LNG: Liquid Natural Gas

a symptom of Peak Natural Gas
global competition for fuel
threats to coastal communities

liquid natural gas tankers require an aircraft carrier sized ship full of frozen gas chilled to the temperature of the planet Saturn






Proposed Liquefied Natural Gas(LNG) and Coal Plants Threaten Columbia Estuary!






Emergence of active citizenry prior to petrocollapse?
Written by Jan Lundberg
Culture Change letter #102

The Los Angeles Times reported on June 22, 2005 that "The Senate voted on Wednesday to give federal regulators authority over the location of liquefied natural gas terminals, despite objections from governors that states should be have an equal say in deciding where such projects are built." If this does not tip people against the whole system of U.S. government or any government, then it's because people blindly want liquified natural gas (LNG) terminals in their back yards for the energy -- even though it will not be cheap.
What's absurd is that the necessary number of terminals will not be built in time to make a significant difference in energy supplies. So we see, from the top-down decision making regarding highly dangerous LNG and hugely expensive terminals and pipelines, that the growth mongers at the control of "the System" are a little more desperate all the time. Today it may be war on the Iraqis, tomorrow it may be war on U.S. Americans -- if only on the pocketbook, for the whole country will not be able to rally around the LNG threat. It's worth noting that "divide and conquer" is still in use.



Columbia River Vision - a graphic showing the LNG threat to Astoria, Oregon, at the mouth of the Columbia river



Eyeballing Liquid Natural Gas facilities


Map of United States LNG facilities


There are four marine terminals for receiving LNG (as of 2003)

There are not any LNG terminals on the West Coast (Washington, Oregon, California). Every location proposed during the Bush administration has encountered stiff opposition and several sites have been blocked.