Torry Shealy
An area of great concern at U.S. ports is an attack on a facility or ship containing volatile substances in an urban area. An attack on one of these facilities that is outside an urban area could also cause great damage to our economy as well. One potential terrorist target that has some experts and officials concerned is an attack on a ship offloading liquefied natural gas (LNG) at a port facility. The devastation that would be created from a ship and facility exploding at once could cause devastation on the same scale as a small atomic device.
Currently, LNG deliveries are handled by seven U.S. terminals: Kenai , Alaska ; Everett , Massachusetts ; Cove Point , Maryland ; Elba Island , Georgia ; Lake Charles , Louisiana ; Penuelas, Puerto Rico; and the Gulf Gateway Energy Bridge , offshore of Texas . Yet, there are some 36 proposed LNG facilities that would be built in the United States , some of which would be located in highly populated areas.1 15 of these facilities have been approved by FERC and two offshore facilities have been approved by the US Maritime Administration and the US Coast Guard.2 (For Existing and Proposed LNG terminals see: http://www.ferc.gov/industries/lng/indus-act/terminals/exist-prop-lng.pdf#search='existing%20proposed%20lng')
Fears of a terrorist attack on a LNG ship or facility may not be unfounded. Al-Qaeda has repeatedly stated their intention to the United States economic lifelines. In fact, after the terrorist attack on the French Very Large Crude Carrier (VLCC) Limberg, Osama bin Laden issued a statement saying “by exploding the oil tanker in Yemen , the holy warriors hit the umbilical and lifeline of the Crusader community.”3 Al-Qaeda has also shown a desire for spectacular attacks and LNG facilities in urban area would certainly fit the mold.
There have been several studies and reports issued that have analyzed what might happen if terrorists were successful in attacking a LNG tanker or facility. Many of these reports have been highly critical of locating LNG terminals in or near heavily populated areas. For example, scientists at Sandia National Laboratory found in a study that,“a terror attack on a tanker delivering liquefied natural gas at a U.S. port could set off a fire so hot it would burn skin and damage buildings nearly a mile away.” If the terrorist group were to successfully launch an attack on a LNG facility or tanker in a highly populated area, it would be stunning, economically devastating, and would have high casualties.
In another assessment made on LNG facilities by Good Harbor Consulting of Virginia, the firm concluded that there should be no facilities in major urban areas.5 The firm's lead investigator for the assessment, former White House Homeland Security Advisor, Richard Clarke, reported that having a LNG facility in an urban area may invite attack, while facilities in more rural areas were of little interest to terrorists.6 Another report on LNG tankers and facilities in the Boston metro area, MIT professor James A. Fay, stated that at any point along a LNG tanker's route from the ocean through the inner harbor could cause significant damage, injuries and deaths in an area nearly two kilometers in diameter.7 Many of the casualties would be caused by the igniting of the spilled LNG and the subsequent pool fire. This pool fire emits intense thermal radiation that causes more damage than the thermal effects of an oil or gasoline explosion.8 The thermal radiation from the LNG pool fire would burn exposed humans and ignite combustible buildings well inland from the harbor.9 A following study by Dr. Fay concluded that a LNG explosion in the main channel of the Taunton River in Fall River , Massachusetts would affect an area covering nearly 940 acres. Within this area, people exposed to the thermal radiation would suffer severe burns and some buildings would catch fire.10
Opponents of LNG facilities in urban areas hope these reports will influence where new multibillion-dollar terminals will be built.11 Even with this type of threat there are still plans to construct new LNG terminals near highly populated areas in Boston Harbor , Fall River , Massachusetts and Providence, Rhode Island.12 The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has recommended against a proposed LNG terminal to be located in Providence, Rhode Island, stating that the KeySpan LNG port facility was given the negative recommendation was because upgrades had not been undertaken at the terminal. Yet this terminal may still be approved in the future if the proper upgrades are undertaken.13
Many say that the answer to the problem most likely lies in constructing LNG terminals offshore or in rural areas. Offshore LNG terminals, such as Gulf Gateway Energy Bridge , in the Gulf of Mexico, or the proposed Excelerate Energy project off the coast of Gloucester , Massachusetts are . Positioning LNG ports offshore may be the solution to avoiding mass casualties, yet this may leave the facilities more open to attack. Still, a destroyed offshore facility can be rebuilt in ways a high-casualty event in an urban area cannot.
©2010 PMSO.net
Sources
Campbell, Tanner and Rohan Gunaratna. “Maritime Terrorism, Piracy and Crime. In Terrorism in the Asia-Pacific: Threat and Response. Rohan Gunaratna, Ed. Times Media Private. Limited. Singapore . 2003.
Daly, John C. K. “Al-Qaeda and Maritime Terrorism: Part 1.” Terrorism Monitor. Volume 1. Issue 5. Jamestown Foundation. Washington , DC . November 7, 2003 .
Daly, John C. K. “Al-Qaeda and Maritime Terrorism: Part 2.” Terrorism Monitor. Jamestown Foundation. Volume 1. Issue 4. Washington , DC . October, 24, 2003 .
“Existing and Proposed North American LNG Terminals.” Office of Energy Projects. United States Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Washington , DC . November 30, 2005 .
Fay, James A. “Spills and Fires From LNG Tankers in Fall River , Massachusetts .” Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Cambridge , Massachusetts . August 26, 2003 .
Fay, James A. “Spills and Fires From LNG and Oil Tankers in Boston Harbor .” Cambridge MA . March 26, 2003 .
Fowler, Daniel. “Clarke: LNG Plans Unsafe.” The Herald News. Providence , Rhode Island . May 10, 2005 .
Herbert, H. Josef. “Terror Attack on LNG Vessel Could Produce Injury, Damage a Mile Away.” “Associated Press. Washington , DC . December 21, 2004 .
Howe, Peter J. “LNG Facility Proposed for Harbor Island .” The Boston Globe. Boston . September 17, 2005 .
US Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. “Staff Final EISs Recommend Conditions for Proposed Weaver's Cove and KeySpan LNG Import Terminals.” US Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Washington , DC . September 22, 2005 .
1“Existing and Proposed North American LNG Terminals.” Office of Energy Projects. United States Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Washington , DC . November 30, 2005 .
2 Ibid.
3 Campbell, Tanner and Rohan Gunaratna. “Maritime Terrorism, Piracy and Crime. In Terrorism in the Asia-Pacific: Threat and Response. Rohan Gunaratna, Ed. Times Media Private Limited. Singapore . 2003.
4 Herbert, H. Josef. “Terror Attack on LNG Vessel Could Produce Injury, Damage a Mile Away.” “Associated Press. Washington , DC . December 21, 2004 .
5 Fowler, Daniel. “Clarke: LNG Plans Unsafe.” The Herald News. Providence , Rhode Island . May 10, 2005 .
6 Ibid.
7 Fay, James A. “Spills and Fires From LNG and Oil Tankers in Boston Harbor .” Cambridge MA . March 26, 2003 .
8 Ibid.
9Ibid.
10 Fay, James A. “Spills and Fires From LNG Tankers in Fall River , Massachusetts .” Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Cambridge , Massachusetts . August 26, 2003 .
11 Fowler.
12 Howe, Peter J. “LNG Facility Proposed for Harbor Island .” The Boston Globe. Boston . September 17, 2005 .
13 US Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. “Staff Final EISs Recommend Conditions for Proposed Weaver's Cove and KeySpan LNG Import Terminals.” US Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Washington , DC . September 22, 2005 .