Opponents of LNG plans reply to our questions

Earlier this year, the Western Telegraph put a number of questions to South Hook LNG, developers of the proposed Milford Haven site, about LNG and local concerns over safety. Now it is the turn of local pressure group, Safe Haven, which has major concerns over safety issues.

Who or what is Safe Haven? Why was it set up?

Safe Haven is a steadily growing group of local residents, business people and professionals who have researched the safety issues of LNG world-wide. We have closely monitored the work of the agencies and authorities involved with the LNG developments locally and have come to the firmly held belief that short-cuts have been taken that may compromise the safety of those who live around the Haven.

Are you opposed to LNG in principle?

We are not against LNG and are tired of being labelled as 'antis' and 'protesters'. LNG will form a vital part of the UK's energy supply in the short term. However, top LNG experts (Koopman, Fay, Powers, Havens) agree that terminals should not be sited in populated areas. We are not against LNG - we are in favour of taking expert advice.

Has Safe Haven called for a judicial review on the LNG issue?

Safe Haven has been forced into a position where lawyers are now involved. We didn't want to face our elected representatives and civil servants across a court of law. We wanted them to stand shoulder to shoulder with us in our call for public safety to be put first.

LNG's safety record is accepted worldwide as being exemplary. Bearing that in mind, and the fact that all relevant statutory authorities have given the projects the thumbs up, what are your major concerns?

Do you agree that LNG's safety record is accepted worldwide as being exemplary? Despite several near misses with potentially catastrophic consequences, the LNG industry appears to have led directly to under 250 known fatalities since the 1940s, with only 29 deaths so far this year. Relatively speaking this is a good safety record. (LNG Safety - CH1V).

Isn't it true that all the relevant statutory authorities have given the projects the thumbs up?

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has stated again and again that it has not given LNG shipping at the jetty or on the waterway the thumbs up. HSE has given the on-shore storage tanks the thumbs up, but it has not included terrorism in its calculations. (HSE, BBC News, Channel 4 News, Eye on Wales, Radio Wales). The Park and the County Council, have given their thumbs up to the whole LNG operation based on incomplete HSE advice. (PCC, PCNP). The Health and Safety Executive, on whose advice the thumbs up has been given, decided that a shipping accident could lead to the whole of Milford Haven, Neyland or Pembroke Dock being engulfed in a dense, heavier than air, flammable gas cloud. QRA s for shipping at US terminals undertaken by Lloyds and Quest Risk Consultants confirm that such clouds are possible. The HSE then decided to ignore the shipping. They have not been secretive about this. They will tell you if you ring them up that the shipping is someone else's problem. When the UK body charged with public safety identifies a major potential danger to public health then decides to ignore it, that's a major concern. Exxon Mobil said that spilled LNG dissipated quickly 'because it's lighter than air' (Western Telegraph). Pembrokeshire County Council said LNG is 'lighter than air' and 'difficult to ignite' when spilled (public record at National Park). When the operating companies and our local authority get it so wrong, that's a major concern.

Where has your information come from to back your arguments?

The information that we pass on has come from a variety of sources - the HSE, Dr R Koopman, Prof James Fay, the Department of Trade and Industry, Quest Consultants, Lloyds, CBI, experienced pilots, experienced rescue workers and authority officers.

Why does Safe Haven think there has not been a quantitive risk assessment?

A quantitative risk assessment is a standard procedure whereby a risk can be quantified as high, low or medium. QRAs are used to determine whether a proposed development is acceptable or unacceptable. The HSE has done a QRA for the storage tanks on the shore, but no QRA has been done on the marine side of the operation. Anyone doubting this should ring the HSE who will direct you to the Marine and Coastguard Agency, who will direct you to Milford Haven Port Authority who will tell you that doing a QRA is 'not part of how we work' The Port Authority will, in all fairness, say that Petroplus commissioned a QRA that included the tanker on the jetty. However, the HSE declared that this Petroplus QRA used data that was 'of no use ... even as broad indicators' (HSE - public record at County Hall), as it did not consider ship collision between two ocean going vessels. Doing the research suggested above will take you approximately one hour plus travel time to County Hall. It is a source of continuous amazement to us that most members of the planning committee and our local MP have failed to do it for themselves.

With any major development there is always an element of risk. In view of LNG's record, the safeguards that would be put in place, and with the desperate need for jobs in Pembrokeshire, shouldn't the developments be allowed?

Doing a QRA is the long-established method of establishing how large or small that element of risk is. Are we so desperate for jobs that we will accept that risk, without knowing how big it is - without doing a full quantitative risk assessment?

Do you think the LNG terminals will be more dangerous than the previous oil refineries which were on the sites?

The intended quantity of energy to be stored at the LNG terminals is vastly in excess of the old refineries.

What sort of exclusion zone do you consider should be imposed?

Dr Koopman, the US Government scientist in charge of the US LNG spill test programme, suggests that no homes should be situated within a two-mile radius of LNG terminals. All the Haven's towns are within two miles of one or both terminals.

How would this be managed?

It seems sensible to find somewhere with no population centres within a two-mile radius - like offshore.

Would you be opposed to LNG terminals offshore, and where would you envisage these would go?

Offshore seems eminently sensible. Somewhere high up the Bristol Channel looks like the best spot on the west coast, although it may be more sensible to put them in the North Sea - using existing gas pipe infrastructure. Putting them off the Pembrokeshire coast would still involve the enormous high pressure pipeline, which is scheduled to cut a huge swathe through prime Pembrokeshire farmland from Milford to Haverfordwest, south of Narberth and then west all the way beyond Neath. (Transco).

You have claimed that jobs would not be provided for locals. On what do you base this?

Constructing an LNG terminal is not something that you can do straight from the job centre. It is highly specialised work and will be done by teams from away. (Petroplus/Exxon Mobil) Caravan accommodation is already being set up for over a 1,000 men - 1260 jobs were promised. Local men would not need the caravans. The figures speak for themselves.

You have claimed that the Pembrokeshire Coast National Park Authority, Pembrokeshire County Council, other agencies and even the Western Telegraph have been leaned on by Central Government? On what do you base this allegation?

Safe Haven has not made any such claims about the Western Telegraph. Officers of both authorities have verbally claimed that they were under pressure from the DTI. E-mails from the Health and Safety Executive showing that the DTI was keen for the National Park to pass LNG, before the Park was 100% happy on safety, are on the public record.

Don't you think you have been scaremongering?

We have said that LNG forms vast, heavier than air, flammable gas clouds. The HSE and US experts agree. We have said there is no independent QRA for the marine side of the operation. The HSE and the Port Authority agree. We have said that LNG could be a likely terrorist target. The chairman of Lloyds and the director general of the CBI agree. We have said that the Port Authority will struggle to bring in LNG ships safely. Retired local pilots agree. We have passed on information from level-headed scientists, experienced professionals and local experts. If this information is 'scary' then that is something to bear in mind BEFORE we commit Pembrokeshire to LNG.