Limiting LNG: Public Perception Hinders the Role of Liquefied Natural Gas Domestically

Natural gas serves as an important alternative to higher carbon emitting fuels which meet our needs for heating, cooking, transportation and electricity. The versatility and high BTU value of natural gas is well appreciated and pipelines crossing our country have been in service for some time. The pipelines that link domestic and Canadian sources do not meet all of our demand and we are augmented by liquefied natural gas (LNG) import terminals. The pipelines draw little concern from the public while terminals are viewed very differently. Terminals have imported (and exported) LNG safely since 1969 but public perception is converse to the strong industry record in this regard. Criticisms center around security threats and environmental hazards associated with the ships and terminals. Unfortunately, the risks are not being assessed on probability and consequence. Meanwhile, LNG fits much more prominently into the energy strategy of several developed nations. A review of Japanese energy strategy demonstrates that public perception has been paramount in allowing terminals to be cited in high density urban areas close to the population being served. Important recent studies into hazard and consequence behind LNG risks are also reviewed.