 |
LNG: |
|
|
LNG: |
|
|
associated with an alternative fuel that's coming to California. – KNBC LISTEN UP! NOW HEAR THIS! FREMONT NORTH CANNOT WIN! In its formal application for Clearwater Port, a liquefied natural gas (LNG) regasification project at Platform Grace, NorthernStar Natural Gas Inc. would route 36-inch, 1,200 psi pipelines next to our neighborhood. One of these, marked in red on the map, begins at the Mandalay Power Plant. It doglegs on Harbor Blvd. and crosses the fields eastward to Victoria Ave. where it travels north to Gonzales Rd., turns right and goes all the way to Del Norte Blvd. The other possibility starts out the same way but continues to Doris Ave./Camino del Sol eastward to Del Norte. Please understand that there are high-pressure natural gas pipelines all over Oxnard. These are 8- to 12-inch pipes under 250 psi or less according to Ken Ortega, Oxnard's Public Works Director. A 36-inch, 1,150 psi line is a whole 'nother thing! All the proposed pipelines start off using City of Oxnard rights of way. Our City Fathers could simply say "no" right now thereby saving NorthernStar a lot of money and us horrendous dangers.  NorthernStar's full-scheme proposed pipeline map. |
|
|
PICTURE THIS HOLE AT GONZALES AND VENTURA! This 30-inch natural gas pipeline took out 12 campers in the desert. How many folks would perish, how many people burned, disfigured, and otherwise injured, were this to occur in Oxnard?  NorthernStar Natural Gas Inc. took over Crystal Energy's Clearwater Port proposal. One of their options is to run a high-pressure natural gas pipeline from the Mandalay power plant area across Gonzales Road to Del Norte Blvd. and then north to the gas pumping station north of Mesa School. This means thousands of Oxnard residents would be in constant danger from potential explosions as pictured above. The Ventura County Fire Chief has publicly stated that there are an average of six (6) natural gas pipeline accidents each month somewhere in our county. Why do we humans persist in pursuing the most dangerous methods of energy production? Southern California deserts are capable of producing enough electricty to power all energy needs (24/7/365) in the Continental United States via commercial solar operations! This technology exists: Small such electricty generating plants are now being constructed, others have been running for 20 years or so. The only real deterrents are cost and slow returns on investment. Just as with personal computers (the original IBM 8086 PC cost $4,000) these costs and returns will greatly improve as their use widens. Let's 'Go Solar' thereby saving our planet and, incidentally, saving thousands of human lives! Corrosion of Natural Gas Pipeline Rupture and Fire Near Carlsbad, New Mexico, Aug. 19, 2000 Accident Synopsis: At 5:26 a.m., mountain daylight time, on Saturday, August 19, 2000, a 30-inch diameter natural gas transmission pipeline operated by El Paso Natural Gas Company (EPNG) ruptured adjacent to the Pecos River near Carlsbad, New Mexico. The released gas ignited and burned for 55 minutes. Twelve persons who were camping under a concrete-decked steel bridge that supported the pipeline across the river were killed and their three vehicles destroyed. Two nearby steel suspension bridges for gas pipelines crossing the river were extensively damaged. According to EPNGS property and other damages or losses totaled $998,296.
|
|
Turning Energy Uncertainty Into Opportunity "I think the most effective way to deal with carbon pollution is to have a carbon tax." High energy prices, the search for new power sources and uncertainties over future national policies offer power companies challenges as well as opportunities. Sempra Energy, a holding company that operates two Southern California utilities, is investing heavily in a giant new gas pipeline extending from the Colorado Rockies to Ohio. The company is also building two liquefied natural gas terminals, one in Baja California in Mexico and the other in Louisiana. Such investments mean Sempra is poised to gain as the country hesitates to build new coal-fired power plants and embraces natural gas. But rising commodity prices and labor costs also carry risks for future profits. Donald E. Felsinger, who has been Sempra’s chairman and chief executive since February 2006, directs all strategic operations. Mr. Felsinger has been a leader in the industry in his warnings on global warming. He recently discussed energy policy and what consumers can expect. Following are excerpts from that interview. — New York Times – 20080503 Report: Higher natural gas prices on horizon "The only avenue for arbitrage of natural gas prices between the U.S. and the rest of the world is a sharp reduction in LNG imports," the report said. U.S. natural gas prices are poised to head higher over the long term when commercial demand increases, according to a report by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. "Higher oil prices, several cold spells, seasonal gains in demand, reduced inventories and expectations of increasing natural gas use to generate electricity are continuing to push prices upward," the bank said in its first-quarter energy report. Nonetheless, domestic prices are still depressed compared to the fast-rising prices commanded on the international market for liquefied natural gas, which is selling for $18 to $19 per million cubic feet, about twice the domestic Henry Hub price. "The only avenue for arbitrage of natural gas prices between the U.S. and the rest of the world is a sharp reduction in LNG imports," the report said. But in the long term, the report suggests that higher prices for domestic supplies are in the cards as the effects of the economic downturn fade and U.S. manufacturing activity increases. — Sacramento Business Journal – 200805021413 Is LNG flame burning out? Critics say liquefied natural gas is difficult to secure, expensive to produce and not much cleaner than coal-generated power Domestic production of natural gas is falling as demand continues to shoot up, a situation that over the past few years has positioned liquefied natural gas as an energy saviour. Have no fear, the industry has argued, there are massive reserves of clean-burning natural gas around the world just begging to be tapped. If that gas can be cooled to the point where it becomes a liquid, is shipped across the ocean to North America and turned back into a gas, then worries about domestic shortages become a non-issue in the context of global supply. LNG, according to a recent white paper from the Canadian Gas Association, "is becoming an increasingly effective part of the Canadian and Ontario natural gas supply bundle." Such overseas supply will meet 15 per cent of North American natural gas demand by 2020. The National Energy Board, at the same time it announced an anticipated 15 per cent decline in domestic natural gas production between 2007 and 2009, confidently asserted last October that over the long term, "Canadians should rest assured" that their natural gas needs will be met as unconventional sources, including LNG, enter the market. Or maybe not. — Toronto Star – 200804120130 What's behind LNG proposals Commentary by Thomas Elias Take a good look at the leading advocates of the three major proposals to build multibillion-dollar liquefied natural gas receiving facilities in California and you can't help wondering about state agency decisions that make those plans seem feasible. That's because some of the same people who made or recommended key LNG reports and rulings by the state Energy and Public Utilities commissions are now leading players in bids enabled by those decisions. No one knows if there are any quid pro quos at work here, secret promises made by companies to important regulators for high-paying jobs if they make the decisions those companies want, decisions that promise tens of billions of dollars in corporate profits over 30 years or more if they are allowed to persist. But it's very clear where some key players have landed. Most obvious is Joseph Desmond, who was Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's choice to chair the Energy Commission in 2004 and served as Schwarzenegger's deputy resources secretary for energy after the state Senate refused to approve his nomination. Desmond put in a full year as commission chairman before he was thrown out and during that time, the commission issued a report saying California will soon need LNG, a conclusion far more urgent than any projection of the federal Department of Energy. — Press-Telegram – 20080410 FERC doesn't have last word on LNG terminal safety Analysis by Hans Laetz While the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) says the Energy Policy Act of 2005 gives it supreme authority over safety issues surrounding liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals, U.S. states actually do have the legal authority through the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) to prevent unsafe LNG terminal siting, according to the LNG Terminal Siting Standards Organization (LNGTSS). In a recently published white paper, LNGTSS notes that shoreside LNG terminal projects require permitting from several sources, including FERC, state agencies, Army Corps of Engineers and, though not technically a permit, the U.S. Coast Guard. States' permitting authority is for air and water quality, as provided by NEPA, as well as coastal zone management. The air and water quality permitting are the trump cards that states hold over terminal siting. "FERC wants the public to believe that they are the ultimate determiner of what new LNG facilities will be built. The truth is that they are one of only many determiners," said Robert Godfrey, an LNGTSS representative. — California LNG News – 200803271344 Remember BHP BIlliton? And their reliable LNG? Here's some news from Houston Analysis by Hans Laetz It's hard not to laugh at what's happening in the Gulf of Mexico, where the Australian oil company that once promised "safe and clean" fossil fuels for the U.S. from an LNG barge 13 miles off the California coast is once again in trouble. BHP Billiton has discovered "hull anomalies" in a floating, offshore oil rig called Neptune -- its $850 million natural gas and oil pumper that is already stationed in the Gulf of Mexico some 120 miles off the Texas-Louisiana coast. BHPB had to slam on the brakes at this project, which is nearly completed and ready to pump oil, and evacuate its crew while the mysterious "hull anomalies" were investigated. The trade publications that cover the oil world have yet to find out exactly what the anomalies are, but they were serious enough to seriously delay an oil project at a time that oil is selling for $110 a barrel. — California LNG News – 200803260952 Instead of fossil fuels, invest dollars in clean-energy supplies Commentary by Rory Cox and Robert Freehling Re: Joe Desmond's March 2 commentary, "Radicals, energy policy don't mix." Pacific Environment has just published a new report called "Collision Course" that makes a case for what is really common sense: California cannot reduce greenhouse gases while at the same time increasing its commitment to consuming fossil fuels. Importing liquefied natural gas from overseas would be a huge commitment, tying us to long-term fossil-fuel purchase contracts amounting to many billions of dollars. A better choice is to invest these same dollars in clean energy, and state law already commits us to do this. The main problem is that many people think that needing energy means that this need must be met with fossil fuels. But there are other options. — Ventura County Star – 20080311 Oregon Governor wants LNG answers Liquefied natural gas continues to be a hard-fought concept on the Oregon Coast, with appeals to recent landuse decisions now at the state level and the governor asking federal regulators to study whether such facilities are really needed before allowing them to be sited here. After an anti-LNG rally at the statehouse on Feb. 6, Gov. Ted Kulongoski drafted a letter to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, expressing concern about whether the resource is needed in the Pacific Northwest. "While I am not unalterably opposed to the LNG resource being part of the Oregon energy mix, the failure of the permitting process to address whether there is sufficient demand and need for LNG in this region is a serious shortcoming of the FERC permitting process," Kulongoski wrote to FERC chairman Joseph Kelliher on Feb. 14. — Register-Guard – 20080303 LNG harmful energy choice, group says In a full-frontal attack on the dozen liquefied natural gas terminals proposed along the coast of California and Oregon, a Bay Area environmental group says the purported "clean energy" is as bad as coal and will harm the state's much-vaunted push to cut greenhouse gases in the coming decades. The authors of the report — "Collision Course: How Imported Liquefied Natural Gas Will Undermine Clean Energy in California" — said Tuesday that importing the superchilled fuel is too costly, will cause too much pollution and ultimately, they say, the fuel is unnecessary. "LNG is the wrong choice," said Rory Cox, of Pacific Environment and a co-author of the report with Robert Freehling of the group Local Power. — Ventura County Star – 20080227 • LNG and Clean Energy Laws on Collision Course in Calif. — California Progress Report – 20080227 Japan May Face $3.5 Billion LNG Bill, Paring Profits So much for the "affordability" of LNG locally. Japanese importers of liquefied natural gas may have to pay an extra $3.5 billion to suppliers after fuel prices rose more than expected the past four years, said an official involved in the contract talks. Tokyo Electric Power Co. set aside $371 million to cover the higher costs for the year ending March 31. Osaka Gas Co. spokesman Toru Kinukawa said the utility may owe money to suppliers. Australia's North West Shelf LNG venture is negotiating higher prices with customers, operator Woodside Petroleum Ltd. said. Fuel costs already exceed limits set in gas contracts, said the official, who asked not to be named because of confidentiality agreements. The price for Japan's LNG imports is rising at the fastest pace in at least eight years, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The estimated increase would be 38 percent of last year's profits for Japan's biggest utilities. — Bloomberg – 200802191725 Another LNG ruse from state PUC? Commentary by Thomas Elias When it comes to liquefied natural gas from distant foreign points, the California Public Utilities Commission wants it, and as soon as possible. The agency, designed early in the last century to protect consumers against rapacious utility companies, used deception to reach the 2004 decision that sparked the current round of plans to bring hyper-expensive LNG to the state in the face of federal forecasts indicating there is no need for it in the foreseeable future. Now two companies (Kern River Gas Transmission Co. and Spectra Energy Corp.) actively propose building new pipelines to bring far cheaper domestic natural gas from Wyoming to California, and the state Lands Commission maintains there is no established need to run pipelines across state coastal lands from offshore LNG terminals. Yet, the PUC will apparently spend much of this year on yet another misleading proceeding designed to allow utilities to make big profits on LNG. — Long Beach Press-Telegram – 200802132105 BREAKING: "We have just heard from staff at the State Lands Commission that release of the draft EIR for the Clearwater Port Project is not expected to occur before late Summer or Fall of 2008. There are still significant data gaps that they are waiting for NorthernStar to address." — Karen M. Krause, Staff Attorney, California Environmental Defense Center Coast Guard Can't Defend Woodside LNG Ships in Santa Monica Bay Blue Whales Down Under May Be Adversely Affected by Company's Air Gun Explosions The Australian company that wants to build a liquefied natural gas terminal nearly 22 miles off Malibu is coming under heavy criticism from environmentalists for using underwater explosions to explore for oil and gas in Australia's best-known summer whale habitat. Woodside Petroleum is also under fire for a natural gas processing problem near Perth that disrupted LNG production, and created an electrical crisis in Western Australia, two weeks ago. LNG opponents have seized on that as proof that the reliability of LNG production and transport technology is not certain. And in Washington, a congressional study released last week painted a dismal picture of the nations ability to protect petroleum vessels such as floating LNG terminals from domestic and foreign terrorism. The U.S. Coast Guard agreed that it does not have the resources to adequately protect existing facilities, much less the dozens of LNG terminals now on the drawing boards for U.S. coastlines. The General Accountability Office report cited a half-dozen terrorist attacks on oil carriers, and noted that just three percent of the energy imported into the U.S. via ship is in the form of LNG. But LNG carriers contain a fuel that is more combustible than oil, making them a more attractive target if they grow in number, opponents say. — Malibu Surfside News – 20080117 US LNG tankers vulnerable to attack The powerful US Government Accountability Office has questioned whether the US Coast Guard can adequately monitor the safety of LNG tankers supplying the US. In a special report on maritime security and federal efforts needed to address challenges in preventing and responding to terrorist attacks on energy commodity tankers, the GAO says the Coast Guard lacks the means to meet its own criteria for protecting LNG tankers. The report comes as the US Coast Guard is in the process of assessing Woodside's innovative OceanWay LNG receival proposal off Los Angeles. The GAO study results from the US's heavy dependence on ship-based energy imports and the aftermath of September 11, 2001. The GAO report said the LNG supply chain faced three main types of threat: suicide attacks, such as by explosive-laden boats; "standoff" attack with weapons launched from a distance; and armed assaults. In the past five years, Australia has been stressing to US authorities the safety record of the industry as the US looks to increase LNG imports to meet its growing demand for natural gas. — The Australian – 20080111 • MARITIME SECURITY ... Preventing and Responding to Terrorist Attacks on Energy Commodity Tankers — GAO • U.S. lacks resources to guard LNG tankers — Reuters UK – 20080109 • Sempra puts LNG terminal project on hold — SDU-T – 20080110 Natural gas supply is unreliable Commentary by Thomas Elias For many years, promoters of liquefied natural gas have billed their pet projects as a reliable new potential source of energy for California. So far, they've been stymied in all their efforts to build receiving and rewarming facilities in California for the subfreezing liquid gas they'd like to import from Indonesia, Malaysia, Australia and elsewhere. But no one in California could prevent San Diego-based Sempra Energy from building an LNG plant on the west coast of Baja California, Mexico, just north of Ensenada. About half the gas coming through that facility is earmarked for use in Mexico, mainly to help fuel the many maquiladora factories near the border. Sempra, parent company of both the Southern California Gas Co. and San Diego Gas & Electric Co., wants to bring much of the rest into California and last summer won permission from state authorities to extend its North Baja pipeline to a point near El Centro, from which gas could enter existing lines for use in California and Arizona. — Press-Telegram – 20071129 NorthernStar LNG plan suspended Coast Guard seeks answers to 400 questions Stopping the clock in what was to be an accelerated environmental review process for a proposed offshore liquefied natural gas terminal, the Coast Guard has asked the company behind the Clearwater Port plan to address more than 400 safety and environmental issues before restarting the review. In a letter to Houston-based NorthernStar Natural Gas, Coast Guard and U.S. Maritime Administration officials who oversee deepwater port reviews said the company needed to provide more information on such things as why an offshore natural gas facility is needed and to what extent it would affect the environment. ... A joint state and federal environmental review and risk assessment for the proposal is currently under way. The public weighed in during meetings on issues the environmental review should explore, and the public will have a handful of other opportunities to comment on the proposal. Kira Schmidt, executive director of the Santa Barbara ChannelKeeper environmental group, said the decision to stop the clock was welcome news, giving her organization and others time for a more complete review. Under the accelerated review process, a final decision on the project could have been made by next summer, Schmidt said. That seems highly unlikely now. "Given the number of questions and the depth and difficulty of what was brought up, I don't see how those issues could be addressed in a short time," she said. — Ventura County Star – 20071103
|
|||||
|
Does NorthernStar have the money to build an LNG project? New Sandia Report of 7 Mile LNG Vapor Cloud Leaks in new LNG fleet spur fears MUST READ! USGS Comments on Potential Geologic and Seismic Hazards Affecting Coastal Ventura County, California (USGS)  USCG Standards/Links FERC Gas Pipelines FERC Consequence Assessment Methods for Incidents Involving Releases from LNG Carriers CA Energy Commission CA LNG Projects State Lands Commission Public Utilities Commission NorthernStar's Clearwater Port LNG Law Blog NASA Flywheel Battery Project AFS Trinity Power Corp. (Flywheel Batteries) Pacific Environment's California Energy Program LNG: County caught in the crossfile Decision means natural gas stays high Ventura LNG Task Force LNG: Danger to our Communities LNG-related Links Ratepayers for Affordable, Clean Energy The Methanol Economy LNG no early gas savior A new fuel fix: boon or bane? NPR: Oil vs. Alternatives? Risks/Reward of LNG Competing for Energy Resources, Part 1 Competing for Energy Resources, Part 2 LNG: Energy source, or target? FERC backs bogus study — The bogus study itself (note long disclaimer at beginning!) Hazardous Seas Engineer lays out LNG risks LNG: Impact on Prices LNG liability limited Wildfires, Inversions, and LNG Spills Fiction: How it could happen... US lags on solar Hydrogen closer? Too much LNG?
|
Some quick thoughts and some The current Administration wants more natural gas to meet more than current and anticipated demands. The state likewise is leaning in that direction despite the absolute fact that California has no need for additional natural gas supplies. The Administration wants to fuel its hydrogen power program. Power cells and all that. Well, natural gas, by itself, is a cleaner and safer vehicle fuel than processed hydrogen. Go figure! Some other ponderables:
|
 |
 Firemen try to douse LNG-caused fires at an Algerian reliquefication plant in January 2004. There's no hiding land-based accidents. . .  
The cooling field. Initially thought to have been non-LNG related, officials later confirmed this blast was due to a leaking LNG tank that was ignited by an non-LNG related operation. Well, gee, let's see: Both local proposals have their pipelines entering Oxnard at electric generating plants. Both will have ground level structures for metering and the clean-out pig access. Surely there's not a spark to be found around them! 
 LEFT: Algerian fires at night. CENTER: Fires from an LNG blast rise over Ath, Belgium, on July 30, 2004. RIGHT: Blast pit from Belgium pipeline blast.
| ||||
| Page Originated: 12 Aug 04 | |
|
Fremont North Neighborhood Council / LNG: More Harm Than Help / Webmaster 454,286 |
|
