Terror analyst cites threat from Providence LNG plan

01:16 AM EDT on Tuesday, May 10, 2005

BY TIMOTHY C. BARMANN
Journal Staff Writer

PROVIDENCE -- A former White House counter-terrorism adviser said the liquefied natural gas project proposed in Providence
would provide an "extremely attractive" target for terrorist groups.

"There are very few things you can attack in urban areas that explode the way this would," said Richard A. Clarke, a former
senior adviser to President Bill Clinton, and President George W. Bush.

"We don't see the reason to provide [terrorists] with additional opportunities when there are alternatives."

Clarke was in Providence yesterday to deliver his assessment of the security risks associated with the proposal by KeySpan LNG
L.P. to expand its LNG facility in the Providence Harbor.

He agreed to perform the assessment at the request of Attorney General Patrick C. Lynch, who has been a vocal opponent of the
project. Clarke and the company he heads, Good Harbor Consultants of Arlington, Va., agreed to do the evaluation for free.

Federal regulators are in the final stages of examining the $100-million project that would allow the current KeySpan facility to
accept weekly deliveries of LNG by tanker.

The proposal is opposed by virtually all of the state's elected officials, including Governor Carcieri, Lynch, Sen. Jack Reed and
Representatives Patrick J. Kennedy and James R. Langevin. A number of citizens and environmental groups are fighting the
project as well.

Supporters include the Providence Chamber of Commerce, which issued a statement yesterday offering its support for the
KeySpan project, as long as "prudent safety and security protocols" are put into place.

KeySpan issued a statement yesterday saying that "safety and security are the highest priority" for the company. It said it is
developing two plans, one for security and another for safety, "all at the direction of federal and state entities."

"Before the upgraded terminal is allowed to accept shipments, the appropriate agencies will give final approval to all security and
emergency response plans," KeySpan said.

Clarke was one of the first government officials to warn the Bush administration of the threat posed by al-Qaida shortly after Mr.
Bush took office in January 2001. Clarke's warnings were largely unheeded, he wrote in his book, Against All Enemies, published
during last year's presidential campaign.

In the hours after the Sept. 11 attacks, Clarke said he instructed the Coast Guard to close Boston Harbor. He feared that an LNG
tanker coming into Boston might be another terrorist target.

'Had one of the giant tankers blown up in the harbor," Clarke wrote in his book, "it would have wiped out downtown Boston."

Clarke's 150-page report was made public yesterday at a forum at Brown University's Salomon Center. Lynch presented a video
that highlighted his opposition to the KeySpan proposal, and Clarke followed with slides that summarized his findings.

He said he looked at three possible scenarios in which a terrorist group might launch an attack on an LNG tanker in Narragansett
Bay: by air with a twin engine airplane; by sea with a small boat loaded with explosives; and by shoreline with anti-tank weapons.

Each of the three scenarios was plausible, he said. And security measures to try to prevent these attacks would be impractical.
For example, the 29 miles of shoreline along a tanker's route on the Bay would have to be secured, Clarke said. That's a total of
58 miles that would have to be searched before each LNG tanker delivery.

And the security measures would probably not prevent an attack, he said.

"We think it's entirely possible to blow through the kinds of defenses that can be created."

The report paints a grim picture of what would happen if an attack on an LNG tanker was successful in blowing 5-meter holes in
two of the tanks on board the ship in the Providence Harbor.

It estimates that 3,000 people would die instantly. Some 10,000 more would suffer serious burns. The heat would be so intense
at the source that firefighters could not get near it to put it out. Trauma centers would be overwhelmed.

Clarke said that perhaps the simplest way to avoid the risk of a terrorist attack is to site an LNG facility in a non-urban area, or
off-shore.

"If there are alternatives that do not run this risk, why not take them, instead of creating a new vulnerability that doesn't now
exist?" he said.

Clarke's report also raised concerns about the security at KeySpan's facility today.

During a March 2005 visit to the facility, his colleagues were able to enter the KeySpan facility through an open gate at an
adjacent property.

"These unauthorized visitors walked through the gate and got within close proximity of the tank, taking pictures throughout," the
report said.

"There were no security officers or KeySpan employees in sight. This disregard for basic security measures was highly
worrisome and raises concerns about the surrounding companies to provide adequate security."

KeySpan spokeswoman Carmen Fields said the company is suspicious of these claims.

"We stand by the security of our property," she said. "We cannot speak intelligently on the security of our neighbors."

1