What about the Cove Point LNG terminal?
Today's column is on the proposed liquefied natural gas terminal at Sparrows Point.
Maryland undoubtedly needs more and cheaper energy, but we're not going to do just anything to get it. We won't strip state forests for fireplace fodder. We won't reverse pollution controls on cars and power plants.And we shouldn't let ships carrying liquefied natural gas sail into the mouth of the Patapsco River.
Importing small but potentially catastrophic industrial risks into highly populated areas may have been OK for the 20th-century economy. It doesn't work now.
A reader asks:
Ref your article today on the NIMBY LNG terminal proposal. Hard to understand why you didn't mention the existing LNG terminal in Maryland further south on the Chesapeake Bay at Cove Point. They are nearing completion of a new tank and a new pipeline.http://www.dom.com/about/gas-transmission/covepoint/index.jsp
The tanks are just a couple of thousand feet from homes. See aerial map view on Google
Maps:http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=38.386948,-76.410041&spn=0.024724,0.055618&t=h&z=15
I didn't mention Cove Point because I ran out of space. Yes, there is an LNG terminal there. Yes, it is expanding and yes, there are nearby homes. The Google Maps link makes this very clear. But the area is still much less heavily populated than Sparrows and vicinity. And the Cove Point terminal has been there since 1972. So I assume many of these homes were built and bought in the knowledge that the LNG plant and the risks were there. That's different from bringing a terminal into an already-populated areas.
Comments
I was disappointed that you referenced the 2004 Sandia Report, not the 2008 Report, which showed greater impact distances, and, worse, you did not quote the conclusions:
“Even with the increase in thermal hazard distances from pool fires for the larger ships, the most significant impacts to public safety and property are still within approximately 500 m of a spill, with lower public health and safety impacts at distances beyond approximately 1600 m for near-shore operations.”
Turner’s Station, the closest neighborhood, is almost 2000 m from Sparrows Point. I do not believe that the transit of the ship is ever closer than 1600 m to houses, etc., either.
Posted by: Jeff Beale | August 21, 2008 9:38 AM
There are three 2004 Sandia Hazard Zones for LNG releases from ships, with each successive zone extending farther out from the ship. The third Hazard Zone extends to 2.2 miles. The 2008 Sandia Report would extend that zone slightly outward; however, Dr. Jerry Havens (the LNG expert who devised the LNG vapor hazard model for the US Coast Guard) believes the Hazard Zones should extend outward to 3 miles -- that's 15,840 feet.
In addition, the world LNG industry, represented by the Society of International Gas Terminal and Tanker Operators (SIGTTO), in the publication "Site Selection and Design for LNG Ports and Jetties," states that LNG facilities and shipping routes should be remote enough that should an LNG release occur, the vapors cannot affect civilian populations. They state that by not doing so endangers the health of the industry, since should an LNG catastrophe occur that affected civilians, it would likely shut the industry down. It's easy to imagine what effect that would have on this country's economy and energy security.
Ninety-five percent of the world's LNG industry are members of SIGTTO. FERC ignores SIGTTO and industry wisdom published by that organization.
Where else does government use a standard that is lower than the one recommended by the industry being regulated?
Posted by: Robert Godfrey | August 22, 2008 8:16 PM
There are three 2004 Sandia Hazard Zones for LNG releases from ships, with each successive zone extending farther out from the ship. The third Hazard Zone extends to 2.2 miles. The 2008 Sandia Report would extend that zone slightly outward; however, Dr. Jerry Havens (the LNG expert who devised the LNG vapor hazard model for the US Coast Guard) believes the Hazard Zones should extend outward to 3 miles -- that's 15,840 feet.
In addition, the world LNG industry, represented by the Society of International Gas Terminal and Tanker Operators (SIGTTO), in the publication "Site Selection and Design for LNG Ports and Jetties," states that LNG facilities and shipping routes should be remote enough that should an LNG release occur, the vapors cannot affect civilian populations. They state that by not doing so endangers the health of the industry, since should an LNG catastrophe occur that affected civilians, it would likely shut the industry down. It's easy to imagine what effect that would have on this country's economy and energy security.
Ninety-five percent of the world's LNG industry are members of SIGTTO. FERC ignores SIGTTO and industry wisdom published by that organization.
Where else does government use a standard that is lower than the one recommended by the industry being regulated?
Posted by: Robert Godfrey | August 22, 2008 8:16 PM