Full Speed Ahead For LNG Terminals

BabyPeanut · **Posted:** Thu Jun 23, 2005 5:12 am

Quote:

The Senate voted Wednesday to give federal regulators authority over the location of liquefied natural gas terminals, despite objections from governors, including California's Arnold Schwarzenegger, that states should be have an equal say in deciding where such projects are built...But President Bush has pushed for federal control in deciding where terminals are built, saying that a lengthy approval process could delay the building of facilities that are important for the economy.

Dallas-Fort Worth Star Telegram

Quote:

"We're not talking about the siting of a neighborhood ballpark or a Wal-Mart," said GOP Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine, which has rejected several LNG projects. "It's a states' rights issue, plain and simple."...A report last year by the Sandia National Laboratory concluded that a terrorist attack on a tanker at an LNG terminal would start an intense fire, causing significant property damage and seriously burning people as far as a mile away.

Or just an accident for that matter, it didn't take an attack to make that BP plant in Texas blow up only months ago.

thor · **Joined:** Tue Jun 21, 2005 12:00 am **Posts:** 462

Despite the obvious (terrorists) hazard of having some of those LNG terminals around, do you really have an alternative? Natural gas is in decline but homes need heating and electricity, and the food industry needs those darn fertilizers. Full speed ahead I guess, whatever the danger.

BabyPeanut · **Posted:** Thu Jun 23, 2005 6:33 am

thor wrote:

Natural gas is in decline but homes need heating and electricity, and the food industry needs those darn fertilizers.

It's a losing battle because you consume energy when you liquify the gas and when you expand it again not to mention the energy used to move one of these around:

One of the reasons natural gas was a win in the past was that pipelines are cheap transporation for the fuel itself.

Leanan · **Joined:** Thu May 20, 2004 12:00 am **Posts:** 4677

The numbers are rather daunting. Last time I checked, we get something like 1% of our natural gas through those terminals. If we do an all-out push, we can maybe triple our imports in a few years...to 3%. Whoopee.

BabyPeanut · **Posted:** Thu Jun 23, 2005 6:39 am

Leanan wrote:

The numbers are rather daunting. Last time I checked, we get something like 1% of our natural gas through those terminals. If we do an all-out push, we can maybe triple our imports in a few years...to 3%. Whoopee.

But that's a 300% increase :-D

gnm · **Posted:** Thu Jun 23, 2005 8:15 am

Leanan do you have a source for that? If we really can only think of getting 3% from LNG then the US will be in serious decline for NG very quickly! demand increasing and Noth American NG already in decline. I presume the North America is in decline statement by exxon included Canada. Should get real fun within 5 years or so...

-G

BabyPeanut · **Posted:** Thu Jun 23, 2005 8:24 am

You might say it's High Noon For Natural Gas
http://www.energybulletin.net/2299.html

Leanan · **Joined:** Thu May 20, 2004 12:00 am **Posts:** 4677

Quote:

Leanan do you have a source for that?

I can't remember where I saw that number; in an article about peak natural gas, I think.

However, here's a similar stat, from EEI.org:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?G55D1205B

In 2000, imports skyrocketed to 233 BCF (1.2% of consumption). The EIA predicts that that rapid increase will continue. LNG imports will grow by 8% a year, to reach 810 BCF in 2020 - about 3.5% of 2000's consumption.

marek · **Posted:** Thu Jun 23, 2005 10:47 am

Last year, the U.S. imported 652 bcf of LNG which was about 1.78 bcf per day. Canadian LNG imports were even less. Canadian and U.S. consumption was about 76 bcf per day. The US DOE-EIA expects LNG imports to rise to 6.8 bcf per day by 2010. That won't cover the coming shortage.

BabyPeanut · **Posted:** Thu Jun 23, 2005 11:17 am

2003:

Heinburg Link

Quote:

As the natural gas in storage reaches very low levels, what happens is the pressure within storage caverns and the distribution lines begins to decrease. If the natural gas pressure levels decrease significantly, then the whole system goes down. So in order to keep that from happening, the administrators of the natural gas system systematically cut off some of their large industrial users and the industries they cut off first are the fertilizer manufacturers. Already, right now most of the fertilizer manufacturing companies in North America are sitting idle or operating at a fraction of their production capacity and this will have impact on agriculture for the coming growing season and therefore on food prices.

2005:

TV news Link

Quote:

...farmers are more concerned about other rising costs such as anhydrous ammonia - a critical component to helping corn develop. For farmers with cornfields, anhydrous ammonia or another nitrogen-based fertilizer is often their biggest expense. The price has doubled in the last few years to as much as $475 per ton.

pstarr · **Posted:** Thu Jun 23, 2005 11:40 am

The good ole boys and the harbor commission tried to ram one of these terminals down our throats last year. The ships would have dwarfed the recently revitalized "Olde Towne" (they would have even dwarfed our fancy new county jail). Everybody was up in arms--the environmentalists, the Chamber of Commerce, the fishing community, the police department. It would have created a couple hundred construction jobs for a few years.

we drove them citified patriots out

should be interesting now

pete

BabyPeanut · **Posted:** Thu Jun 23, 2005 11:50 am

pstarr wrote:

we drove them citified patriots out

Drive out the supply and insist on the product. Makes sense to me. [smilie=iamwithstupid.gif]

RG73 · **Posted:** Thu Jun 23, 2005 12:14 pm

BabyPeanut wrote:

It's a losing battle because you consume energy when you liquify the gas and when you expand it again not to mention the energy used to move one of these around:

Does anyone actually know the EROEI of this whole process--from liquifying the gas, loading it into the tanker, transporting it across the ocean, then re-expanding (do you need energy for this, or will it re-expand at room temp?)? It seems like it would be awfully expensive, especially if you add in the costs of building the terminals, and especially if it can't be scaled up to provide more than 3-4% of our natural gas needs.

MarkR · **Posted:** Thu Jun 23, 2005 3:04 pm

Quote:

Does anyone actually know the EROEI of this whole process--from liquifying the gas, loading it into the tanker, transporting it across the ocean, then re-expanding (do you need energy for this, or will it re-expand at room temp?)?

My understanding is it takes about 25-30% of the energy content of the gas in order to chill and liquify it.

Shipping it uses relatively little energy (a fraction of 1%), given the enormous volume. The older tankers which are powered by the LNG itself, use very inefficient gas turbines for propulsion and to power the refrigeration. More modern designs are revisiting diesels for their higher efficiency.

Regasification does need energy but there are several ways to get it. The most expensive way is to burn the gas - in which case you need about 10% of the gas for energy. However, all you really need is heat - so if you have a fast flowing tropical ocean, that will do. Or, if you have a power station, then the LNG terminal can act as a heatsink for the powerstation instead of cooling towers - if the power plant demand is about 30-50% of the LNG terminal capacity, then this can be done with virtually no loss of energy.

pstarr · **Posted:** Thu Jun 23, 2005 5:47 pm

BabyPeanut wrote:

pstarr wrote:

we drove them citified patriots out

Drive out the supply and insist on the product. Makes sense to me. [smilie=iamwithstupid.gif]

we'll just drop the terminal down on 39Â° 39' N 77Â° 77' E. with you screaming "I'm a patriot, I'm a patriot, take my blessed lawnchair"

pete

Full Speed Ahead For LNG Terminals

Who is online