logo1logo02logo03

LOS MARISCADORES VUELVEN A BLOQUEAR LA RÍA DE FERROL.- LNG TRANSPORT VESSELS

REGANOSA.- UN FUERTE DISPOSITIVO POLICIAL PERMITE LA ENTRADA DE OTRO GASERO EN REGANOSA   Los manifestantes se trasladaron al juzgado donde hay detenidos por las protestas de ayer.     Miércoles, 30 de mayo de 2007   XORNAL I Ferrol.- Un fuerte dispositivo policial desplegado en la ría de Ferrol ha permitido que el metanero ´Mourad Didouche´ llegue hasta la planta de gas de Reganosa pese a las protestas de marineros y mariscadores, que siguen calificando a este tipo de barcos como “bombas flontates” y la planta gasística como un “peligro mortal” para la población y para las especies pesqueras de la ría ferrolana.   Los gobiernos tanto autonómico como estatal consideran que los permisos de la planta están en regla y que la actividad de Reganosa contempla las más avanzadas medidas de seguridad, por lo que han decidido apoyar con toda la fuerza a su alcance el normal desarrollo de la actividad en la planta gasística. De ahí el extraordinario despliegue policial con el que, en el las últimas horas, han permitido que un segundo barco cargado de gas entrase en la ría de Ferrol.   Los manifestantes, ante la imposibilidad de continuar con sus protestas en el muelle frente a los ocho furgones cargados con agentes policiales, se han dirigido a los juzgados en los que se encuentra el patrón mayor de la Cofradía de Ferrol, Bernardo Bastida, que fue ayer detenido en los enfrentamientos que se produjeron cuando los mariscadores intentaban impedir la entrada en la ría del metanero ´Mourad Didouche´.   Unas 40 embarcaciones de mariscadores han impedido, finalmente, la entrada en la ría de Ferrol del metanero ´Mourad Didouche´, el segundo que llega con destino a Reganosa, desde la entrada en funcionamiento en pruebas de la planta de gas de Mugardos (A Coruña).   El patrón mayor de la cofradía de Ferrol, Bernardo Bastida, fue detenido en los enfrentamientos que se produjeron durante el bloqueo, en el que se produjo una carga policial contra los que esperaban la llegada de las 40 embarcaciones que participaron en la acción.   El segundo barco que llega con destino a Reganosa desde la entrada en funcionamiento en pruebas de la planta de gas de Mugardos (A Coruña) no pudo finalmente acceder por la protesta del colectivo que, tras el arresto de Bastida y la respuesta policia, decidió dirigirse en masa al cuartel de la Guardia Civil de Canido donde fue trasladado el patrón mayor.   Las embarcaciones permanecieron a la entrada de la ría hasta las 16.00 horas cuando finalizaba la pleamar diurna, ya que después el metanero ya no podría maniobrar para atracar. Por estos motivos, el ´Mourad Didouche´ se dirige ahora mismo a la Ría de Ares, donde fondeará hasta que suba de nuevo el mar para intentar de nuevo entrar a Reganosa.   Las embarcaciones de los mariscadores han estado en la zona, dando vueltas, para evitar así –según explicaron a Europa Press– estar parados y que las tres patrullas de la Guardia Civil les tirasen agua desde las zódiacs para dificultar esta medida de obstrucción.   El metanero llegó a situarse a dos millas de la entrada del Reganosa, custodiado por dos remolcadores, mientras otros dos estaban en puerto junto a lanchas de los prácticos. Desde el inicio de las acciones de obstrucción de los mariscadores un helicóptero estuvo sobrevolando la zona.     EL IDEAL GALLEGO.- 29-05- 07   LOS MARISCADORES VUELVEN A IMPEDIR LA LLEGADA DE UN BARCO GASERO A REGANOSA    Los mariscadores de Ferrol volvieron a impedir ayer la entrada de un buque cargado de gas líquido a la planta que Reganosa tiene en Mugardos. La policía detuvo al patrón mayor de la cofradía, Bernardo Bastida, cuando éste regresó a tierra, lo que provocó las protestas de las personas que esperaban a los pescadores que habían cerrado el paso al barco “Mourad Didouche”. El Comité Cidadán intentará hoy de nuevo abortar el atraque del metanero.     La detención de Bernardo Bastida cobró ayer el principal protagonismo a una nueva jornada de protestas en contra del actual emplazamiento de la planta de regasificación de Galicia, que promueve Reganosa tras invertir más de 435 millones de euros. La movilización de al menos un centenar de mariscadores, con Bastida al frente -colectivo integrado en el Comité de Emerxencia da Ría de Ferrol- impidió la entrada del metanero “Mourad Didouche”, prevista para las 15.48 horas de ayer, aprovechando la pleamar.   Pese a que las autoridades conocían las pretensiones del colectivo -el pasado 9 de mayo un gran despliegue policial impidió la salida de las embarcaciones desde la dársena de Curuxeiras, lo que permitió, tras dos días de bloqueo, la entrada del “Galicia Spirit”-, las Fuerzas del Orden apenas hicieron ayer acto de presencia y ésta se limitó a unos veinte policías nacionales antidisturbios, algunos de los cuales cargaron contra el grupo de manifestantes que, pasadas ya las 16.15, recibían a los participantes en el bloqueo a la entrada de la ría.   Carga policial > Los incidentes se produjeron cuando varios agentes trataron de acceder a la pasarela de desembarco con la intención de detener al patrón mayor por orden de la Guardia Civil. Ante los intentos de los manifestantes de impedir el arresto, cargaron contra un grupo. Tres personas, dos mujeres -Aurora Rivas y Cristina Meizoso- así como un hombre de avanzada edad -Juan Carlos Valle- sufrieron contusiones de distinta consideración, por lo que presentaron denuncias.   Además, un policía intentó impedir, tras sujetarle el equipo, a un cámara de Televisión de Galicia la grabación de las imágenes. Este profesional también anunció la presentación de otra.   Bastida permaneció retenido durante casi media hora a la espera de la llegada de una unidad de la Guardia Civil, que fue la que instruyó la denuncia -supuestamente relacionada con la actuación del patrón mayor momentos antes frente al gasero en la boca de la ría-, para trasladarlo al cuartel del cuerpo, en Santa Marina.Este hecho motivó una nueva reacción de los manifestantes, que increparon duramente al colectivo policial y descalificaron, como ya había sucedido dos semanas atrás, el empleo de la fuerza por parte del delegado del Gobierno, Manuel Ameijeiras. Yolanda Díaz, cabeza de lista de Esquerda Unida y futuro miembro del equipo de gobierno que presidirá el socialista Vicente Irisarri, también destacó el “desproporcionado” uso de la fuerza pública.   El traslado de Bastida derivó en una marcha de los asistentes. Bajo una lluvia, por momentos muy intensa, el grupo se dirigió desde el muelle hasta el cuartelillo de la Benemérita, en donde se concentraron a la espera de que, un grupo de representantes de distintos colectivos integrados en el Comité Cidadán pudiese entrevistarse con el detenido. Los mismos policías que habían vigilado la protesta en Curuxeiras acordonaron la entrada a la instalación. El abogado Víctor López Casal, en unión de la también abogada Yolanda Díaz, consiguió la intervención de la titular del juzgado número seis, que se interesó por la situación.   Bastida pasó sin embargo la noche en las dependencias de la Guardia Civil, aunque se espera que sea puesto esta mañana en libertad.                                        ——————— LNG TRANSPORT VESSELS     http://jordancoveretort.com/Vessel.htm    We love death – the Americans love life – that is the difference between us.                  Usama bin Laden following September 11, 2001     VESSEL AND CREW              VESSEL OWNERS LIABILITY IF A CATASTROPHIC EVENT     “The question in dispute is this:  If the contents of a single LNG ship tank were released onto water and ignited, how big would the fires be, and how far from the fire would people need to be to be safe.”  A statement by Professor Dr. Jerry Havens whose work has been a central component of US LNG regulations.  Dr. Havens believes that, until recently, the government has been underestimating the risks posed to your safety by an accidental or intentional spill of LNG or by a terrorist attack on an LNG vessel.   VESSEL AND CREW   “You have to go back to (World War II) to find an incident of something wrong occurring with these LNG tankers.”  Quote is attributed to the local LNG developers Project Manager, and is as reported by the local daily paper.  Not so, according to documented fact that we share with you below.   As of early March 2007, there are 223 LNG transport vessels of various sizes on the world´s waters.  There are 145 more LNG transport vessels on order; none are from US shipyards.  Most are very large vessels and they are getting larger, not smaller.  “Q Max” vessels (made in Korea) will be 265,000 m3.  Most LNG transport vessel owners have long term contracts to deliver LNG product.  There is a linked web site (Colton Company) at the Contacts & Links page of this web site that will identify each of the 349 transport vessels by name, size, owner, operator, where constructed, and much more information that you don´t need.  There is not a single vessel that is US registered and flying the US flag.  Jordan Cove Energy has told us that the LNG transport vessels visiting Coos County will be under the flag of the country in which the journey here originated.  That is probably not a true statement.   Contrary to what is stated above, there have been at least 40 reported Marine accidents / incidents involving LNG transport vessels since 1965 – not 1945.  Of the 40 accidents / incidents reported, 19 resulted in some vessel damage.  Nine incidents resulted in an unintentional release of LNG.  Incidents were from a minor valve problem causing a leak or spill with resultant vessel damage to stranded vessels (aground) to a collision with another vessel with extensive damage.  The most extensive damage has recently occurred in two vessels that were launched in 2003 and 2004.  These vessels required extensive repairs when it was found that the LNG tanks and insulation around the LNG tanks was damaged.  There have been six deaths aboard LNG vessels; admittedly, the deaths were more than likely attributable to a faulty shipboard firefighting system and not attributable to LNG directly.  Again, there is more information than you will ever need at the linked Colton Company web site.  And, as discussed below, some of the third world countries under whose flag the LNG vessels are operated have no incident reporting requirements.   Jordan Cove Energy, as a Customer not as an employer, will not have absolute control over the movement of these very large, frequently arriving and departing, vessels.  Jordan Cove Energy is correct that there has not been a catastrophic event involving a LNG transport vessel – yet.   In the Jordan Cove Energy Notice of Intent to build a LNG import terminal and storage tank facility (NOI) we are told that the short list of places where LNG transport vessels will be bringing LNG product from are Alaska and Russia.  In the “Frequently asked questions” section of the original Jordan Cove Energy web site we were informed that LNG will be arriving from Alaska, Russia, South America or Australia.  Federal law may prohibit transport from Alaska by sea going vessel.  And, the current government of Russia is considered to be unstable.  The current U.S. Secretary of State has said that the country of Russia is in chaos.   For several reasons, long hauls of LNG are less profitable.  Shipping costs vary with distance.  So it behooves Jordan Cove Energy to import the lowest priced LNG product, in the largest possible vessel, from the closest natural gas field.   At one time, we were told that LNG transport vessels visiting and transferring LNG product at the Jordan Cove Energy Henderson Marsh North Spit facility would be half the size of current LNG transport vessels – the larger LNG transport vessels are up to 1,000 feet long (and future LNG transport vessels are planned to be larger).  “Handymax” vessels originally promised to Coos County use are approximately 625 feet long. That´s the distance of two football fields, plus a couple end zones. Currently planned vessels are more like the size of carrier USS Ronald Reagan – one very large vessel.   Hopefully Jordan Cove Energy has negotiated a long term agreement for LNG transport and they will soon identify which vessels from the list of 205 current or 144 under construction vessels will be making the frequent round trip into Coos Bay.   Photos of some vessels operating today may be found at LNG industry web site http://ch-iv.com.                          Worker in one of several LNG vessel tanks. Enormous!    The domes on the LNG transport vessel above are weather covers.  Many LNG transport vessels have these covers as protection against salt water, corrosion, rain, lightning, etc.  The height from the LNG tank bottom to the top of the weather cover on many LNG transport vessels on the sea today is more than 12 stories.  A typical LNG transport vessel requires at least 135 feet of vertical clearance and 165 feet of horizontal clearance when on a direct route to a LNG import terminal.   We are told by Jordan Cove Energy that LNG transport vessel crews will be screened and will be familiar with Coos Bay waters.  We are also told that these crews will be highly trained and experienced.  Have you ever encountered any highly trained and experienced foreign flag vessel seamen who are being paid third world country wages?  I doubt it.  As a customer, not as an employer, how will Jordan Cove Energy guarantee these promises to the community?  In June 2005, SIGTTO (Society of International Gas Tanker and Terminal Operators), the global LNG transport and terminal industry representative, reported that there are still no accepted operational training standards for officers onboard LNG transport vessels and that a variety of standards, some unacceptable to industry, vary widely from operator to charterer to flag state.   The LNG transport vessel will contain the energy equivalent of many nuclear bombs.  The US Department of Homeland Security recognizes LNG transport vessels as a “terrorist target of opportunity”.  The very large LNG transport vessels that we are told will be visiting our communities often, perhaps every two days in the winter months, have a concentration of approximately four billion cubic feet of natural gas within a slowly moving, very vulnerable, structure that is approximately 1,000 feet long.  This, my Coos County neighbors, is a terrorists dream come true.   There are many unanswered questions about LNG transport vessels.  Of primary concern is a way to be assured that LNG transport vessels are not sabotaged (tampering with controls or safety devices) in a foreign port to cause an explosion in the final destination US port).  Open ocean piracy is a grave concern of the shipping industry.   A few well documented fact about very large, double hulled, LNG transport vessels:   Older vessels were designed for a twenty year life span.  Newer vessels are being designed for a 40 year life span.   Double hulls are primarily designed to withstand a slow speed collision – not a terrorist attack.   In recent months, several new vessels have returned to the shipyard because of extensive storage tank leaks.   If there is an engine failure, even at relatively slow speeds, the vessel could drift several miles before stopping.   By design, double hulled LNG transport vessels flex when moving.  Steel hulls bend and twist.  These transport vessels have only been around for a few years and little is known about long term reaction to stress.  Older folks will remember the catastrophic results of flexing in the UK Comet jet aircraft when they were new to the transport community and stress fatigue was an unknown.   It is imperative that the space between storage tanks be checked frequently for rust and corrosion.   Vessels will be visiting world wide ports and it will be impossible to control the large amount of marine life that will be brought on ships hulls into Coos Bay.   Terrorists have successfully demonstrated that the inner hulls of double hulled vessels can be breached.      One very important question is how the people of Coos County will assure that Jordan Cove Energy is fully responsible for any catastrophic event at or near the LNG transport vessel?  Also, what will the impact on the local economy that may be caused by LNG transport vessels arriving or departing during peak commercial and sport fishing and crab seasons and during planned airport operations be?  Will the “Concerned Citizens of Empire” organization be able to develop the Empire docks area, an area that is at the narrowest part of the Coos Bay channel, where LNG transport vessels will be passing within ¼ mile frequently?   It is generally agreed by government, academia, and industry experts, that if only a portion (perhaps part of the content of one LNG transport vessel tank) escaped onto the water, fires of at least a half mile wide across with searing heat in all directions for at least a mile from the fire center would cause second degree burns within seconds.   There were two extensive (hundreds of pages of report) LNG transport vessel safety studies during calendar year 2004; one by Sandia National Laboratory for the US government, and one by the American Bureau of Shipping for its members.  Both studies resulted in credible findings and agreement by most scientists that terrorists (domestic or foreign) have access to weapons that will penetrate the hull of a LNG transport vessel (they have done it before).  There are also credible findings that a rapid release of at least three million gallons of LNG (a small part of one of the several LNG transport vessel tanks) is possible. There was no disagreement about there being no way to contain LNG on water. There will be large dikes around the LNG storage tanks; but these will not contain millions of gallons of rapid release LNG either.  There is absolutely no disagreement that if the contents of only one half of one of several LNG transport vessel tanks were released, people within one to three miles of the release who did not have the 30 seconds to seek shelter would probably be incinerated or severely burned.  What is being introduced into Coos County is more than a fixed danger zone.  We will have a traveling danger zone moving with the LNG transport vessel.  The next time that one of the LNG proponents tells you that the LNG fire will only travel one half mile from the LNG vessel, remind them that the entire LNG transport vessel is sitting in the center of that half mile wide fire inferno.  Do you believe that the vessel and its tens of millions of gallons of LNG tanks contents would survive?  Most experts don´t.  Most experts admit that they do not know how many miles the explosion and fire will travel.   Some studies of 2005 and 2006 suggest at least seven miles.   Challenge the next person who tells you that LNG will evaporate immediately if released.  LNG is not natural gas in its gaseous state.  LNG will eventually evaporate when warmed by air or water.  The evaporated gas from a spill on water, if there is no Rapid Phase Transition explosion, will form a vapor cloud that will blow down wind, if any wind, and on most days down wind from the LNG vessel is into your North Bend, Empire, Bar View and Charleston back yard, while the vapor cloud searches for an ignition source. An ignition source could be a cigarette, a spark, or an auto engine.  Remember, that LNG being transported and stored is intentionally odor free.  Although the vapor cloud is lighter than water, it is still heavy because it is so cold and the cloud will not immediately dissipate into the upper atmosphere and could linger up to 30 minutes or more.   Some more facts:   Some communities where LNG import terminals currently exist or where they are planned have enacted legislation to assure that only US citizens oversee LNG transport vessel cargo operations and transfers from LNG vessels and those persons must be experienced with LNG handling and have appropriate licenses that are available to the US Coast Guard at such time as a LNG transport vessel enters US territorial waters.   The tanks of a very large double hulled oil transport vessel, the French vessel Limburg, were breached in October 2002 by a Al Qaeda terrorist attack with a resultant explosion, loss of 90,000 barrels of oil, and fire, while in a Yemen port.  This was not a LNG vessel where a breach would have had catastrophic results.   Most LNG transport vessels arriving at the Jordan Cove Energy facility will contain approximately four billion cubic feet of LNG.  That´s one big vessel!  Those four billion cubic feet of LNG will be passing close to your Charleston, Bar View, Coos Bay (Empire) and North Bend neighborhoods frequently.  A typical LNG transport vessel contains 33 million gallons of LNG.  That´s more than 20 billion gallons of natural gas.   LNG spilled on or within the hull of a LNG transport vessel can cause brittle fractures of some common ship steel.  There have been accidents where hull damage occurred.  Fortunately, there have been no LNG transport vessel explosions in US territorial waters – yet.   There have been small spills and fires as a result of LNG on transport vessels in US waters.   Boston´s Logan International Airport redirects air traffic while LNG transport vessels are arriving in the area.  Some of you may have seen the recent Op Ed piece in the local paper where one of the airport Directors stated that there would be no such air service interruption here. When I challenged this person, he rapidly admitted that he was wrong and that neither the FAA nor the US Coast Guard had made any such decision re flyover of LNG vessels or of the LNG import terminal facility here. There is absolutely no reason to believe our neighborhood will be different than others. We are the only community on the planet with a planned LNG import terminal at the end of an active commercial airport runway. There will be disruptions of airline and aircraft operations here.  The US military have been told that transiting LNG transport vessels off of the Camp Pendleton shore will require a bubble of protected airspace (Temporary Flight Restrictions (TFR´s) that travel with the vessel).  The military has complained because the TFR´s will hinder flight and surface operations.  In the past, TFR´s have not taken precedence over established (published) approaches into airfields.  Good for commercial traffic; not so good for all those golfers with deep pockets traveling charter and other private aircraft to the county airport (see page titled Economic Impact).   Depending on which Jordan Cove Energy document is read, or presentation has been recorded, or interview with the Press has been quoted, somewhere between 10 and 22 hours will be required to transfer the LNG product from the LNG transport vessel after the LNG transport vessel is docked.  Recently we were told that 22 hours would be required.  This is after at least an 1.5 hours into the Jordan Cove Energy import terminal dock.  And, this is in ideal conditions and probably during daylight hours, and at high tide.  On severe winter weather days, or during the frequent July and August near zero visibility mornings and afternoons, the LNG transport vessel may require a longer period of time to enter or exit the Coos Bay channel, if possible.   In all likelihood, because the Coos Bay channel is narrow at the Jordan Cove Energy dock, the Coast Guard will not allow other shipping traffic, including chip ships, to pass the docked LNG transport vessel.  Currently, elsewhere in the United States, the safety and security zones around each LNG transport vessel is two miles ahead of the vessel, one mile behind the vessel, and 500 yards on either side of the vessel when in transit (500 yards total when moored).  Remember that the entire communities of Charleston and Empire, both with attractive places for a terrorist to attack, will be less than 500 yards away from transiting LNG transport vessels. There are onshore LNG facilities similar to Jordan Cove Energy that are further ahead in the permitting process.  One similar site is Weavers Cove Energy in Massachusetts.  If you want to see just how complicated your life may become; if you have the time; if you enjoy reading volumes of small print; I urge you to read the US Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 33, and those parts that relate to Navigation and Navigable waters, high interest vessels, and safety and security zones.  It´s all on the internet and easy to locate.  And, some related reading about how local communities near Weavers Cove Energy will be forced to close nearby bridges may be found at www.aquidneckplanning.org/lng.html.  The width of the Coos Bay channel at Jordan Cove is less than one thousand yards.  Not all of that has been dredged and it is not useable.  If exclusion zones are enforced by the US Coast Guard in the Coos Bay harbor and channel, and there is no reason to suspect that they will not be, each time that a LNG transport vessel is near, the channel may be closed to all traffic, the railroad bridge may be closed, and the McCullough Bridge (Highway 101) may be closed.  And, that´s just the beginning.  Because of tidal conditions and the US Coast Guard requirement that LNG vessels enter and exit the channel during daylight hours only, you may have a difficult time planning when to attempt your north / south travel as arrival and departure times will change from day to day and from vessel to vessel.    The Jones Act promulgated in 1920 requires that vessels used to transport cargo and pass between US ports be owned by US citizens (there aren´t any LNG transport vessels owned by US citizens), be built by US ship yards (there are 13 with the most recent entering service in 1981), and be manned by US crews (unlikely and improbable).  The same local marine unions that support LNG oppose repeal of the Jones Act.  About every 10 years there is an attempt to repeal the Act.  There was an attempt during the late 1990´s and Congress gave the Act overwhelming bipartisan support. The Act was suspended during Gulf War Number 1 so the US could move petroleum supplies. It is unlikely, except in a case of war, the act will be suspended again.  Under international law, the applicable law on a vessel is that of the ship´s registry.  To allow foreign seamen working foreign flag vessels to work US interstate transportation, US and state taxes, immigration, minimum wage, collective bargaining, workplace safety and unemployment laws, plus many other considerations would need to be waived.  It won´t happen.  Now that you understand the Jones Act, ask, how would Jordan Cove Energy move its LNG product from Alaska to Coos Bay?   And, it must be noted that almost 100% of all cargoes by water to and from American ports and foreign ports sail foreign flag vessels.  This is because the foreign vessels enjoy costs that are possible by employment of low paid seamen at third world wages, the absence of income or capital gains taxes for vessel owners, and lower standards of safety, technical upkeep, environmental responsibility, working and living conditions for vessel crews, and other business reasons that make any US vessel non competitive.   Perhaps you recall the moderate size vessel that recently destroyed the promenade and part of a hotel when the vessel lost power in the Mississippi river.  And, that ship was under the direction of a professional and knowledgeable US Port Pilot familiar with the vessel and the channel.  A LNG vessel that loses power in the Coos Bay channel could easily drift into the railroad bridge, and if the vessel passes that bridge (and that may be unlikely unless pushed by a tsunami wave), into the McCullough bridge.  And, if a vessel tank is ruptured, the heat from any resultant fire could destroy either or both bridges.  Lloyds of London, who insure many large vessels of many configurations, has stated that a LNG explosion would be like a nuclear attack.   Richard A. Clarke, Presidents Clinton and Bush 43, former counter terrorism Chief, in his book Against All Enemies, stated that Al Qaeda operatives probably have traveled to the US on LNG vessels.  A link to Mr. Clarke´s recent findings is at the Contacts & Links page.   And, let us not forget, as reported in the local paper, that the LNG developer has alerted us to an “environmental impact of having 80 fuel burning ships” in the harbor.   It´s the transport vessel more than the storage tanks that scare folks the most.   I leave this subject with these comments for your consideration.  In 1974, science and past history of the time suggested that a catastrophic marine accident such the incident involving the vessel Yuyo Maru in the bay of Tokyo was not possible.  The Yuyo Maru, traveling at less than 10 knots, collided with another vessel that was traveling at less than two knots, the Pacific Ares.  The collision resulted in a 24 meter horizontal opening in the bow of the Yuyo Maru and a huge pool fire of the LPG and other cargo contents that lasted for nineteen days and killed many of the crew of both vessels.  There was no means to safely remove the remaining (unspilled) cargo from the vessel and the Yuyo Maru was towed 50 miles to sea and sunk by the bombardment of four Navy vessels, bomb and rocket attack by four air force aircraft, and torpedo attack by a submarine.  In spite of all the preparedness (and it was extensive), in spite of all nearby fire fighting equipment, the Yuyo Maru was burning nineteen days after the time of the collision, when she was sunk.  It had been estimated that unless sunk, the fire could have burned for five months.  The incident is well documented.  Is this what we need in or near the Coos Bay channel?       VESSEL OWNERS LIABILITY IF A CATASTROPHIC EVENT   Vessels occasionally run aground or sink.  The remains of the nearby New Carissa wood chip vessel should be a constant reminder.  It is well documented that it was a shipwreck that led to the settlement of this area by whites.  The APL Panama, a 900 foot container vessel that is similar in size to the LNG transport vessels that are planned for Coos Bay visits, sat stranded on an Ensenada Baja California Beach for three months recently.  Should that happen in the Coos Bay channel and offload of the LNG product is required; how will that offload be accomplished?   It must be noted that liability for any disaster caused by any foreign flag LNG transport vessel that delivers LNG to Coos County will be severely limited by existing US law.  US law favors foreign vessel owners rather than protecting citizens of Coos County whose families and property may be incinerated.  Read the “Limitation of Vessel Owners Act”.  It´s on the Internet.  Vessel owner´s liability is limited to the value of the remaining vessel and its cargo after a catastrophic event.  Ergo, a total loss of vessel and cargo means zero liability, and Charleston, Bar View, Coos Bay (Empire), or North Bend residents suffering the most with losses would receive little or no compensation.   REMEMBER THAT THE HAZARDS OF A LARGE LNG TRANSPORT VESSEL NEAR YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD NOT EXIST EXCEPT FOR THE JORDAN COVE ENERGY LNG IMPORT TERMINAL AND STORAGE TANK FACILITY.