Promoters of liquefied natural gas (“LNG”) ignore two large issues when seeking to incorporate LNG into the energy security mix. According to many energy and national security experts, LNG will actually increase dependency from the very countries which the United States seeks to reduce dependency—countries such as Russia, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Iran. Likewise, LNG loaded on naval tankers for importation to the U.S. or produced domestically at LNG facilities and transported to convenience stores for consumer use becomes high-value terror targets.
According to an Institute for Analysis of Global Security (IAGS) study,
The Terrorist Threat to Liquefied Natural Gas: Fact or Fiction, a study found that “on 14 February 2007, the Saudi Arabian arm of al-Qaeda put out a call to all religious militants to attack oil and natural gas sources around the world.” Al-Qaeda plans to strangle the United States economy through severe disruption of foreign energy supplies imported for domestic use. This disruption will include LNG, as well as crude oil, tankers and land-based facilities.
As late as May 2009, LNG safety was called into question in Baltimore, Maryland, where “opponents of a liquefied natural gas terminal in eastern Baltimore County stepped up their attacks Tuesday, hosting an appearance by a former CIA officer [Charles Faddis] who said the $400 million project lacks critical safeguards and raises the specter of terrorism and piracy”, according to a news report in the Baltimore Sun.
That sentiment was shared by Maryland State Senator Norman R. Stone, Jr., who stated: “The possibility of terrorism or catastrophic accident outweighs the promise of jobs [and] Faddis' expertise ‘lends credence to what we know could happen here’".
In the
Energy Bulletin, the world’s second largest insurer, Lloyd’s of London, warned earlier in 2004 about the risk of terrorist naval attacks against LNG and crude oil tankers. In voicing that concern, Peter Levene, said that if terrorist were able to successfully attack a LNG tanker it "would have the force of a small nuclear explosion”. This speech was delivered in Houston, Texas, where many LNG and crude oil refineries exist raising the concern about the construction of those types of facilities being built in Kentucky.
The risk created by the construction of LNG facilities and the utilization of LNG for transportation fuel presents major national security, environmental concern, and disaster response problems for federal, state, and local governments. From terror attacks to disaster response capabilities of local first responders, i.e. fire departments and emergency management, LNG alters the domestic energy landscape in a potentially negative fashion.
“Once ignited, as is very likely when the spill is initiated by a chemical explosion, the floating LNG pool will burn vigorously…Like the attack on the World Trade Center in New York City, there exists no relevant industrial experience with fires of this scale from which to project measures for securing public safety.”-- Professor James Fay, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
A 2007 Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) report issued called into question the public safety should an LNG facility explode or become the target of terrorist attack. The GAO study showed that experts polled as part of that study agreed that “one to 1.25 miles was not a sufficiently conservative estimate to describe the heat hazard zone of an LNG related fire. If the experts who disagreed with this distance happen to be correct, it would put members of the general population located at the questionable threshold of 1.2 or 1.3 miles away from the site in a risky location.” Clearly, local volunteer fire departments would not have the manpower or resources should a LNG facility or fueling site explod or catch fire.
All evidence suggests the proper path for natural gas transportation fuel development leads to the use of compressed natural gas (“CNG”) or propane. Both CNG and propane represent an efficient, safe, and environmentally-sound transportation fuel source derived from natural gas. No environmental or hazardous dangers exist. In fact, CNG dissipates should a leak occur. It does not explode; being very similar to the propane presently used by thousands of consumers in their homes right now.
As a transportation fuel, CNG provides the same fuel benefits as LNG without the risk or the cost of storing and maintaining LNG. For convenience stores, CNG is a manageable and safe alternative fuel. It does not present a national security concern and can be produced domestically, without having to import vast quantities from countries such as Saudi Arabia, Iran or Russia.
According to the Natural Gas Alliance, the U.S. has over 100 years of domestic natural gas that can be utilized safely and efficiently for transportation fuel, without processing it into LNG. The solution for natural gas as transportation fuel is CNG. Safe, efficient, and secure, CNG provides a viable alternative fuel. We can develop CNG as a viable transportation without resorting to the use of LNG. With vast natural gas reserves, any move to import and transport LNG should be evaluated as to the grave risk of increased homeland terrorist attacks, as well as concerns for the safety of consumers and the protection of the environment. These concerns must be answered before any business or local government attempts to utilize LNG for transportation fuel.
Just a little over a week ago, Barack Obama told the people of Brazil he wanted the United States to be their biggest customer in their expanding crude oil export industry. Never mind his biggest benefactor and leftist political ally, George Soros, stands to make billions from the United States extending U.S. investment to Brazil for this oil exploration, while domestic energy is whithering on the vine--thanks to radical regulations by Obama and his EPA. 
