Bush threatens veto of Coast Guard bill over LNG security

[maddezmom]

Source: AP

Wed, Apr 23, 2008 (3:13 p.m.)

President Bush on Wednesday threatened to veto an $8.4 billion Coast Guard bill because it would make the agency enforce security zones around liquefied natural gas, or LNG, terminals.

The White House said the requirement would "divert finite Coast Guard assets from other high-priority missions" and "provide an unwarranted and unnecessary subsidy" to the LNG owners.

The Government Accountability Office says a terrorism attack on an LNG tanker arriving at a terminal could ignite an explosion and fire so fierce that people a mile away would be burned. But GAO auditors also say the Coast Guard is already stretched too thin to meet its own standards for protecting arriving LNG tankers from attack.

The U.S. now has eight operating LNG import terminals on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts. Another dozen are being planned because of increased demand for natural gas and limited domestic supplies.

Bush's threat to veto the bill was issued just before the House was scheduled to begin debate on it. A final vote on it could occur Thursday.



Read more: http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/apr/23/bush-threatens-veto-of-coast-guard-bill-over-lng-s/

[ThoughtCriminal]

1. Too busy trying to find drugs?

to worry about LNG Tankers which have the explosive equivalent of a small nuke.

[stratnav71]

3. Stretched too thin

As a member of the Coast Guard I can tell you that it's not necessarily a case of being too busy doing other things, but not having enough manpower to do all the jobs being thrown at us. On average the Coast Guard has about 39,000 active duty personnel, which makes us roughly the size of the NYC Police Department. With that group we have to monitor every port and waterway on the East, West, Gulf, and Alaskan coasts, Hawaii, Guam, and Puerto Rico, conduct Search and Rescue, Counter Narcotic, and MIgrant Interdiction operations, Port State Control, Environmental Protection, Fisheries Law Enforcement, Boating Safety and Waterways Management. On top of that we even have personnel and ships over in Iraq doing many of these same missions in the Persian Gulf. Our fleet of ships and small boats is 20 to 40 years old and is only now beginning to be replaced. It's not that we don't want to monitor the safety of LNG's coming into port, but which of these missions are they planning on diverting resources from in order for us to do it? We are already using our small cutters and boats to do some limited tanker escorts, which often means other missions are put aside. Which mission will suffer next? We keep being told they are going to increase money and manpower, but after almost 14 years of service all I normally see are people being shuffled around to attempt to do more with less. Anytime our missions get shuffled around I wonder how many more lives we could have saved. As much as I loathe GWB, I almost have to agree with him here. If we are not going to get additional manpower and resources for this job, how can we safely and effectively get it done without sacrificing other mission areas?

[MadMaddie]

5. Thanks for your service. * should then propose that we hire

more Coast Guard to fill and increase the ranks.

He is smothering your organization plus all of the other military organizations.

Stay safe.

[bdamomma]

8. welcome to DU starnav71!!!

thanks for your service.:hi:

[stratnav71]

14. Thanks

I've been lurking for a long time, but I figured I'd throw my 2 cents in on something I had actual experience with.

[One_Life_To_Give]

12. Bravo Zulu

But with regards to this bill. The tankers get security escorts already. That decision I think lies with the COTP, hence the USCG. As to exactly what level of escort is provided for any given local.

[stratnav71]

13. You're quite right.

Exactly. All vessels entering U.S. waters are screened for a variety of potential risks. If an LNG meets the requirements, it will get some level of exam, inspection or possible escort depending on how the COTP evaluates the situation. I don't think having us escort every single one is viable or even an efficent use of our resources

[Pastiche423]

2. Threaten deadeye, whistle ass

LNG is his baby.

How ironic is this? The dick put a paragraph in the 2005 Energy bill, stating that only FERC could authorize the siting of LNG, taking the authority away from the states.

Now his little buddy is threatening his plans?

To any that do not know - the LNG pushers have stated that all LNG tankers must be escorted to the terminals by machine gun toting Coast Guard. No other boats are allowed w/i a mile in front or in back of the tankers.

They are trying to site three terminals in the state of Oregon. Yet, Oregon gets none of the gas. It is all being sent via pipeline 223 miles (taken by eminent domain, through private property, national forests, rivers/streams and farms) to California.

If the bush's threat is sucessful, that means no LNG in Oregon and no LNG in my community. Too fucking funny!

[MadMaddie]

4. These facilities should have been protected after 9/11.

* want's another attack and to do that these facilities must be left unprotected.

I sorry if that sounds harsh but these criminals have left us no other choice but to believe this is what they want.

[bdamomma]

9. no your last comment sounds about right.

and this administration needs to be called out on it.

[Ian David]

6. So, why not make the LNG facility owners pay for the Coast Guard's protection? n/t

[Tempest]

7. Exactly

I have to agree with Bush on this one.

[Ian David]

10. I still disagree with Blowmonkey. n/t

[Supersedeas]

15. federal requirement to provide private security....safety is not job one for eh LNG guys..apparently

[Ian David]

11. "Nobody could have forseen terrorists using LNG terminals as bombs." n/t

[nwliberalkiwi]

16. Disaster Waiting to Happen

These lgn vassals are a disaster waiting to happen. They used to stop occasionally in the harbor where I used to live and it was scary. There was an ammunition ship in Halifax harbor during World War I that exploded and what a disaster that was. LGN are just as bad if not worse than an ammo ship.

[bluesmail]

17. F E A R !!

and drugs and ammo and money and FEAR!

[Wilms]

18. LIHOP or MIHOP

:shrug: