timesrecord.com
Part 2: How Safe is LNG? Assessing the risk
Elizabeth_Dorsey@TimesRecord.Com
03/03/2004
HARPSWELL — David White, an expert in LNG firefighting, is known to friends as "Disaster Dave" because of his experience responding to industrial accidents.
He has no patience with theoretical models.
"Anybody can punch numbers into a computer and say 'Look how bad it could be,' but that's not reality. You can duplicate things in the lab all day long that would never happen in the real world. If you haven't worked with it, you don't know. We dumped 8,000 gallons of it in a pond and it just went away," he said.
To White, the likelihood of a major LNG disaster is so small that it hardly merits public concern, especially considering that people expect their energy needs to be met.
"If we want to have all the nice things that come with society, there is a trade-off," he said, adding that LNG is far safer than other petroleum fuels.
Others agree.
"You won't find anybody who will say LNG is a greater danger than propane," said Katulak, the vice president of operations at the Distrigas facility. "People ignore the hazards of gasoline and propane because they use it every day."
While it's difficult to estimate the probability of unlikely events, it has been done. According to a commonly used set of guidelines for quantifying risk, the chance a storage tank would both fail and catch fire, the worst imaginable accidental scenario, is just 1-in-100 million.
According to a U.S. Department of Transportation analysis of risk, in any given year, a person has a 1-in-6.3 million chance of dying in an accident involving hazardous materials transportation; a 1-in-1.6 million chance of dying in a commercial airline crash; a 1-in-335,000 chance of dying in a recreational boating accident; a 1-in-71,000 chance of drowning; and a 1-in-6,300 chance of dying in a motor vehicle crash.
Even Fay agrees that a major accidental release of LNG is improbable.
In a recent interview with The Times Record, Fay said he could not conceive of an accidental LNG release that would cause the widespread damage he predicts with his models. He called such scenarios "very unlikely."
Only an act of terrorism or sabotage could cause the widespread damage his models predict, he said.
"I don't know anyone who could say what the likelihood of that is. That is a question for public safety officials to contemplate. It really comes down to the consideration by the community of whether they want to bear the risk for that," he said.
Terrorism
Though it would be impossible to determine the likelihood of anything becoming a terrorist target, some say a terrorist attack on an LNG facility in Harpswell defies logic, especially considering the fact that what would seem to be more appealing targets to terrorists — Bath Iron Works, Maine Yankee and the Brunswick Naval Air Station — are so close. The neighborhoods near those sites are more heavily populated than Harpswell Neck, yet the people who live nearby have not had to make major changes to their lifestyles to counter threats of terrorism.
"It's a fairly remote facility, not a dense population, it's not going to impact gas delivery, it's not going to disrupt commerce. It's going to take a heck of a lot of explosives to even ensure an aftermath to it. If you were a terrorist, would you blow up a filling station in Harpswell?" asked Bob Nimocks, president of Zeus Development Corp., the publisher of the industry publication LNG Express.
Maine Emergency Management Agency officials agree.
"It is unlikely that terrorists would find these facilities as a target of opportunity," stated MEMA director Arthur Cleaves.
Still, terrorism by its very nature is unpredictable and LNG facilities have been mentioned as possible terrorist targets by government officials. In November, a statement by the Department of Homeland Security about al Qaeda terrorist threats named LNG facilities specifically as possible targets.
Whatever the risks prove to be, the Maine Department of Public Safety remains confident it can provide any necessary security.
"We have concluded that it would be manageable and workable and would pose no exceptional challenges," said Michael Cantara, commissioner of the department, adding that its far too early to know the extent of security measures that would be required to protect LNG deliveries to Harpswell, though it is unlikely that Harpswell would require the level of security currently employed in Boston Harbor.
Local concerns
Since September, Harpswell residents have been exposed to a wide array of conflicting information concerning LNG safety and security.
Industry representatives, on the one hand, have repeatedly touted the nearly flawless safety records of the more than 250 LNG facilities around the world, enumerated safety features that would be put in place at an LNG terminal and described the properties of LNG that make it inherently safer than other commonly used fuels.
Yet politicians in other states, including Gov. Bob Riley of Alabama, recently called on the federal government to conduct new LNG safety studies; Dr. James Fay released his report warning of the widespread impact of an LNG disaster in Harpswell; and resident Len Freeman has produced a video warning of the dangers of LNG spilled on water.
That video includes footage of experiments conducted by the U.S. Bureau of Mines during the 1970s to assess the dangers of LNG spills. A report issued in 1972 based on those experiments indicates that, under specific atmospheric conditions, an LNG pool fire on water could extend up to 18 miles from the source of the spill.
"We are not being told about the risks of such large quantities of LNG transiting our town," Freeman said. "I'm not predicting it will happen, I'm just trying to assess the risk."
Freeman also claims that emergency management procedures would require the evacuation of anyone living within seven miles of the facility in the event of a major LNG disaster.
Maine Emergency Management officials, however, say they have never said that.
According to Robert Gardner, a technology hazards specialist at MEMA, preliminary modeling by his agency has shown that the effects of a spill would be confined to the site and notes that LNG is not considered to be an extremely hazardous substance.
"We've got 30 years in the U.S. where basically we haven't had consequences off site," he added.
These assurances are not enough to convince Freeman.
"Their safety record, absolutely, has been good," he said. "But past performance is not a predictor of future performance. Three Mile Island was safe until it wasn't."
Yet, others in town feel confident that the risks are too low to merit substantial concern, especially compared with the everyday dangers of driving or using propane. And, if Fairwinds comes to town, the facility would be staffed by trained firefighters who, according to Harpswell Neck Fire Chief Nelson Barter, potentially could assist local departments that are struggling to find volunteer firefighters.
"There are potentially significant benefits in the safety aspects to the town over and above any risks incurred," he said, noting that the department, with a station that sits adjacent to the fuel depot property, has not taken a position on the issue.
In the end, Harpswell residents will each decide how to weigh safety concerns among a multitude of other issues when they cast their ballots on March 9. If the lease is approved, the process doesn't end there. Fairwinds still must obtain state and federal permits before construction can begin. That process provides opportunities for Harpswell residents and anyone else who might be affected by Fairwinds to comment on their concerns.
edorsey@timesrecord.com
thejakartapost.com
BP seeks loan from Bank of China, JBIC for Tangguh finance
Fitri Wulandari, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta
Energy giant BP PLc is seeking US$1.3 billion in loans from Chinese and Japanese lenders to finance the Tangguh gas project, a senior official said on Wednesday.
Rachmat Sudibyo, the head of the Oil and Gas Upstream Regulatory Board (BP Migas) said BP PLC was seeking loans from the Bank of China and Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC) for the construction of Indonesia's third liquefied natural gas (LNG) plant in the Bird's Head area of Papua province.
"The discussion with international lenders has been resumed after being delayed because Tangguh had not secured enough market in the past," Rachmat told The Jakarta Post.
A consortium consisting of Japan's JGC Corp., U.S. Kellog Brown & Root, and local company Pertafenikki Engineering won the tender to build the LNG plant with an estimated cost of $1.3 billion, which is expected to enter into full operation in 2007.
To date, Tangguh has secured a total of 7.4 million tons per annum of LNG, including contracts to supply 2.6 million tons per annum to China's Fujian province, 1.1 million tons per year to South Korean buyer (SK and Posco) and a preliminary contract to supply 3.7 million tons of LNG to U.S.-based Sempra Energy. |
