LNG's Future - October 25, 2006

LNG's Future - October 25, 2006

In your article on Oct 25th, you write: "Neighborhood groups fear that LNG might congeal and explode."

It's false and misleading statements like this that lead to opposition of LNG terminals. LNG does not congeal (turn to solid) at the conditions a terminal operates at. It is vaporized when it turns from a liquid to a gas to be sent out to natural gas pipelines. The liquid itself is not explosive. Like gasoline, you can put a burning match out in liquid natural gas. The vapors are potentially explosive, but so are the gas lines in many people's homes.

Bill Rooney

The LNG situation brings to my mind the old saw: If we had some ham we would have some ham and eggs if we had some eggs. I suspect that the LNG plants and tankers and terminals cannot even be built before demand for natural gas far exceeds supply.

Don Hirschberg

I'm personally disappointed in your recent piece on LNG in your discussion of environmentalists' concerns about LNG. You don't mention the concerns of environmentalists like my organization that we simply don't need LNG in many places where it's being proposed. We have done a rigorous accounting of the projected additional natural gas demand in California and compared that projection to the planned additions of energy efficiency and renewable energy (under state goals or mandates) and found that California simply doesn't need any LNG to meet additional natural gas demand through 2016 and later.

As a backup plan, if the states goals and mandates are not met, there is a very large LNG plant already being built in Baja California that will send additional supplies to California and the rest of the Southwest. This plant is being built today at one billion cubic feet per day, but is slated to be increased to 2.5 billion cubic feet per day. With half of that supply planned for California, 1.25 billion cubic feet per day is far more than the additional natural gas demand projected for California through the next few decades. As another component to the backup plan, domestic production of natural gas is projected to increase over the next decade.

Nationally, LNG advocates are not basing their analysis on those sources of information considered impartial. The Energy Information Administration, considered a very conservative and cautious organization, projects an annual average 0.69% increase through 2025 for all domestic sources of natural gas. This increase in production is projected to more than satisfy the potential decline in imports from Canada.

A recent report from four attorneys general in the Midwest found that the recent price increases for natural gas were due in part to speculative trading and manipulation, not fundamentals. The fact is that U.S. natural gas demand has remained level for the last decade, as supplies have remained level.

In terms of the bigger picture, looking ahead more than the next decade or two, it should be clear to all rational people today that we need to massively invest in renewable energy and energy efficiency and not replace one fossil fuel dependency with another. LNG import terminals, by definition, are increasing our energy dependence.

Last, a recent study completed by researchers at Carnegie Mellon University found that greenhouse gas emissions from LNG were about the same as emissions for coal power. This is a startling conclusion because most analysts assume that natural gas and LNG are similar in terms of their GHG emissions. This is patently not the case because of the much longer supply chain for LNG. It takes large amounts of energy to liquefy, ship and regasify LNG, which is where the additional GHG emissions come from.

As California and other states, and eventually the federal government, begin to regulate GHGs, it will become even more clear that LNG is not the way to go.

Tam Hunt
Energy Program Director
Community Environmental Council

At this moment, the existing LNG terminal in Lake Charles, LA has been expanded, and two more LNG terminals are under construction on the Calcasieu River between Lake Charles and the Gulf of Mexico. Three more LNG terminals are under construction at the mouth of the Sabine River in Port Arthur, Texas. Another LNG terminal is under construction at the mouth of the Brazos River in Freeport, Texas. Three more LNG terminals are either under construction or in the final stages of permitting in Corpus Christi, Texas. And if it wasn't for BP's hideous safety and environmental image, another LNG terminal would be under construction in Galveston, Texas. In other words, that `stiff opposition' to LNG terminals is very regional in nature.

Gordon M. Combs
Executive Consultant
Stone & Webster Management Consultants, Inc.

Regarding the October 25, 2006 article titled "LNG's Future" I would like to comment on several points that might prove to be misleading and cause further misunderstanding on the part of the public and those not familiar with LNG. Some of the statements in your article could contribute to and perpetuate the misinformation about LNG already being passed off to the public by opponents to the projects that you mention. As a consulting/engineering company focused on the LNG industry, CHIV International works hard to provide factual history, information and data about LNG to counter the exaggerated scare tactics of the opponents.

First, referring to LNG as "frozen natural gas" is not accurate. No more so then calling water "frozen steam". Both are condensed liquid forms of the basic chemical compounds (H2O and CH4).

Second, several paragraphs later you say, "Neighborhood groups fear that LNG might congeal and explode". To set the record straight; at the temperature and pressures that LNG is transported and handled it is a low viscosity clear liquid, similar in appearance to water, and there is no possibility that it will "congeal". Once the liquid is vaporized, by adding heat, it again becomes the gas fuel that we are familiar with and has all of the inherent safety concerns associated with transportation and use of natural gas. It is only in its vaporized form and when mixed with the right amount of air (oxygen) in a confined space and with an ignition source present that an explosion is even possible. The industry works hard to assure that these conditions can not exist in any LNG import terminal. Natural gas has long been a convenient form of energy and through utility networks is piped into millions of homes and businesses throughout North America.

I would also like to note in your discussion about the new LNG import facilities under construction and being proposed in Canada and near the U.S. border in Mexico (not mentioned in the article) are supplying natural gas markets within those countries as well as sending gas to the Northeast U.S. and Southern California utility markets respectively. As such, they can not be counted on as long term natural gas supply for the U.S. as local needs may eventually absorb this capacity.

Lastly, I take exception to your statement in the last paragraph "proponents of LNG say that it will prove itself to be a viable and safe commodity that can help fill this nations energy needs." I believe the LNG industry (including over 100 LNG utility peak shaving plants), and specifically the LNG import terminals here in the U.S. with over 35 years of operating history have already proven this commodity is a viable and safe source of additional natural gas to help meet the country's energy needs.

James A. Kelly P.E.
CH IV International

For far more extensive news on the energy/power visit: http://www.energycentral.com .