Oil executives are bullish on LNG and have predicted that it will surpass petroleum as the world's main fuel source by 2025, making up 20-25 percent of the total gas demand in the United States. LNG now accounts for 3 percent of all gas usage here. The Cambridge Energy Research Institute says that LNG will experience more growth in the next seven years in this country than it has in the last 40 years.

But a report published by four experts at the Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico earlier this year says that an accident from a 300,000 cubic-meter class storage and re-gasification vessel would create a pool of fire that would burn skin up to 1.6 miles away as well as melt steel a half mile away. If a vapor cloud were to form, those within a four-mile radius would feel the effects.

"It is time to put the brakes on, and slow down the LNG application process -- nationwide -- until this troubling report and possible solution is fully examined and fully understood," says Tim Riley, co-host of LNGDanger.com. "We don't want our communities being exposed to dangers of pipeline leaks and explosions from regasified LNG."

Opposition is building. ConocoPhillips withdrew its application to produce 1 billion cubic feet a day of LNG in Alabama after the governor there said his concerns over the potential to marine life had not been satisfied and he would therefore veto the oil company's application.

Louisiana's governor, meanwhile, blocked a separate LNG application submitted by Freeport-McMoran. But, that request may eventually be approved because Freeport decided to use a more expensive -- and considered more effective, too -- environmental procedure known as open-loop vaporization to satisfy policymakers there.

The Dilemma

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Gulf States have been particularly receptive to facilities getting built in that part of that country. So, the developments in Alabama and Louisiana do mark a change. LNG developers may be faced with a choice of whether to use the more advanced and more costly processes or to forego construction. In the case of ConocoPhillips, it has said it will not fork out an additional $800 million to placate the Alabama governor.

"I will not permit the establishment of any activity that I believe may adversely impact our marine resources if I have the power to stop it," writes Governor Riley.

The choices are more pipelines or more LNG facilities. According to the gas pipeline association, the country needs to invest $61 billion in its natural gas pipeline infrastructure. It also says that the industry must build 45,000 miles of pipelines in North America, as well as about 10 new LNG terminals, in the next 12 years. The situation is desperate in California and the Northeast.

Pipeline maps indicate that natural gas comes out of the Rockies and into the Midwest. Gas also comes out of the Gulf Coast and into the Midwest and Northeast. But natural gas doesn't move from the Rockies to the east. Kinder Morgan and Sempra have the capital and are working to build a pipeline from the Rockies to the Northeast. Meanwhile, the Alaskan Natural Gas Pipeline that would deliver gas to the Lower 48 has been on the drawing board since the 1970s. It now appears to have the political and financial backing needed to get built.

"We may have to someday take LNG, but let's do the most efficient things first," says Jon Wellinghoff, a lawyer and now a FERC nominee, in congressional testimony. Another nominee, Phillip Moeller with Alliant Energy Corp., disagrees and tells lawmakers that LNG is necessary today. "I think that demand is such that we need to frankly look at all sources...I think everything has to be on the table."

Certainly, LNG is an imperfect solution to the dilemma before U.S. policymakers. A greater reliance on it means even more reliance on foreign governments and especially some that have tenuous relations with this country. Investors then require added assurances -- something that puts the ball in the court of lawmakers and regulators. At this point, though, it appears that national policy will favor increased LNG usage because the natural gas demand here outstrips the domestic supplies. Indeed, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 gives the FERC "exclusive" jurisdiction to site LNG plants.

"The U.S. needs more natural gas and to meet that need, we must bring natural gas from overseas in the form of LNG," says Bill Cooper, executive director of Cabrillo Port LNG Deepwater Port, which is part of a coalition of 60 LNG producers, shippers and terminal operators. "LNG transport is very safe and has been for decades, and any minimal or manageable risks should not become an emotional barrier that prevents decision makers from providing Americans with the energy they need to heat their homes."