As the deadline for public comment on air and water permits for the proposed liquefied natural gas port proposed for Malibu’s coast nears, an accident in Jordan raises safety issues once again.
By Paul M. J. Suchecki / Special to The Malibu Times
As Malibu continues to debate the construction of Cabrillo Port, a liquefied natural gas facility proposed to be built 14 miles off the coast of Leo Carrillo State Beach, news from the Middle East brings up some of the potential hazards of such an installation.
In Jordan last Thursday, a liquid gas tanker caught fire as its cargo was being unloaded. One of the pumping lines exploded. Nineteen were injured. The ship was evacuated and towed a kilometer offshore where the fire was brought under control after a couple of hours.
Although initial reports from the Associated Press described the ship as being filled with liquefied natural gas, another account by the Jordan Times said the vessel was carrying liquid gas or propane, which can be compressed to a liquid state by applying pressure alone.
LNG is natural gas cooled down to minus 260 degrees Fahrenheit to compress it to 1/600 of its usual volume at standard temperature. The gas has to be re-vaporized (or regasified) before being pumped into a distribution network. Anchored and moored to the 2,900-foot deep ocean floor, Cabrillo Port would have an import terminal and a re-gasification unit that will feed two undersea pipelines to onshore receiving facilities in Oxnard.
According to the California Energy Commission, liquefied natural gas is hazardous not only because it is flammable, but also because it is also cryogenic and will expand rapidly at standard temperature and pressure.
The commission, in a staff white paper, points out that, “A vapor cloud, formed by an LNG spill, could drift downwind into populated areas … LNG vapor clouds can ignite within the portion of the cloud where the concentration of natural gas is between a five and a 15 percent (by volume) mixture with air. To catch fire, however, this portion of the vapor cloud must encounter an ignition source. Otherwise, the LNG vapor cloud will simply dissipate into the atmosphere.”
It also states that, “An ignited LNG vapor cloud is very dangerous, because of its tremendous radiant heat output.” The commission also notes that LNG vaporizes more quickly over water than land, and the risks with shipping loading and offloading LNG tankers are much greater than with land-based facilities.
The gas industry informational Web site naturalgas.org states that: “LNG, or any vapor associated with LNG, will not explode in an unconfined environment. Thus, in the unlikely event of an LNG spill, the natural gas has little chance of igniting an explosion.”
Proponents of natural gas point out that despite the potential hazards, since the inception of shipping by sea in 1959, LNG tankers and loading terminals have not had a major accident in more than 33,000 voyages with no spills.
Also, in a 2005 study, the California Energy Commission pointed out that there is a growing gap in the state between natural gas supply and demand, causing a recent cost doubling. California now imports 87 percent of its natural gas. The demand for natural gas is expected to increase even more because most of the new power plants built in the state are fueled by clean burning natural gas. Natural gas is considered the cleanest burning fossil fuel, emitting very small amounts of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide. Combustion releases less carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, than fuel oil or coal.
The first major accident caused by LNG was in Cleveland, Ohio in 1944. There a storage tank failed due to the extreme cold. The LNG spilled into the sewers, ignited, exploded and killed 128 people injuring 255 in the adjoining residential area. Today, a web of U.S. laws and strict regulations is geared to prevent an accident like this from happening again. Still, large scale mishaps are not relegated to history. In 2004, a steam boiler in Algeria that was part of an LNG production plant exploded into a fireball, sparking the ignition of an LNG vapor cloud that took eight hours to extinguish. Twenty seven people died, 74 were injured. The explosion caused $800 million in damages. LNG production at the plant dropped 76 percent for the year as the destruction spread beyond the plant’s boundaries. Just five years before, Kellog Brown and Root, a division of Halliburton, announced that the revamp of the Algerian LNG facility had passed all performance tests.
Anti-Cabrillo Port activist Tim Riley said, citing a report published this year by Sandia National Laboratories, a flammable LNG vapor cloud could extend as far as 7.3 miles downwind from the floating storage facility. Yet, the same Sandia report points out that at 14 miles off the coast, “The location of [the] facility is sufficiently remote as to pose limited risk to shore-side persons or facilities under any scenario of LNG release.”
As reported in the New York Times, Al Qaeda has specifically singled out LNG facilities as a prime target because of LNG’s “raw explosive power.” Unlike a pipeline, the flow of gas at a facility cannot be readily cut off. Malibu resident Kraig M. Hill points out that the only way to forestall the impact of a terrorist sea attack like the one on the USS Cole would be to have four days notice to fully purge the port’s LNG tanks. In the post 9-11 world, Congress passed the U.S. Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002, which requires a federally approved security plan for all port facilities, including this one. Implementation will be enforced and regulated by the U.S. Coast Guard.
Scott MacDonald of Cal CASE, Californians for Clean Affordable Safe Energy, told The Malibu Times that LNG transportation “has an outstanding safety record because it is subject to stringent regulations, attracting the attention of everybody from the U.N. to local harbor police. It’s this attention that makes it an unlikely target for terrorists. They are looking for soft targets.”
Although critics have pointed out shortcomings in the facility’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Report, White House officials intend to put environmental review for LNG imports into California on the fast track. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said he prefers Cabrillo Port to other LNG options. There are six proposed LNG projects for California’s coast alone.
In addition to safety concerns, possible pollution from the LNG ship is another factor under consideration.
Although liquefied natural gas tankers and tanks are very well insulated, that factor alone does not keep the gas cool enough to remain liquid. LNG will stay at a steady temperature if the pressure remains constant. Boiling water never climbs higher than 212 degrees Fahrenheit. The evaporation keeps the water temperature constant. The same thing happens with LNG hundreds of degrees cooler. As long as the vapor boils off, the natural gas remains a liquid. But the vapor is methane, a greenhouse gas. Tankers must constantly vent methane to power the vessel and keep their cargo’s temperature low enough, according to naturalgas.org.
The deadline for the public to submit comments on the air quality permit under consideration by the Environmental Protection Agency is Aug. 3, which is essential for the facility to open.