LNG Plans Unsafe: Richard Clarke
05/10/2005
Clarke: LNG plans unsafe
Daniel Fowler , Herald News Staff Reporter
PROVIDENCE -- After weeks of research and analysis, Richard Clarke and his team of counter-terrorism experts concluded Monday what many in the region have been saying for months: Liquefied natural gas facilities do not belong in Providence or Fall River.
"Going into this analysis, we had no preconceived outcome in mind," Clarke said. "We hoped there would be a way of defending the LNG facility."
Advertisement
It turned out, however, that there wasn’t.
"We asked ourselves, ‘Could we develop a defense against these kinds of attacks that terrorists could not penetrate?’ " said Clarke, a former anti-terrorism adviser for several presidents. "Unfortunately, the answer to that was no."
Clarke, and his Virginia-based company, Good Harbor Consulting, have been working on a threat analysis of proposals by KeySpan and Hess LNG to build LNG import terminals in Providence and Fall River. Attorney General Patrick Lynch hired him to conduct the study in January.
On Monday, Clarke released his 159-page document, entitled "LNG facilities in Urban Areas," at a forum at Brown University.
The "simplest defense mechanism" in fighting terrorism as it relates to LNG, Clarke said, is to place LNG facilities where people aren’t.
"There’s much less terrorist interest in remoter areas," Clarke said. "Even if a disaster never happens, we know the risk is much higher if it’s in an urban area."
Clarke said his threat analysis went beyond simply looking at actual terrorist attacks to determine the likelihood of an incident at an LNG facility or on an LNG tanker.
"When it comes to terrorism in this day and age, we can no longer say, ‘Show me the numbers,’ " Clarke said. "It’s a foreseeable risk, but not one we can quantify."
Clarke said the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is "pretending to be able to quantify" the likelihood of an attack, which is a mistake in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. FERC is ultimately responsible for deciding whether to approve proposed LNG facilities.
If asked prior to the Sept. 11 attacks what the statistical probability is of terrorists hijacking four jets and crashing two of them into the World Trade Center, "We would have said, ‘It hasn’t happened,’" Clarke told the dozens of people in the audience.
But to say "because something never happened, it will never happen ..is illogical," Clarke said.
Instead of using the "old risk management paradigms," which rely on statistics, Clarke’s study looks at five issues: intent, capability, vulnerability, consequence and recovery.
Clarke said U.S. intelligence operatives know that a group like al-Qaida wants to attack something like an LNG facility or tanker, has the capability to carry out such an attack, and that LNG facilities and tankers are vulnerable to attack from land, water and air.
Such an attack, Clarke said, would cause widespread destruction and death, and "there is no way the New England (area) trauma and burn unit ..could deal with a disaster of that capacity."
In terms of the recovery phase, Clarke said, the region likely lacks the ability to cope fully with such a disaster.
While he produced the analysis, Clarke said, he had "no idea" what impact, if any, it will have on FERC’s decision to approve or reject LNG facilities in this area.
Lynch said Clarke’s report was filed with the U.S. Coast Guard Monday and will be filed with FERC today.
Fall River Mayor Edward M. Lambert Jr., who attended the forum, said Clarke’s analysis "is another very important step in our fight."
"He clearly said that, in a populated area, (siting an LNG facility) is a very unwise thing to do," Lambert said. "I think his report validates what we’ve said from the start. He pointed out very specific ways that an attack can be carried out -- air, water and land."
Though a valuable resource, Lambert said, it will take more than a report to prevent LNG facilities from being sited in Fall River and Providence.
"I think Richard Clarke and his report alone won’t (convince) FERC, but I think this is very important in our public call to get FERC to change its policies," Lambert said. "Today it’s Fall River and Providence. Tomorrow it will be other communities."
Lambert said it’s important to ensure Clarke’s report reaches a wider audience.
"I think the only way to pressure FERC is to get this into the hands of the public and the media so Americans start asking questions of FERC and the White House," Lambert said. "Why would you do this when you have alternatives?"
Coast Guard officials have been waiting for the results of Clarke’s study before deciding whether to act on a November request by Fall River leaders to issue regulations establishing thermal vapor dispersion exclusion zones for LNG marine spills.
FERC has also said it will not make a ruling on the two proposals until it receives Clarke’s report.
E-mail Daniel Fowler at dfowler@heraldnews.com.
Clarke: LNG plans unsafe
Daniel Fowler , Herald News Staff Reporter
PROVIDENCE -- After weeks of research and analysis, Richard Clarke and his team of counter-terrorism experts concluded Monday what many in the region have been saying for months: Liquefied natural gas facilities do not belong in Providence or Fall River.
"Going into this analysis, we had no preconceived outcome in mind," Clarke said. "We hoped there would be a way of defending the LNG facility."
Advertisement
It turned out, however, that there wasn’t.
"We asked ourselves, ‘Could we develop a defense against these kinds of attacks that terrorists could not penetrate?’ " said Clarke, a former anti-terrorism adviser for several presidents. "Unfortunately, the answer to that was no."
Clarke, and his Virginia-based company, Good Harbor Consulting, have been working on a threat analysis of proposals by KeySpan and Hess LNG to build LNG import terminals in Providence and Fall River. Attorney General Patrick Lynch hired him to conduct the study in January.
On Monday, Clarke released his 159-page document, entitled "LNG facilities in Urban Areas," at a forum at Brown University.
The "simplest defense mechanism" in fighting terrorism as it relates to LNG, Clarke said, is to place LNG facilities where people aren’t.
"There’s much less terrorist interest in remoter areas," Clarke said. "Even if a disaster never happens, we know the risk is much higher if it’s in an urban area."
Clarke said his threat analysis went beyond simply looking at actual terrorist attacks to determine the likelihood of an incident at an LNG facility or on an LNG tanker.
"When it comes to terrorism in this day and age, we can no longer say, ‘Show me the numbers,’ " Clarke said. "It’s a foreseeable risk, but not one we can quantify."
Clarke said the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is "pretending to be able to quantify" the likelihood of an attack, which is a mistake in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. FERC is ultimately responsible for deciding whether to approve proposed LNG facilities.
If asked prior to the Sept. 11 attacks what the statistical probability is of terrorists hijacking four jets and crashing two of them into the World Trade Center, "We would have said, ‘It hasn’t happened,’" Clarke told the dozens of people in the audience.
But to say "because something never happened, it will never happen ..is illogical," Clarke said.
Instead of using the "old risk management paradigms," which rely on statistics, Clarke’s study looks at five issues: intent, capability, vulnerability, consequence and recovery.
Clarke said U.S. intelligence operatives know that a group like al-Qaida wants to attack something like an LNG facility or tanker, has the capability to carry out such an attack, and that LNG facilities and tankers are vulnerable to attack from land, water and air.
Such an attack, Clarke said, would cause widespread destruction and death, and "there is no way the New England (area) trauma and burn unit ..could deal with a disaster of that capacity."
In terms of the recovery phase, Clarke said, the region likely lacks the ability to cope fully with such a disaster.
While he produced the analysis, Clarke said, he had "no idea" what impact, if any, it will have on FERC’s decision to approve or reject LNG facilities in this area.
Lynch said Clarke’s report was filed with the U.S. Coast Guard Monday and will be filed with FERC today.
Fall River Mayor Edward M. Lambert Jr., who attended the forum, said Clarke’s analysis "is another very important step in our fight."
"He clearly said that, in a populated area, (siting an LNG facility) is a very unwise thing to do," Lambert said. "I think his report validates what we’ve said from the start. He pointed out very specific ways that an attack can be carried out -- air, water and land."
Though a valuable resource, Lambert said, it will take more than a report to prevent LNG facilities from being sited in Fall River and Providence.
"I think Richard Clarke and his report alone won’t (convince) FERC, but I think this is very important in our public call to get FERC to change its policies," Lambert said. "Today it’s Fall River and Providence. Tomorrow it will be other communities."
Lambert said it’s important to ensure Clarke’s report reaches a wider audience.
"I think the only way to pressure FERC is to get this into the hands of the public and the media so Americans start asking questions of FERC and the White House," Lambert said. "Why would you do this when you have alternatives?"
Coast Guard officials have been waiting for the results of Clarke’s study before deciding whether to act on a November request by Fall River leaders to issue regulations establishing thermal vapor dispersion exclusion zones for LNG marine spills.
FERC has also said it will not make a ruling on the two proposals until it receives Clarke’s report.
E-mail Daniel Fowler at dfowler@heraldnews.com.
posted by Squander N. Blunderbush | 6:26 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home