NO:
Greens lavish praise on clean natural gas, block imports of it in liquid form

By Ben Lieberman

Environmentalists love natural gas — except when they hate it. This schizophrenic approach is costing the rest of us a bundle and is standing in the way of badly needed sources of supply such as liquefied natural gas.

Green activists and legislators love natural gas versus its fossil fuel competitor, coal. Tough measures in the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments targeted new coal-fired power plants, and very few have been built ever since. In effect, new coal plants were declared “out of bounds” — along with new nuclear plants — as an option for generating additional electricity. Yet, while these power sources were consigned to the sidelines, America’s electricity needs kept expanding.

That growing demand has been met largely by building natural gas-using facilities. In less than two decades, natural gas has gone from being a relatively minor source of electricity to providing 20 percent of the nation’s needs. About 25 percent of our natural gas supply now goes to electric utilities, rather than to residential and industrial uses.

Of course, this added demand has raised prices. Though the jump in oil and gasoline costs in recent years has garnered most of the attention, the percentage rise in natural gas has been just as big.

At more than $9 per thousand cubic feet wholesale, that’s more than four times its average price during the 1990s. Consumers are feeling the pain — especially in winter — given that nearly 60 percent of America’s homes are heated with natural gas.

In addition, natural gas-dependent industries such as chemicals and fertilizer producers, which use it both as a feedstock and an energy source, have seen hundreds of thousands of jobs lost to parts of the world where natural gas is relatively abundant and costs much less.

Here’s where the love-hate stuff comes in. At the same time environmental policy drove up the demand for natural gas, it has also constrained the supply.

For example, substantial domestic reserves of natural gas, both onshore and offshore, have been placed off-limits due to various environmental restrictions. Many of the same activists and politicians responsible for higher natural gas usage are also among those standing in the way of increased natural gas drilling.

The same is true for liquefied natural gas. It’s uneconomical to ship natural gas from other continents in its natural, gaseous state, but natural gas can be condensed at very low temperatures and shipped as a liquid.

Special receiving facilities have safely handled shiploads of liquefied natural gas for decades, but the need to expand has skyrocketed. Liquefied natural gas currently supplies less than 3 percent of our needs. It could provide much more.

Once again, the usual suspects are doing everything they can to stop any expansions of the liquefied natural gas infrastructure. Sens. Ted Kennedy and John Kerry and Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts have been busy trying to block an onshore liquefied natural gas facility in their state — at least when they’re not busy denouncing high home heating bills or the outsourcing of manufacturing jobs. Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., is no less critical of a proposed facility off the New Jersey coast. Ditto a large California delegation regarding several proposed liquefied natural gas projects there.

The reasons for opposition — usually safety and environmental concerns — are belied by the excellent record liquefied natural gas has amassed in this country. To be sure, these concerns, including the overhyped claim that liquefied natural gas facilities would be easy terror targets, should be addressed through strong safeguards; however, overblown fears are hardly a valid reason to stop these projects.

Natural gas is only part of the solution to our energy challenges, and liquefied natural gas is only part of the natural gas equation. Nonetheless, affordable energy is indispensable to economic growth and to maintaining our nation’s standard of living.

Americans will need access to every reasonable energy source available in the years ahead. Increased liquefied natural gas should be a part of our energy future.

Ben Lieberman is a senior policy analyst in the Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation (www.heritage.org).

YES:
Offshore terminals are easy terrorist targets

By Wayne Madsen

New York’s new governor, David Paterson, wisely rejected plans to locate a huge liquefied natural gas barge in the waters off Long Island.

The liquefied natural gas floating terminal was spearheaded by Shell Oil and Broadwater Energy and does little to move America away from dependence on fossil fuels. Paterson said the proposed mega-barge would “scar” Long Island Sound and environmental groups such as Save the Sound rallied to block the so-called Broadwater LNG complex.

The energy industry argues that liquefied natural gas produces lower carbon emissions than oil or coal, but this factoid is a placebo designed to keep America’s energy infrastructure wedded to the fossil fuel industry.

Non-carbon-based green technology solutions — solar, wind, biofuels — are the only answer to halting the carbon fuel vicious cycle that is threatening the Earth’s climate with disastrous results.

Although liquefied natural gas produces less carbon emissions than its dirtier alternatives, the extraction and conversion process from gaseous to liquid and back to gaseous form directly contributes to CO2 emissions.

Placing a 28-story-tall liquefied natural gas barge the size of four football fields in Long Island Sound not only incurred the wrath of New York’s Gov. Paterson, but also the state of Connecticut, whose Attorney General, Richard Blumenthal, vowed to sue to block the project. Connecticut argued that exclusion zones established around the Broadwater barge would severely affect Connecticut waterways and fishing and recreational boating.

In addition to needlessly contributing more carbon to the atmosphere, liquefied natural gas is extremely volatile. A liquefied natural gas explosion in Long Island Sound during a weekend would turn recreational boats that plow the waters into crisp hulks.

New York Assemblywoman Ginny Fields summed up opposition to the Broadwater facility in stating the proposed barge has “the potential of industrializing the LIS (Long Island Sound) and it would prohibit recreational pursuits of Long Islanders within a large radius around it.”

Connecticut’s Republican Gov. Jodi Rell has questioned a favorable environmental impact statement on the Broadwater barge issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. She questioned how “any reasonable person or government agency” could conclude the liquefied natural gas barge would have a limited adverse impact on the environment.

Liquefied natural gas barges are also attractive targets for terrorists. Last year, federal prosecutors charged a New York ring with planning to blow up fuel lines leading to John F. Kennedy International Airport. An attack on a super-tanker off-loading liquefied natural gas at a barge off New York or New Jersey would have disastrous effects.

Delaware successfully sued New Jersey over a plan to build a 4-mile-long liquefied natural gas terminal on the Delaware River. Delaware claimed that New Jersey was not permitted to build such a terminal as the Delaware River and its riverbed are part of Delaware.

The Supreme Court ruled in Delaware’s favor, with even pro-business Chief Justice John Roberts siding with Delaware in opposition to the liquefied natural gas terminal. Baltimore County is fighting a similar attempt by AES to build a huge liquefied natural gas facility at the old Bethlehem Steel Sparrows Point shipyard.

Even the floating liquefied natural gas terminals that are being proposed for sites 20 miles offshore are clearly bad for the environment and public safety. On this point, the Democratic governor of New York and the Republican governor of Connecticut are in agreement.

A carbon fuel alternative such as liquefied natural gas is not the answer to creating “green energy” sources. Solar, wind, tidal and biofuels are the only answer to shifting the world away from destructive greenhouse gases. New York, New Jersey and Connecticut are leading the way on this vital issue. Every American who cares about our fragile planet owes them a tremendous debt of gratitude.

Wayne Madsen is a contributing writer to The Online Journal (www.onlinejournal.com).