Debate Over Concentrated Fuel Comes to Long Beach
Cities on the East and West coasts have been debating the safety of building dozens of liquefied natural gas terminals to increase U.S. imports of the popular fuel.
Tonight that debate will come to Long Beach, where the City Council will consider whether to cut off talks with a Mitsubishi Corp. subsidiary that wants to build an onshore LNG terminal at the city-owned port.
City officials are predicting a standing-room-only crowd at the 5 p.m. meeting. Union members applaud the $450-million project and the jobs it will bring, while some residents and environmentalists fear the flammable liquid could cause catastrophic damage if it ignites.
The debate brings home a question that is central to the current national debate over energy policy.
Natural gas is an attractive fuel because it can be applied to many tasks -- from lighting a kitchen stove to turning the turbines of an electrical power plant -- all without the breath-choking pollution created by its fossil-fuel cousins, oil and coal.
As world oil prices soar, natural gas has become a more cost-effective fuel to import from wells around the globe. But it can only be shipped overseas in a liquefied form known as LNG -- a tricky proposition because the substance is highly combustible.
Now, state and federal authorities are dueling over who should have the ultimate say on whether onshore terminals such as that proposed for Long Beach should be built.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger weighed in last week with a letter to federal officials, and the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee is expected to take up the issue this week.
Lost amid the furor are some of the basic facts about liquefied natural gas, the science behind its transportation and why so many people disagree over its safety.
Question: What is liquefied natural gas?
Answer: LNG is natural gas that has been cooled to minus 260 degrees Fahrenheit -- so cold that it turns into a liquid that is clear, colorless and odorless. The chilling shrinks its volume by about 600 times, which allows it to be transported by ship. That means it can be brought to the United States by sea from natural gas sources in countries such as Australia, Indonesia, Iran, Malaysia and Russia. The liquid is later converted back into gaseous form and distributed to customers.
Q: Why is it controversial?
A: The highly concentrated nature of LNG is both a benefit and a curse. It can be shipped conveniently and cheaply. But it packs so much potential energy that if it were to escape, it could ignite and create a massive fire.
Industry experts say LNG transport has an excellent safety record, and that ships and terminals alike contain safeguards to prevent gas from escaping and catching fire. They note that LNG vapor is flammable only when it is in a 5% to 15% concentration in air. Critics counter that LNG is a public safety threat, pointing to a January 2004 fire at an export facility in Skikda, Algeria, that killed 27 people and injured many more.
In Long Beach, an additional concern is residents’ fears that the LNG plant and the massive tankers servicing it could become a prime target for terrorists seeking to shut down the nation’s second-busiest seaport. If a tanker were attacked, the fire could cause serious injuries to people and damage buildings within a third of a mile, according to a December 2004 report by Sandia National Laboratories. People as far as a mile away could suffer second-degree burns.
Q: How popular is LNG as a fuel?
A: Although LNG has been used widely for decades in Europe and Asia, only five import terminals operate in the United States, all on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts. Now, confronted with rising natural gas prices and dwindling domestic natural gas sources, energy companies are rushing to build new U.S. terminals so they can import gas from overseas. Forty new terminals have been discussed or formally proposed, although only a dozen may actually be built. They include four in California -- the onshore plant in Long Beach, two offshore terminals in Ventura County and one off the coast of Camp Pendleton in northern San Diego County.
The speed with which proposals are surfacing is causing some alarm in coastal communities nationwide. Already, protesting residents have prompted the cancellation of planned terminals in the Bay Area community of Vallejo and in Eureka on the North Coast.
Q: How would the Long Beach terminal operate?
A: LNG would be brought into port in large, double-hulled tankers, many built in a distinctive design with bulbous tanks that look like giant eggs resting in a long container. An estimated 120 tankers each year -- or one every three days -- would visit the terminal, which would consist of a single berth, two 160,000-cubic-meter receiving tanks, a “regasification” facility and an LNG supply depot. After being transformed back into a gaseous state, the fuel would leave the plant in pipelines to eventually be used to heat and cool homes, offices and factories. Some gas still in liquid form would be moved out by truck.
Q: How safe are LNG terminals?
A: Some advocates argue that LNG technology has proved itself in Europe and Asia, and they point out that last year’s Algerian blast was the first major catastrophe since 1944, when LNG escaped from a storage tank, leaked through Cleveland-area storm sewers and ignited, killing 128 people. Some believe that offshore terminals are preferable and others contend that even offshore sites are too close to populated areas.
The Long Beach terminal would be built about two miles from the city’s downtown and a cluster of tourist attractions, including the Queen Mary, the Aquarium of the Pacific and the new Pike waterfront dining and entertainment complex. That is far too risky, according to a coalition of residents who want city officials to end talks with Mitsubishi.
A recent study by Sandia National Laboratories found that accidental LNG spills can be prevented with current regulations, but warned that intentional attacks would be harder to avoid.
A new report by former White House anti-terrorism expert Richard Clarke concludes that terrorists could “relatively easily both obtain the needed capability and conduct an attack” on an urban LNG facility, with a high risk of “generating catastrophic damage, with which the region could not adequately cope.”
Q: What are the effects on the environment?
A: Mitsubishi has presented LNG as a means to improve air quality in the Los Angeles Basin, where diesel-burning trucks and other equipment have been linked to serious health concerns. The terminal would supply ample amounts of LNG for heavy-duty vehicles, they say, sharply reducing emissions of nitrogen oxides, particulate matter and other pollutants that can harm health.
Such cleaner-burning fuel would not be available from offshore terminals such as those proposed off the Ventura County coast because LNG would be converted back to its gaseous form offshore, Mitsubishi officials say. BHP Billiton, which has proposed one of the projects off Ventura County, says it has not ruled out providing some liquid fuel.
A number of environmental groups say that dependence on LNG could distract industry and governments from developing energy sources that are not based on fossil fuels.
Q: What comes next?
A: The Long Beach City Council tonight will debate whether to continue negotiations with Mitsubishi.
In Washington, D.C., a controversial proposal giving the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission final say in the siting of LNG facilities is expected to be scrutinized by a Senate committee later this week.
Two bills pending in Sacramento, backed by environmental groups, would create new regulatory hurdles for LNG facilities.
And late this summer or in early fall, the release of draft environmental documents for the Long Beach plant is likely to stir even more debate about LNG safety.
