Given LNG or nuclear, I take LNG any day. They can be handled offshore. The lingering effects of a problem are short term versus the potential locally catastrophic effects of nuclear.

(Remember war and terrorism in nuclear risks as well, not just plant safety performance. The safety performance of the new designs has not in practice been validated by the way and many reports raise safety issues with the new designs like lack of containment for some, graphite pebble fire hazards in case of pebble bed, etc. etc. They appear to solve the meltdown problems but as with many man made complex systems, new issues have this nagging habit of emerging when operational experience is gained.)

Don't forget the waste handling issues, even in the case of breeders and reprocessing. For instance, Sellafield in the U.K and La Hague in France are among the biggest sources anthropogenic radioactive pollution in Europe. Only uranium mining approaches their pollution.

It is unlikely that nuclear will be cheaper than the myriad renewables and efficient distributed cogeneration use of natural gas in the near future assuming LNG goes ahead when all the post operational costs and effects are accounted for.

There are a mere 39 additional LNG terminals on the books in addition to the 4 that currently exist.  With limited shipbuilding of oil tankers and much of the energy shipbuilding being devoted LNG, somebody knows something about the oil and gas future for the US.

I would not call it good.