Archive for the ‘LNG Facility News’ Category

The “Bourne Sanction” tells story of Islamic attack on LNG tanker

Sunday, January 4th, 2009

Well, it looks like Jason Bourne will save the day before the main character in “Hunt of the Sea Wolves,” can when he stops Islamic terrorists from blowing up an LNG tanker in the new novel “The Bourne Sanction.” It appears that the third installment of a Bourne’s fight against terrorists. I’d much prefer that my novel was the first to tell of the danger of a terrorist attack on LNG, but if the Bourne novels can do it instead, that’s fine. But I do hope Sea Wolves makes it to the screen before Bourne. John Chadwell

Deccan Herald

Against the backdrop of the Mumbai terror attacks this book makes for chilling reading. In exactly, 33 hours, 26 minutes America faces a massive attack — the biggest and more spectacular. The chatter being monitored by Typhon, a special US intelligence group, shows that the target is a structure of both economic and symbolic significance, possibly on the east coast.As the plot unravels, it becomes clear that terrorists are about to strike a huge liquid natural gas tanker on Long Beach. The tanker, 12 storey high and as large as a village, holds three million gallons of LNG.

Blowing up the tanker will devastate five square miles, kill thousands and cripple America’s economy. As the port is the gateway for much of imports, there will be acute shortage of food and goods.

Read story at Deccon Herald

Foreign crews from unstable, unfriendly countries are weak link in LNG security

Tuesday, December 23rd, 2008

Dogwood Initiative

Can Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) be used as a lethal weapon of mass destruction? That question lies at the heart of the debate about increasing use of this important energy resource.

The answers are not reassuring. Nor are the questions.

Certainly, security measures currently in place make LNG terminals and ships extremely hard targets for terrorists. However, it would be imprudent to believe that terrorists are either incapable or unwilling to attack such targets. It would be equally imprudent to assume that these targets are impenetrable. A number of known vulnerabilities exist within the LNG industry. These vulnerabilities lie in the human factor. In other words, LNG ships and tankers are structurally sound. The potential for problems lies within the people who are somehow involved in the industry.

Inadequate vetting of crews

LNG shipments often originate from politically unstable and unfriendly countries and regions. Some of the locations in which LNG originates include Qatar, Nigeria, Algeria and Egypt. “It’s the location of the ports, and where the LNG is loaded, and who gets on the vessel [that is important],” said William Doyle, Deputy General Counsel of the Marine Engineers’ Beneficial Association (MEBA). Many ships operate under grossly unregulated “open registry” or “flags of convenience” registries and often originate from ports with poor security systems in place.

Read story at Dogwood Initiative

GAO report indicates that LNG ships and ports are terrorist targets under consideration

Tuesday, December 23rd, 2008

Committee on Energy and Commerce

A lack of resources has hampered U.S. Coast Guard efforts to secure ports handling energy commodities such as gasoline and liquified natural gas (LNG), according to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report released today. The report, requested last year by Reps. John D. Dingell (D-MI), Chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, Joe Barton (R-TX), Ranking Member of the Committee, and Edward J. Markey (D-MA), a member of the Committee, highlights a greater need for resources to protect the growing number of liquified natural gas tankers coming into U.S. ports from overseas. LNG tankers now transport 3 percent of U.S. natural gas supplies, but LNG imports are projected to grow by nearly 400 percent to 17 percent of U.S. natural gas consumption by the year 2015.

GAO’s report, Maritime Security: Federal Efforts Needed to Address Challenges in Preventing and Responding to Terrorist Attacks on Energy Commodity Tankers, highlights the fact that energy commodity tankers have been targets of recent maritime terrorist attacks, such as the suicide attack on the oil tanker Limberg off the coast of Yemen in 2002 and multiple attacks from explosive-packed vessels against oil terminals in Iraq in 2004.

According to the report, tankers are also vulnerable to stand-off attacks using rockets, mortar or rocket propelled grenades; armed assaults; and insider attacks executed through a crew conspiracy. GAO stated, “The threat of seaborne terrorist attacks on maritime energy tankers and infrastructure is likely to persist,” with the greatest risks at overseas shipping chokepoints such as the Straits of Hormuz, the Straits of Malacca, the Suez Canal, and the Panama Canal.

Although GAO reported no specific threat of attack at U.S. ports, intelligence indicates that domestic ports are targets under consideration by terrorists. Captured terrorist training manuals cite seaports as targets and instruct trainees to use covert means to obtain surveillance information in attack planning. An attack could have significant public safety implications. For example, a terrorist attack on an LNG tanker could create a fire with such intensity that individuals could be burned as far as one and a quarter miles away after only 30 seconds of exposure, according to a companion GAO report issued in February 2007 (http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_110/GAOfeb2007.pdf).

The Coast Guard’s activities range from patrolling waters, boarding ships and escorting dangerous cargoes, to overseeing security actions taken by vessel and facility operators. The Administration requested $45 million for Fiscal Year ‘08 for the Coast Guard’s port security efforts. The Homeland Security Appropriations Act enacted by Congress as part of the FY ‘08 Omnibus Appropriations Act included $58.8 million to bolster the Coast Guard’s efforts.

“If there was an attack on an energy tanker or terminal in a U.S. port, there could be significant economic, environmental and public safety consequences, which would result in even higher gasoline and heating oil prices,” said Dingell. “I supported increases to the Coast Guard budget in fiscal year 08 and I plan to carefully review the President’s 09 budget request to determine whether the Administration has provided the resources necessary to protect the energy tankers and ports, as identified in this report. GAO’s analysis reminds us of the urgent need to reduce energy imports and spur the growth of renewable and non-polluting energy supplies.”

Markey, whose district includes the nation’s only urban LNG importation terminal, the Distrigas facility in Everett, said, “We know that terrorists are looking for the weakest link in our security efforts, and this GAO report is a timely reminder that LNG and oil tankers are serious targets. Given the fact that LNG is being transported into Boston harbor every several days on the way to the Everett LNG terminal, an attack on one of these tankers could be devastating. I will be working with my colleagues to ensure that the Department of Homeland Security responds to the vulnerabilities exposed in this report and that their efforts are not hampered by a lack or resources. We cannot skimp when it comes to public safety.”

The GAO report also notes a shortage of money for local first responders and the fact that distribution of grants is hampered by lack of performance measures. The GAO report being released today was finalized in March 2007, but could not be made public due to security sensitive information about U.S. ports and operation. The version released today follows an extensive interagency review to remove security sensitive information.

Read GAO report

LNG facility catastrophic risk in highly populated area

Wednesday, August 20th, 2008

Baltimore Sun:

Maryland undoubtedly needs more and cheaper energy, but we’re not going to do just anything to get it. We won’t strip state forests for fireplace fodder. We won’t reverse pollution controls on cars and power plants.

And we shouldn’t let ships carrying liquefied natural gas sail into the mouth of the Patapsco River.

Importing small but potentially catastrophic industrial risks into highly populated areas may have been OK for the 20th-century economy. It doesn’t work now.

With hundreds of miles of coastline to accommodate freighters bringing gas from the Caribbean, why choose one of the few spots where an accident or terrorist attack could do grave damage?

Entire Column

Protests against new LNG facility in Mount Hope Bay

Wednesday, June 25th, 2008

The Providence Journal:

BRISTOL — They called the plan ill-conceived, dangerous, an environmental disaster and just plain bad.

The majority of the people who testified last night on Weaver’s Cove Energy’s proposal for a floating liquefied natural gas terminal in Mount Hope Bay were emphatic in their opposition.

“What angers me, what incenses me … is that these people have the audacity to construct this facility in our bay,” said state Rep. Raymond E. Gallison Jr., D-Bristol, Portsmouth. “Mount Hope Bay belongs to the people, not Weaver’s Cove.”

About 80 people were at Mt. Hope High School in Bristol last night for the first of two public hearings scheduled by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on Weaver’s Cove’s latest proposal to ship LNG to the area.

The second hearing was set for tonight at 7 at the Venus de Milo restaurant in Swansea.

Weaver’s Cove wants to build a 1,200-foot-long berth in the middle of Mount Hope Bay, about a mile from the closest shoreline. Tankers would dock there and unload LNG, which would be piped to a re-gasification plant that would be built in Fall River.

Entire Story

Texada Island Citizens favor ban on LNG ships

Tuesday, May 27th, 2008

Times Colonist:

A group of concerned citizens on Texada Island is embracing a resolution passed by the Powell River Regional District to ban ocean-going tankers carrying liquefied natural gas in the waters of Malaspina and Georgia straits.

Texada Action Now, a group formed to fight WestPac LNG’s proposed $2-billion liquefied natural gas terminal and electricity generating facility on Texada Island, endorsed the resolution saying it showed leadership.

“One of the things it does is show WestPac that they don’t have the local government on side,” said Chuck Childress, chairman of the TAN board. He hopes other communities around the Georgia Basin will follow their lead.

Offshore LNG terminals are terrorist targets

Thursday, April 24th, 2008

bnd.com:

New York Gov. David Paterson wisely rejected plans to locate a huge liquefied natural gas (LNG) barge in the waters off Long Island.

The LNG floating terminal was spearheaded by Shell Oil and Broadwater Energy and does little to move America away from dependence on fossil fuels. Paterson said the proposed mega-barge would “scar” Long Island Sound, and environmental groups like Save the Sound rallied to block the so-called Broadwater LNG complex.

The energy industry argues that LNG produces lower carbon emissions than oil or coal, but this factoid is a placebo designed to keep America’s energy infrastructure wedded to the fossil fuel industry.

New York rejects LNG terminal

Friday, April 11th, 2008

Financial Post:

New York state rejected TransCanada Corp.’s plans to build the first floating liquefied natural gas terminal in the United States on Thursday, a decision that investors shrugged off, but illustrates the difficulty involved in building a LNG project in North America, despite escalating demand for fuel.

New York Governor David Paterson effectively squashed plans to build the Broadwater Energy project, a joint venture between TransCanada and Royal Dutch Shell PLC, citing the environmental damage it would cause, and the availability of energy alternatives.

“I would say this is the kiss of death [for the Broadwater project],” said Daniel Shteyn, a utilities and power analyst at Desjardins Securities. “If New York is dead set against it, then … there is a very high probability that it is dead and done.”

Connecticut officials say LNG facility falls short of approval

Thursday, April 10th, 2008

The Canadian Press:

Connecticut officials are praising an anticipated announcement from their counterparts in New York rejecting a US$700-million bid by a consortium including TransCanada Pipelines Ltd. (TSX:TRP) to build a liquefied natural gas terminal on Long Island Sound.

The massive floating platform was opposed by the state of Connecticut, its entire congressional delegation and other critics who say it would damage the environment and be vulnerable to a terrorist attack.

Key government policy makers land high-paying jobs with LNG industry leads to speculation of back-room deals

Thursday, April 10th, 2008

Long Beach Press-Telegram:

Take a good look at the leading advocates of the three major proposals to build multibillion-dollar liquefied natural gas receiving facilities in California and you can’t help wondering about state agency decisions that make those plans seem feasible.

That’s because some of the same people who made or recommended key LNG reports and rulings by the state Energy and Public Utilities commissions are now leading players in bids enabled by those decisions.

No one knows if there are any quid pro quos at work here, secret promises made by companies to important regulators for high-paying jobs if they make the decisions those companies want, decisions that promise tens of billions of dollars in corporate profits over 30 years or more if they are allowed to persist.