Re: LNG security....FERCed (again)

[Eugene Coyle <eugenecoyle@xxxxxxx>]

The point of the FERC action is to severly hamper local opposition to
the siting of any LNG facility.  There is information, as Les Schaeffer
points out, but battles will be fought at the local level and
site-specific information will be important.  If only the proponents
have "credible" information, the battles will be one-sided.

 I happened to be living in Vallejo when Shell and Bechtel tried to
site an LNG facility plus a large gas-fueld power plant there.  The
local political uprising stopped the venture, probably permanently.  The
general literature mentioned by Les Schaffer, while helpful, was
countered by the well-funded proponents.  Certain trade unions were
strong supporters of the project, and risk was minimized in  studies
that Shell and Bechtel paid for.

   The push for LNG at the national level is very strong, and
hamstringing local opposition will have an effect.

Gene Coyle

Les Schaffer wrote:

> Eugene Coyle wrote:
>
> > Patriot Act Restricts Access to LNG Safety Studies
> > March 19, 2004, California Energy Circuit
> i 'm not sure how they intend to "restrict access" ...  its fairly well
> known in engineering circles that James Fay at MIT studied this back in
> 1970's. the papers are widely available -- and paint a quite scary
> scenario for places like Boston Harbor.
>
> a few googles on "Fay LNG":
>
> http://www.greenfutures.org/projects/powerplant/Fay.html
>
> http://www.energy.ca.gov/lng/documents/CRS_RPT_LNG_INFRA_SECURITY.PDF
>
> a google on "LNG fire" brings almost identical results, meaning one
> would not even need to know who did the initial studies.
>
> the documents placed under restriction by FERC appear to be compliance
> documents, and one can only wonder at the regulation breaking by
> shipping companies that may be contained therein. Whatever they contain,
> practioners of violence would merely need shipping routes and times, a
> scheme for breaching double hulls, and use of existing documents on
> fireball diameters to plan "best location for attack" scenarios. Anyone
> covering these bases would probably be better prepared than 9/11 pilots.
>
> this use of the Patriot Act reminds me of the news story from the other
> day on resurgence of nuclear fallout studies with the view that
> diagnosis of radioactivity post-detonation could lead to bomb material
> identification and hence to (human) detonators of the bomb and hence to
> a country to retaliate against and hence "by a commodius vicus of
> recirculation"  to a form of deterrence:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/19/national/19NUKE.html
>
> it's important to expose the Patriot Act for what it is not: it is not a
> blueprint for making anyone you or I know safe from physical attack.
>
> les schaffer