OPINION AND EDITORIAL
Recent developments with explosions at Port cities in Texas has apparently renewed interest in the steady flow of shipments from the Port of Corpus Christi, Tex. Social media buzz and discussions have focused on the potential of Liquiefied Natural Gas (LNG) explosions and their impact on the Corpus Christi, Tex. port.
In an eerie coincidence, the closure of the Port of Charleston, South Carolina by Jason Goodman directly impacted the MAERSK Shipping Lines, headquartered in the Netherlands. Another such closure of the Port of Corpus Christi disrupting LNG shipments would have a direct impact on the Netherlands — just like the Port of Charleston.
NATURAL GAS -06 Nov 2019 | 21:07 UTC -Houston
Houston — Almost a year after Cheniere Energy began exporting LNG from its terminal near Corpus Christi, Texas, the Netherlands has emerged as the biggest importer from the facility, S&P Global Platts Analytics data shows.
The trend is further evidence of the importance Europe is playing taking US cargoes and helping to rebalance the market amid Washington’s protracted trade war with Beijing. Of the top 10 countries that have imported the most LNG from the Texas facility, five are in Europe. Countries there also have been absorbing a meaningful amount of LNG from Cheniere’s other export facility, at Sabine Pass in Louisiana.
NUMBER ONE TERRORIST TARGET
Attorney Jim Riley, Malibu, California has long asserted that LNG transfer ports — like the Port of Corpus Christi — represent the number one terrorist target. He maintains a web-site at:
Legitimate concern has been raised about the safety of LNG transfer and storage. Last year it was discovered that LNG storage tanks in Louisiana had six feet gash. The U.S. Government has complained about LNG storage safety record of the company operating the Louisiana storage tanks — the main operator in Corpus Christi as well — Cheniere Energy.
Two federal agencies have warned Cheniere Energy against using liquefied natural gas storage structures that leaked last year at its Cameron Parish LNG export terminal until Cheniere meets certain safety requirements.
The warning was issued in a July 9 letter after the agencies said they found out Cheniere was making repairs without approval. The letter says that neither agency is willing to approve the structures as safe until Cheniere Energy follows its rules and told the company it needs written approval before using the Sabine Pass storage structures again.
The joint letter was from the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, operated within the U.S. Department of Transportation, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
The Pipeline Hazardous Material Safety Administration told Cheniere in late May that it was concerned about the company fixing one of the storage tanks by filling it with perlite, a volcanic glass used as insulation, and called the repair premature in the July 9 letter.
The warning letter comes at a time when the company is pushing to grow its operation. Cheniere already has five LNG units inside its Sabine Pass terminal and initially planned for six as part of an overall $18 billion project. Cheniere made the final decision in June to move forward with the sixth unit, a $3 billion investment.
Corpus Christi Liquefaction, LLC (Corpus Christi Liquefaction), a subsidiary of Cheniere Energy, is developing and constructing a liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminal at one of Cheniere’s existing sites that was previously permitted for a regasification terminal. The liquefaction project is being designed for three trains with expected aggregate nominal production capacity of up to 13.5 million tonnes per annum (mtpa) of LNG. Up to seven midscale liquefaction trains adjacent to the CCL Project (“Corpus Christi Stage 3”) are also being developed. The seven midscale trains total aggregate expected nominal production capacity will be approximately 10 million tonnes per annum (“mtpa”) of LNG.
The Corpus Christi site is located on the La Quinta Channel on the northeast side of Corpus Christi Bay in San Patricio County, Texas, on over 1,000 acres owned or controlled by Cheniere and is approximately 15 nautical miles from the coast.
PORT OF CORPUS CHRISTI IN PERIL TO BECOME ANOTHER PORT OF CHARLESTON
Observers may recall that the Port of Charleston rolled out a significant radiological-event response for the June 14th, 2017 closure of the Wando Marine Terminal. But, LNG is not the same as hazardous radiological debris.
During the “dirty bomb hoax”, created by CrowdSource The Truth and Jason Goodman, the public was made aware of the public safety response — which appeared adequate.
Some observers wonder if the U.S. Coast Guard has learned anything about the social media threat to port facilities after the Port of Charleston. Legitimate questions should be raised about the response capability of the Port of Corpus Christi — particularly in the are of a terrorist attack. It is widely known that hostile states have used social media to create blended attacks on critical infrastructure.
It would appear on the surface that the Port of Corpus Christi is much more vulnerable to social media attacks than the Port of Charleston.
SIGN THE PETITION
To be continued…
FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of criminal justice, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.