Union leader pushes for onshore LNG

Citing a study which says that a worst-case scenario at the proposed LNG terminal in Long Beach would be limited to the Port, union leader Richard Slawson of Building and Construction Trade Council of Los Angeles and Orange counties, takes a swipe of those who would rather put LNG off shore:

While some present "offshore" as the "safe alternative," it is increasingly clear that opponents of a facility in the middle of an industrial port area are really saying "no" to LNG anywhere. Why is that? We don't have any test case examples of offshore LNG terminals. If LNG at a secure, controlled and "hardened" onshore industrial site is unsafe, how would you propose that we protect an offshore LNG terminal?

LNG is a necessary and stabilizing boost for our local energy needs, California jobs and our economy overall. The real question is whether the opponents of LNG are open to an honest discussion or one driven by hysteria.

If there are risks with LNG, however, wouldn't it make sense to locate them as far away from population centers as possible?!?