Good evening, and thank you all for the opportunity to speak tonight. My name is Nathan Willcox and I am the energy and clean air advocate with PennEnvironment. PennEnvironment is a nonprofit environmental advocacy organization with more than 15,000 citizen members across Pennsylvania. In my capacity as PennEnvironment’s energy and clean air advocate, I work on issues ranging from cleaning up the state’s coal-fired power plants and diesel buses, to promoting energy efficiency, to promoting a clean and safe energy future at the state and national level.
I. What is Liquefied Natural Gas?
To briefly review the basics of what we’re talking about, liquefied natural gas is natural gas that has been cooled to negative 260 degrees Fahrenheit and thus turned into a liquid, occupying about 1/600th of the volume of the substance in its gaseous state. Liquefying the natural gas makes it easier and more profitable to transport in large quantities, especially across oceans from foreign sources of natural gas. The purpose of the LNG import terminals is to then convert the LNG back into its gaseous state, or to transfer the LNG to trucks to be transported to other areas in the region and country.
II. Assessing the “Need” for LNG Facilities
I will focus most of my discussion on local safety concerns regarding LNG facilities and the Port Richmond site specifically, but I also wanted to briefly address the larger question of whether or not we need and/or want to be increasing our reliance on liquefied natural gas to meet our energy needs. While LNG proponents speak often of the need for increasing the supply of liquefied natural gas as a way of meeting our country’s increased appetite for energy, many experts disagree with the assertion that natural gas should be our energy source of choice. LNG, like any energy source needs to be factored into a larger energy plan for our state and our nation. For a variety of economic and environmental reasons, that plan must have conservation and efficiency at the top of the hierarchy. Saving energy will save avoid increases in energy costs, lower fuel prices, make us less vulnerable to price shock, keep more money in Pennsylvania’s economy and reduce pollution.
Natural gas has several drawbacks as an energy source. First, natural gas is not cheap. While several recent trends and events have combined to make natural gas a seemingly cheap alternative to our increasingly expensive oil supplies, natural gas is still an expensive energy source due mainly to limited domestic supplies. Second, natural gas is—like oil—a fossil fuel, and therefore exists in limited amounts. Once we near the end of natural gas supplies worldwide, the price of it will skyrocket and we will be forced to search for another fuel to satisfy our energy needs. Both of these factors reinforce many experts’ opinions that our energy focus should be not on natural gas or other fossil fuel resources, but on renewable energy sources like wind and solar power, as well as energy efficiency. Renewable energy makes use of free and inexhaustible resources like the wind and the sun, and energy efficient technologies enable us to do the same amount of work while using less energy. Many energy experts disagree with the assertion that liquefied natural gas is—or should be—the next big thing for America’s energy plan. From here on forward, any energy plan must factor in all cost effective conservation and efficiency measure before allowing for the siting of or expansion of new facilities.
III. Safety Concerns with LNG Facilities
Moving on to the public safety aspects of LNG facilities, my main point here is that given the potential public health threat posed by LNG facilities and tankers, such facilities should not be located near high population areas or where an accident would pose a public health threat to large numbers of people (near a water treatment facility for a metropolitan area, for instance). During the energy crisis of the 1970s—long before the emergence of the terrorist threats that we face today—the U.S. Congress, after reviewing the potential public safety threats presented by LNG facilities and LNG tankers, strongly urged the responsible government agencies at the time to site LNG facilities only in remote areas far away from population centers. Given the increased threat of terrorist attacks today, coupled with the inherent public safety threat posed by LNG facilities and LNG tankers that Congress recognized thirty years ago, PennEnvironment would conclude that creating an LNG import facility in Port Richmond—or anywhere in the Philadelphia metropolitan area for that matter—poses an unnecessary public safety threat and should therefore not go forward.
A potential accident that would threaten public safety would begin with liquefied natural gas being leaked from an LNG tanker. The leak could be caused by some sort of attack from the air or water, similar to the attack on the USS Cole in Yemen in 2000. We know that U.S. intelligence agencies have warned of possible Al Qaeda attacks on the country’s energy infrastructure, so the potential for such attacks needs to be taken seriously. Once the LNG leaks out of the hull of the LNG tanker, its lower density would cause the LNG to spread out over the surface of the water. In the presence of an ignition source, which could be provided by the explosion or collision that causes the original leak, a fire will then form above the pool of LNG. The intensity of such a fire would make it impossible to extinguish, and it would burn until all the fuel is consumed—less than five minutes given the size of LNG tankers today.
In a 2004 study conducted by Sandia National Laboratories for the U.S. Department of Energy examining the threat posed by LNG spills over water, it was determined that such a leak and resulting fire would result in “major injuries and significant damage to structures” within a third of a mile from the spill site, and “potential for injuries and property damage” up to one mile from the spill site. Given that the width of the Delaware River as it flows between Penn’s Landing and the Camden Waterfront is just over a third of a mile, this means that both the Camden and Philadelphia waterfronts would fall well within the area of “major injuries and significant damage to structures” if a ship traveling up the Delaware were to be attacked and suffer a leak resulting in an LNG fire.
IV. Cost Concerns with LNG Facilities
Lastly, in determining whether or not an LNG import facility should be located in Philadelphia, decision-makers should also examine what the financial costs would be of ensuring the security of such a plant. Examining what happens in Boston Harbor when one of these ships approaches, as detailed by Gwen Shaffer in her recent article in the Philadelphia Weekly, offers a glimpse at the security necessary to ensure the safe passage of LNG tankers. The process in Boston involves everything from undercover investigators at the docking station to an underwater dive team to ensure no dangers exist beneath the water’s surface, to state and city police and the U.S. Coast Guard providing over ten boats to escort each LNG tanker into port. All of these security measures have price tags, as does the potential stoppage of other port activity at the same time.
V. Conclusion
For all of the reasons that I have outlined, it is our belief at PennEnvironment that the conversion of the Port Richmond facility into an LNG import facility creates an unnecessary threat to the area’s public safety, and should therefore not move forward. Thank you again for the opportunity to speak to you this evening.
