LNG Threat to the Narragansett Bay; Letter from the Executive Director of Save the Bay

Note from Greetings: I hope the people in the Narragansett Bay and Rhode Island read the following letter from Save the Bay's ED, and all wake up and call their congressmen and senators. LNG will disrupt business and travel on the Narragansett Bay. It is dangerous, with a potential blast area that covers many thousands in population and many square miles in property. With its path up the bay past the U.S. Naval Warfare College, it leaves this area a target for potential terrorist attacks. And, in the end, if none of these matter to you... it will most undoubtedly decrease your property values and increase your insurance policy costs as homeowners. Who will want to buy a house in a potentially dangerous area? One where travel is closed down any time a tanker goes up the bay... without notice. And one where it can be seen to be a potential explosion waiting to happen at any time. From Jonathan Stone, Executive Director, Save The Bay Dear Friend of Narragansett Bay, I’m writing today to express deep disappointment over the opinion piece which ran in today’s Providence Journal by Weaver’s Cove LNG president and CEO Ted Gehrig. He suggests that the LNG project proposed for Mount Hope Bay is necessary and beneficial, and that the environmental costs, use conflicts and security issues are insignificant. This self-serving and dismissive approach underestimates our common resolve and ignores the history of Bay stewardship and protection that defines the people who live here. Save The Bay strenuously opposes this project because, unlike any existing user of the Bay, Weaver’s Cove LNG will become a dominant presence from the East Passage to Fall River that is completely out of balance with the mixed uses we all enjoy today. Year-round LNG tanker traffic will disrupt our fragile marine and tourism industries, and the project will destroy critical habitat we have worked for more than two decades and committed hundreds of millions of dollars to save. For the record, while focusing on the higher cost of Canadian natural gas, Mr. Gehrig did not mention his competitors’ two new LNG terminals off the coasts of Gloucester and Boston that are or will be operational by the end of this year that serve the region. So who benefits most from this project, exactly? That would be Weaver’s Cove LNG. In one respect Mr. Gehrig is correct. Two key federal agencies, each according to their narrow permitting mandate, are allowing this project to go forward. This would be an irreversible tragedy. Save The Bay is committed, for as long as it takes, to defeating this plan. It’s wrong for the Bay, wrong for the economy and wrong for our communities. I urge you to take action by writing letters to the editor, contacting your local and state elected officials, writing your Congressional delegates and encouraging your friends and neighbors to fight this project. Please join the cause today. P.S. The LNG Threat is the cover story of the fall issue of Save The Bay's Tides. You may read that story, an important article on the wastewater/stormwater crisis on Aquidneck Island and other items of interest around the Bay online.

LNG tanker port would impact island lifestyle

Other papers and units need to cover this story. The little Jamestown Press is out at the forefront here. And the danger of exposure to RI and Mass. residents is shocking!

Editorial, Jamestown Press, August 20, 2009

The U.S. Coast Guard recently approved, in concept, a proposal to build a liquefied natural gas offl oading terminal in the middle of Mt. Hope Bay.

This latest plan, put forth by Weavers Cove Energy, would have 145-ft. wide LNG supertankers navigating the East Passage of Narragansett Bay to Mt. Hope Bay. The massive tankers would dock in the middle of the bay and pump their super-cooled cargo 4.2 miles through underground insulated piping to storage tanks in Fall River, Mass.

The Coast Guard had rejected an earlier plan that required the supertankers to make hairpin turns as they traveled up the Taunton River to Fall River.

This latest proposal, which has received the Coast Guard’s blessing (with conditions), would allow LNG supertankers to cruise past Conanicut Island some 70 times a year – more than once a week. To provide security against a possible terrorist attack, the Coast Guard would escort each supertanker up the bay with a two-mile moving exclusion zone surrounding the vessel. Each shipment of the highly volatile fuel would require that Narragansett Bay be closed to all normal boating traffic. In addition, the Pell Newport Bridge and the Mt. Hope Bridge would be closed while the tankers passed beneath.

Narragansett Bay is the boating capital of New England. These supertankers would frequently disrupt sailing regattas in the summer months. Bridge closings would delay emergency ambulance trips across the Pell Bridge. There could be economic impacts, such as a decline in property values, as well.

Of course, these disadvantages pale in comparison to the danger posed by a LNG supertanker. It has been estimated that should a LNG tanker leak and explode, everyone within a three-mile radius would be killed.

There is still time to be heard. Other agencies must approve the plan and public hearings will be held. We’ll keep you informed. In the meantime, write to our U.S. senators and representatives. They need to know how you feel about these LNG supertankers sailing past your home more than once a week.

— Jeff McDonough

Defining LNG Hazards on the Narragansett Bay

Note from Greetings: This is a followup letter from another group dealing with LNG tankers in their area. It's quite sobering, as was the Jamestown Press's initial story, which I will rerun. I can not imagine why any of our lawmakers will allow this to happen, nor the Coast Guard, nor the DEP. To quote the letter below: "The Weaver's Cove Terminal would severely impact property values; it would also present serious hazards. 1/3 of a mile from the explosion.. everyone would die. 1 mile from the ship - 2nd degree burns and asphyxiation potential (all within the range of Jamestown, Newport, Middletown, Portsmouth, Bristol, Fall River, and other population centers); 2.2 miles still presents an asphyxiation hazard and potential explosion hazards. (Moving past the bay into the other RI population centers, such as North Kingstown, East Greenwich, into Massachusetts and further north.) So... WHY is this even an option?

Jamestown Press, Letters to the Editor, Aug, 27, 2009

I just read your Aug. 20 editorial, “LNG tanker port would impact island lifestyle,” and thought I should mention some misunderstandings regarding LNG hazards.

I agree with your assessment that the Weaver’s Cove LNG terminal would severely disrupt activities on the water and impact property values. It would also present serious hazards; however, the comprehensiveness of the hazard mentioned in the editorial, I believe, is considerable but overstated.

While FERC considers the hazard zones (“zones of concern”) to extend just 2.2 miles from LNG ships, Dr. Jerry Havens, who developed the vapor dispersion hazard model, believes 3 miles is probably more accurate. Havens also has indicated that FERC and LNG developers improperly calculate LNG vapor impact zones. However, the 2.2- or 3-mile hazard zone does not mean everyone within that zone would be killed. There are three hazard zones: 1) 500 meters/one-third of a mile from the ship, 2) 1,600 meters/1- mile from the ship, and 3) 3,500 meters/2.2 miles from the ship. The hazard impacts would lessen with the increased distances of each zone.

Zone 1 presents the greatest hazards, where everyone would likely be killed by cryogenic temperatures, fire, explosion or asphyxiation.

Zone 2 presents a 30-second second-degree burn hazard to unprotected skin from a pool fire due to a conflagrated release at the ship. Confined vapor explosions, fire and asphyxiation could occur if combustion did not occur concurrently with the LNG release.

Zone 3 presents an explosion hazard from confined vapors, burn and fire hazard, and possibly an asphyxiation hazard.

In addition, actual impacts would probably not be symmetrical and would not entirely fill the areas of each of the hazard zones. The LNG vapors would likely be driven by wind, so the impacts would occur in relation to the wind direction and topography.

Another issue that may interest you is that the Weaver’s Cove Energy site violates world LNG industry terminal siting best practices. The Society of International Gas Tanker and Terminal Operators (SIGTTO; www.SIGTTO. org) represents over 95 percent of the world’s LNG industry. They research and promulgate best practices. Their publication “Site Selection and Design for LNG Ports and Jetties” (available only in hard copy for around £30 via Witherby’s Seamanship International) clearly states that, for the health of the LNG industry, LNG terminals should not be sited where vapors from a large LNG release would affect civilian populations. They also state that LNG terminals should not be sited up long and winding inland waterways where navigation hazards are greater. Also, in another publication of best practices, they indicate terminals should not be sited where there are conflicting uses of the waterway – now and into the future. Weaver’s Cove Energy clearly violates these best practices (see my LNG Terminal Siting Standards Organization website: www.LNGTSS.org).

Unfortunately, the U.S. Coast Guard and FERC ignore SIGTTO. They justify this by stating SIGTTO is merely advice and not law. Paradoxically, the U.S. Coast Guard spends considerable energy advocating adherence to best practices when it comes to other navigation issues.

LNG-related zone terminology is frequently misunderstood. Exclusion zones refer exclusively to LNG terminals, and are intended to prevent burn/fire injury to civilians and civilian assets. LNG ships have moving safety and security zones intended to prevent LNG ships from colliding with other vessels and to prevent attack from other marine sources. Also, while it would seem to make sense that the three LNG ship hazard zones should protect the public equally as terminal exclusion zones, they are based on different parameters. Exclusion zones are much smaller than hazard zones. Exclusion zones are designed (generally) to prevent civilians from the impacts of an LNG release, while hazard zones are not prohibited from engulfi ng large civilian populations who could be killed or injured.

I hope this information is useful.
Robert Godfrey
Researcher and webmaster
Save Passamaquoddy Bay
3-Nation Alliance
Eastport, Maine

Anti-Terrorism Expert Praises New Film About LNG

Anti-terrorism expert gives high praises to new film, The Risks and Danger of LNG, and says, "The detail in your film of the dangers of LNG should leave no doubt in anyone's mind that we are facing a crisis when an LNG facility is sited in populated areas. It should be mandatory for every first responder to view this film." The LNG movie is now available at www.LngDANGER.com.

Colonel David Gavigan, a nationally and internationally recognized specialist in terrorism, has praised filmmakers Tim and Hayden Riley and their film, The Risks and Danger of LNG. Gavigan is a graduate of the Army War College, the chairman of Massachusetts Bristol County Homeland Security Task Force, a member of the U.S. Attorney's Anti-Terrorism Advisory Council (ATAC), Boston, MA, and is the military and terrorism analyst for FOX 25 TV, Boston.

"Let me start by congratulating you both on the outstanding DVD I just received entitled The Risks and Danger of LNG. This has to be an award winner. When I watched the film it gave me more insight into the dangers that communities face by the greed of large companies to site dangerous materials in populated areas. I feel that your work should set an example for others who wish to protect the public. The detail in your film of the dangers of LNG should leave no doubt in anyone's mind that we are facing a crisis when an LNG facility is sited in populated areas. It should be mandatory for every first responder to view this film," said Colonel Gavigan.

The film highlights the many hazards of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) tankers, facilities, and pipelines; and reveals LNG's vulnerability to accidental disaster, terrorism, and demonstrates how massive its destruction can be to our American communities.

The Risks and Danger of LNG was an Official Selection of the Malibu Film Festival, and had its World Premiere screening on September 18, 2004, at the festival.

"Naturally, we were honored that our film has been recognized as an official selection in the Malibu Film Festival, and the fact that it has received such meaningful praises from an anti-terrorist expert such as Colonel Gavigan, is additional validation of our film," said co-producer Tim Riley.

"We did not try to make a slick Hollywood popcorn movie, nor was a film festival even on our radar screen," says co-producer Hayden Riley, "We made the movie to provide vital information to all Americans about the real hazards of LNG by focusing on the actual risks and dangers of LNG which are routinely minimized by the energy industry, LNG proponents, LNG investors, political allies and their internet blogging friends."

"The energy industry and its friends don't like our film, and they don't want Americans to see it, because our film provides information they prefer you didn't know," says Tim Riley, who also co-wrote the film.

"We are at war with terrorism. Vice President Cheney recently mentioned a few times during his debate with Senator Edwards that he is concerned about a nuclear weapon being unleashed in one of our residential communities. Well, so are we, and that is why we warn Americans in our film, that a loaded LNG tanker has the energy equivalent of 55 Hiroshima bombs. Terrorists could unleash that tremendous amount of energy for mass destruction of an American community without the need of a nuclear weapon. LNG proponents dont like that we are alerting America to LNG's vulnerability to terrorism and compare its devastating power to its nuclear equivalent, however, we are not alone in that regard," said Tim Riley.

On September 21, 2004, The Providence Journal, in an article entitled, "Lloyd's Executive Likens LNG Attack to Nuclear Explosion," that paper reported that a Lloyd's of London Insurance executive likened an LNG attack to a nuclear explosion. "The assertion, which is contested by industry experts, was in a speech that the chairman, Peter Levene, delivered last night to business leaders in Houston."

"Gas carriers too, whether at sea or in ports, make obvious targets," said Levene. "Specialists reckon that a terrorist attack on an LNG tanker would have the force of a small nuclear explosion."

According to documentary co-writer Hayden Riley, "Not only will LNG endanger our residential communities and make them vulnerable to devastation by terrorist sabotage, it will make America's economy weaker by exporting more American dollars for more imported fossil fuel. It also makes Americas economy more vulnerable to energy market manipulation by the foreign energy nations of the Middle East and Pacific Rim. It is time for America to abandon its age old reliance on foreign fossil fuel, and it is now time to invest the same billions of dollars into America and American ingenuity, and create American jobs to develop safe renewable energy sources for Americas future."

The more people that see our movie and learn the truth about LNG, the safer the American public will be. LNG proponents label me a NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) philosopher, well America is my backyard, so in a sense they are correct; however, the more appropriate label is NIABY - Not In America's Back Yard," said Tim Riley.

In the film the Rileys maintain, A sound, safe American energy plan requires solutions that make America stronger not weaker, make America more self-sufficient not more dependent, make America safer not more vulnerable, and make America fossil free not more polluted."

"We thank those on the front lines like Colonel Gavigan who are protecting America from terrorism, and we are grateful that he feels so strongly about our movie. His praises of our film are very meaningful," said Hayden Riley.

To preview a short trailer and to buy a DVD or VHS copy of the film, go to www.LngDanger.com .

Also visit the Riley's informational websites: http://TimRileyLaw.com and http://TimRileyLaw.com/LNG.htm

Jamestown officials outline LNG concerns

A NOTE FROM GREETINGS: This has no upside. One tanker explosions can cause the damage of 5 Hiroshima bombs, with a major bay being closed at will by a private corporation, with the aid of the U.S. Government. The areas of concern are (immediately) terrorism, in that it's near a naval base; area of a blast with such a large population on both sides of the bay; a major bridge to an island community closed when the tankers ferry up the bay; unannounced closings of the bay; the danger of the permanent storage facility inland to an even larger population, such as Providence; costs to local municipalities (who cannot afford it) of police escorts; the closing down of a vibrant bay community to business and recreation for all others.

By Phil Zahodiakin , Jamestown, RI Press, 09 13 09

As a long-standing proposal to ship liquefied natural gas (LNG) up the East Passage gains momentum, so does concern about potential disruptions in and around Jamestown. A recent Coast Guard conclusion that an LNG terminal would not pose navigational risks if it were sited in Mt. Hope Bay has increased the possibility that the project will win a federal permit.

Under the proposal from Weaver’s Cove Energy, LNG tankers would use the East Passage for the journey to the terminal, which would be built a mile from the Fall River shoreline. Whenever a loaded tanker steamed north, both the Pell and Mt. Hope bridges would have to be closed as the ships approached and departed.

“First and foremost are the safety concerns about the volatility of the cargo, and the risk of either an accident or terrorist activity that could ignite the ship, which would have devastating consequences for any nearby communities,” said Town Administrator Bruce Keiser.

“In addition to the safety issues,” Keiser said, “we are also concerned about [navigational prohibitions when loaded LNG tankers steam north] because the East Passage is very heavily trafficked by recreational boaters throughout the course of the summer, and any restrictions on the free and unfettered use of our waters is something that we strenuously object to. We don’t think those waters should be reserved for commercial interests, which would deprive recreational boaters of the opportunity to use the bay during our few short months of favorable boating weather.”

Moreover, due to security concerns, the schedule for LNG shipments would not be announced in advance – which means that long-planned events would inevitably be disrupted shortly before, or even after, they start. All loaded LNG tankers sailing through busy waters are surrounded by exclusion zones, which typically prohibit boat traffi c from coming any closer than a mile astern, two miles ahead and 1,000 feet to port and starboard.

Consequently, the flotilla of boats anchored off Ft. Adams during music festivals would presumably be ordered to immediately disperse if a LNG tanker was approaching the East Passage within 1,000 feet of the fort. In addition, “We have numerous sailing regattas during the course of the summer and they could be substantially curtailed or disrupted without notice,” Keiser said.

Dave Blydenburg, dockmaster for Conanicut Marine Services, is concerned about the exclusion zones as well. Providing a host of services to boaters in Jamestown harbor, Conanicut Marine also offers moorings, and Blydenburg suspects that the outer edge of exclusion zones established for Weaver’s Cove tankers “could cross our moorings.

“If they do,” Blydenburg said, “then anyone requesting a launch to bring them ashore would obviously have to wait out the tanker. But [the exclusion zones] could have other impacts [on recreational boaters]; for example, if someone was trying to duck into harbor ahead of a storm, and there was a tanker coming into the bay, they would have to wait, too. Or, if there were some emergency out in the passage while a tanker was passing, we wouldn’t be allowed to go out there.”

Blydenburg wondered if “the [Coast Guard] and [the Department of Environmental Management] will have the manpower to strictly enforce the exclusion zone.” However, all of the details involving security for LNG shipments passing through Narragansett Bay remain unknown. None has been publicly revealed, and all such information was redacted from the Coast Guard letter announcing its conclusions on an off-shore terminal.

Because the security details remain cloaked in secrecy, it was difficult for Jamestown Police Chief Thomas Tighe to predict the impacts of LNG shipments on his force. During Pell Bridge closures for shipments of compressed natural gas, “Basically, the state police comes in and closes the bridge while the tanker is passing below and we haven’t been asked to do anything other than assisting them with closing the bridge.”

Chief Tighe has had an opportunity to observe a LNG tanker steaming away from another U.S. port, and, during that visit, “The only security we were seeing was that the police from two communities would ride along the shoreline as close as they could to the water to make sure everything was okay. But, I haven’t seen any plans as to what would be entailed for our department and what kind of shoreline security they would ask for.”

Currently, the Jamestown police force has 15 officers, including the chief.

“At any given time, if no one is out sick, we have three people involved with our regular patrols: two cars and the dispatcher,” he said. Would the allocation of additional officers to shoreline security as many as four times a week place a significant personnel burden on the force? Chief Tighe declined to speculate because, he said, “I just don’t know what our role in shoreline security would be.”

Opportunities to comment on the LNG proposal

The next significant opportunity to comment on the Weaver’s Cove proposal for a LNG terminal in Mt. Hope Bay will come when the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission publishes a draft environmental impact statement for the project. The EIS, which is expected in September, will be available at the e-library page of the FERC web site at http:// www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. To view public comments and other documents relating to the previous Weaver’s Cove proposal, go to the FERC site, click on “advanced search,” type “Weaver’s Cove” into “text search” and click submit.

Comments on the proposal can also be sent to members of the Rhode Island and Jamestown congressional delegation by calling or emailing Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, (202) 224-2921, http://whitehouse. senate.gov/contact/; Sen. Jack Reed, (202) 224-4642, http://reed.senate.gov/contact/contactshare. cfm or Rep. Patrick Kennedy (202) 225-4911, https://forms.house.gov/formpatrickkennedy/IMA/ contact.htm.