U.S.C. 181, et seq., a vessel owner's liability is limited to the value of the vessel and its cargo contents remaining after a calamity occurs.

The U.S. Supreme Court has long held that where a ship sinks after a calamity, the sinking is the termination of the voyage and the value of the vessel – thus the limitation of the ship owner’s liability.

Ironically, the more disastrous the damage is to the vessel - the lower the liability to the owner.  Where there is total destruction to an LNG tanker with total loss of its flammable cargo, and the calamity incinerates a coastal community destroying billions of dollars of property and infrastructure, the full extent of the LNG tanker owner’s liability for the property and business losses would be absolutely ZERO.  

Shockingly, in such scenario, for causing the death of 100,000 people and severely burning 50,000 others - the vessel owner’s financial liability, would be limited to just $420 per vessel ton.

Protecting vessel owners both American and foreign, was established by the Act in 1851, and our United States Supreme Court has long held that the owner's duty is essentially satisfied when he properly equips the vessel and selects competent crew to operate it. United States v. Atl. Mut.Ins. Co., 343 U.S. 236, 246–47 (1952) [holding that if a ship owner exercises due diligence to make the vessel in all respects seaworthy, and properly manned, equipped, and supplied, neither the vessel, nor her owner or owners are responsible for damage or loss resulting from faults or errors in navigation or in the management of the vessel].

March 17, 2005

eMediaWire.com

LNG Tanker Liability is Limited by U.S. Law

http://www.emediawire.com/releases/2005/3/emw219287.htm

Liability for disasters caused by LNG tankers delivering liquefied natural gas to American coastal communities is severely limited by the current law of the United States.

(PRWEB) March 17, 2005 -- Ironically, U.S. Law now protects foreign vessel owners transporting liquefied natural gas (LNG) rather than protecting American citizens and U.S. coastal communities that could be incinerated and destroyed by an LNG tanker disaster.

Communities now facing LNG facility proposals throughout coastal America are worried about the safety of LNG, and want to know if LNG tanker owners would be responsible for American deaths, injuries and property damage resulting from an LNG spill and disaster.

“People want to know if LNG tanker owners importing their dangerous cargo to America will be financially responsible for all the damage they cause,” said consumer protection attorney Tim Riley who hosts a comprehensive LNG website http://TimRileyLaw.com.

According to Riley, who is licensed to practice law in New York and California, all LNG vessel owners are protected by the Limitation of Vessel Owner's Liability Act, 46 U.S.C. 181, et seq.; and the owner's liability is limited to the value of the vessel and value of its cargo contents remaining after a calamity occurs. The U.S. Supreme Court has long held that where a ship sinks after a calamity, the sinking is the termination of the voyage and the value of the vessel - thus the limitation of the ship owner's liability.

“Ironically, the more damage that occurs to the LNG vessel, and the more cargo lost, the lower the liability for the vessel owner. This means that an LNG tanker disaster resulting in the total loss of the vessel and total loss of its cargo would result in minimal financial liability for the LNG vessel owner - even where the disaster incinerates an entire coastal community, killing and injuring thousands of Americans while destroying billions of dollars of property. Shockingly, the LNG tanker owner's financial liability in such a scenario for all property damage would be absolutely zero; and for the loss of thousands of American lives and thousands of severely burned victims, the vessel owner’s liability would be limited to just $420 per vessel ton,” attorney Riley explained.

Protecting vessel owners was originally established by the Limitation of Vessel Owner's Liability Act in 1851, and our Supreme Court has long held that the owner's duty is essentially satisfied when he properly equips the vessel and selects competent crew to operate it, and neither the vessel, nor her owners are responsible for damage or loss resulting from faults or errors in navigation or in the management of the vessel.

Sadly, wrongful death claims, burn victim claims, medical costs, loss of earnings, destruction of homes, cars, airplanes, businesses, stores full of inventory, industrial complexes, and infrastructure losses which would result from an LNG disaster would be left without adequate recourse or compensation.

“There are approximately three dozen LNG importation facilities now being proposed throughout our United States coastline communities. Each facility would require gigantic LNG tankers holding the energy equivalent of 55 Hiroshima bombs, to deliver their ultra hazardous cargo dangerously close to coastal communities,” said Hayden Riley who co-hosts the LNG website.

“Most people don't know about LNG and the enormous risks it poses, because there are so few LNG importation facilities in the world. Currently the continental United States has only four operating facilities, three of which have never been continually operational since built in the late 70's; and even though the LNG industry has had limited activity in its short history - its safety record is truly alarming,” Mrs. Riley said.

Two massive LNG disasters have already occurred. The first in Cleveland, Ohio in 1944, which killed 128 people, produced many burn victims and incinerated one square mile of that city; and the most recent LNG disaster, of January 2004, created more burn victims caused more deaths and destroyed approximately $1 billion of property in remote Algeria. The photographs of the LNG disasters depicted on the Riley’s website resemble Hiroshima after the atomic bomb was dropped.

The tragic lesson learned from LNG disasters is that once the ultra hazardous liquefied natural gas is released from confinement, it instantaneously vaporizes and becomes an expanding ignitable vapor cloud of mass destruction incinerating everything and everyone in its path. LNG inferno temperatures are so extreme that the radiant heat produced causes death and destruction even outside the perimeter of the fiery blast.

On September 21, 2004, The Providence Journal, in an article entitled, "Lloyd's Executive Likens LNG Attack to Nuclear Explosion," that paper reported that a Lloyd's of London Insurance executive Peter Levene likened an LNG attack to a nuclear explosion. "Gas carriers too, whether at sea or in ports, make obvious targets," said Levene. "Specialists reckon that a terrorist attack on an LNG tanker would have the force of a small nuclear explosion."

Hayden Riley says, “The current proliferation of LNG proposals will result in the greater probability of another disaster. LNG facility proponents and vessel owners will never be able to guarantee our safety.”

“Attempting to minimize the tragic lesson of the Cleveland and the Algerian disasters, LNG proponents continuously hype LNG's self-proclaimed 'safety' record. They boldly maintain that their LNG facilities and tankers will operate and deliver LNG perfectly safe - always - without incident, and will be impervious to all natural calamity and terrorism. Such self-bravado is ridiculous and unrealistic, but if they truly believe all LNG operations will run perfectly safe in American communities, then they should back-up their claims by putting their money where their mouth is. All LNG vessel owners, LNG facility owners/operators, and the current LNG facility applicants should voluntarily agree to be held strictly liable and fully responsible for all harm caused by their ultra hazardous activities - without any financial limitations. But such voluntary compliance is equally unrealistic to expect.” said attorney Riley. “Our U.S. laws must be changed, and they should no longer protect foreign interests and the importers of LNG over the rights of American citizens,” he added.

The Riley’s maintain, “Protecting importers of foreign fossil fuel while exposing American citizens and communities to devastation without adequate recourse or recovery is shortsighted, irresponsible and requires immediate congressional action.”

Tim and Hayden Riley have also produced a documentary film, The Risks and Danger of LNG, which highlights the hazards of LNG by demonstrating its vulnerability to accidental disaster and terrorism; and shows how massive its destruction can be. The film was an Official Selection of the Malibu Film Festival, 2004, and has received high praises by an international anti-terrorist expert.

To preview a short trailer of the movie and to purchase a DVD or VHS copy of the entire film, visit http://LngDanger.com.

© Copyright, PR Web. All Rights Reserved

May 5, 2004

Upstream.com

Liability law 'stacked in favour of owners'

www.upstreamonline.com  Subscription Only

By Dann Rogers

Full Story:

Opponents of two proposed import terminals off the coast of California claim existing US maritime laws protect the owners of LNG carriers and the deep-water ports at the expense of local residents in the event of a disaster.

According to the Limitation of Vessel Owners Liability Act, the liability of the owner of an LNG carrier is limited to the value of the vessel and its cargo contents remaining after a serious incident occurs.

"Ironically, the more damage that occurs to the vessel and its cargo, the lower the liability for the vessel owner," said Tim Riley, a consumer protection advocate in California who hosts a Website for groups opposed to LNG projects.

Australia's BHP Billiton and a separate group of private investors have each applied to the US Coast Guard to operate receiving terminals offshore the communities of Malibu and Santa Barbara.

The Deepwater Ports Act, which was originally created to deal with clean-up costs resulting from oil spills, limits liability of operators to $350 million.

That limit is outdated and would be a mere pittance of the actual damages that could result from a potential LNG disaster caused by either accident, natural occurrence or act of terrorism, said Riley.

"The cost of massive wrongful death claims, serious burn victim claims, medical costs, loss of earnings, destruction of expensive coastal homes, cars, stores full of inventory, along with ruined community infrastructure would run into billions of dollars," he said.

"These LNG proponents boast that it is a safe technology and not a likely terrorist target. They should put their money where their mouth is and waive the current limit on financial liability."

He is also advocating that a civil cause of action for any and all damages resulting from whatever cause, originating or emanating from an LNG deep-water port or vessel, should be one of strict liability.

The strict liability standard would make port and carrier operators or owners financially responsible regardless of fault.

Under such a system, a person injured would only need to show that the storage, processing or transport of LNG at sea was a causal factor in the injury, irrespective of who is to blame.

"Claimants need only prove causation of injury rather than proof of fault," said Riley. "It is time for America to look in the mirror and recognise that the current laws protect foreign interests and importers of LNG while at the same time exposing US citizens to devastation without adequate recourse for recovery."

April 25, 2004

Ventura County Star

http://www.venturacountystar.com/vcs/opinion/article/0,1375,VCS_125_2835820,00.html

Liability for LNG vessels is limited

By Tim Riley

 Two liquefied natural gas deepwater port facilities are being proposed off our Malibu, Oxnard, Ventura and Santa Barbara shores, and many people are concerned about the financial liability for an LNG disaster to our communities.

 Unfortunately, the existing laws protect the foreign LNG vessel owners and the corporate LNG deepwater port operators, rather than the living and breathing American citizens who could potentially be incinerated.

 All LNG vessel owners are protected by the Limitation of Vessel Owner's Liability Act, 46 U.S.C. 181, et seq.; and the owner's liability is limited to the value of the vessel and value of its cargo contents remaining after a calamity occurs.

 The U.S. Supreme Court has long held that where a ship sinks after a calamity, the sinking is the termination of the voyage and the value of the vessel -- thus the limitation of the ship owner's liability.

 Ironically, the more damage that occurs to the vessel and its cargo, the lower the liability for the vessel owner. This means that an LNG tanker disaster resulting in the total loss of the vessel and total loss of its cargo would result in minimal financial liability for the LNG vessel owner -- even where the disaster incinerates an entire coastal community -- killing 100,000 people, injuring 50,000 others and destroying billions of dollars of property and infrastructure.

 Shockingly, the vessel owner's financial liability in such a scenario for all property damage would be absolutely zero, and for loss of life and bodily injuries would be limited to just $420 per vessel ton.

 Protecting vessel owners was established by the act in 1851, and our Supreme Court has long held that the owner's duty is essentially satisfied when he properly equips the vessel and selects competent crew to operate it, and neither the vessel, nor her owners are responsible for damage or loss resulting from faults or errors in navigation or in the management of the vessel.

 All LNG deepwater port facility operators are protected by the Deepwater Port Act's financial liability limitation of $350 million, and the U.S. Coast Guard may even lower this amount.

 Originally, this limitation was created for offshore oil ports contemplating sufficient liability for an oil spill and cleanup costs. Now, protecting operators processing and storing millions of gallons of the ultrahazardous LNG, that upon release, could incinerate entire communities -- the $350 million limitation is totally inadequate.

 Losses from mounting wrongful death claims, serious burn victim claims, medical costs, loss of earnings, destruction of homes, cars, businesses, stores full of inventory, and community infrastructure could run into the billions.

 Destruction of Point Mugu or Port Hueneme and their contents could run into the billions.

 LNG proponents throughout America constantly hype LNG's alleged safety record; and they proclaim their LNG facilities and LNG tankers will operate and deliver safely -- without accident, human error, or defect and will be impervious to natural calamity and terrorism.

 They should pay the price for such claims, and be held strictly liable for their ultrahazardous activities -- without any financial limitations.

 The current laws protect foreign interests and the very few importers of LNG, while at the same time they expose American citizens and local government facilities and infrastructure to devastation without adequate recourse for recovery.

 Next time you have breakfast with an LNG deepwater port applicant -- there are approximately a half-dozen in America -- ask them to stipulate to strict liability and waive the financial liability limitations. Also, ask them to indemnify LNG vessel owners for all damages caused by LNG vessels coming to or from their deepwater ports.

 Or, you can simply suggest they put their money where their mouth is, and get out of town.

 -- Tim Riley, of Oxnard Shores, is a consumer protection advocate and personal injury attorney. He hosts TimRileyLaw.com, a Web site on the risks and danger of liquefied natural gas.

 Copyright 2004, Ventura County Star. All Rights Reserved.

September 20, 2004

The Norway Post

http://www.norwaypost.no/content.asp?folder_id=7&cluster_id=26214

LNG tanker adrift north of Bergen - now under tow

A fully loaded LNG tanker with a crew of 14 was Monday adrift west of Fedje, on the west coast of Norway, north of Bergen. The ship's engines had stopped, and the anchors were useless in the stormy weather.

However, two tug boats managed to get the tanker under tow just as the ship was only 30 yards from hitting the rocks.

There was strong wind and bad weather conditions in the area, and preparations were made to evacuate the 800 persons living on the island of Fedje, for fear that the tanker would explode if it grounded, NRK reports.

Two Coast Guard vessels and two rescue helicopters are also on their way towards the tanker.

(NRK)

Rolleiv Solholm

September 21, 2004

The Providence Journal
Lloyd's executive likens LNG attack to nuclear explosion

U.S. regulators don't share the concerns of the top official at the world's second-largest commercial insurer.

01:00 AM EDT on Tuesday, September 21, 2004

http://www.projo.com/massachusetts/content/projo_20040921_ma21lng.134600.html

BY MARK REYNOLDS
Journal Staff Writer

A terrorist attack on an LNG tanker "would have the force of a small nuclear explosion," according to the chairman of Lloyd's, a British insurer of natural gas port facilities like the ones being proposed in Fall River and Providence.

The assertion, which is contested by industry experts, was in a speech that the chairman, Peter Levene, delivered last night to business leaders in Houston.

Levene described Texas as a "state at risk" and said that securing its remote oil facilities is a "particular challenge."

"Gas carriers too, whether at sea or in ports, make obvious targets," said Levene. "Specialists reckon that a terrorist attack on an LNG tanker would have the force of a small nuclear explosion."

Levene did not name the specialists in his remarks, although a text of his speech contains a footnote. The footnote attributes the observation to the author of an article posted, in an abbreviated form, on the Web site of Jane's Terrorism and Security Monitor in July. The same abstract, apparently authored by the same person, Dr. J.C.K. Daly, was also posted on the Internet weblog Talk Show American.

Levene also did not specify Texas LNG port facilities and tanker ships that might be at risk.

Records kept by federal regulators show that several LNG port facilities have been proposed in Texas. They do not show any existing facilities.

Levene's company, Lloyd's, is the world's second-largest commercial insurer.

The chairman could not be reached for comment yesterday.

Some critics of the proposal in Fall River have spoken in apocalyptic terms of potential LNG disasters.

But to date, no official reports by government regulators have made comparisons between the various LNG catastrophes that experts have hypothesized and destruction from an atomic bomb.

One report does describe hypothetical fires that might erupt if gas leaks from a tanker in its liquid form changes into a gaseous form and ignites when it comes into contact with a flame.

In one instance, the blaze, in less than a minute, would be capable of inflicting third-degree burns a little less than a mile away.

Bryan Lee, a spokesman for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, said federal regulators have not changed their analysis.

"Just about any expert will come up with a different assessment regarding LNG depending on the parameters and assumptions they have," said Lee, who emphasized the LNG shipping industry's safe track record.

Regulators, he said, will review the safety of different LNG proposals on a case-by-case basis.

"We stand by all of our analysis on this matter," he said.

David Manning, a spokesman for the company with plans for an LNG shipping facility at Fields Point in Providence, was taken aback by Levene's comments.

"This is completely inconsistent with any of the science and analysis that is currently in the public domain," Manning said.

Governor Romney, meanwhile, is asking for more time to study a proposed liquefied natural gas facility in Fall River, saying federal regulators haven't adequately studied potential dangers posed by a terrorist attack on a tanker.

Romney sent a letter to FERC Secretary Magalie Salas yesterday, saying terrorism must be considered as a possible threat.

"There is simply no way that it makes sense to site an LNG facility in this location in the post-911 world," Romney wrote. "A thorough review would confirm this conclusion."

Tuesday, October 12, 2004

Mobile Register

Fire threat in LNG ships

Top U.S. security officials now admit that insulation in vessels is highly flammable

http://www.al.com/news/mobileregister/index.ssf?/base/news/109757270533150.xml

By BEN RAINES Staff Reporter

Top officials with the Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Coast Guard now acknowledge that ships designed to carry liquefied natural gas are, in fact, constructed using tons of highly flammable polystyrene insulation.

The same officials had previously denied that the material was even present on the ships, maintaining in a letter to a member of Congress last May that polystyrene insulation "is not used on LNG carriers precisely because it's susceptible to melting and deformation in a fire."

Officials now describe that statement as "incorrect," and granted that many important questions remain about what might happen to an LNG vessel if terrorists attacked it. Some scenarios envision a fire a mile across, producing severe burns up to two miles away.

As early as February, some scientists brought concerns to Homeland Security officials about the widespread use of flammable insulation on ships carrying one of the nation's most dangerously flammable cargoes.

Shortly after, government documents began surfacing suggesting that there was no danger, simply because, according to the documents, the flammable insulation was not present on LNG ships.

In the past several months, the statement has turned up in congressional hearings, letters to Congress and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission documents that granted approval for new LNG terminals. Two such terminals have been proposed for the Mobile area, with a third proposed for federal waters 11 miles off of Dauphin Island.

The mistaken assertion originally appeared in a letter from Homeland Security to Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., whose suburban Boston district is home to the nation's only urban LNG port, long singled out by Homeland Security officials as a likely terror target.

In that letter, Pamela Turner, an assistant secretary for the federal security agency, rebutted concerns from the scientific community about the hazards posed by the insulation with the statement that it was "not used."

When natural gas is chilled to minus 260 degrees, it turns into a liquid, takes up 600 times less space, and can be economically shipped around the world aboard supertankers, just like oil. From a shipping perspective, the main difference between the fuels is that LNG vessels require tremendous amounts of insulation in order to keep the cargo below minus 260 degrees and in its condensed liquid state.

Beginning in February, a prominent LNG scientist warned Secretary Tom Ridge and other officials via personal letters that if terrorists attacked an LNG tanker, the heat from the ensuing fire would likely destroy the polystyrene cargo insulation.

The Mobile Register obtained a copy of one of those letters, written by University of Arkansas chemical engineering professor Jerry Havens, whose work has long been a central component of federal LNG regulations. The letter made clear that the problematic insulation was commonly used on LNG tankers.

Havens -- a former officer in the U.S. Army's chemical weapons division who is expert in biological warfare, nuclear weapons and the behavior of chemical fires -- warned "if the cargo containment insulation were to fail in a fire, I believe that the entire LNG containment could be compromised."

Writing in scientific journals and testifying before Congress, Havens has suggested the government was underestimating the public safety risks posed by an attack on an LNG vessel in a populated port area. His central criticism is that officials have never considered what would happen if all 30 million gallons on board an LNG vessel were ignited.

At this point, federal officials are making regulations based on a worst-case scenario accident that would involve less than a fifth of the natural gas aboard a tanker.

In the letter to Ridge, Havens referenced a confidential study, paid for by the LNG terminal operator in Boston Harbor and produced by Lloyd's Register of Shipping, that suggests an attack on an LNG tanker with a relatively small explosive charge could lead to an escalating series of fires and explosions that would ultimately consume the ship. Scientists both within the federal government and in academia have estimated such a fire would be a mile across and cause severe burns to people within two miles of the blaze.

Some in the scientific community have expressed alarm that the senior government officials in charge of protecting the nation's ports did not appear to understand critical facts regarding construction of LNG ships, even as the Department of Energy and FERC have sought to locate new LNG terminals in populated port areas.

Turner's statement went uncorrected by government agencies from May until Sept. 13, when a follow-up letter described the earlier statement as "incorrect." The follow-up letter states that the Coast Guard informed Markey's office on Aug. 30 that the earlier information was wrong.

In the interim, beginning in June, the Mobile Register published portions of numerous industry documents that show polystyrene is the primary insulation on LNG ships, and referenced a paper by the Society of International Gas Tanker and Terminal Operators that states the material was so flammable that dozens of shipyard workers have been killed in accidental fires during tanker construction and repair.

The inaccurate statements regarding the presence of the foam insulation on LNG ships have been repeated in FERC documents, and were used by FERC to justify, in part, the construction of new LNG terminals in populated areas.

In its approval for a new terminal in Freeport, Texas, FERC wrote that bringing the LNG tankers into Freeport represented an "acceptable risk," partly because "polystyrene insulation is not used on LNG carriers."

Last week, a FERC spokeswoman said that several other pending permits for new LNG terminals contain the same statement by the agency. There was no word on whether those permits will be reviewed or whether the erroneous information will be repeated in future permit approvals.

FERC officials declined further comment for this story.

Capt. Dave Scott, with the Coast Guard in Washington, said that his agency was responsible for the error, and said it was made while conducting research into LNG issues. He said that since then, the Coast Guard has conducted further research and determined that, while the flammable insulation is used on LNG ships, the vessels are in compliance with all U.S. and international shipping regulations. In addition, he said his agency was satisfied with safety features designed into LNG ships, and warned that "there is no such thing as a terrorist-proof ship."

"We erred in saying it was not used. Of course it is used... Our position at the Coast Guard is that intentional damage to an LNG vessel is an unacceptable event. We are doing everything possible to make sure that doesn't happen," Scott said. "We recognize the dangers posed by gas ships. That's why we take the precautions we do."