LA. LNG terminal OK'd by feds

Associated Press
NEW ORLEANS - Petroleum producer McMoRan Exploration Co. has received final approval for a $1 billion liquefied natural gas project off Louisiana's coast, including storage caverns in an offshore salt dome, the company announced Thursday.

"This will be the only facility we know of that will have regasification and on-site storage like that," company spokesman William L. Collier said.

The go-ahead from the U.S. Maritime Administration was the last needed for the Main Pass Energy Hub, Collier said. The record accompanying the decision was 46 pages long and outlines requirements that will be put into the license.

"It's a significant milestone for our company. We've been working for nearly three years to get this approval," Collier said.

He did not know when construction will begin, but said it's expected to be completed in about three years.

"At this point, we'll focus on contracting for gas supplying and putting together the financing," he said.

Natural gas is liquified so that it can take up less space and be more easily transported by tankers. The natural gas is chilled to -256 degrees Fahrenheit, turning it from a gas to a liquid, and moved into heavily insulated storage tanks. From those, reinforced, usually double-hulled tankers with insulated cargo tanks will bring it to the terminal. There, it will be stored and heated to turn it back from a liquid to a gas.

Collier said the terminal will be built on the offshore salt dome in which its storage caverns will be leached. The terminal will cost about $500 million, and pipelines - already approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission - another $500 million.

Gov. Kathleen Blanco vetoed the project last year because McMoRan intended to use an open-loop system using water from the Gulf of Mexico to warm the supercooled liquefied gas. Environmentalists said that would kill an unknown amount of sea life, including fish and fish larvae.

The company changed the design to the more expensive closed-loop technology, which uses some of the gas it imports, rather than seawater, to warm the liquefied gas. The modifications will cost about $30 million, plus $25 million a year in revenue lost from the natural gas used in the closed-loop system, Collier said at the time.

The conditions required by MARAD include demonstration of financial responsibility, compliance with applicable laws and regulations, environmental monitoring and other customary conditions.

McMoRan said the facility will be able to store 28 billion cubic feet of LNG in salt caverns, to regasify up to 1.6 billion cubic feet of liquid natural gas a day, and to deliver up to 3.1 billion cubic feet of natural gas to the U.S. market daily.

Peter Huhtala--Letter to the Editor

To the editor:

On a Tuesday before Christmas, citizens of the Columbia River Estuary gave up their evening to attend two meetings regarding decisions that will have a significant impact on future generations.



There was yet another important meeting on Thursday. As I write this, I don’t know what the Port of Astoria Commission decided on last night. I don’t know whether the port is ready to allow yet another limited liability corporation play their cards in the LNG game – where a winning hand leaves the quality of our life the loser.



I’m sure that there was a big turnout for last night’s port meeting, but I want to talk about Tuesday. Tuesday night, citizens filled the port chambers, nearly all to demand an end to the Commission’s complacency with these LNG pirates. From the talk in the hall, most did not have high hopes.



There were of course other issues raised at the port meeting. The Port of Astoria seems to have become a magnet for controversy in recent years, but I’ll leave that as an understatement.



Meanwhile, just down the way and over the water, another meeting was underway. Robert “Jake” Jacob had summoned business owners and citizens to the fabulous Cannery Pier Hotel to discuss how to keep our area safe from the proliferation of LNG. This was probably the more significant meeting.



Those packing the Union Fish Meeting Room at the Cannery Pier included health care professionals, retail merchants, landowners facing a taking of their property by eminent domain for a huge high-pressure gas pipeline, residents of Puget Island that live in the shadow of the proposed LNG development at Bradwood, and numerous other concerned members of our communities.



The attendees were treated to excellent presentations by environmental professionals Brent Foster of Columbia Riverkeeper, and Dan Serres of Friends of Oregon Living Waters. Numerous knowledgeable people in the room contributed to a lively discussion.



However, it was Jake himself who provided the real leadership for this meeting, and the drive to get done what needs to get done. He clearly sees that the prosperity of our area is inexorably tied to our environment, to our quality of life. Like many others, though, he held back in expressing his views publicly, partly in deference to friends who saw things differently. He is quiet no longer.



Jake’s courage in standing up and expressing his convictions is likely to be contagious. He is calling for business owners and community leaders to join him in demanding that local, state and federal government decision makers reject any LNG proposal on the Columbia River.



As these new voices join with the grassroots activists, the regional conservation groups, the tribes, and all those whose lives and livelihoods depend on this river, I believe that success is possible. It will take tenacity, but now we have fresh inspiration. Kudos to Jake!

Astoria Port Commissioner meeting on transfer of lease

The commissioners voted unanimously to ask both Calpine and the Court for an extension. Attorneys for the NGOs, including RiverVision, provided excellent rationale for both an extention and an objection (which could come later). These attorneys may actually work with the Port on the extention.

The room was full, the testimony to the point. the point was get out of the lease or at least don't succomb to this New York rush to let Peter Hansen go to work for Leucadia (as he told me was his intention if they get the lease).

There was no disclosure of any commissioner to Leucadia (or any other company in contention) contact, nor the possibility of Mr. Hansen's continued involvement. I suggested that Leucadia would have been wise to grease the skids by getting together with the commissioners. Perhaps the Daily A got the straight story after the meeting.

It was an acceptable and reasonable outcome in any event. (I can't believe I'm saying that.)

This report does not do justice to the many wise and thoughtful statements made by the public, nor to the behind the scenes efforts of Columbia Riverkeeper and the Columbia River Clean Energy Coalition, as well as many long-time allies and some newcomers to this cause.

Dan Serres from the Coalition wondered about a bit dazed at the close, muttering, "We won." Well, it's true we won a skirmish and made advances in cooperation with the port commissioners, but this is far from over.

LNG fails to impress Mass. fishermen

LNG cash offer fails to sway fishermen
Industry opposes offshore terminal

By John Laidler, Globe Correspondent | December 17, 2006

A promise of millions of dollars for the local fishing industry has not swayed fishermen and Gloucester city leaders to drop their opposition to two proposed liquefied natural gas ports off the city's coast.

The developers of the projects -- Excelerate Energy and Neptune LLG -- have each committed $23.5 million to compensate for impacts to marine resources and human uses of Massachusetts Bay, according to state officials. The local fishing industry will receive a portion of that -- $6.3 million from each developer.

"This doesn't change anything we've been concerned about," said Gloucester fisherman Joseph Orlando, referring to fears that the ports would disrupt commercial fishing and pose a safety hazard. "I've been fishing there all my life. All of a sudden, I'm getting kicked out so these guys can come in."

But Orlando and other opponents say they welcome having the money on the table if the projects do go forward.

"If it's a done deal . . . you've got to compensate the people who use that area," said Orlando, who fishes for groundfish with a dragger .

The state's Executive Office of Environmental Affairs secretary, Robert W. Golledge Jr., included the mitigation agreement in an approval he granted Dec. 1 to the Excelerate project, confirming that the firm's environmental impact report complies with state law. He included a similar mitigation package in an approval he granted to Neptune last week.

Both projects still require additional state and federal permits and approval by the governor, who has power under federal law to veto the plans. Outgoing Governor Mitt Romney has until Dec. 26 to decide on the Northeast Gateway project, and Jan. 2 to decide on the Neptune project.

In a statement included with the earlier approval, Golledge said the Northeast Gateway project, "with the mitigation that has been required, strikes a good balance between the need for reliable energy and minimizing impacts to the environment.

"The $23.5 million mitigation package includes a number of different components that will ensure that we have critical data to improve ocean and fisheries management in the future, as well as significant mitigation for impacts to fishing interests and the general public," he said.

Other local mitigation measures included in the Excelerate package are $150,000 for the Gloucester Maritime Heritage Center, and $150,000 for Salem Sound Coastwatch to support public access and environmental programs in Salem Sound. The Neptune package includes $150,000 for the Peabody Essex Museum to support activities related to maritime exhibitions and heritage, and $150,000 for the Essex National Heritage Area.

"We always knew there would be a mitigation package," said Excelerate spokesman Doug Pizzi . "That's something that's been negotiated for many months. . . . There were a lot of public policy goals we were asked to participate in, and we did."

Each port would consist of two large mooring markers attached to underwater buoys . Ships carrying liquefied natural gas would moor there. The gas would be vaporized aboard the ships and then pumped through the buoys into new pipelines that would connect to an existing underwater pipeline that extends from Beverly Harbor to Weymouth. Access would be limited for four square miles around each deep-water port.

Gloucester Mayor John Bell said that both ports would be located in an ocean area known as Block 125, which continues to be an active fishing ground.

"It's very productive for groundfish, and in terms of lobster habitat. And it's also a prime area for right whales. . . . So clearly, if we were given a choice, we prefer that there be no deep-water ports out there," said Bell, adding that regional planning is needed to site LNG terminals.

"I can't even fathom how bad it's going to be trying to get out to the harbor to where we work, to circumvent where they're going to be," said fisherman Al Cottone. "It's going to make it impossible to make a living out there."

Pizzi said the four square miles around Excelerate's port would represent less than 1 percent of the Block 125 area, which he said is just over 400 square miles. But fishermen said the area surrounding the proposed port sites is particularly productive.

Fishermen also fear their dragging gear could become damaged by rocks and other debris churned up by construction of the pipelines. And there are concerns about safety.

"People on the North Shore are never going to be able to sleep in the way they have the last 400 years," said Gloucester Fishermen's Wives Association president Angela Sanfilippo .

"The place to have a facility like this is offshore . . . away from populated areas," Pizzi said. As for the construction, he said, "once the pipeline is in, the plow back-fills it. So it's not changing the topography of the ocean bottom."

Vito Giacalone, president of the Gloucester Fishermen's Association, said that Excelerate's environmental report significantly understates the project's impact on the fishing industry. The firm put the figure at $2.5 million over the 20- to 25-year life of the project. Fishermen estimate $3 million to $9 million a year.

Pizzi said Excelerate believes the $2.5 million figure is accurate, noting that it came from a Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute study. He said the firm agreed to a $6.3 million compensation figure to help with impacts on the fishing industry that go beyond the project, including federal fishing limits.

The Excelerate plan calls for creation of a nonprofit that will use the $6.3 million to purchase permits and allotted fishing days from fishermen who opt to leave the business. Those permits and fishing days can then be leased to other fishermen.

"The money will help an industry that has endured severe cuts over the past 10 years" due to fishing regulations, Bell said. "It will help keep our fishing community whole and keep our permits in the city of Gloucester."

But, he added, "if given the choice between the money and the deep-water ports being eliminated, we clearly are in favor of no LNG in Block 125."

What we have to look forward to?

Hundreds evacuated after China LNG spill




BEIJING

http://www.business week.com/ ap/financialnews /D8LQQMA00. htm


Hundreds of households were evacuated after a liquefied natural gas (LNG) spill in a city in northeastern China, state media reported Tuesday.

Xinhua News Agency said the spill in Fushun city in Liaoning province on Monday also forced evacuation of workers from 15 factories and students from two primary schools.

Evacuations were ordered when about 100 tons of LNG leaked from a tank belonging to Fushun LNG Company Ltd, Xinhua quoted Jiang Yonghe, director of the Fushun Firefighting Bureau, as saying.

"The LNG combined with the air to form a...cloud of poisonous white fumes shrouding the area," Jiang said, adding the surrounding buildings would have been flattened in an explosion.

An official from the firefighting bureau, who would not give his name, said the situation had returned to normal by Tuesday.

Xinhua said a leaking valve that caused the spill was closed after about 90 minutes.

It said more than 300 firefighters and policemen were needed to control the leak and evacuate residents in Fushun.

Industrial accidents are common in China and have resulted in protests throughout the country because of lax government controls and companies often ignoring proper safety procedures.
--

Marissa Rosati
Program Assistant


Pipeline Safety Trust
1155 North State, Suite 609
Bellingham, WA 98225
Phone: 360-543-5686
marissa@pstrust. org
www.pstrust. org

Norther Star LNG plant will "adversely affect" Salmon

Bradwood LNG will 'adversely affect' salmon species, habitat
200-page report spells out potential impacts on fishery

By CASSANDRA PROFITA
The Daily Astorian

Northern Star Natural Gas Co. delivered the news by way of a 200-page public document: Its proposed liquefied natural gas terminal at Bradwood Landing is "likely to adversely affect" endangered species of chinook, chum and steelhead salmon and their habitat.

Potential impacts on salmon from the LNG facility and its associated pipeline make up the lion's share of the company's biological assessment, a required environmental review filed last week with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

The project is proposed for a site on the Columbia River about 20 miles east of Astoria. It is one of five LNG terminals being considered in Oregon and the furthest along in the process of receiving federal approval. Three others are on the Columbia River and a fifth is in Coos Bay. The terminals would receive superchilled natural gas liquid from ships and convert it back to gas for pipeline distribution.

Construction plans involve dredging the river to make way for LNG vessels, building a berth, filling wetlands on the terminal site and installing 36 miles of pipeline, all of which could have negative effects on salmon populations and estuary habitat, according to the filing.

To make up for it, Northern Star will secure and preserve comparable fish habitat and wetlands elsewhere on the Columbia River, as required by law, but the company also proposes putting "significant funding" into a Salmon Enhancement Initiative that would support recovery efforts beyond federal mandates.

Company officials want to work with watershed and estuary restoration groups, tribes and agencies in forming a steering committee that would decide how to allocate the funds.

Still, opponents reviewing the document say the river would be better off without the project, which they think will have more severe impacts than the company reported.

"This is a report you shouldn't be surprised to see coming from people who want to build a project," said Brent Foster, director of Columbia Riverkeeper. "It says they're going to minimize the impacts, but from a legal or biological perspective, it's somewhat laughable how it completely glosses over the seriousness of the impacts."


Another milestone
The release of the document marks a milestone in the LNG terminal approval process, headed by FERC.

"FERC has all the information now that they need to complete the draft Environmental Impact Statement," said Northern Star Natural Gas senior vice president of development Gary Coppedge. "It's a significant step."

Tamara Young-Allen, spokeswoman for FERC, said her agency can still request additional information from the company as it reviews the biological assessment and the rest of the Bradwood Landing application. FERC staff have begun working on their environmental evaluation of the project, which will be opened to public comment before a final EIS is drawn up. When the EIS is complete, the Commission of five presidential appointed members will rule on the project. Typically, LNG projects take 10 to 18 months from the time they file an application to when they reach the Commission, said FERC spokeswoman Tamara Young-Allen. Bradwood submitted its application in June.

"The biological assessment is our assessment of our impacts," said Coppedge. "It's not a document that concludes anything. The agencies will go out and add their own research, write their biological opinion based on our information and what they think about impacts of our facility."


Report includes design change
Based on some early input from federal agencies, the company made two design changes to its original project proposal and included them in the biological assessment.

The changes include a new berth design to reduce negative effects on fish and aquatic organisms and a device on the wharf that would screen salmonids out of the river water before it is taken into LNG vessels to cool the engine and fill the ballast.

The document also evaluates the project's impacts on a long list of threatened and endangered fish and wildlife species using a range of criteria from "no impact" to "likely to adversely impact."

Most of the adversely impacted species listed are salmon.

Julie Carter, policy analyst for the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, said her group employs about a dozen scientists who study the hydrology, biology, genetics and engineering of recovering salmon populations.

She said the Commission's fishery scientists who study the area around Cathlamet Bay and Clifton Channel, near the Bradwood Landing site, have found it to be vital rearing habitat for endangered fall chinook.

"We are not anti-LNG per se, but we think this particular site at Bradwood Landing is so inappropriate," she said. "It's right next to basically the nursery for fall chinook. It's absolutely critical to the fall chinook life cycle ... The site is just poorly thought-out."

Although the Commission could benefit from the company's proposed Salmon Enhancement Initiative, Carter said the tribes would rather the terminal not be built.

"The tribes are interested in mitigation and interested in projects if it's approved, but if we had our druthers it would be keeping it the way it is right now," she said.


Many steps remain
Coppedge said Bradwood has yet to file a comprehensive plan for mitigating the negative impacts of LNG.

"We will actually benefit salmon by the time this plan is done," he said. "We have to list everything that may happen, but in the end there will be a net benefit to salmon."

Foster said he is worried about another impact not listed in the filing.

"Something they totally ignored is all the other projects that this project triggers," he said. "If you've got the largest source of LNG on the West Coast and largest river, or water source, on West Coast, you've just created what could be one of the most sought after industrial sites in the Western U.S."

Coppedge said the company is still negotiating to acquire land for the 36-mile pipeline that would run through Clatsop and Columbia counties, under the Columbia River near Clatskanie and connect to the Williams Interstate Pipeline northeast of Ostrander, Wash., near Interstate 5. The project would also need air and water permits from the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, and a land-use approval from Clatsop County before it could begin construction.

The company has yet to apply to Clatsop County for zone changes required for terminal plans. The site contains wetlands that will need to be rezoned, and the dredging for the LNG vessels' turning basin also requires local approval.

Natural Gas Explosion

CYPREMORT POINT, Louisiana (AP) -- Searchers found the body of a fourth victim Friday near the site of a natural gas explosion off the Louisiana coast as they braved choppy waters and the danger of a second blast in attempt to locate two people still missing.

The blast occurred when a tugboat pushing two barges hit the pipeline Thursday in West Cote Blanche Bay, about two miles from shore and 100 miles southwest of New Orleans, the Coast Guard said.

Three bodies were found within hours of the accident. The fourth was pulled from the water about two miles from the site Friday morning, Iberia Parish Sheriff Sid Hebert said.

Gas flow was shut off to the pipeline, but Coast Guard Lt. Rick Foster said there was still concern of another explosion if some gas remained in the line. Divers were to examine the site to determine whether a "spud" from one of the barges -- a metal extension used to halt the vessel -- might have pinched the pipeline, Foster said. The barge was still in place at the site.

Family members of the missing gathered at a marina at Cypremort Point, a community of shoreline residences and fishing camps.

Choppy waters hampered the search, but the water in the area was only about 5 feet or 6 feet deep, and there was some hope that survivors might have reached one of the many offshore oil and gas platforms that dot the horizon, said Maj. Tim Cossey of the St. Mary Parish Sheriff's Office.

"They can survive for a long time out there," Cossey said.

Authorities were alerted to the explosion Thursday by a man on a nearby beach who saw flames shooting about 100 feet into the sky, said Coast Guard Petty Officer 2nd Class Nyx Cangemi.

Coast Guard rescue crews on Thursday found two survivors, one hospitalized with severe burns and the other uninjured, said Coast Guard spokeswoman Veronica Bandrowsky.

Gulfport Energy Corp. said the accident involved two contracted vessels working for the company in a large energy field. The company said all its own employees were accounted for but it was still trying to get information on its contract workers.

"We are deeply concerned for all those involved," Gulfport CEO Jim Palm said in a statement.

Two of the dead were identified Friday morning by the St. Mary Parish Sheriff's Office as Kennith J. Rink, 51, of Berwick, and John J. Mire Jr., 59, of Patterson.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

California LNG bill?

Bill Will Mandate Public Discussion of Liquefied Natural Gas and Coordination With California Clean Energy Measures
California Progress Report
August 26th, 2006







By Rory Cox
A bill which will require a comprehensive review of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) terminals in California will likely be reviewed by the Assembly Utilities and Commerce Committee early this week, perhaps as early as Monday, and despite heavy lobbying against it, may move to a floor vote before the end of the legislative session on Thursday. Nearly 60 organizations representing business, labor, environment and consumer interests have endorsed the law.

The measure, SB426 authored by Senator Joe Simitian and Assemblymember Fran Pavley) would require the need for LNG be evaluated, given California’s current clean energy initiatives and North America’s natural gas supply. The law would also require the state to conduct an evaluation of six proposed coastal terminals where LNG would be offloaded, regasified, and sent into the state’s existing natural gas grid. Each proposed LNG project would be scrutinized for its impact on safety, the environment, and the economy.

Currently, California is handling LNG proposals through a lot of backroom dealing by high-paid lobbyists. This law will mandate something that the state has never done: a public conversation about this new source of imported fossil fuel.

LNG is natural gas that has been super-cooled to -260 degrees Fahrenheit so it can fit aboard large tankers and shipped abroad. It enables oil multinationals such as Mitsubishi and Shell to import natural gas extracted in Russia, Indonesia, and Australia into California. LNG is highly combustible, can travel for miles if it leaks from its storage tank, and when it ignites can create a highly destructive fireball. A 2004 LNG accident in Algeria resulted in a conflagration that killed at least 27, and shattered windows up to five miles away. LNG tankers are known terrorist targets.

Due to community safety concerns, as well as the implications of increased fossil fuel dependence, LNG is highly controversial. According to Steve Taber, Chairman of the Princeton Development Corporation, a California-based clean energy corporation: "LNG should be subject to the same scrutiny as our other energy choices. If that scrutiny concludes that LNG is not our best choice, then investment in LNG would create a big economic dead weight. By instead making smart choices in renewables and efficiency, California can become energy independent and filthy rich.”

Other supporters of SB426 include Phil Angelides, Steve Westly, the California Apollo Alliance (a coalition of labor unions and environmental groups), the Sierra Club of California, the Utility Consumers Action Network, and California League of Conservation Voters and over 50 other organizations.

Both the San Francisco Chronicle and the Los Angeles Times published editorials supporting the law.

Rory Cox is California Program Director at Pacific Environment. He leads the organization’s “Keeping California’s Clean Energy Promise” campaign. Pacific Environment protects the living environment of the Pacific Rim by promoting grassroots activism, strengthening communities and reforming international policies.
A complete list of endorsers is below.
Amazon Watch
American Biodiesel Inc (dba Community Fuels)
Apollo Alliance (California)
Beacon Foundation
Bluewater Network – A Division of Friends of the Earth
Border Power Plant Working Group
CalCoast Planning and Conservation League
California Coastal Protection Network
California League of Conservation Voters
Californians for Renewable Energy – CARE
Carol Misseldine, Sustainability Director, City of Oakland
Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies (CEERT)
Center for Biological Diversity
Central Coast Alliance United for A Sustainable Economy (CAUSE)
City of Malibu
Communities for a Better Environment
Communities for a Safe Environment
Community Environmental Council
Divers’ Environmental Conservation Organization
Environment California
Environment in the Public Interest
Environmental Defense Center
Environmental Health Coalition
Global Exchange
Greenpeace
International Forum on Globalization
Kyoto USA
League for Coastal Protection
LNG Danger.com
Los Angeles Times
Local Power
Long Beach for Citizens for Utility Reform
Malibu Coastal Land Conservancy
Marin County Board of Supervisors
Murray Rosenbluth (Port Hueneme City Council)
No LNG Community Alliance (Oxnard)
Oceana
Orange County Coastkeeper
Pacific Environment
Physicians for Social Responsibility/Sacramento
Princeton Development Corporation
ProPeninsula
San Diego Baykeeper
San Francisco Chronicle
San Luis Obispo County Coastkeeper
Santa Barbara Channelkeeper
Santa Monica Baykeeper
Sara Nichols
Saviers Road Design Team
Sierra Club California
Southern California Watershed Alliance
Surfrider Foundation
Sustainable Fairfax
The Ocean Conservancy
Utility Consumers Action Network (UCAN)
Vote Solar
Vote the Coast
Wildcoast/ Baja Coastkeeper
Women’s Energy Matters