"In actuality, y'all have no history, no background in running an LNG facility?" asked one Sierra Club member.
This is the type of question and dialogue posed by various members of the Sierra Club concerning a proposed onshore liquefied natural gas or LNG terminal.
The group says it is not opposed to a terminal. However, it is opposed to being in the path of what they consider a "time bomb".
"The LNG facility is such that it would be a hazard to these other industries. If there was an accident or collision or a terrorist attack. It could have the effect of a small nuclear explosion, which would completely demolish anywhere from 1 to 5 square miles of Pascagoula," said Gulf Coast Sierra Club chair Brenda Songy.
The group also raised concerns of how a facility could affect marine life as well as the health of the community.
Chevron-Texaco officials say they understand the group's concerns, but says this type of facility will help to supply a much needed demand of natural gas.
"Our Pascagoula refinery consumes roughly 100 million cubic feet of gas per day. This provides an alternative source for that supply," said Chevron Texaco project manager Richard Lammons.
"It's preferred that this be offshore again, and that would alleviate the safety concern with the terrorist and the mass explosions. But ideally, my preference would be that we locate it in another state all together," said Songy.
"We're focused on safety of people, the environment, and obviously, our assets. We will take our risk assessments and apply that to a facility located adjacent to our Pascagoula refinery," said Lammons.
The proposal for the LNG terminal is still in its early stages.
Chevron-Texaco officials will take the concerns of the community under consideration before deciding whether or not it will be located at the Pascagoula refinery.