Fall River / Somerset LNG
Why Take The Risk?

An official from Weaver’s Cove recently told the Fall River City Council that the opponents of siting an
LNG facility in a heavily populated area lack the facts concerning LNG. This was far from the truth. The
members of the Coalition for the Responsible Siting of LNG Facilities have been researching the issue
for many months and have discovered that scientific experts, fire officials, public officials have not only
spoken against the siting of LNG facilities in populated areas but they have scientific information to back
up their opinion.

Professor James Fay of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology created a report on the possible hazards
from LNG. In regards to what could happen along the Fall River / Somerset waterfront he said, “A tanker spill fire
at any location along this route would have serious consequences for persons and property on the shore
adjacent to the stricken vessel.” Moreover Professor Fay stated that, “The magnitude of the resulting liquid cargo
pool fires are unprecedented in scale. There is no possibility of ameliorating the fire’s effects, much less
extinguishing it, during the short time (several minutes) of burnout.”

Professor Jerry Havens of the University of Arkansas who said, “In my judgment, a large pool fire – on water,
and therefore uncontained – is of the highest concern.” “Most predictions suggest that even the largest LNG
tankers (typically more than 900 feet in length) might be completely enveloped in a pool fire following a complete
spill of a single 6.5 million gallon tank. This raises questions about the vulnerability of the ship and the potential
for additional releases. A typical LNG tanker contains as many as five tanks with a combined capacity of 33 million
gallons.” In addition Professor Havens has said that safety zones based on the limited, 10-minute spill could not
protect the public from the kind of fire that would result from an LNG tanker accident. He also said that the
“Hazard Exclusion Zones” might need to extend a mile or more from the LNG terminal.

William Lehr, author of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) report due out shortly said,
“The maximum emissive power of an LNG pool fire is several times more than we would expect from a regular oil
fire. A common danger level for thermal radiation flux in an area of public assembly is 5 kilowatts per square
meter. A person exposed to this level would feel considerable pain in a few seconds. A very large unconfined LNG
pool fire could possibly produce thermal radiation effects at this level or above for more than a kilometer away
from the center of the fire.”

When we worry that a mishap or an attack on the LNG tanker could take place we are told that the Coast Guard
will handle security. Here is what Rear Admiral Kevin Eldridge, commander of the U.S. Coast Guard’s 11th
District off California had to say when he was asked about the possibility of an attack on U.S. shores. He said, “It’s
likely enough for us to put a lot of effort into planning for it. Frankly, if we have a vessel in our port that has a
problem, it’s too late.”

William Pope, U.S. State Department Deputy Coordinator for Counter-Terrorism said recently, “We have every
reason to believe they (terrorists) will also be attracted to one of the softest targets of all, commercial shipping.”

In a recent article from an Australian newspaper, Alexey Muraviev of Curtin University of Technology in Perth,
told a maritime security conference that intelligence experts believed ships were far more vulnerable to an al-
Qaeda attack than commercial airlines. Targets could include cruise ships, oil supertankers, LNG-carriers and
chemical tankers.

In addition Senator Elizabeth Dole had this to say about the U.S. Coast Guard having the responsibility of
protecting LNG tankers. She said, “We need to give our Coast Guard more resources right now, not the added
responsibility of overseeing tankers bringing dangerous LNG into our ports.”

The federal government back in 1979 already knew of the dangers relating to LNG even before there was talk
about terrorism.

In 1979 the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO), which acts as the investigative arm of Congress, researched
the LNG issue. GAO Director J. Dexter Peach testified before the Senate and said, “We believe remote siting is
the primary factor in safety.”

In addition to Mr. Peach speaking before the Senate Massachusetts Congressman Ed Markey said recently,
“When Congress passed my LNG safety bill back in 1979, it directed the Department of Transportation (DOT) to
prescribe standards for the siting of new LNG facilities that were supposed to consider the need to encourage
remote siting.”

While many have realized that LNG is extremely dangerous the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC),
the agency in charge of making a decision on the Weaver’s Cove facility, have been touting a report known as the
“Quest Study” as evidence that we have little to fear from an LNG spill. The problem is that the lead scientist on
the Quest Study of LNG fires, John Cornwell, said that he did not think the study’s computations were appropriate
for many of the things they are being used for. In addition an article written in the “Mobile Register” said, “Most
published scientific studies, including a soon-to-be-released analysis by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, produce estimates of a potential LNG tanker fire that are five to six times larger than the Quest
estimate.”

Furthermore the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is headed by Patrick Henry Wood III. Mr. Wood’s agency
will be making the decision on whether or not Weaver’s Cove can construct an LNG facility in Fall River. It is
interesting to note the Weaver’s Cove has hired the law firm of Baker & Botts out of Texas to represent them. The
Chairman of FERC, Mr. Wood, was employed by Baker & Botts in the past.

Other LNG Sites:

There are many other companies looking to place LNG sites throughout the U.S. but they are taking a different
approach, unlike Weaver’s Cove.

Billiton LNG International, a large energy firm from Australia would like to locate a LNG facility in California.
Stephen Billiot, the V.P. had this to say: “We understand California’s concern for its coastline and it
communities. Although LNG’s excellent safety record is well documented, we are siting this much needed LNG
facility far offshore and away from populated centers to ensure the highest level of protection for the California
coast and public safety.”

Cameron Parish La., Cheniere Energy is being supported by the citizens to locate a LNG facility there. The
company points out that they have 600 acres for a buffer zone.

Sabine Texas, Golden Pass LNG project being sponsored by Exxon / Mobil. The company is highlighting the fact
that they have over 500 acres for a buffer zone.

The lack of buffer zones has brought out many communities to be against these dangerous LNG proposals. Fall
River Ma., Mobile Alabama, Harpswell Maine, Vallejo Calif, and other communities in California, the country of
Mexico stopped Marathon Oil from building an LNG facility near a city in that country by taking the land over and
nationalizing it.

In R.I. a bill has been filed by State Representative Raymond Gallison to ban LNG tankers from using the
Sakonnet River or from going under the Mount Hope Bridge.

On February 3, 2004, United States Senator John Kerry and others sent a letter to Tom Ridge saying that
every time an LNG tanker comes into Boston that the Federal Govt. needs to raise the threat level in Boston to
HIGH! Is that what we want in the Fall River area?


September 9, 2003 Congressional Research Service Report
“Because LNG infrastructure is highly visible and easily identified, it can be vulnerable to terrorist attack.”

Boston Deputy Fire Chief Joseph Fleming presented a report to the Commonwealth. The report contained
information from the National Fire Prevention Association handbook: “Contact between water and pooled LNG
should be avoided to prevent increased vaporization, unless vapor can be controlled” What will the fire boats that
Weaver’s Cove said they would provide do to a LNG fire? According to a fire expert the Weaver’s Cove fire tugs
would make the fire even worse!

The Fall River City Council has gone on record 7 to 2 opposing the facility. State Representatives David
Sullivan and Mike Rodrigues have gone on record opposing any facility near populated areas.

As anyone can plainly see the Coalition for the Responsible Siting of LNG Facilities has gathered information from
far and wide. We do know the facts. It is foolish to site a dangerous facility in a heavily populated area. Why take
the risk?