Currently more than 50 new LNG import terminals are proposed for North America. Each of these developments has its own unique risk management challenges and public risk perceptions. They are all dependent on buy-in from local elected leadership and on a plan to manage public communication. Failure in this respect may cause rejected developments and significant financial losses in terms of spoiled development costs and future revenues.

The question of facility safety appears and the 9-11 argument comes into play as stakeholders and opponent groups ask the “what if” questions followed up by questions regarding unloading accidents and “what is the maximum area of destruction if a sphere collapses, ship explodes, or an offloading accident occurs.” The questions are often characterized by misconceptions but are nevertheless of vital importance.

A success factor is to communicate and clarify the balance between safety and risk. How can a facility be perceived as safe when it can devastate areas several hundred meters away from the facility?

Safety may be enforced by compliance with a pre-defined set of risk acceptance criteria. These criteria may be absolute and tangible, but in some cases of more abstract characters. Different practices are seen between countries, states and regions as well as between different industry segments.

This paper discuses the risk that public should be prepared to accept under governmental leadership and guidance. The paper is also discussing how the risk-introducer should manage a process that will ensure risk acceptance criteria compliance and maintenance of compliance throughout the lifetime of the facility. The paper will also discuss the meaning of risk acceptance criteria and how exposed people and regulatory bodies should relate to the criteria.