[Grovenet] Coast Guard "capabilities"

[Ron D'Eau Claire]

Thanks for the links, Linda. 

So the Coast Guard, like all of our armed forces, have been too badly
weakened by the Iraq war and budgets to do their job properly. 

Somehow that's no surprise, but it's not an LNG issue to me. After all, they
are responsible for ensuring terrorists don't launch an attack using any of
thousands of tons of highly flammable or highly toxic cargos passing into
and our of our ports every week. That's a very serious matter, with or
without LNG. 

I wonder how many people sitting in there offices on the San Francisco bay,
watching the ships moving in and out of the Golden Gate, realize that
passing by them constantly were ordinary-looking cargo ships carrying
thousands of tons of conventional high explosive bombs and other munitions,
some carrying many, many megatons of nuclear bombs, and many, many others
loaded with gasoline and other highly flammable petroleum distillates? 

I did, because some of my work consisted of being on those ships, going
through the safety drills and checking safety equipment to ensure it was
ready for federal inspections. Many days I visited a lonely, isolated dock
at the Concord Naval Weapons Station and walked to the ship past huge piles
of live bombs and tons of shells. 

Aboard civilian tankers, no number of high-tech sensors could completely
make me feel at ease standing on the bridge looking out over an expanse of
flat deck covered with a rat's-nest of pipes and valves, all connected to
huge, expansive holds below the steel filled with enough power to wipe out a
city if it was used properly. But our concern was fire, not explosion. Like
all such cargos, including LNG, explosion is not an issue as long as the
tanks are full of product. And when they aren't, they are filled with
nitrogen - an inert, gas which makes up most of our atmosphere and which
doesn't permit combustion nor contribute to the green house effect when it's
released.

Still, one could stand there, feeling the subtle vibration of the deck as
the propeller churned behind us, and feel in awe of the sheer volume of
potential energy in the ship. 

Yet, not one of them has caught fire or exploded in many, many decades.
Those that have had fires did not become bombs.

I'm not so concerned about the ability of companies to manage the very well
understood technology of handling those materials safely as I am about an
administration in Washington that has asked good men and women to commit
themselves to our safety then taken away from them the basic tools they need
to do their job. Nothing can be more discouraging. I believe that all of our
men and women in uniform who strive to do their jobs are heroes because they
have been so badly mistreated by this administration. 

We'll see what happens over the navigation of the Columbia River by LNG
vessels. But that's only one of three installations for Oregon. The other
two don't require moving cargo on the Columbia. One is at Warrenton at the
mouth of the river and the other is in Coos Bay. 

Of course the first link mentioning the 2002 suicide attack in Yemen is only
offering it as an example of what terrorists can do if they have the
opportunity. That was the attack on the US Navy destroyer Cole. No
catastrophic explosions. Had it been an LNG tanker, a fire might have
occurred, if they had managed to penetrate the multiple-layer armored tanks.
I suspect they would do far more damage blowing a hole in the side of on of
the many oil tankers moving in and out of harbors every day. 

The second link talks about a 1 by 3 mile safety zone for a floating
terminal nine miles off of the Long Island Coast. I see nothing to indicate
that the reason is to avoid damage from a catastrophe. My first guess is
that it's an exclusion zone to prevent collisions by ships not under
immediate Coast Guard control since it's so far offshore. 

It makes good sense to me to be extra careful in the ocean area where the
Stockholm T-Boned and sank the Italian luxury liner Andrea Doria many years
ago. That's a very busy area of the ocean. 

The next link speaks of a proposal to hold up LNG approval until the Coast
Guard has the resources to do its job. Too bad we can't do that for all
dangerous cargo! 

Speaking of terrorist attacks, my wife and I were aboard one of the first
airlines flights allowed after 9/11. We flew to Europe on a trip that had
been planned before the attack. We discussed the issue and decided that the
terrorists would not be allowed to have a victory: we would not alter our
schedules or plans because of their threats.

I know people who have never since boarded an airplane. That's a private
decision. I applaud their doing what helps them sleep more easily, but I
would object to it becoming a public policy recommended to all Americans! If
that ever happened, the terrorists would have won, in my mind. 

I see the hand-wringing over the possibility of terrorism as just that:
acceding to the demands of the terrorists that we consider them in our every
choice. In fact, they can strike in a thousand ways at right this moment. If
there's more we can do, more we should do, to safeguard ourselves and our
families, we should do it, LNG or no LNG. 

I will not bow down before terrorists and give them their victory.

Again, thank you so much for sharing the information and  the links. It's
apparent we don't agree on some fundamental issues, but that doesn't alter
my respect for anyone in search of the facts. 

Ron D'Eau Claire 



 



-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
Behalf Of Linda Martin
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 2:53 PM
To: grovenet at rdrop.com
Subject: [Grovenet] Coast Guard "capabilities"


Attached are excerpts of reports and links to those reports. They include
GAO reports and comments by the Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Coast
Guard and Maritime Transportation. I believe that the Coast Guard has
contradicted its own reports regarding the Columbia River, and while the
Coast Guard may claim that there is no problem escorting tankers in the
Columbia, the GAO and Chairman Cummings disagree:

January 8, 2008 Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Coast Guard lacks the resources to adequately protect
tankers carrying liquefied petroleum or crude oil from a possible terrorist
attack, congressional auditors reported Wednesday. The report by the
Government Accountability Office said the Coast Guard is stretched too thin
in some cases "to meet its own self-imposed security standards such as
escorting ships carrying liquefied natural gas." Also, said the report, some
ports visited by the government auditors did not have the resources needed
to promptly respond to a terrorist attack on a crude oil or LNG tanker,
including a shortage of fire boats and inadequately trained people. The GAO
report said past incidents overseas have shown that fuel-carrying tankers
are significant terrorist targets, with the biggest concern being a suicide
attack. The report noted the 2002 suicide boat attack on a tanker off the
coast or Yemen, for example. continued at 
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h3m2LlzzbuUMfPtVAohaWqORKSXwD8U2M9BG3

.           Plans for Long Island LNG plant move ahead (Coast Guard
Contradicts Itself  and report on LNG in Columbia River shipping)
The FERC report notes that energy needs in the region are rising while
existing supplies of natural gas are expected to dry up. "The use of natural
gas for electrical generation, rather than coal or oil, is directed toward
meeting regional air quality objectives," it says. "The proposed project
would reduce the area's future need for new or expanded interstate natural
gas pipelines by providing a local supply of natural gas that uses existing
distribution facilities."

At the same time, says the report, "construction and operation of the
project. would result in limited adverse environmental impacts."

The Coast Guard has recommended a safety zone surrounding each tanker in
transit that would be about a mile wide and three miles long. The FERC
report says the safety measure would still allow room for recreational and
fishing vessels to traverse The Race, the channel through Long Island Sound,
but some boating and fishing groups oppose the plan because of fears that
the plant would constrict marine traffic. full report:
http://www.blockislandtimes.com/articles/2008/01/29/news/news2.txt

January 29, 2008

Cummings calls for new LNG terminal security measures    Congressman Elijah
E. Cummings, Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime
Transportation, yesterday called for new action to enhance the security of
LNG imports...

 "In some instances, the Coast Guard has required LNG terminals to hire
local law enforcement to provide some of the security around LNG tankers
while they are unloading. 
   "While I have the highest respect for our police and other first
responders, frankly, they have been the first to admit in testimony to our
Subcommittee at the two hearings we convened on LNG security that they do
not have the resources and training to take on this type of responsibility. 
  "These types of arrangements --which in my opinion simply are not
optimal-- are being made because the Coast Guard does not have the resources
it needs to provide these security services while continuing all of its
other vital missions. 
  "This is most clearly confirmed in the waterway suitability assessment for
the proposed Broadwater terminal in New York, in which the Coast Guard
reported it would need 11 new boats to provide adequate security. 
   "Despite the obvious red flags that this situation should raise, FERC was
unable to explain what impact the lack of Coast Guard resources would have
on a pending terminal application." 
  full story... http://www.marinelog.com/DOCS/NEWSMMVII/2008jan00291.html

more stories: http://malibusurfsidenews.com/stories/200801/20080117003.html

_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet