Explosive LNG report casts more doubt on Govt’s plan to build fossil gas import terminal – Greenpeace

As the Luxon Government threatens to build a new LNG import terminal in New Zealand, an explosive new report casts further doubt on the wisdom of that plan.

The ‘ Explosive Truths’ report commissioned by Greenpeace delves into the history of LNG accidents, highlighting a lack of transparency, underestimated risks to human safety, and failing safety protocols.

Greenpeace Aotearoa spokesperson Amanda Larsson says, “This report shows that liquefied gas (LNG) isn’t as safe as the industry would have us believe. Due to the flammable and explosive nature of liquefied fossil gas, leaks can result in inextinguishable pool fires, jet fires or vapour cloud explosions.

“This report highlights that on top of locking New Zealand into decades of increased reliance on expensive fossil fuels with an LNG import terminal, and the barefaced denial of climate science that underlies that, an import terminal would also put workers and communities at risk for no good reason other than this Government’s ideological crusade on behalf of the fossil fuel industry.

Greenpeace slammed the Government in August for its plans to open the door to an LNG fossil gas import terminal, calling it outright climate denial and a generational betrayal of New Zealanders who will suffer the cost for decades to come.

The report outlines how, on top of the intrinsic risk of the industry, the increasing intensity and frequency of extreme weather events driven by climate change pose heightened risks to LNG facilities. As these events become more common, the potential for accidents increases, complicating emergency response planning and further endangering nearby communities.

“New Zealand is at an energy crossroads right now where we could choose to invest in electrification of transport and industry with more solar, wind generation and more energy storage to give us a future with less risk, less pollution, and cheaper electricity prices,” says Larsson.

In July, the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment released its latest electricity supply and demand scenario report, which mapped out a pathway for more solar, wind and batteries with a rapid phase-out of fossil fuels and confirmed that there is no need for new fossil fuels to maintain New Zealand’s energy security.

Larsson says, “Choosing to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to build a dangerous liquified gas facility to import fossil gas would just make us more dependent on global fossil fuel markets and lock us into paying the global price for the most expensive energy source when we have the opportunity instead to harness clean, homegrown wind and solar to power our future.”

Greenpeace has launched a petition calling on the Government to embrace New Zealand’s Clean Energy Future, invest in solar and wind, and reject new fossil fuel electricity generation and a new fossil gas import facility.

The report can be downloaded here:

• Opacity issues
• Incomplete reporting, underestimations, concealing attempts and hard-to-access data highlight the systemic challenges in transparency and accountability within the industry; and raise the question of the true extent of the risks associated with LNG operations. The extensive gaps in information and the underreporting of incidents prevent the ability to evaluate and create effective emergency plans, presenting LNG safety systems unreliable.
• Underestimated risks
• The actual impact of vapor cloud explosions at LNG facilities could be 15 to 20 times greater than the industry’s current projections. Overall, LNG spill dynamics remain poorly understood, complicating risk assessments and emergency response planning.
• Failing safety protocols
• The 2015 collision of the LNG carrier Al Oraiq, near Zeebrugge, Belgium, despite a relatively stricter European regulatory environment, illustrates that even strict safety protocols can fail. The report highlights regular problems resulting in protocol failures, such as inconsistent application of safety standards and deficiency in the regular testing and validation of critical systems.
• First impacted communities located in a 2km radius around LNG facilities
• The handling, transportation, and storage of LNG pose significant challenges, particularly for communities located near LNG facilities and ports. Few ports have adequately implemented risk-based safety zones around LNG storage and bunkering areas, leading to potential safety gaps in densely populated regions.
• Key risks to human safety include pool fires
• Inextinguishable fires, jet fires, and vapour cloud explosions, with LNG facilities also considered potential terrorist targets. Injuries such as flash-freeze skin, second-degree burns on exposed skin from nearly 1.5 km away, or asphyxiations and other impacts -sometimes even leading to death- have been listed in the report. From liquefaction to regasification, any stage of the LNG process can lead to severe accidents, potentially resulting in significant numbers of fatalities and injuries, as well as extensive material and environmental damage.
• Cost-cutting strategies in question
• Material failure (40%) and human error (40%) are the first causes of LNG accidents. Cost-cutting strategies might lead to inadequate maintenance, underinvestment, and understaffing. Accidents caused by ageing pipes, insufficient training, underinvestment, and fatigue could become more frequent.
• LNG facilities at heightened risk of accidents due to climate change
• Weather conditions are the third cause of LNG accidents (6.7%). However, hurricanes, thunderstorms, and other extreme weather events are expected to increase in intensity and frequency due to climate change (itself amplified by LNG life-cycle methane and other greenhouse gas emissions), and this risk might be increased.

much safer alternatives. In contrast to LNG, renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power offer significantly greater safety for workers and surrounding communities as the risks for similar catastrophic accidents are much lower. Shifting away from liquefied gas and transitioning to sustainable alternatives would not only mitigate safety risks but also align with global climate goals by reducing greenhouse gas emissions.