LNG: the next energy battle line.
As Greenspan alluded, safety is a primary concern with LNG terminals. Liquefied natural gas is both super-cooled to -260[degrees] F and compressed to 1/600 of its gaseous volume. It is then placed in tankers as long as three football fields (there are presently 130 ships in the LNG fleet with 50 more on order) and stored in holding tanks which may be as tall as a 15-story building. Mass amounts of such flammable methane under pressure are a first class hazard for any community. The LNG industry touts the "safeness" of LNG but defines an LNG "accident" in the narrowest of terms: the ignition of a massive quantity of stored LNG. In Cleveland, Ohio, in 1944, a leak from the first US LNG facility and the resulting fires killed 128 people. No further LNG construction took place in the US until the 1970s under the impact of OPEC.
LNG vapors ignite at 500[degrees]F at a gas-to-air mixture in the range of 5-15%. In the case of such an event, a low hanging vapor cloud could burn at a thermal temperature capable of producing second-degree burns within a two-mile radius. A study by the Oxnard, CA, City Council in 1977 found that an LNG accident in the Oxnard area could take 70,000 lives.
It must be kept in mind, however, that LNG is simply a liquid form of a range of hydrocarbon fossil gases, all of which trail long histories of well-head accidents, pipeline breaks, leaks, spills, fires, explosions, property damage, injury, and death. All of these hazards should be evaluated by a community before the placement of an LNG terminal. The risk to a community is not just the LNG vapor fire, but many other hazards attendant on mass fossil gas storage and production. A facility leak of liquid petroleum gas (LPG or butane) near Mexico City in 1984 took 500 lives. Pipeline accidents are a constant problem: in 1994, in Edison Township, NJ, a pipe leak caused a tower of flame 500 feet high and destroyed 8 buildings; a leak at Carlsbad, NM, in 2000, killed 12 people.
LNG terminals have currently been proposed for Baja California; Humboldt Bay, California; Harpeswell, ME; Weavers Cove (Fall River, MA); Freeport, Grand Bahama Island; Point Tupper, Nova Scotia; Malibu, California; Sabine Pass, Texas, and at least 10 other locations in the Western Hemisphere. The Freeport terminal includes plans for a 90-mile underwater pipeline to Florida. Local opposition has surfaced but no strong nationwide network of LNG resistance has been formed. Here is certainly an opportunity for the Green movement should it choose to take a leadership role.
Opposition to LNG terminal construction is more than "not-in-my-backyard." Any increase in the United States' dependency on foreign fossil fuels can only intensify the nation's existing imperialistic politics. Furthermore, the greatly stepped-up pace of natural gas extraction outside the US envisioned by LNG proponents threatens native ecosystems and cultures around the world. In Bolivia (with gas reserves of 52.3 trillion cubic feet), two in-the-works pipeline projects, Yabog and Gasyrg, will open forest ecosystems to commercial exploitation and Pacific LNG (a consortium made-up of British Gas Group, BP-Amoco, Bridas, and Spain's Repsol-YPF) plans to construct a 700 km pipeline from Bolivia to a port in Chile from which LNG will be shipped to a Baja California LNG terminal proposed by the American corporation Sempra, a project hardly popular with the Bolivian people. On October 17, 2003, Bolivia's President, Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada, was forced to resign from office and flee to Miami after tens of thousands of workers, farmers and indigenous people marched on the capital in protest of Lozada's give-away of Bolivian resources. 74 protesters were killed. Bolivia's unemployment rate is 30% and 70% of Bolivians live in poverty.
Some Greens have hesitated to come out strongly against LNG for fear this will slow down the conversion of "dirty" coal-fueled to "clean" gas-fueled plants. Here we see the shallowness of Green reformism. Aside from the issue of how clean mass methane-powered generation really is--or how large the world's fossil gas reserve really is--not to oppose LNG terminal construction is to forego one of the few opportunities available to move society closer to the mass conversion to solar energy that Greens have supposedly always held as a principal goal.
The new role for LNG forced on the ruling class by the depletion of US domestic wells in fact offers the same leverage for activism that opposition to nuclear power did in the 1970s. With fossil fuel reserves moving towards peak and decline around the world (whatever timeframe one accepts), resistance to anything less than full conversion to democratically controlled renewable energy will, in effect, eat up the time global corporations have to work out their plans for conversion to mass coal burning, plutonium breeder reactors, or (if it is ever possible) fusion power, all of which are intrinsically centralized, exploitative technologies. Here, in other words, is an area where decentralized, peoples' resistance--such as the Green movement has pioneered--can have an effect on a much wider social field than that of the immediate points of confrontation, in fact on the nature of our total future society. In this sense, the LNG issue has the potential to be the next major battle line.
Fay, James A. "Model of Spills and Fires from LNG and Oil Tankers", Journal of Hazardous Materials, B96, 171-188, 2003
Karen Luyckx, "David Versus Goliath: The Selling of Natural Resources, Corporate Interests and Popular Interests in Bolivia", http://www.leeds.ac.uk/union/socs/greenaction/lakes/Bolivia.doc.
by Patrick Eytchison, Eureka Greens
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Title Annotation:||Liquefied natural gas|
|Date:||Sep 22, 2004|
|Previous Article:||Connecting the dots to Iraq: how will Bush deal with the deficits?|
|Next Article:||Benefit sharing is dead.|