Environmental activists, industry regulators and citizens debated the future of liquid natural gas in New England on Friday, citing concerns about the possibility of a disastrous accident or terrorist attack involving tankers and permanent facilities that house Liquefied Natural Gas.
Following the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001 on New York City and the Pentagon, the Coast Guard temporarily closed the Everett LNG facility, and Boston Mayor Thomas Menino attempted to permanently shut down the facility through an unsuccessful lawsuit.
Mayor Thomas Menino also demanded a ban of giant tanker ships bearing liquefied natural gas in Boston Harbor in 2003, saying that federal and industry officials were playing “Russian roulette” with the city’s safety.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor James Fay said in a study on a possible LNG attack in Boston that 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.
As one of four facilities in the United States, the Distrigas LNG facility in Everett, Mass. transforms LNG into gas and then distributes the gas to areas in New England. According to the Federal Energy Regulatory Committee, there are about 40 more proposed facilities to be built in North America, including one in Fall River and two offshore terminals near Boston.
Weaver’s Cove Energy President Ted Gehrig, whose company is vying to open a new LNG terminal in Fall River, said people should be more informed of the risks involved in transporting all forms of fossil fuels and the safety precautions taken by companies.
“Public opinion should have been mobilized twenty years ago. It’s a long term process, there’s an innate fear of anything new,” Gehrig said.
Gehrig added that LNG has an almost impeccable record in safety.
“In over 45,000 [tanker] voyages there has never been public injury,” Gehrig said.
But according to a Reuters article published on January 20, 2004, an explosion at an LNG processing plant in Skikda, Algeria caused 27 personnel deaths and disabled the plant.
Gehrig said people tend to view LNG more skittishly because they do not encounter it on a daily basis, whereas people disregard the dangers associated with gasoline because people handle gasoline everyday.
“If people pulled up to gas stations and pumped natural gas instead of gasoline, these controversies would not exist,” Gehrig said, adding that the public has a distorted public perception of natural gas.
Rob Bryngelson, Vice President of Development and Downstream Services Excelerate Energy, presented an alternative to the traditional land-locked LNG facilities by creating an underwater terminal that attaches to a tanker and can withstand natural gas transfers even through a hurricane.
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita demonstrated the incredible vulnerability of the U.S. economy in the face of gas and oil shortages, Bryngelson said.
Excelerate Energy is moving through the federal approval process to build an off shore terminal near Boston.
Gherig said the public’s use of LNG is inevitable, but companies can control the amount of risk citizens will face.
“There is nothing we do in life that has zero risks,” Gehrig said, “We are trying to establish an acceptable risk level for LNG.”