Experts frequently differ on their estimates of risk associated with accidents that have a low probablity of occurrence. Those who stand to benefit from siting a new facility often perceive it as acceptably safe, using expert opinion to defend their argument. Potential losers find data to suggest that the new technology is too hazardous. This paper contrasts the role of risk assesments of low probability events in  siting Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) terminals in the United States and the Federal Republic of Germany. In both cases the decision process was a rather lengthy one due to conflicts between interested stakeholders. The paper discussed the potential of compensation  and insurance as policy tools for facilitating negotiation. Four criteria for improving the siting process in any country are also outlined.