Energy Bill Lets Feds Override States Rights Again on LNG Terminals!

[cyberpj]

Bill gives feds last say on gas sites

By JENNIFER BROOKS / News Journal Washington Bureau
04/22/2005

WASHINGTON -- The House of Representatives Thursday passed an $8 billion blueprint for the nation's energy policy, brushing aside objections from lawmakers like Rep. Mike Castle, R-Del., who said parts of the bill undercut states' rights.

In doing so, the House rejected Castle's attempt to allow states like Delaware to have final say in the location of liquefied natural gas, or LNG, terminals.

Supporters said it's necessary to ease the nation's fuel crisis. The price of natural gas has more than tripled in recent years, driving up costs for homes and businesses. With domestic supplies shrinking, more natural gas is being shipped from overseas, docked at coastal terminals and pumped into pipelines for use across the country.

The legislation would give the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission the final say on BP's petition to build a LNG terminal on the Delaware River despite the fact that Delaware's Coastal Zone Management Act prohibits such construction.


http://www.delawareonline.com/newsjournal/local/2005/04/22billgivesfedsla.html

[SangamonTaylor]

1. I can't say I oppose it, in fact, I favor it.

We are facing a serious natural gas shortage over the next 10 years. Canada (who we import much of our natural gas) has said that they will not be able to support our need for increased demand, and we have a large number of old power plants that will likely (hopefully) be retired and replaced with new, clean burning gas plants.

The legislation is clarifying FERC interpretation of what many claim is an ambiguous section of the Natural Gas Act. In my opinion, this is more democratic than having a federal agency unilaterally assert final jurisdiction over siting of LNG terminals. At least, now, we have a democratic process with leaders who can be held accountable, rather than a 'headless agency'...

Besides, any LNG terminal siting process will still have to go through the NEPA process...if people want to have an input, they can still use that route...plus, if I'm not mistaken, in places like the proposed Longbeach, CA LNG terminal the state still has full authority to regulate the operational side of the terminal (because the terminal will not be selling natural gas in interstate commerce).

[cyberpj]

2. That's because you live in Texas - nowhere near any of the proposed sites.

The one we're fighting in Delaware will be built near populated areas and only miles up river from a nuclear plant.

The reasons Delaware AND The Appeals board AND the Dept of Interior agreed with Delaware is that BP has not only NOT proven it's environmentally safe claims --- but that this would become an inviting terrorist target in a well-populated and extra dangerous (read: nuclear plant again) area.

Let me share this little bit of information with you and then you can decide if you would "favor it" in your own backyard:

"A study commissioned by the Department of Energy found that an intentional breaching of a tankerload of liquefied natural gas could release vapors flammable at a distance of more than 2 miles, or could trigger a fire that would cause blisters 1.3 miles away."

But of course, Bush would never let them put one near Texas -- so you know you're safe.

[SangamonTaylor]

4. Please, are you kidding me?

Do you know how many LNG terminals are proposed for the Gulf of Mexico?

Do you realize how many refineries are in Houston?

Let's see where the LNG terminals are constructed and proposed:

Existing, Proposed and
Potential North American
LNG Terminals
As of April 14, 2005
FERC
Office of Energy Projects

CONSTRUCTED
A. Everett, MA : 1.035 Bcfd (Tractebel - DOMAC)
B. Cove Point, MD : 1.0 Bcfd (Dominion - Cove Point LNG)
C. Elba Island, GA : 0.68 Bcfd (El Paso - Southern LNG)
D. Lake Charles, LA : 1.0 Bcfd (Southern Union - Trunkline LNG)
E. Gulf of Mexico: 0.5 Bcfd, (Gulf Gateway Energy Bridge - Excelerate Energy)

APPROVED BY FERC
1. Lake Charles, LA: 1.1 Bcfd (Southern Union - Trunkline LNG)
2. Hackberry, LA : 1.5 Bcfd, (Sempra Energy)
3. Bahamas : 0.84 Bcfd, (AES Ocean Express)*
4. Bahamas : 0.83 Bcfd, (Calypso Tractebel)*
5. Freeport, TX : 1.5 Bcfd, (Cheniere/Freeport LNG Dev.)
6. Sabine, LA : 2.6 Bcfd (Cheniere LNG)
7. Elba Island, GA: 0.54 Bcfd (El Paso - Southern LNG)
8. Corpus Christi, TX: 2.6 Bcfd, (Cheniere LNG)

APPROVED BY MARAD/COAST GUARD
9. Port Pelican: 1.6 Bcfd, (Chevron Texaco)
10. Louisiana Offshore : 1.0 Bcfd (Gulf Landing - Shell)
PROPOSED TO FERC
11. Fall River, MA : 0.8 Bcfd, (Weaver's Cove Energy/Hess LNG)
12. Long Beach, CA : 0.7 Bcfd, (Mitsubishi/ConocoPhillips - Sound Energy Solutions)
13. Corpus Christi, TX : 1.0 Bcfd (Vista Del Sol - ExxonMobil)
14. Sabine, TX : 1.0 Bcfd (Golden Pass - ExxonMobil)
15. Logan Township, NJ : 1.2 Bcfd (Crown Landing LNG - BP)
16. Bahamas : 0.5 Bcfd, (Seafarer - El Paso/FPL )
17. Corpus Christi, TX: 1.0 Bcfd (Ingleside Energy - Occidental Energy Ventures)
18. Providence, RI : 0.5 Bcfd (Keyspan & BG LNG)
19. Port Arthur, TX: 1.5 Bcfd (Sempra)
20. Cove Point, MD : 0.8 Bcfd (Dominion)
21. LI Sound, NY: 1.0 Bcfd (Broadwater Energy - TransCanada/Shell)
22. Pascagoula, MS: 1.0 Bcfd (Gulf LNG Energy LLC)
23. Bradwood, OR: 1.0 Bcfd (Northern Star LNG - Northern Star Natural Gas LLC)
24. Pascagoula, MS: 1.3 Bcfd (Casotte Landing - ChevronTexaco)
25. Cameron, LA: 3.3 Bcfd (Creole Trail LNG - Cheniere LNG)
26. Port Lavaca, TX: 1.0 Bcfd (Calhoun LNG - Gulf Coast LNG Partners)

PROPOSED TO MARAD/COAST GUARD
27. California Offshore: 1.5 Bcfd (Cabrillo Port - BHP Billiton)
28. So. California Offshore : 0.5 Bcfd, (Crystal Energy)
29. Louisiana Offshore : 1.0 Bcfd (Main Pass McMoRan Exp.)
30. Gulf of Mexico: 1.0 Bcfd (Compass Port - ConocoPhillips)
31. Gulf of Mexico: 2.8 Bcfd (Pearl Crossing - ExxonMobil)
32. Gulf of Mexico: 1.5 Bcfd (Beacon Port Clean Energy Terminal - ConocoPhillips)

POTENTIAL SITES IDENTIFIED BY PROJECT SPONSORS
33. Coos Bay, OR: 0.13 Bcfd, (Energy Projects Development)
34. Somerset, MA: 0.65 Bcfd (Somerset LNG)
35. California - Offshore: 0.75 Bcfd, (Chevron Texaco)
36. Pleasant Point, ME : 0.5 Bcf/d (Quoddy Bay, LLC)
37. St. Helens, OR: 0.7 Bcfd (Port Westward LNG LLC)
38. Offshore Boston, MA: 0.8 Bcfd (Northeast Gateway - Excelerate
Energy)
39. Galveston, TX: 1.2 Bcfd (Pelican Island - BP)
40. Philadelphia, PA: 0.6 Bcfd (Freedom Energy Center - PGW)
41. Astoria, OR: 1.0 Bcfd (Skipanon LNG - Calpine)
42. Freeport, TX: 1.5 Bcfd, (Cheniere/Freeport LNG Dev. - Expansion)
43. Offshore Boston, MA: 0.4 Bcfd (Neptune LNG - Tractebel)

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Ha...suuuuure. 'Bush would never let them put one near Texas'....uhhh huh.

Now it seems to me that you don't really know a damn thing you are talking about. The Gulf of Mexico has the highest concentration of existing and proposed LNG terminals in the US. It makes sense because the region that I live in also has the highest concentration of oil and gas pipelines (that explode too). We also have the highest concentration of refineries (that explode too).

I've actually read the report that you quote. Yes, there are safety concerns (which receives public input during the NEPA process). The fact that the proposed LNG site is near a nuclear plant is irrelevant. Nuclear plants are able to sustain a direct hit from a 747 (have you read that report yet?) You don't like it...don't live within a mile radius.

If northeastern states want a clean source of energy they can build their own LNG plants (we're running out of natural gas here in TX anyways). I've never understood NIMBYs....do you not use electricity? If not, then how are you able to post on the Internet??? :)

p.s. - i'm not trying to piss you off, I just think you are dead wrong on this issue. In fact, I think most Democrats are dead wrong on most energy (supply) issues (with the exception of issues relating to CO2 trading, fuel efficiency, and and electricity market oversight).

I also have a very strong opinion on this matter because I'm going to be practicing Energy and Environmental Law once I graduate this May (and pass the bar exam). Hopefully, once I get to DC we'll have this energy bill passed...

[LynneSin]

7. Hey, thanks and btw - fuck you too

I live close to that location and I have friends who live within the mile radius of that site. Thanks for making us irrelevant. We were there first and you know what - let Texas and Louisana have the all the piers they want. We chose where we lived first and you're telling us not to live there?

Also, there are coastal wetlands along the Delaware that are also going to be disrupted by this pier. Maybe some states want to ruin their coastal areas but here in Delaware we're actually trying to clean up the mess.

I'm sorry that's rude - but that was awfully rude to be so 'La-de-da don't live there if you don't want to be near a pier'. There is no pier and there won't be one if we here in Delaware have anything to do with it

[SangamonTaylor]

8. Let me get this straight...you chose to live near a nuclear plant

...and now you are complaining about an LNG terminal?!?

I guess I just don't get your beef.

LNG terminals are safe. People need to stop being afraid of them. The whole 1 mile radius burn is a worst case scenario and in the entire history of the LNG industry there's only been one actual noteworthy accident (in a third world country with severely lacking safety regulations).

I can understand that you don't want a terminal right next to your state (from what I understand the terminal is in Jersey and the pier extends into the Delaware). However, this is a federal issue that really needs to be addressed.

If we left it up to the "Not-In-My-Back-Yard" folks, there wouldn't be LNG terminals sited anywhere (except for the socio-economically poorest of areas that always get the shaft when it comes to Environmental justice). The same can be said about high-voltage electricity transmission lines. People oppose them like crazy in their backyard, but then complain like hell about high electricity rates.

Sometimes you have to realize that the interests of the nation sometimes get to trump the those of the states.

[LynneSin]

9. I survived Three Mile Island

and believe me, I'm not as worried about Salem provided that we don't have a sitting target like the LNG pier one mile away from it.

As for TMI, I didn't choose to live near there - my family lived there. Maybe my complacity towards nuclear power arrives from the fact that our family boated those waters before and after the accident. Nuclear Plants are threats to the communities surrounding them, hell tall building & planes are threats. But personally, I don't feel the combination of a Nuclear Power Plant with an LNG pier right near it is one I want and neither does anyone else who lives in the area. However, NJ isn't complaining since NO ONE lives in that part of the state.

[cyberpj]

11. Nobody CHOOSES to live near a nuclear plant! We were here first.

I have 3 generations of family still living in this area, tied to employment that prevents just picking up and moving.

And NO - I don't have to realize that interests of the nation sometimes get to trump those of the states - because the state knows much better where a less-populated, less environmentally challenged area would be for the pier and terminal and the feds should not be able to tell us where to put it when we're supplying all the proper feedback and documents that say NOT THERE.

[cyberpj]

14. NIMBY is a valid complaint when the facts support the reasons why:

Officials say pier to cause traffic jams, site also vulnerable to terror attacks

By JEFF MONTGOMERY / The News Journal
04/21/2005

Energy giant BP's plan for a liquefied natural gas terminal opposite Claymont could snarl or restrict Delaware River traffic while still leaving the site vulnerable to terrorist attack, according to a New Jersey review of the project.

http://www.delawareonline.com/newsjournal/local/2005/04/21njreviewgasproj.html

[cyberpj]

12. You GO girl! eom

[cyberpj]

10. I stand corrected - I did see the number of sites AFTER I posted above

and regretted my "Texas" response to you, but I was posting in the general discussion area and forgot to come back to the Delaware forum until today.

By searching I was able to locate a detailed listing of operating, planned, and proposed terminals is available as part of NGI's North American Natural Gas Infrastructure Map.

http://intelligencepress.com/features/lng /

http://intelligencepress.com/ancp.html

So if I can find this info showing maps of US NG storage and pipelines how secure are the sites from terror attacks? If that were to happen, I venture to say it would matter quite a bit that it was located so close to nuclear facility.

[LynneSin]

3. Tell you what, you want to live where I live?

I'm 5 miles from that proposed site which is a mile from a Nuclear Power plant.

THere's enough fricking polution in our area without adding more.

And the asshats in New Jersey don't give a fuck because it's in an area of their state WHERE NO ONE LIVES!!!!

NIMBY!!!!!!!

[SangamonTaylor]

5. Just to let you know....

An LNG terminal doesn't really produce much pollution...its taking really cold liquified gas from a big ship, letting it vaporize into gas, and pushing it into a pipeline. Granted, there will be added pollution from the actual construction of the terminal, and most likely there will be some minor pollution from pipeline compressors. Nuclear plants really don't make any pollution that goes into the air (unless there's some sort of meltdown which is highly unlikely). If you don't like air pollution you shouldn't be complaining about clean burning natural gas potentially replacing dirty coal plants. Plus, if anything is causing pollution in Jersey, it is the chemical refineries.

In my opinion, the biggest environmental concern is the dredging that will be required to move those large tankers into the area.

[LynneSin]

6. Yeah, well it's more than the pollution that we're worried about

It's the sitting target of an LNG one mile away from a Nuclear Power Plant. Personally - we don't want it there!

[cyberpj]

13. So this is a FEDERAL issue? - Unexamined risks for wildlife cited by feds

Ok then. This FEDERAL agency says they have not substantiated their claims that there will be no impact.

Data sought on LNG plans
Unexamined risks for wildlife cited by feds

By JEFF MONTGOMERY / The News Journal
04/16/2005

The U.S. Interior Department has recommended additional studies before ruling on plans for a liquefied natural gas terminal along the Delaware River, citing unexamined risks for fish and wildlife and a potential for river traffic disruptions.

(snip)

In a 10-page comment on BP's plan, released on Friday, Interior Department officials said the draft study "does not support" the commission's claim that cumulative environmental risks from the project would be minor or short-term. The agency also said the commission should require more studies of risks to wildlife and fish, including the endangered shortnose sturgeon, as well as a concern that tanker operations and security zones would "compromise general navigation" for up to half of the year.

The environmental impact study "does not do the job that it should do," said Kenneth T. Kristl, director of the Environmental and Natural Resources Law Clinic at Widener University law school.

http://www.delawareonline.com/newsjournal/local/2005/04/16datasoughtonlng.html

[cyberpj]

15. And now, of course, Bush and his energy pals will force the issue

Bush backs fed control of gas sites
By JEFF MONTGOMERY / The News Journal
04/29/2005

During his televised news conference Thursday night, President Bush stressed his support for exclusive federal control over liquefied natural gas terminal sites.

The policy, written into the House version of this year's energy bill, could have immediate consequences in Delaware and New Jersey and several other coastal areas where new gas delivery terminals are under consideration.

Both states have raised concerns about a BP plan to build a $500 million liquefied natural gas terminal along the Delaware River in Logan Township, N.J., opposite Claymont. Delaware in February ruled that a proposed 2,000-foot pier for docking tankers would violate a 34-year-old ban on new heavy industries or bulk import terminals in the state's portion of the river.

But Bush said that the nation needs more natural gas import terminals to meet the country's energy demands and has said that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's control over site selections should be clarified by Congress.


http://www.delawareonline.com/newsjournal/local/2005/04/29bushbacksfedcon.html

[cyberpj]

16. March 2005 NG newsletter tells the tale of WHY the amendment was created:

March 2005 NG newsletter tells the tale of WHY the amendment was created:

State's rights were too restrictive to FERC desires for planned LNG terminals around the country:

=========================================
Natural Gas Intelligence
the weekly gas market newsletter
published : March 21, 2005

Kelliher: CA vs. FERC Jurisdictional Battle 'Biggest Threat' to LNG Development

The "biggest threat" to the development of new liquefied natural gas (LNG) import terminals in the United States is the California regulators' challenge to FERC's jurisdiction in this area, said FERC Commissioner Joseph Kelliher in New Orleans Thursday.

If the California Public Utilities Commission wins its court challenge to FERC's claim of "exclusive jurisdiction" over the siting of LNG import facilities, the fallout from the decision "will extend far beyond Long Beach" terminal that is at the center of the court dispute, he said during the keynote speech given at NGI's 19th annual GasMart conference.

Kelliher believes an adverse court ruling would have broad implications for all LNG projects. "If we lose in California, we lose in United States," he told a crowd of energy executives.

http://intelligencepress.com/features/lng/lng_feature20050321.html