Locals
weigh LNG terminal safety concerns
By
Kyle Cavaness
Online Forty-Niner
Contributing Writer
Long Beach citizens voiced their concerns for safety issues surrounding a possible
liquefied natural gas import terminal at the Port of Long Beach during a hearing
at Millikan High School Wednesday night.
The hearing, the third of four held by the Long Beach Harbor Commission, allowed
the public to respond to an environmental impact report published by the Port
of Long Beach and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on the proposed
LNG terminal.
The LNG import terminal is a joint venture between ConocoPhillips, the world’s
third largest energy company, and Sound Energy Solutions, a subsidiary of Mitsubishi.
The LNG terminal could fulfill as much as 10 percent of California’s
natural gas needs from a variety of sources, including Russia and the Middle
East, according to Robert Canter, director of planning at the Port of Long
Beach.
Construction on the LNG terminal cannot begin without approval from local,
state and federal authorities, and the port is required to hold public hearings
before finalizing the environmental impact statement.
“
We want to make it easy for our citizens to let their voices be heard,” said
Harbor Commission President Doris Topsy-Elvord.
Security and environmental effects have been among the most important topics
addressed so far. In the post-9/11 world, terrorist attacks on such a facility
could be catastrophic. Studies of a worst-case scenario in which a suicide
bomber attacks and ignites the LNG terminal, suggest the blast radius could
extend as far as three miles from the terminal, killing or injuring thousands
of Long Beach residents and severely damaging the port which would adverselyeffect
the national economy.
Though this scenario is unlikely some of the speakers were concerned with the
possible physical and economic toll of such an attack.
“
Why are we talking about how many people would die [if the terminal was attacked]?” asked
one speaker at the hearing.
The environmental effect of the large addition to the Port of Long Beach was
also the source of much discussion.
Because natural gas is a clean-burning fuel, its use in the port could be extremely
beneficial, but skeptics have their doubts. Also, the increased number of ships
coming to the harbor for the LNG terminal caused some to question the effect
the terminal could have on local air quality.
Advocates for the LNG terminal provided statistics demonstrating the benefits
and strengths such a terminal could have for Long Beach. They said not only
would the terminal bring business, but also jobs provided by the construction
of the LNG terminal would be a great asset to the area for several years.
Another California-themed worst-case scenario—earthquake damage—has
been tested on and passed by LNG terminals elsewhere in the world, according
to Rick Hernandez, executive vice president of Sound Energy Solutions.
The LNG terminal in Kobe, Japan, withstood a larger earthquake than any experienced
by California without substantial damage or production loss.
The debate over the LNG import terminal will continue with future discussions
on local, state, and national levels.
|
