1. The supposed justification for this facility is that we need a secure source of energy when we run out of our own. When is this projected need going to exist? We have just received a pipeline from the huge stocks of Norway. We have so much gas we haven’t got room to store it.
2. If the possibility of having to rely on Russian gas at some hypothetical point in the future represents a strategic threat to our energy supply, how does getting it from the Middle East in vulnerable ships improve our security?
3. The answer is that Qatar, which has the third largest reserves of LNG in the world after Russia and Iran, is the staunchest ally of the USA in the Middle East. Coincidentally the LNG company operating out of Milford is owned by the US giant Carlyle group, whose involvement with the Bush Neo-cons is well documented, and who stand to make enormous profits.
![](/img/extlink.gif)
![](/img/extlink.gif)
4. The planning process has been pushed through, against public protest into safety factors, as a prototype of the Blair governments need to secure energy supplies from private companies. Effectively their power depends on maintaining central control of the legislation related to planning for large energy projects.
5. The Haven is eminently unsuitable for this kind of project; being located in hazardous waters and situated within metres of numerous oil storage tanks. SIGTTO – the industry’s safety consultation network has condemned the siting of the LNG Terminal at Milford.
![](/img/extlink.gif)
6. The pipeline is ostensibly so large to act as a storage facility as a deterrent to Terrorist attack. Not only is this untenable in view of the vulnerability of the ships, but this kind of pressurised pipe has no precedent in this country and its safety remains a mystery which they have refused to investigate.
7. This whole project is totally unnecessary. As the film Inconvenient Truth points out, we can solve our energy needs and climate change by adopting energy efficiency measures. In this light such massive investment in wasteful technology is absurd and distracts us from the need to create long-term renewable solutions.
8. This whole affair represents the steamrollering of public participation. The first many knew, including those who had signed consents for a “pipeline” of unspecified dimensions to cross their land, of the massive destruction wrought on 200 miles of welsh countryside with motorway size routes cut through priceless landscapes, was when they suddenly found it all happening.
9. In many places the routes have passed perilously close to dwellings, electrical cables and, as in the case of Trebanos, where they have at last prevented them blasting through the mountain, poses a significant risk of landslides. Previous accidents using this technology don’t bear contemplating; the precautionary principle must apply here.
10. Why should this development come through the heartland of rural Wales? Reports suggest the terminal and Re-gassification plant should be sited offshore and brought in somewhere along the Bristol Channel. This shows that corporate interests are at stake and even vie with each other to determine that the route of the pipeline does not go through their land.
Comments
Hide the following 3 comments
Contractor Details for LNG pipeline
22.11.2006 19:06
Land Marine Project Engineering Ltd
Dock Road North
Bromsborough
Wirral
CH6 2LN
Tel No 0151 641560
Fax No 0151 6449990
A quick look at website lists they are undertaking contracts for MOD as well working in even more enviromental parts of the globe
g
Homepage:
http://southwalesanarchist.org
Options, changes
26.11.2006 20:37
LNG is really dangerous - I'm not surprised some people are against it. But when the two reactors at the Wylfa nuclear plant close down in 2010, Wales will lose 10% of its electricity supply.
I dunno, but you've got to replace one infrastructure with another, I guess.
If it's not LNG, it'll be wind people don't want, or new nuclear, or a coal plant, or someone will say a tidal power system is too bad for the fish. But until we get bored of electricity, there'll always be some unpopular infrastructure projects.
Rudi
safety etc
12.05.2007 19:28
I wish you would stop going on about the safety side of things. For one thing, it is not new untried, untested territory. There are plenty of 48 inch pipelines in the planet of varying pressures. The technology is nowhere near new. It's even to British Standards! All welds are tested, all coats are tested. Procedure-wise, there's nothing new in this project. NG could save a lot of cash by taking shortcuts (ie fully automatic welding) but they don't (ie fully auto welding produces an inferior weld). Seriously, NG don't want to spend this much cash only to see it blow up in 5 years due to a design flaw.
And 8) in your list of objectionable things is false. I have seen documentary evidence that landowners knew precisely the dimensions of the land uptake. Admittedly some of them have had more land taken or less due to construction requirements. Admittedly, NG's paperwork is a little shakey. But I'd certainly say that most of them knew precisely what was about to happen.
Lastly, you have heard of reinstatement? While it may be physically impossible to replace perfectly every last blade of grass, the reinstatement crews do a good job. 90%+ of the pipeline's route in 2 years time will look remarkably like they did 2 years ago, although the hedgerow's will be shorter.
Hope this clarifys a few things
Regards
(some gas guy who wishes to remain annonymous)
p.s. Don't forget the good that comes out of this. The project's budget is £700m. How much of that will be permantly placed inside Welsh pockets? Landlords/business owners/quarries will probably be crying when NG/NLM leave. :)
a gas guy