LNG Myths & Facts

Safety & Security · Environmental Impact · Economic Impact · Quality Of Life

Safety & Security Myths

Myth: Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) is flammable and highly explosive.

Fact: When stored in storage tanks, LNG cannot explode or burn because no oxygen is present.

When super cooled LNG comes into contact with warmer air, it becomes a visible vapor cloud. LNG vapors are only flammable within a very limited range of concentration in the air. If the percentage of natural gas in the air is less than 5%, there is not enough natural gas to be flammable. If the percentage of natural gas in the air is more than 15%, there is too much of a concentration of gas without enough oxygen for it to burn.

According to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), “Although a large amount of energy is stored in LNG, it cannot be released rapidly enough to cause the overpressures associated with an explosion. LNG vapors (methane) mixed with air are not explosive in an unconfined environment.”

Myth: Shipping LNG is extremely dangerous and is an accident waiting to happen.

Fact: In LNG’s 50-plus years of shipping history, LNG ships have made over 55,000 voyages and traveled more than 128 million miles without a major incident.

Over the history of LNG shipping, there have been no collisions, fires, explosions or hull failures resulting in a loss of containment for LNG ships in ports or at sea. According to a Sandia National Laboratories 2008 report, over the life of the LNG shipping industry only eight incidents occurred worldwide. None of these accidents led to a loss of life or breach of the vessels’ double-hulled cargo containment systems.

LNG has been shipped safely into Tokyo, one of the most densely populated cities in the world, for nearly 40 years. Approximately 400 LNG tankers call on Tokyo Harbor every year without incident.

Closer to home, LNG has been safely shipped through Boston Harbor and under the Tobin Bridge to a terminal in Everett, MA since 1971. In 2008, an LNG ship transited Boston Harbor every 4.5 days.

Myth: The January 2004 explosion at an LNG facility in Algeria proves that LNG is dangerous.

Fact: The Algeria incident took place at an LNG export liquefaction plant – not an LNG import terminal. An investigation determined that a gas leak was the primary cause of the accident. A nearby boiler was the source of the ignition, which ignited the vapor cloud in a confined space causing an explosion and fire. LNG import terminals do not use steam boilers. It should be noted that even the resulting fire did not damage on-site LNG storage tanks which are similar in design to those used at LNG import terminals.

Myth: LNG ships are likely targets for terrorists, and there are inadequate safety measures in place to guard against this threat.

Fact: There is no indication that LNG ships or terminals are more likely terrorist targets than other cargo ships or higher visibility targets such as federal or state landmarks, transportation infrastructure, or public gathering places. Nevertheless, since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, all aspects of our critical energy infrastructure have been reassessed. The LNG industry has redoubled already stringent safety and security protocols for both shipping and terminal operations. Extensive safeguards to provide the highest level of security for LNG ships and terminals include:

• Working closely with government agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security, oil and natural gas companies have implemented new industry guidelines designed to enhance security at all LNG facilities.

• The Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 requires all LNG ships and terminals to submit detailed security plans to the federal government.

• The U.S. Coast Guard carefully screens LNG ships that enter U.S. waters and can board ships before they enter our country’s waters, if it deems it appropriate.

• Federal regulations authorize safety and security zones to safeguard ships, harbors, ports and waterfront facilities from terrorist threats. These zones are determined by the U.S. Coast Guard on a case-by-case basis to minimize vulnerability. The regulations requiring safety and security zones around LNG ships and facilities to ensure people and property are protected.

Myth: LNG ships threaten the safety of the Newport and the Mt. Hope bridges.

Fact: LNG shipping has an exemplary safety record and LNG ships frequently pass under similar bridges around the world.

Closest to Narragansett Bay, LNG ships have safely transited under Boston’s Tobin Bridge for nearly 40 years without incident. Indeed, hundreds of LNG ships have safely maneuvered backwards and forwards under the Tobin which has the same vertical clearance as the Mt. Hope Bridge.

LNG ships are brought into port by licensed pilots who use their expert knowledge of local shipping channels, water depths, bridge clearances, traffic patterns, underwater hazards, and navigation rules. Additionally, LNG ships are equipped with sophisticated on-board equipment to enhance safe navigation. Navigational safety features include anti-collision radar, automated information systems, and global positioning systems that enable the crew to monitor the ship’s exact position, marine traffic, and other hazards.

The U.S. Coast Guard is responsible for assuring the safety of marine operations in all U.S. coastal waters. The Coast Guard has determined that the Narragansett and Mount Hope Bays are suitable for the type and frequency of LNG marine traffic associated with Weaver’s Cove’s offshore LNG berth project.

Myth: LNG tankers will have only 5-feet of clearance under the Mt. Hope Bridge and that’s just too close to allow.

Fact: Rhode Island licensed pilots have testified that 1 to 3-feet is the accepted minimum vertical ship clearance under bridges in all domestic and international ports. Additionally, LNG ships, of a comparable size to those anticipated to call at Weaver’s Cove, transit under the Tobin Bridge in Boston, MA on a regular basis.

Myth: Wave action could cause LNG tankers to pitch dangerously and collide into the Newport or Mt. Hope bridges.

Fact: Rhode Island licensed pilots have testified that 950-foot LNG tankers in protected bay waters are unlikely to pitch to any demonstrable degree whatsoever.

Myth: The Newport and Mt. Hope bridges will have to be closed during LNG shipments and this will prevent emergency personnel from using two local hospitals — St. Anne’s in Fall River and Newport Hospital.

Fact: Weaver’s Cove is not aware of any requirement that is part of a federal security plan to routinely close any bridges as a result of the proposed LNG transits through Narragansett Bay. Even if certain local authorities take it upon themselves to close the Newport and Mt. Hope bridges, it is not clear why those authorities would not allow ambulances or other emergency vehicles to pass.

Myth: Weaver’s Cove has not analyzed the threat of a potential earthquake on their proposed LNG project.

Fact: Federal siting standards require extensive analysis of earthquake risks for LNG facilities, just as they do for other major infrastructure projects. Weaver’s Cove has complied with and met or exceeded each of these federal standards. In fact, Weaver’s Cove has engaged the geophysical experts at Weston Geophysical Engineers in Acton, MA to extensively study this issue to ensure that all elements of the offshore berth project design can withstand the most extreme earthquake forces documented in this region. The land-based facilities previously approved by the FERC have met all the required standards, including the very same standards applied to nuclear power plants. Weaver’s Cove’s Offshore Berth project is being designed to these very same earthquake safety standards.

Myth: The proposed pipeline technology required to move LNG from Weaver’s Cove’s offshore berth to on land storage tanks in Fall River is new and untested.

Fact: The state of the art pipe-in-pipe LNG transfer pipeline technology proposed for the Weaver’s Cove project is neither “new” nor “untested.” The technology has been used for decades to transport other liquids, and more recently LNG. Weaver’s Cove is not aware of any concerns from the engineering community regarding this proven technology, and has seen no such concerns documented in the engineering analysis required as part of the project’s federal permitting review process.

Myth: The Weaver’s Cove LNG project does not meet Society of International Gas Tanker and Terminal Operators (SIGTTO) permitting and design standards.

Fact: SIGTTO is not a regulatory body and it does not issue either siting or design standards but does publish broad guidelines. Weaver’s Cove Energy’s proposed LNG project meets or exceeds all federally required design code and permitting standards. A listing of all required permits and approvals is listed in Resource Report 13 Appendix 13E. Demonstration of compliance to the primary federal regulations is included in Resource Report 13 Appendix 13F.

Environmental Impact Myths

Myth: Weaver’s Cove’s project will permanently destroy critical fish habitat and federal law expressly prohibits the destruction of critical fish habitat.

Fact: The Weaver’s Cove offshore berth project will not impact “critical fish habitat,” and is therefore not “expressly prohibited by federal law.” Neither Narragansett Bay nor Mount Hope Bay is designated critical fish habitat, a program administered by NOAA National Marine Fisheries under the Endangered Species Act. There are only two critical fish habitats in the entire Northeastern United States – in the Gulf of Maine for Atlantic salmon, and off Cape Cod for the right whale.

Myth: Weaver’s Cove’s project will require extensive dredging that will disturb winter flounder and result in the permanent loss of winter flounder habitat.

Fact: The area of potential flounder habitat to be dredged is about 73 acres or less than 1% of the potential habitat area of Mount Hope Bay, and an even smaller fraction of Narragansett Bay. Weaver’s Cove’s dredging plan, currently undergoing regulatory review, does not involve any dredging during the periods that winter flounder spawn and winter flounder larvae are developing. The resource agencies that have participated in interagency meetings and are reviewing Weaver’s Cove’s filings have provided no indication that dredging operations and activities in certain periods will adversely impact adult winter flounder. Hence there are no projected adverse impacts to winter flounder during the dredging process. Once dredging is completed, a limited area will probably be considered too deep to support winter flounder spawning. This unavoidable loss of spawning habitat is being addressed through a winter flounder mitigation plan that was presented in Resource Report 3 of the application that Weaver’s Cove filed with FERC on January 30, 2009.

It is important to note that any potential spawning habitat loss will occur solely in Massachusetts waters and is being addressed in both the federal and Massachusetts’ state permitting review processes. Appendix 3H of Resource Report 3 in Weaver’s Cove’s FERC application addresses a framework for mitigating any unavoidable loss that results to winter flounder habitat from dredging operations. With currently depressed populations of winter flounder, it does not appear that the population is limited by a shortage of spawning habitat, but rather from over-fishing.

Finally, a recent project in Narragansett Bay shows that extensive dredging can be conducted in an environmentally friendly manner. Completed in 2004, the Providence River and Harbor Maintenance Dredging Project dredged a nearly 17 mile navigational channel, several times the size of the dredging proposed for the Weaver’s Cove project. Despite the large amount of dredging required, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers final Providence River and Harbor Maintenance Dredging Project Synthesis Report concluded that:

• In general, monitoring indicated minimal environmental impacts.

• Dredging was not found to negatively impact winter flounder hatching success.

Myth: Dredging in Mt. Hope Bay will stir up “toxic sediment.”

Fact: Extensive testing of sediment in Mt. Hope Bay, required as part of the project’s federal permitting process overseen by the EPA and US Army Corps of Engineers, has found that contaminants are at such low concentration levels that dredging will result in no adverse environmental impacts. In fact, all of the sediments tested to date have proven clean enough for offshore disposal.

Myth: Dredging in Mt. Hope Bay will harm the Kickemuit River, Rhode Island’s only Class A1 waterway.

Fact: Extensive testing of sediment in Mt. Hope Bay has found that contaminants are at such low concentration levels that dredging will result in no adverse environmental impacts. Models further show that sediment plumes causes by dredging are not expected to travel anywhere near the mouth of the Kickemuit River, which is located good distance away from all proposed project construction and LNG shipping activities. The Kickemuit River Council has presented no scientific analysis or evidence to refute the scientific evidence and analyses put forward by Weaver’s Cove in its FERC application.

Myth: Ballast water from LNG tankers will introduce foreign plant and marine life into the bay.

Fact: LNG ships will not need to discharge ballast water in Narragansett Bay or Mt. Hope Bay. Ballast water is used to maintain stability and keep the propeller and rudder immersed while sailing with empty cargo tanks. LNG ships will take on ballast water after discharging cargo but they will not need to discharge ballast water.

Myth: Shipping LNG requires a tremendous amount of “dirty” energy.

Fact: Most LNG ships use their clean burning natural gas cargo as fuel, making them among the cleanest cargo transport ships on the seas.

Economic Impact Myths

Myth: The Weaver’s Cove LNG project will harm the region’s economy.

Fact: The Weaver’s Cove LNG project will be a tremendous economic benefit for Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and the entire region. During the project’s three year construction, Weaver’s Cove will hire up to 1,000 skilled local union trade workers to work an estimated 2.5 million labor hours with $125 million in direct wages.

Once operational, the terminal will employ 50 highly paid workers, support an additional 350 jobs, and generate $105 million in annual direct and indirect economic benefits, including tax payments to area cities and towns.

The 20 percent increase in the supply of gas created by the project will result in lower natural gas bills, and since natural gas is used to generate electricity, it will also mean lower electric bills for area residents and businesses. In a 2007 report, ISO New England, which operates the region’s power grid, forecast that lowering natural gas prices could bring electricity cost savings of $10 billion annually. The Weaver’s Cove LNG terminal will help New England realize these costs savings and strengthen the region’s future economic competitiveness.

Myth: Bridge closures and security requirements for LNG shipments will “shut down the bay,” harming commercial fishing, tourism, and the region’s economy.

Fact: Users of Narragansett Bay have successfully co-existed with commercial shipping traffic for decades, including ships requiring the same safety and security restrictions as LNG tankers. Boston Harbor has received hundreds of LNG shipments which have not harmed commercial fishing, tourism, or the area’s economy. Indeed, cruise ship traffic into Boston has actually increased in recent years.

Any decision to close bridges lays solely with the bridge owner, in this case, the Rhode Island Bridge and Turnpike Authority. Not a single Federal agency has recommended, let alone required, the closure of bridges as a matter of routine for LNG shipments. That aside, bridge closures, if implemented, would last between 5 and 6 minutes and the minor impacts from these closures (if they occur) have been documented through the use of well known and standardized traffic assessment models.

Other commercial and recreational users of waterways coexist with LNG operations in many ports around the world. The same can be expected in Narragansett Bay.

Myth: Security costs associated with LNG shipments into the bay will bankrupt local communities.

Fact: Weaver’s Cove Energy has committed to fund all security and emergency management costs incurred by state and local agencies resulting from federally approved security and safety plans for the shipment of LNG into Narragansett Bay. This commitment includes operational costs, equipment costs, and training costs. This cost-sharing approach is also mandated by the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

Most LNG marine security costs will be funded from the U.S. Coast Guard’s general maritime security budget, as marine security is part of the Coast Guard’s general mission to protect the nation’s coasts and waterways.

Myth: There is no need to build the Weaver’s Cove terminal because plenty of LNG supply is already available from facilities in Canada, offshore facilities in Gloucester, Massachusetts, and newly discovered domestic sources of natural gas.

Fact: Recently completed LNG import facilities in Canada and off the coast of Gloucester, while they have equipment to process large volumes of natural gas, cannot deliver their full capacity into the New England market when that gas is needed. Having an ability to deliver gas to the border of New England states is no guarantee that it will actually be delivered to consumers. In fact, past winter pipeline delivery data shows that existing LNG facilities can only deliver a very limited amount of natural gas to either Boston or areas south of Boston because the pipelines do not have enough spare capacity. As a result, there is a need for additional delivery of gas into Southeastern New England. Unlike other recently completed LNG projects, the proposed Weaver’s Cove LNG terminal will be able to deliver gas to consumers in the region using the existing natural gas delivery pipelines passing through the area.

While it is true that there have been several recent discoveries of domestic sources of natural gas, this does not mean there is the capacity to deliver this gas to New England. Indeed, the supplies of domestic natural gas that are often mentioned are located hundreds, and in many cases thousands of miles from New England. Unfortunately, the existing interstate pipelines that are used to transport natural gas from where it is found are either at capacity during the coldest times of the year so the gas cannot be transported, or are not yet built.

By virtue of its location, Weaver’s Cove Energy will be able to readily service New England’s major natural gas demand centers. It is anticipated that Weaver’s Cove will increase natural gas supply to New England by upwards of 20%, resulting in lower natural gas and electricity prices for the region.

Quality Of Life Myths

Myth: LNG shipments will result in bridge closures which could last up to 45 minutes and create a traffic nightmare.

Fact: Any decision to close bridges lays solely with the bridge owner, in this case, the Rhode Island Bridge and Turnpike Authority. Not a single Federal agency has recommended, let alone required, the closure of bridges as a matter of routine for LNG shipments. That aside, bridge closures, if implemented, would last between 5 and 6 minutes and the minor impacts from these closures (if they occur) have been documented through the use of well known and standardized traffic assessment models.

Myth: Security zones around LNG ships will “shut down the bay” to all recreational uses.

Fact: Recreational users (boating, fishing) have successfully co-existed with commercial shipping traffic in Narragansett Bay for decades, including ships requiring the same safety and security protocols as LNG tankers.

Weaver’s Cove has committed to avoid the bay during peak recreational periods by limiting vessel movement during summer weekends and holidays. In fact, most LNG deliveries to the Weaver’s Cove terminal will occur during the winter months when gas demand is highest and recreational boating and other uses are virtually non-existent. In addition, the U.S. Coast Guard has noted they “may allow vessels to transit the safety and security zone” around LNG tankers. This indicates the sensitivity of the Coast Guard to minimizing or eliminating disruptions to other users of Narragansett Bay

It is also important to note that Boston has received hundreds of LNG shipments over the last 30 years with minimal disruptions to recreational uses of Boston Harbor.

The arrival of LNG shipments will NOT adversely affect the many cherished recreational uses of Narragansett Bay.

Myth: LNG shipment movements are unpredictable and will disrupt sailing regattas and other recreational uses of the bay.

Fact: Advanced tracking systems, known as Automatic Identification Systems (AIS), allow terminal operators, the U.S. Coast Guard, and local pilots to know exactly where LNG ships are located and at what time they are anticipated to arrive in Narragansett Bay. This will allow for ample time to notify recreational boaters of incoming and outgoing LNG ships so as to minimize any conflicts.

In addition, Weaver’s Cove has committed to avoid the bay during peak recreational boating periods by limiting vessel movement during summer weekends and holidays. Weaver’s Cove is also committed to working closely with the Coast Guard and local recreational users (yacht clubs, sailing organizations, fishermen) to be aware of local activities and to be as flexible as possible with LNG ship arrival/departure schedules.