Talk:Liquefied natural gas/Archive 1

Archive 1

Höegh LNG

Another external link for LNG transportation is:

Höegh LNG (LNG ship operator) at www.hoeghlng.com

You can leave up all the free publicity for this company but please take down all references to me. I already told you I dont want to have anything to do with this anti-business, double standards, hypocritical website.

Cheniere Energy

Please stop adding Cheniere Energy. This article is about the entire WORLD, and what LNG is, it is not a place to promote your favorite stock, or where you work. If you want to add a NEW section at the bottom and talk about ALL of the regasification plants around the world, not just the ONES in Sabine Pass, Freeport, or Corpus Christi! Also talk about ALL the companies involved in putting up new terminals, or adding to existing terminals.

Here is a partial list of just the proposed North American terminals to get you started:

• LNG Terminal Operator Initial Capacity - LNG per day
• Sabine Pass - Cameron Parish, La. Sabine Pass LNG LP 2.6 billion cubic feet
• Sabine Pass, Jefferson County, Texas Golden Pass LNG Terminal LP (ExxonMobil) 1 billion cubic feet per day (bcfd)
• Energia Costa Azul LNG receiving terminal - Baja California, Mexico Sempra Energy 500 million cubic feet
• Cameron LNG - Hackberry, La. Sempra Energy 1.5 billion cubic feet
• Gloucester County, New Jersey BP
• Lake Charles, Louisiana (EXPANSION) Trunkline LNG Company (Southern Union Company) 1.2 Bcf/d
• Tijuana Marathon 750 million cubic feet
• Tijuana ChevronTexaco
• Port Pelican, Lousiana Port Pelican LLC (ChevronTexaco) 1.6 Bcf/d
• Everett, Massachusetts Distrigas (Tractebel) 600 million cubic feet
• Radio Island, NC El Paso Corporation 300 million cubic feet
• Bahamas El Paso Corporation 500 million cubic feet
• Altamira, Mexico El Paso Corporation and Shell Gas & Power 1.3 Bcf/d

I want to see FAIR and EQUAL treament or I will submit the article to be LOCKED, and you will not be able to edit it. If you want to create a new article about Cheniere Energy and then have a reference in that article to LNG for an explination of what it is, that is fine. WikiDon 22:56, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What I know about LNG terminals in the U.S.

Here is what I know about LNG regasification terminals serving the U.S.:

• 1) There are five LNG regasification terminals operating in the United States:
  • Everett, MA : 1.035 Bcfd (Tractebel - DOMAC)
  • Cove Point, MD : 1.0 Bcfd (Dominion - Cove Point LNG)
  • Elba Island, GA : 0.68 Bcfd (El Paso - Southern LNG)
  • Lake Charles, LA : 1.0 Bcfd (Southern Union - Trunkline LNG)
  • Gulf of Mexico: 0.5 Bcfd, (Gulf Gateway Energy Bridge - Excelerate Energy)

• 2) It is easier for an existing terminal to expand, and receive approvals, than it is for a new terminal to be built.

• 3) As of 17 June 2005 eight FERC applications have been approved:
  • Lake Charles, LA: 1.1 Bcfd (Southern Union - Trunkline LNG)
  • Hackberry, LA : 1.5 Bcfd, (Sempra Energy)
  • Bahamas : 0.84 Bcfd, (AES Ocean Express)*
  • Bahamas : 0.83 Bcfd, (Calypso Tractebel)*
  • Freeport, TX : 1.5 Bcfd, (Cheniere/Freeport LNG Dev.)
  • Sabine, LA : 2.6 Bcfd (Cheniere LNG)
  • Elba Island, GA: 0.54 Bcfd (El Paso - Southern LNG)
  • Corpus Christi, TX: 2.6 Bcfd, (Cheniere LNG)

*_{US pipeline approved; LNG terminal pending in Bahamas}

(Lets do some math 5+8=13 3/13 = 23% for Cheniere, besides you should use capacity, it would benefit Cheniere more anyway.)

• 4) You say five, this is incorrect information, misleading, and/or outright deception.

• 5) Just because a company has received FERC approval does not mean that a terminal will be built. The local community still has the right to reject a plan. The Coast Guard has FINAL say on all plans, after the FERC approval. Also a company may still decide not to build it if they can't sell the capacity and are not planning to use it for their own LNG>

• • FROM Cheniere’s most recent 424B5 (03-December-2004):
    • ”In addition to FERC authorization under Section 3 of the NGA, our construction and operation of LNG receiving terminals is also subject to additional federal permits, approvals and consultations required by certain other federal agencies, including: Advisory Counsel on Historic Preservation, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Services, U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
      Our LNG receiving terminals will also be subject to U.S. Department of Transportation siting requirements and regulations of the U.S. Coast Guard relating to facility security. Moreover, our LNG receiving terminals will also be subject to local and state laws, rules and regulations.”

• 6) In addition to the eight above, two more have passed on through the MARAD/Coast Guard approval process:
  • Port Pelican: 1.6 Bcfd, (Chevron Texaco)
  • Louisiana Offshore : 1.0 Bcfd (Gulf Landing - Shell)

• 7) In addition to plants in the U.S., LNG can also be brought to Mexico and Canada and then piped in the form of natural gas to markets in the U.S., there are five such plants approved in Canada and Mexico:
  • St. John, NB : 1.0 Bcfd, (Canaport - Irving Oil)
  • Point Tupper, NS 1.0 Bcf/d (Bear Head LNG - Anadarko)
  • Altamira, Tamulipas : 0.7 Bcfd, (Shell/Total/Mitsui)
  • Baja California, MX : 1.0 Bcfd, (Sempra & Shell)
  • Baja California - Offshore : 1.4 Bcfd, (Chevron Texaco)

(Back to the math room: 7+13=20 3/20 = 15%)

• 8) The regulatory hurdles for these plants may be less than in the U.S.,
  • A) Due to local population density in Canada and their local economy.
  • B) Due to standards that may be lower and economic conditions in Mexico.

• 9) In addition to the above-mentioned plants, there are 23 more plants that have submitted for applications from either FERC or MARAD/COAST GUARD:
  • Fall River, MA : 0.8 Bcfd, (Weaver's Cove Energy/Hess LNG)
  • Long Beach, CA : 0.7 Bcfd, (Mitsubishi/ConocoPhillips - Sound Energy Solutions
  • Corpus Christi, TX : 1.0 Bcfd (Vista Del Sol - ExxonMobil)
  • Sabine, TX : 1.0 Bcfd (Golden Pass - ExxonMobil)
  • Logan Township, NJ : 1.2 Bcfd (Crown Landing LNG - BP)
  • Bahamas : 0.5 Bcfd, (Seafarer - El Paso/FPL )
  • Corpus Christi, TX: 1.0 Bcfd (Ingleside Energy - Occidental Energy Ventures)
  • Providence, RI : 0.5 Bcfd (Keyspan & BG LNG)
  • Port Arthur, TX: 1.5 Bcfd (Sempra)
  • Cove Point, MD : 0.8 Bcfd (Dominion)
  • LI Sound, NY: 1.0 Bcfd (Broadwater Energy - TransCanada/Shell)
  • Pascagoula, MS: 1.0 Bcfd (Gulf LNG Energy LLC)
  • Astoria, OR: 1.0 Bcfd (Northern Star LNG - Northern Star Natural Gas LLC)
  • Pascagoula, MS: 1.3 Bcfd (Casotte Landing - ChevronTexaco)
  • Cameron, LA: 3.3 Bcfd (Creole Trail LNG - Cheniere LNG)
  • Port Lavaca, TX: 1.0 Bcfd (Calhoun LNG - Gulf Coast LNG Partners)
  • California Offshore: 1.5 Bcfd (Cabrillo Port - BHP Billiton)
  • So. California Offshore : 0.5 Bcfd, (Crystal Energy)
  • Louisiana Offshore : 1.0 Bcfd (Main Pass McMoRan Exp.)
  • Gulf of Mexico: 1.0 Bcfd (Compass Port - ConocoPhillips)
  • Gulf of Mexico: 2.8 Bcfd (Pearl Crossing - ExxonMobil)
  • Gulf of Mexico: 1.5 Bcfd (Beacon Port Clean Energy Terminal - ConocoPhillips)
  • Offshore Boston, MA: 0.4 Bcfd (Neptune LNG - Tractebel)

• 10) If you look at some of the names on all the lists that I have provided, you will notice some with vastly larger financial resources than Cheniere. Additionally you say: “NONE of those companies you list has both an approved terminal and sufficient capacity deals lined up to merit construction! Only Cheniere does!” But what these companies do have is hugh financial resources, they can BUY the companies that obtian approval just by opening the checkbook. I will only cite one for further demonstration:
  • ExxonMobil has $18.5 billion in cash.
  • Not to mention Shell, BP, etc., etc., etc.

• 11) FROM Cheniere’s most recent 424B5 (03-December-2004):

• • “There are many companies looking to build infrastructure in the domestic LNG market, including, without limitation, major oil and gas companies such as ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, Royal Dutch/Shell and ChevronTexaco. Other energy companies such as Sempra, Tractebel, McMoRan Exploration, AES, Excelerate Energy and other public and private companies have also proposed facilities, both onshore and offshore. Almost all of our competitors have longer operating histories, more development experience, greater name recognition, larger staffs and substantially greater financial, technical and marketing resources than we do. The superior resources that these competitors have available to deploy could allow them to surpass us in terms of the status of their LNG receiving terminal development projects. Among other things, these competitors may not have to rely on external financing to the same extent we do, if at all. Industry analysts have predicted that if all of the proposed LNG receiving terminals in North America that have been announced by developers were actually built, there would likely be substantial excess capacity for such terminals in the future. Accordingly, there is a substantial risk that slower-paced LNG receiving terminal development projects may never be completed. Any perception in the LNG receiving terminal marketplace that we may be unable to complete our proposed LNG receiving terminals, because competing projects are further along in their development or otherwise, could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects.
    
    In addition, our proposed LNG receiving terminals will likely continue to face competition when and if they are completed. If the number of LNG receiving terminals built outstrips demand, the excess capacity will likely lead to a decrease in the prices that we will be able to obtain for uncommitted amounts of our regasification services. Because of the substantial likelihood that we will have significant debt service obligations, any such price decreases would impact us more severely than our competitors with greater financial resources. Accordingly potential overcapacity in the LNG receiving terminal marketplace could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects.”

• 12) The U.S. Government could adopt an National Energy Policy that promotes other forms of energy, financially impacting LNG and Cheniere. FROM Cheniere’s most recent 424B5 (03-December-2004):
  • “The failure of LNG to become a competitive supply alternative to domestic natural gas, oil and other import alternatives could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects.”

• 13) Statement from FERC:
  • “How many projects might be built?
    "There are about 40 LNG terminals that are either before FERC or being discussed by the LNG industry for North America. Six terminals are already operating on the East Coast, Puerto Rico and Alaska.
    
    Currently, there are 16 facilities under FERC jurisdiction in the continental US. Twelve of the facilities are land-based, peak-shaving plants that liquefy and store LNG during the summer (low demand) months for sendout during winter (high demand) months. The remainder are baseload LNG import terminals, which are the focus of this LNG section.
    
    Any LNG terminal project that is approved must also obtain approvals and permits from other federal and state agencies before construction can begin. These permits and approvals include Coastal Zone Management Act, Section 404 water quality certificate, and a Section 404 dredging permit.
    
    The market ultimately determines whether an approved LNG terminal is ever built. Even if an LNG terminal project receives all of the federal and state approvals, it still must meet complicated global issues surrounding financing, gas supply and market conditions. Many industry analysts predict that only 12 of the 40 LNG terminals being considered will ever be built.”

• 14) CONCLUSION:
  • A) If you want to write an article about LNG regasification terminal plants in the United States, inlcude ALL OF THEM, not just the one you think will be the winner.
  • FINALLY) Do not attack me personally, I will delete those comments. Just submit and cite verifiable facts. You have no right to attack me, say what I think, and say what I know. Let the facts speak and stand for themselves. Based just on the facts that you have submitted, you sir, are either misinformed or you are a liar.

• 15) Sources:
  • http://www.ferc.gov
  • http://www.sec.gov

Moved from Royal Dutch Shell

I'd like to see some examples of unrefined gas being piped ashore, especially if it is done in inhabited areas.

Lapsed Pacifist 06:53, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The [www.soep.com/ Sable Offshore Energy Project ] comes to mind. Also, much of the Gulf Coast gas comes ashore through pipelines, but I don't know which specific prospects are refined onshore. Offshore gas processing is usually done when it is cheaper than doing it onshore, usually it is cheaper to process onshore. In some countries offshore prospects fall under federal jurisdiction instead of local jurisdiction, if local regulations are too demanding, they may opt to process offshore. In some environmental aspects force offshore production, icebergs in northern regions are a good example of this. I will be happy to come back in a couple of weeks if you want more info. --129.173.105.28 13:23, 12 August 2005 (UTC) Does any one know what SHELL stands for??

There's another gas rig in Ireland, off the south coast, where it's processed offshore. Does the Nova Scotia pipeline go through an inhabited area?

Lapsed Pacifist 18:06, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes --129.173.105.28 19:41, 13 August 2005 (UTC) I am guessing this is a contentious issue in the community. Some things to consider: Where is the field located in the south in relation to land. I used to live in Alberta, and I can tell you that unprocessed gas is not always refined at source. It can move through hundreds of kilometres of pipe before it gets to a refinery. I'm only changing things based on the facts I know. It is more expensive to build a processing facility offshore than onshore, until you consider things like political climate onshore and some other factors.--129.173.105.28 19:45, 13 August 2005 (UTC) I just improved the Corrib field article. It is a small field 1 TCF; this may be the reason why they are processing it onshore.

The Corrib field is not that much smaller, 70% of the Kinsale volume according to http://www.offshore-technology.com/projects/corrib/. I'm just wondering if it's common to transport unrefined gas through inhabited areas. The Kinsale field is 50km from land. Both are in the jurisdiction of the Republic.

Lapsed Pacifist 22:02, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

To many in the energy industry a 1 TCF gas deposit ofshore would be considered small. I did not mean small compared to Kinsale. I already aswered your other question, yes it is common to process gas from offshore developments onshore. Take a look through the pages I linked to in the Corrib field wiki page, and see how many are processed onshore. FYI - the SOEP fields are ~200 km offshore and are processed onshore. The gas at Corrib appears to be sweet, with little H2S contamination. Refining then piping it won't change what goes through the pipes significantly. --129.173.105.28 18:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

The main issues seem to be the lack of ethanethiol or a similar chemical to warn of any leak, and the high pressure the unrefined gas is being piped at, compared to its pressure when it is refined, which the residents of Rossport consider significant. When I asked how common it is to refine onshore, I was looking for a ratio, i.e. are half of refineries for offshore gas onshore? A quarter? And what proportion of these have the gas piped through inhabited areas?

Lapsed Pacifist 18:42, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

129.173.105.28 has provided you with a link where you could put together the statistics and work out your own ratio; browsing through the site I can quickly see that there are many projects where gas is refined onshore. There are hundreds of offshore gas projects, you are asking someone else to do a significant amount of work for you. Based on your edits you I feel you have a POV on the issue. Can you provide the actual numbers for the pressures. All gas pipelines are "high pressured". --Csnewton 19:45, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm given to understand that the pressure is much higher before the gas is refined. I'm not looking for exact offshore/onshore or inhabited areas/uninhabited areas ratios, a rough estimate from someone more familiar with the industry would suit me fine. Based on my edits, exactly what POV do you think I have?

Lapsed Pacifist 05:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think many people would have a rough estimate of the numbers you are looking for. You could try asking other places in wikipedia. You seem to be searching relentlessly for evidence that onshore refining is not the norm or common. The pressure of a pipeline depends on its use. For instance, a transport pipeline for refined gas would likely be at a similar pressure to the pipeline originating at the platform. A distribution pipeline would have less pressure. --Csnewton 12:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC) The pressures in all gas pipelines are decided by the desired flowrate, the gas consistency and the terrain over which they must pass. Unrefined NGL is sent by underground pipeline from St Fergus to Mossmorran a total of 212km. It passes close to many properties and nearby Aberdeen and Perth. There is no odoriser and the pressure in the pipe at it highest (lowest elevation) is similar (probably greater) to Corrib. Unprocessed gas arives at St Fergus and at Bacton in the UK from offshore. Unprocessed gas is collected thoughout Northern Netherlands from the Gronigen field and piped through hundreds of km of flow lines to gathering stations. There is no change in the safety position for odorised gas compared with unodorised gas. A leak remains equally likely and equally problematical. Use of odoriser would provide little value.--Rjstott 03:48, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Surely the odoriser would warn anyone near the pipe that there was a leak?

Lapsed Pacifist 06:00, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Given the number of explosions in houses caused by leaking gas where odoriser is obviously present it seem that detection by smell isn't effective and too late by far to have any purpose. As the pipeline passes through a largely unpopulated area detection by smell is not somethin any responsible operator would rely on. It is much more important that all precautions are taken to ensure the pipeline is properly maintained and protected. Other important safety solutions requires leak detection, the capability to shut down, isolate, depressurise and act quickly. All responsible Gas pipeline operators will have clear plans in any emergency which will be regularly tested.

That's fair enough. Should'nt blast radius be a factor if the pipe passes close to houses, though?

Lapsed Pacifist 04:12, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

The radius is quite small even for gas mixed at precisely the right proportions. Gas explosions are also considered soft (slow), especially unless constrained. At around 50 metres from a gas release point, there is considered to be little risk of ignition. However, lots of factors need to be considered such as prevailing wind and weather, terrain, pressure, leak size, pipe depth, leak detection capability, temperature etc. This discussion would be better on the LNG talk page if it is to have any general value.--Rjstott 10:30, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Royal_Dutch_Shell"

I don't know what relevance this has to LNG ! Most of the above section seems to relate to offshore natural gas refining and pipeline transport, and not at all specifically to LNG.

Mark

Heat value

Can somebody add to the article typical heat values for LNG? For a fuel, this is absolutely necessary info. Metric units would be fine, but BTU's/ft3 are OK too. --FocalPoint 13:36, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

40MJ/Sm3 higher heating value would be pretty close to the mark

Correction

The Staten Island Incident and Fluxys LNG incidents were not due to leaks of LNG. Other fire/explosion incidents have occurred that were due to leaks of LNG, but not these.

No one is sure what caused the Staten Island incident but it was not LNG. The tank contained no LNG at the time when the explosion occurred. LNG remains in its liquid form only when its temperature is below -160C. At these temperatures, it is quite impossible for any residual LNG to have been in the tank while workers were also present. A more likely explanation is that the explosion was due to ignition of vapours from solvents that were being used in connection with repair of the lining of the tank.

The Fluxys incident was an explosion at a gas pipeline, not an LNG pipeline. "Fluxys LNG" is simply the name of the company that operated the pipeline.

Grammar and Style

The article reads like it was translated from another language. There is strange use of the words "the" and "a". Article needs rewrite. Also, safety issues need a separate section. Questions: Have valid concerns about LNG terminals in populated areas been diluted by blanket opposition to LNG? Would absolute opponents of LNG prefer the gas was just flared off in Iran and Nigeria? Isn't methane lighter than air, so it would float away? Can emergency flaring (with acceptable equipment damage) mitigate the dangers caused by ruptured pipes, etc? Anthony717 21:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Non US Plants

Seems to me that this argument shouldn't centre around the small US market. The article is about LNG and this is a worldwide subject with most plants operating outside domestic US. Cherniere is a very small player when compared with the worldwide market and expertise. It is a tiny player in the petrochemical field and given that it hasn't any resources can only be considered an operator. It doesn't yet seem to have an LNG plant?

This article certainly isn't the place to make a case for investment in the future. I agree with Wikidon that if you want to have an article about Cherniere then by all means do so. I think it would be fair for Wikidon to rank the position of all operating companies and we can see the amount of work that needs to be done before it is worth considering Cherniere as a player.

Finally please annotate comments on this page with a signature so that it is easier for others to follow the argument. --Rjstott 03:57, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I added three proposed LNG-terminals in the Netherlands which will probably play a role for the entire European continent in future. I added another one in France about which I read some news. I invite other wikipedians to submit other (proposed) terminals in THEIR countries, so the list becomes less Netherlands centred. --Dengo 21:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

A ton of tons

What in the world are "tons" in the table in this article? Gene Nygaard 12:49, 18 August 2005 (UTC) The world trade LNG in metric tons - MT. Everything needs to be converted to MT to get a value - in particular here, as this is long term contracts only - 20 years. --KH Flottorp 18:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Reasons for deleting 6 external links

In agreement with the External links cleanup tag, I removed 6 external links. The DOE Alternate Fuels Data Center link had very little if any useful content. The Ventura LNG Task Force link was dead. The four links to (a) LNG Law Blog, (b) Poten & Partners, (c) LNG Line and (d)Transport in Small LNG Ships all had very liuttle useful content and appeared to be mostly advertising of their wares.

After deleting the above 6 links, I also deleted the External links cleanup tag because I felt that it was then no longer warranted. - mbeychok 04:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I work on the LNGLawBlog. LNGLawBlog is a free, neutral news source designed to inform readers about LNG terminals, transport, technology, and safety and security. The Blog speaks to many of the non-chemical aspects raised in the article, including North American terminal development discussed on this page, so it's a helpful resource for Wikipedia readers, and it's updated daily so the information is current. Approximately 400 people visit LNGLawBlog every day and over 800 receive a free Daily Headlines email. I believe LNGLawBlog should be included as an External Link to augment the article, and have reposted the link. Abc7678 16:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

(proposed) LNG-terminals

I feel that the list of (proposed) LNG terminals is very biassed (partly my own doing, I admit). It seems the list is not complete by far. If it were, it would take over the article. Woulnd't it be wiser to establish a list of LNG terminals and link to that here?--Dengo 12:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The LNG article is a bit too long, and separating the list of terminals would be useful. Perhaps divided up like this?

• LNGterminals-importing-existing
• LNGterminals-importing-proposed
• LNGterminals-exporting-existing
• LNGterminals-exporting-proposed

(not too sure what naming convention should be followed here) PeterHewett 22:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

See new page List of LNG terminals. PeterHewett 08:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Environmental Impact

Surely there should be something about the controversy that LNG is causing - it is marketed as an environmentally friendly fuel source, like domestic natural gas, when in fact due to the techniques used to extract/process it it deffinatly is not. Environmental groups are fighting its adoption as an engery source or even being transported through California.pacific environment campaign against LNG

Wikipedia articles should be factual and unbiased. You are entitled to your opinion but please ensure wiki articles are neutral and objective.PeterHewett 07:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Liquefied natural gas/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

It would be helpful to have information about anticipated continuity of LNG supply -- extraction rates, proven and probable reserves, projected cost of extraction etc. 59.144.1.19 (talk) 04:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 04:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 15:16, 1 May 2016 (UTC)