Chevron needs to locate its LNG terminal off-shore a safe distance from populated areas. Any benefit of locating it closer to populated areas does not outweigh the risk to our community. For some pros and cons on the issue, see Section C of the 1/23/05 SunHerald. For a study of the potential damage from a damaged tanker see Sandia Lab Report?’s Report at
http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/oilgas/storage/lng/sandia_lng_1204.pdf

To express concern to Trent Lott, Gene Taylor, and John McKay by fax you can use the hotlinks on the St. Andrews Homepage.


By Al Pettigrew

Notes on Sandia Study

These are my notes from the Study. It indicates that we should be more concerned about attacks than accidental release for double hulled transport ships. According to the authors, a wide range of experimental information on LNG spills and associated analyses must be considered and evaluated in an effort to assess the potential consequences of the breach and associated spill of an LNG cargo tank. The consequences or potential hazards to the public of a large LNG spill over water will depend on:
�� Potential damage to an LNG cargo tank from either an accidental or intentional breach and the size, location, release rate and volume of LNG spilled;
�� Environmental conditions such as wind, tides and currents, and waves that could influence the spread or orientation of a potential LNG spill over water;
�� Potential hazards resulting from an LNG spill over water, such as cryogenic damage or thermal damage to the vessel or other LNG cargo tanks, which might lead to cascading failures of additional LNG cargo tanks or several damage to the LNG vessel;
�� The location and magnitude of a potential LNG spill where the hazards from a spill, such as fire and thermal radiation, might impact or damage other critical infrastructures or facilities such as bridges, tunnels, petrochemical or power plants, government buildings or military facilities, national icons, or population or business centers; and
�� Potential impact on the regional natural gas supplies from the damage of an LNG vessel, unloading terminal, or loss of use of a waterway or harbor due to the immediate or latent affects of a spill.

Much remains unknown about what would happen if a transport ship is attacked because experiments and studies so far seem to be too small to yield reliable predictions.

However, based on the availble tests, the study suggests that, for most of the credible intentional breach and spill scenarios, the general distance for major structural damage (high hazards) can occur, on average, up to 500 m from a spill. In general, the distance to low thermal hazard levels, about 5 kW/m2, is approximately 1600 m for intentional spills. For a very large, cascading spill, the high hazard zones could approach 2000 m. Moreover, in the unlikely event the spill pool does not ignite before reaching its lower flammability limit, it could in approximately 8 minutes involve flames in an area with a radius extending 3614 m from the source depending on the environment.


By Al Pettigrew

Taylor's 2/2/05 response

Thank you for contacting me with your concerns for the proposed Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) terminal to be constructed at the ChevronTexaco facility in Pascagoula. I always appreciate hearing from South Mississippians with the issues that are important to them.

LNG is a natural gas cooled to a liquid state. To liquefy natural gas, impurities that would freeze are removed, such as water, carbon dioxide, sulfur and some of the heavier hydrocarbons. It weighs about 45 percent as much as water and is odorless, colorless, non-corrosive, and non-toxic. Natural gas is composed primarily of methane. Both Natural gas and LNG may also contain propane, ethane, and other heavier hydrocarbons as well as small quantities of nitrogen, oxygen, carbon dioxide, sulfur compounds and water. During the liquefication process, after oxygen, carbon dioxide, sulfur compounds, and water are removed and when natural gas is converted to a liquid state, a very clean product results.

In your letter you expressed specific concerns for both the personal safety as well as the environmental safety for the community surrounding this facility. Since the announcement of the proposed LNG terminal in November, I have received classified briefings on the proposed plans to ensure the safety of this facility from terrorist activities. I will continue to communicate with ChevronTexaco, the Port of Pascagoula, the city of Pascagoula, Jackson County, and various agencies of the State government to make sure that we have realistic assessments of the risks involving the proposed LNG facility.

Please know that before ChevronTexaco can begin construction, they must first obtain a variety of permits from federal state and local agencies granting them permission to build. The regulatory agencies will be particularly interested in any environmental concerns involved in operating the LNG facility. This process will take some time and will include hearings and comment periods for those in the community to ask questions and register their opinions regarding the facility.

Again, thank you for your letter. If there is any way I can be of further assistance, please feel free to contact my office.

With kind regards, I am
GENE TAYLOR
Member of Congress


By Al Pettigrew

Conservation with John McKay

I talked with John on 3/11/05. He informed me that the LNG shippers will be using double-hull transport ships and that the closest population to the proposed terminal will be over 2 miles to the west.

I believe that is about twice the distance of the danager zone predicted by the Sandia Study. However, besides the uncertainty of the study, I wonder whether the transport ships will pass within 2000 meters of a populated area to approach the proposed terminal.

By Al Pettigrew