[big_rc]

And in an Aug. 23 letter questioning Freeport-McMoRan's Main Pass Energy Hub proposal, the chairman of the federal-state council that oversees fishing in federal waters in the Gulf warned that multiple terminals threaten the future of Gulf fishing.

"If this project is permitted using a once-through flow system, it will have an unacceptable negative impact on marine fish species since any eggs or larvae of juvenile fishes and crustacean species that come in contact with the system will be killed," Chairman Bobbi Walker said.

"The council believes that the additional mortality caused by the LNG facility as proposed would be significant, and it could affect the sustainability of some managed species," Walker said. "It could also negatively affect prey species for managed fish stocks, and the impact would be even more significant when the impacted species are considered overfished and are undergoing rebuilding efforts."

http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/frontpage/index.ssf?/base/news-2/1096439486160060.xml

Now isn't this interesting! Looks like there might be some unintended drawbacks to LNG after all. Montequest, isn't this an example of your statement that "There is no free lunch" as far as entropy is concerned. This is a deal with devil if I've ever seen one because Louisiana has an (ecologically speaking) very important wetland/fishery and a significant fishing industry that might be potentially harmed if we boost our pitiful state economy by building these LNG terminals. Classic case of dammed if you do, dammed if you don't. What other potential pitfalls might come with expanded LNG usage? Further environmental degradation might not be enough to stop this though.

[BabyPeanut]

PGW tries to expand liquefied natural gas use By EARNI YOUNG
younge (at) phillynews.com
The Philadelphia Gas Works wants to expand its pokey liquefied natural-gas operation in Port Richmond into a major terminal for LNG tankers from around the world. The expansion of the 35-year-old LNG facility could generate an estimated $50 million a year in new revenue for the cash-strapped, city-owned utility.

But any potential cash-infusion from an LNG terminal is at least four years in the future. And there's no guarantee that it will ever happen.

PGW's chief executive, Thomas E. Knudsen, was expected to announce plans to seek proposals from multinational energy companies who might be interested in footing the $500 million tab for the project. PGW's contribution to the joint venture is an existing processing facility with two LNG storage tanks on the Delaware River.

LNG is natural gas frozen until it reaches a liquid state. Currently PGW receives its gas through two national pipelines that come up from the Texas Gulf coast. During the nonheating season - April through August - when prices are lowest, PGW freezes the natural gas delivered by the pipeline to the Port Richmond plant and stores it in two LNG tanks with a total capacity of 4.1 billion cubic feet.

When pipeline prices peak in January and February, PGW vaporizes the stored LNG to reduce the amount of gas it has to buy at the higher prices. The cost differential saves PGW an average of $70 million a year, Knudsen said.

The proposed expansion would take the Port Richmond facility to a year-round operation that would rely on LNG delivered by tankers rather than the pipeline.

The imported LNG is less costly than pipeline gas and Knudsen said PGW would negotiate first dibs on the imported fuel as part of the deal. Any excess LNG would be vaporized and put into the Trans Continental pipeline for distribution to other Atlantic states. Some would be used in the off-season to fuel an electric generation plant that would be built as part of the new terminal, he said.

Although the field is already crowded - there are at least 43 LNG import facilities proposed in the U.S. and Canada - Knudsen believes the existing facility gives PGW the edge. "Philadelphia has a major asset up and running and grandfathered," Knudsen said. "We have an opportunity to enter the market well before these other projects."

Despite Knudsen's confidence, PGW may already be too late to the dance. Two new LNG terminals proposed for the Gulf Coast recently received final approval from the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. And two other LNG facilities off the Louisiana coast received approval from the U.S. Department of Transportation, putting them near the finish line.

An analyst for the American Gas Association, recently predicted that only two or three new LNG terminals, along with the planned expansion of three of the four existing U.S. terminals are needed to meet U.S. demand in the coming years.

Nevertheless, PGW's fishing expedition has the endorsement of Mayor Street, who is enthused by the possibility of Philadelphia becoming an international energy center. District Councilwoman Joan Krajewski is less enthusiastic, but is keeping an open mind at this early stage, according to her aide Chris Creelman.

The city Gas Commission, which would have to approve any proposal before it even moves to the state level, hasn't taken a position on the issue. But commission chair Councilwoman Marian Tasco said she's open to the "the opportunity to generate revenue that will help people pay their gas bills."

More than half of PGW's 485,000 residential accounts are past due, and they owe a total balance of $345 million as of last week.

[Kingcoal]

I used to live and work in Philly. Every place I lived at had NG for heating and cooking. The whole city is run on municipal gas. Being a fantastically liberal city, they have let people use gas for years without paying. There are a huge number of people who owe over $10K each to PGW.

The terminal is a good idea and they might be able to get federal funding for it. Right now, Port Richmond is awash in spilled crude oil and there will be opposition from environmentalists, but Philly needs revenue badly. The main problem, as it always is for Philly (and NY), is the unions. The unions scare off investors like bug repellent.

I've come to the conclusion that conventional oil has peaked, but we still have NG and unconventional oil to contend with for several years. So an investment in LNG is a good one.

[BabyPeanut]

I used to live and work in Philly. Every place I lived at had NG for heating and cooking. The whole city is run on municipal gas. Being a fantastically liberal city, they have let people use gas for years without paying. There are a huge number of people who owe over $10K each to PGW.

This is a good indication that the rising prices of NG will impact the poor and lower middle class. They will have less buying power so Wal*fart goods will sit in Chinese warehouses.

[Kingcoal]

I have to agree that Philly might have a problem. Will there really be such a huge demand for all those lawyers post peak?!

[trespam]

You know the ones. They've got a tank of oxygen strapped to their back. Tubes stuffed in their nostrils. A burning cigarette in their mouth.

That's us.

AP: Tanker Blast Would Impact Mile Radius . A terror attack on a tanker delivering liquefied natural gas at a U.S. port could set off a fire so hot it would burn skin and damage buildings nearly a mile away, government scientists say in a report expected to influence where new multibillion-dollar terminals will be built.

We just can't quit. [link]

[PhilBiker]

I agree with Matt Simmons that we need to open the continental shelves to drilling before we build these. There is a lot of Methane off the New England Coast, and Methans and oil off the California Coast. We need to get it! This is the reserve energy that Mother Nature has blessed us, it is Nature's bounty and we're acting like it's not there.

[The_Virginian]

phill,

what are the reserve estimates on the contenental shelf?

I agree, we might as well tap it....with a caveat...

1/2 the profits must go to devevolping a new recource, else we will loose out in 20 years no matter what....

[smiley]

AP: Tanker Blast Would Impact Mile Radius . A terror attack on a tanker delivering liquefied natural gas at a U.S. port could set off a fire so hot it would burn skin and damage buildings nearly a mile away, government scientists say in a report expected to influence where new multibillion-dollar terminals will be built.

I think that that is a very conservative estimate. During my education I had to watch a video on the Mexican LPG disaster. There you saw these large gas tanks being hurdled in the air and exploding a few miles away in the city. the blast radius alone was more than a mile. About 500 people were killed and two towns were completely leveled.

If I then consider that the amount of gas stored in that facility was about 5% of that of a commercial LNG tanker, I think you would rather be talking about something akin to a nuclear bomb.

The tragedy of San Juanico--the most severe LPG disaster in history.

Arturson G.

During the early morning of Monday, 19 November 1984, one of the largest disasters in industrial history occurred in the Mexico City Area, causing the greatest rescue effort to assist population in an emergency ever undertaken. The tragic catastrophe started in a large LPG (Liquid Petroleum Gas) storage and distribution centre in San Juan Ixhuatepec, 20 km north of Mexico City. The facilities, owned by the Pemex State Oil Company, consisted of six spherical storage tanks (four with a volume of 1600 m3 and two with a volume of 2400 m3) and 48 horizontal cylindrical bullet tanks of different sizes. At the time of the disaster the storage tanks contained 11,000 m3 of a mixture of propane and butane. The inhabitants of San Juan Ixhuatepec numbered about 40,000, and a further 60,000 lived in the hills surrounding the village. The majority were poor country people living in one-story houses constructed of concrete pillars filled in with bricks and with roofs of iron sheets. The disaster started due to LPG leakage, probably a pipe leakage or rupture due to excess pressure. A vapour cloud built up and was slowly moved by the north-east wind towards the ground-placed flare pit located in the western part of the plant. The vapour cloud was ignited around 5:40 a.m. and was followed by an extensive fire at the plant area. The first explosion was registered on the seismograph at the University of Mexico at 05 h 44 min 52 s and was followed by a dozen explosions within the next hour, some of them of BLEVE type (Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapour Explosion) due to rupture of one or more storage tanks. Two of the explosions had an intensity of 0.5 on the Richter scale. Unburned and burning gas entered the houses south of the plant area and set fire to everything. Blast waves from the explosions not only destroyed a number of houses but also shifted several cylindrical tanks from their supports and added more gas to the fire. The smaller spheres and some of the cylinders exploded and fragments and even whole cylinders weighing around 30 tons, were scattered over distances ranging from a few to up to 1200 m.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer ... t=Abstract

[Devil]

We must NOT seek new reserves of natural gas. We MUST cut down on our use of natural gas. This for two reasons:

1. Every kg of natural gas we burn causes 2.75 kg of carbon dioxide to be emitted.
2. For every kg of natural gas we use, ~50 g of raw methane is emitted and this has the same effect as a further 1,75 kg of CO2, as far as climate change is concerned.
3. We therefore cause total CO2 equivalent emissions of 4.5 kg/kg burnt. This is unacceptable.
4. We MUST leave something for future generations.

I make exception of non-fossil-natural gas generated from waste biomass, but there won't be nearly enough of this to cover future requirements.

[Kingcoal]

We must NOT seek new reserves of natural gas. We MUST cut down on our use of natural gas. This for two reasons:

1. Every kg of natural gas we burn causes 2.75 kg of carbon dioxide to be emitted.
2. For every kg of natural gas we use, ~50 g of raw methane is emitted and this has the same effect as a further 1,75 kg of CO2, as far as climate change is concerned.
3. We therefore cause total CO2 equivalent emissions of 4.5 kg/kg burnt. This is unacceptable.
4. We MUST leave something for future generations.

I make exception of non-fossil-natural gas generated from waste biomass, but there won't be nearly enough of this to cover future requirements.

Natural Gas and the Environment

NG is the cleanest fossil fuel by far. It is the lesser of the evils. Also, if they ever figure out how to cheaply make hydrogen from it, then the fuel cell car thing might take off.

[PhilBiker]

NG is the cleanest fossil fuel by far. It is the lesser of the evils.

NG is not nearly as clean as the industry claims. There is a pipe leakage rate of up to 1% from what I've read, and unburned methane is the absolute worst greenhouse gas there is. If you take into account the pipe leakage NG is barely better than coal.

Also, if they ever figure out how to cheaply make hydrogen from it, then the fuel cell car thing might take off.

If you believe that there's any hope for the fuel cell car you need to hang around here more. It's a pipe dream.

[PhilBiker]

pipe drea - great pun, huh?

[Devil]

NG is the cleanest fossil fuel by far. It is the lesser of the evils. Also, if they ever figure out how to cheaply make hydrogen from it, then the fuel cell car thing might take off.

It is still an evil, take the Devil's word for it. 99% of the hydrogen today is made from natural gas and for every kg of hydrogen made from it, over 5 kg of carbon dioxide is emitted as waste. Clean? Like bloody hell, and I know. In any case, no one has explained where all the platinum for the fuel cells is going to come from.

Philbiker: your 1% is very optimistic. Many long pipelines leak >5%, as they run at very high pressures. Methane is, by far, not the worst GHG, but it is bad, with a GWP of 20-50, with 35 average. PFCs and SF6 have GWPs of >10,000 and HFCs generally in the range of 300 - 3000. PFCs and HFCs, together, account for nearly 5% of the GHG-effect on climate change, and increasing daily. PFCs have an atmospheric lifetime exceeding 10,000 years. PFCs and HFCs are controlled gases under the Kyoto Protocol.

[The_Virginian]

no one has explained where all the platinum for the fuel cells is going to come from.

Ok I answer your question.

If we can't make a zinc or some other reasonably priced alternative, Platinum will kill the fuel cell....

If I remember correctly it was NASA technology that made the fuel cell (no they did not invent "tang" or "velcro"). Now these are the same guys who waste our money on golden (AU) Voyager records and plates...so whats a little Platinum to these parasites?

NOW will some one PLEASE answer my question?

How much Estimated "Natural" gas is there in the Continental Shelf of the USA? Are the estimates reliable?

[Concerned]

If I remember correctly it was NASA technology that made the fuel cell (no they did not invent "tang" or "velcro"). Now these are the same guys who waste our money on golden (AU) Voyager records and plates...so whats a little Platinum to these parasites?

The platinum in the fuel cell lasts for about a years worth of driving.

Platinum is scarcer than oil

How many hundred million cars and trucks can we replace fuel cells on Vs how much platinum we can get?

Then the whole issue surrounding hydrogen being an energy carrier not a source, hydrogen is an energy sink.

[onequestionwonder]

I've posted this question on other boards before, and have never gotten an analysis that truly answered the question.

I believe Russia and Iran have the largest natural gas reserves left in the world.

Dispensing for now, with any invasion and occupation of Iran (which I personally don't believe the US could pull off for a variety of reasons, some political, and some based on the results of Iraq's occupation), thus keeping decisions about gas exploitation in Iran, in Iran.

Why would either Russia or Iran construct any liquefaction plants?

Russia certainly has interests in piping natural gas to Europe for political reasons. Iran probably the same with other nations, though I'm vague on this subject.

Currently the means of producing LNG consume about 1 in 3 of the natural gas involved in the liquefaction process. That is for for 2 full LNG tankers, one tanker's worth of natural gas has been burned to produce energy for compressing the natural gas.

Why would I do this if I led Iran or were Vladimir Putin?

Any natural gas I couldn't sell to Europe or otherwise via pipeline, I'd earmark for producing fertilizer and supplying a chemical industry for export purposes. And disregarding any supply/demand considerations of delivered natural gas on potential profit, I'd have 50% more natural gas to feed into profit making activities.

You would keep jobs and industrial base at home, and still make quite a profit on things that nations without gas reserves will be forced to buy, and can't make locally anymore.

I realize that some nations aren't going to have the wherewithal to resist the beast, but if you can, keeping the industrial production of the products that depend on natural gas at home is more more logical to me, than exporting LNG.

[lawnchair]

Yes it's very inefficient. The answer is 'you', being the Russians or Iranians, wouldn't build the liquification. US companies would, if they needed the gas that badly. And you'd sell the gas to them rather than down the pipeline or use it domestically if they paid 1 eurocent (or gram gold? grain wheat?) more at the wellhead than the other buyers.

This does mean that gas will be much more expensive where it comes from LNG shipments. The consumers at that end will pay for the liquification, boats, and everything else.

[linlithgowoil]

well, maybe russia and iran are the same as many others - they believe that 'something else' will turn up after their gas/oil reserves run out, so they believe in exploiting them to the max at present.

i'd be surprised if any country would export their fuels if they took the view that they would be scarce in a few years, therefore they all must believe the general viewpoint that we will be ok till about 2040-50, and by that time, someone will have invented something anyway and it wont even matter.

i think that is the way most people look at things. you never know, they may be right, but if they are wrong then its true - there is no Plan B.

im from the UK and we'll be needing lots of imported nat gas soon. my house has a gas boiler and heating so i need gas as well! i also have a coal fire that is no longer in use - i suppose i could just burn anything that would burn in there to keep warm in winter - i can see the local country park having not many trees left soon...!

[Terran]

Once they start exporting, consider this.....
It is pretty likely they would form some cartel on natural gas, much if the same way they formed a cartel over oil.
This will do a good job at regulating prices, and gaining more profits, I wouldn't be suprised if they formed ONGEC.