Baltimore County Executive James T. Smith Jr., U.S. Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski and other elected officials last week jumped all over a U.S. Coast Guard report rejecting the security measures offered by the developers of a proposed liquefied natural gas terminal. It may be a victory for the project's opponents, but it's unlikely to be the last word - or even a particularly notable victory - in the battle over the site.
What the Coast Guard report actually states - or at least as much is available on the public record - is that that while the Chesapeake Bay is not currently suitable for the facility, it "can be made suitable" through additional security measures.
That's probably not a comforting thought to those who live in nearby Turners Station - or to the myriad of others, from port workers to recreational boaters, who would be affected by the proposed LNG terminal at Sparrows Point - but it's hardly an immovable obstacle.
AES Corp., the company seeking to build, own and operate the facility, need only come up with a plan to provide gunboat escorts, armed security patrols, towing vessels, aerial surveillance, video surveillance, underwater security sweeps and a way to deal with passing cruise ships and Chesapeake Bay Bridge traffic. At least that's for starters.
These are not small matters, of course. As the Coast Guard report makes clear, LNG shipments are no trivial security threat. Piloting a tanker loaded with 217,000 cubic meters of liquefied gas so far up the bay's channel is altogether different from shipping LNG to the existing Cove Point facility in Southern Maryland, where ships have ample room to maneuver and need not travel so close to so many residential areas along the route.
Add the Coast Guard's security concerns to the numerous other objections raised by Baltimore County, from the effects of dredging on water quality to the impact on local redevelopment efforts, and the case against the LNG plant remains compelling.
Whether or not the AES application is granted is up to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which has approved 21 such terminals across the country and has numerous applications pending, including a handful in the Northeast. With shrinking natural gas production in the continental U.S., the need for LNG is clear enough. But as the Coast Guard has also made apparent, locating one in Eastern Baltimore County is far from risk-free.