Environmental Concerns - LNG is Just Another Dirty Fossil Fuel

A major environmental concern over the LNG proliferation is that the billions of dollars now being invested into the LNG importation and exportation schemes will continue to delay - for decades - the necessary development of safe sustainable renewable energy sources.

            It is time for America to abandon its age old reliance on foreign fossil fuel, and it is now time to invest the same billions of dollars into America and American ingenuity, and create American jobs to develop safe renewable energy sources for America’s future.

            A sound, safe American energy plan requires solutions that make America stronger not weaker,  make America more self-sufficient not more dependent, make America safer not more vulnerable, and make America fossil free - not more polluted.

            HOLLYWOOD      15th annual Environmental Media Assn. Awards, recognizing works that expand public awareness of environmental issues. Kudos were presented at the Ebell Club of Los Angeles. Al Gore delivered the keynote and embraced those who expand the public awareness of environmental issues.

Photo: Al Gore with Tim & Hayden Riley, Producers of The Risks and Danger of LNG, at EMA Awards

 

 

Tim Riley & Hayden Riley, in their all electric car

Liquefied Natural Gas is Just Another Dirty Fossil Fuel

LNG is natural gas - primarily methane - which has been chilled to minus 260 degrees

According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency - methane is a major contributor to the greenhouse effect, second only to carbon dioxide, and is about 21 times more powerful at warming the atmosphere than carbon dioxide. 

https://www.epa.gov/methane/scientific.html   Methane is a Major Contributor to the Greenhouse Effect "Methane (CH4) is a principal component of natural gas." US EPA "Methane’s chemical characteristics and interactions in the atmosphere contribute to its significance as a greenhouse gas." US EPA "Methane is about 21 times more powerful at warming the atmosphere than carbon dioxide (CO2) by weight." "As a contributor to climate change, methane is second only to carbon dioxide."    Got Gas? Oil isn't the only fossil fuel that's in crisis By Paul Roberts,  May 11, 2004  https://slate.msn.com/id/2100318/     "Gas produces less carbon dioxide—about 50 percent less than coal and 33 percent less than oil—for the same energy production. Granted, gas isn't the ideal climate-friendly fuel: The main component of natural gas is methane, a "greenhouse gas" with climate-changing impact roughly 20 times that of mere carbon dioxide. Further, even if we managed to replace all current coal-fired power with gas-fired power, we would only cut carbon emissions by 30 percent: In other words, moving to a gas-fired economy won't solve our climate problems."   More Bad News For Fracking: IPCC Warns Methane Traps Much More Heat Than We Thought By Joe Romm October 2, 2013 https://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/10/02/2708911/fracking-ipcc-methane/ "We’ve known for a long time that methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide (CO2), which is released when any hydrocarbon, like natural gas, is burned. But the IPCC’s latest report, released Monday (PDF), reports that methane is 34 times stronger a heat-trapping gas than CO2 over a 100-year time scale, so its global-warming potential (GWP) is 34. That is a nearly 40% increase from the IPCC’s previous estimate of 25." Energy Department Bombshell: LNG Has No Climate Benefit For Decades, IF EVER (If one uses estimates for methane leakage based on actual observations) By Joe Romm on June 4, 2014 https://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/06/04/3443211/energy-department-lng-no-climate-benefits/ "To make LNG a climate winner, you’d have to assume levels of methane leakage that are a factor of 2 to 3 lower than what recent observations reveal. That is exactly what DOE’s National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) does in its analysis, 'Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Perspective on Exporting Liquefied Natural Gas from the United States.'” "For DOE, 1.6 percent leakage is the highest leakage rate they considered!! And 1.4% is what they expect for shale gas. In fact, leakage rates are almost certainly at least double that! Yes, the EPA has lowered its estimate to about 1.5 percent — based solely on industry-provided numbers. But multiple studies in the last two years based on actual observations have made clear the EPA was simply wrong.  Back in November, fifteen scientists from some of the leading institutions in the world — including Harvard, NOAA and Lawrence Berkeley National Lab — published a seminal observation-based study, 'Anthropogenic emissions of methane in the United States.' The authors took the unusual step of explicitly criticizing the EPA: 'The US EPA recently decreased its CH4 emission factors for fossil fuel extraction and processing by 25–30% (for 1990–2011), but we find that CH4 data from across North America instead indicate the need for a larger adjustment of the opposite sign.'” Exporting U.S. natural gas isn’t as “clean” as you think  Washington Post June 9, 2014 https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/06/09/exporting-u-s-natural-gas-isnt-as-clean-as-you-think/ “One of the rallying cries in favor of liquefying and exporting U.S. natural gas has been to help reduce greenhouse gases in other countries, by crowding out coal in Asia and Europe. Yet tucked into an Energy Department report on LNG exports is a different view: That U.S. exports of LNG to China could end up being worse from a greenhouse gas perspective than if China simply built a new power plant and burned its own coal supplies. The report also says that the climate benefits of exporting LNG to other countries are modest.” “‘The process of liquefaction, transport, and regasification of LNG is highly emissions-intensive, increasing by 15 percent the total life cycle GHG emissions associated with exported U.S. natural gas,’ James Bradbury, senior associate of the climate and energy program at the World Resources Institute, said in congressional testimony on May 7, 2013. ‘These added upstream emissions also significantly reduce the relative advantage that natural gas would have over higher-emitting fuels, like coal and oil.’”

              "Although methane is much less abundant than carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere, the total warming effect of methane is substantial -- about half as large as that of CO2. And when methane increases it also causes a rise in tropospheric ozone levels. Tropospheric ozone is a principal ingredient in "smog," which is harmful to human health and reduces agricultural productivity."  NASA Funded Study,  See below

LNG Has 35% Higher Lifecycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Than Coal  In the September 2007 edition of the journal Environmental Science and Technology, Carnegie Mellon researchers show that liquefied natural gas (LNG) imported from foreign countries and used for electricity generation could have 35 percent higher lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions than coal used in advanced power plant technologies. The researchers point out that LNG has many indirect impacts compared to domestic gas. LNG is extracted in a foreign country, liquefied, put into a tanker to cross oceans, and then regasified and put into pipelines when it reaches the U.S. Each of these steps leads to indirect environmental impacts, such as carbon dioxide emissions from changing from gas to liquid and back.

LNG Supply Chain Greenhouse Gas Emissions for the Cabrillo Deepwater Port  "This report summarizes an analysis of greenhouse gas emissions from the entire supply chain as identified by BHP Billiton, the project’s applicant, as the likely source of natural gas delivered as LNG to the Cabrillo Deepwater Port receiving terminal offshore Los Angeles, Malibu, and Oxnard, California."

 

Easing off the (Greenhouse) Gas Greenhouse gases are still accumulating in Earth's atmosphere, but more slowly than before, say NASA-funded researchers.   https://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2002/15jan_greenhouse.htm?list574403 Listen to this story via streaming audio January 15, 2002: A new NASA-funded study shows that the rate of growth of greenhouse gas emissions has slowed since its peak in 1980, due in part to international cooperation that led to reduced chlorofluorocarbon use, slower growth of methane, and a steady rate of carbon dioxide emissions. Researchers have shown that global warming in recent decades has probably been caused by carbon dioxide (CO2), and other greenhouse gases including chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), methane, tropospheric ozone, and black carbon (soot) particles. Overall, the growth of emissions has slowed over the past 20 years, with the CFC phase-out being the most important factor, according to the study. "The decrease is due in large part to cooperative international actions of the Montreal Protocol for the phase-out of ozone-depleting gases," explains James Hansen an author of the report from NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. "But it is also due in part to slower growth of methane and carbon dioxide, for reasons that aren't well understood and need more study." Although methane is much less abundant than carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere, the total warming effect of methane is substantial -- about half as large as that of CO2. And when methane increases it also causes a rise in tropospheric ozone levels. Tropospheric ozone is a principal ingredient in "smog," which is harmful to human health and reduces agricultural productivity. The rate of methane growth has slowed during the past decade, and it may be possible to halt its growth entirely and eventually reduce atmospheric amounts, suggest Hansen and co-author Makiko Sato of Columbia University. Another warming agent deserving special attention, according to the authors, is soot. Soot is a product of incomplete combustion. Diesel powered trucks and buses are primary sources of airborne soot in the United States. Even larger amounts of soot occur in developing countries. The study also suggests that reduction of methane emissions and soot could yield a major near term success story in the battle against global warming, thus providing time to work on technologies to reduce future carbon dioxide emissions. Currently, technologies are within reach to reduce other global air pollutants, like methane, in ways that are cheaper and faster than reducing CO2. Though reducing these climate-forcing agents is important, scientists caution that limiting CO2 will still be needed to slow climate change over the next 50 years. Hansen emphasizes that CO2 emissions are the single largest climate forcing, and warns that they need to be slowed soon and eventually curtailed more strongly to stabilize atmospheric conditions and stop global warming. Over the next few decades, Hansen said, it is important to limit emissions of forcing agents other than CO2 , to buy time until CO2 emissions can be better managed. If fossil fuel use continues at today's rates for the next 50 years and if growth of methane and air pollution is halted, the warming in 50 years will be about 0.7°C (1.3°F). That's significant, according to Hansen, but it is less than half the warming in the "business-as-usual scenarios that yield the specter of imminent disaster." The climate warming projected by the Goddard Institute study is about half as large as typical increases cited by the report of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This is because the IPCC considers a large range of forcings and models. The warming in the GISS model is similar to the lowest of the IPCC results, despite the fact that the GISS model has a relatively high sensitivity to forcings. The slowing increase of greenhouse emissions revealed by this study provides some encouraging evidence that hard-won environmental measures are indeed having a positive effect on climate change. But the study also serves to remind us that greenhouse gases are still on the rise. Continued efforts to curb emissions will be needed, say Institute scientists, if we hope to bring climate change under control.   To The Left:  This false-color Terra satellite image of Earth shows infrared heat escaping to space. Greenhouse gases trap such heat and warm our planet.     These research findings appeared in the December 18 issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Hansen co-authored the paper with Makiko Sato of Columbia University, New York

May 7, 2010

Sempra’s Plan to Import Liquefied Gas Raises Health Concerns KPBS News  LNG - This foreign natural gas burns hotter and dirtier. Southern California Air Quality Management District and Sempra’s own experts estimate burning the hotter gas on home appliances alone could release into the air an additional 1.2 tons of nitrogen oxide each day. Nitrogen oxide is a building block for the region’s two worst air pollutants… ozone and fine particles.

December 8, 2006

EPA shortens science reviews, angering some LA Times "The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on Thursday streamlined the way it updates regulations for the nation's worst air pollutants, a move that drew immediate charges that officials are trying to quash scientific review to benefit industry at the expense of public health. The changes, some of which closely mirror requests by the American Petroleum Institute and Battery Council International industry groups, include shortening what is now an exhaustive scientific review, and replacing recommendations prepared by career scientists and reviewed by independent advisors with a "policy paper" crafted by senior White House appointees at the agency..."

January 29, 2006

Climate Expert Says NASA Tried to Silence Him NY Times The top climate scientist at NASA says the Bush administration has tried to stop him from speaking out since he gave a lecture last month calling for prompt reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases linked to global warming. The scientist, James E. Hansen, longtime director of the agency's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said in an interview that officials at NASA headquarters had ordered the public affairs staff to review his coming lectures, papers, postings on the Goddard Web site and requests for interviews from journalists. ... At climate laboratories of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, for example, many scientists who routinely took calls from reporters five years ago can now do so only if the interview is approved by administration officials in Washington, and then only if a public affairs officer is present or on the phone...

Each LNG tanker will burn 100 tons of fossil fuel per day and rival power plant emissions

https://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:yRsbDkkmZhsJ:vallejocpr.org/lngarchive/risksdangers/emissions.html+lng+tanker+%22100+tons%22+pollution+&hl=en LNG Tanker Emissions "The LNG tankers are powered by huge steam turbines, which are fueled by LNG, diesel and bunker fuel. Shell’s David Thomson, a former LNG ship captain, stated that these tankers will burn 100 tons per day of fuel..." Diesel Risks and Lack of Regulation of Marine Vessel Emissions "There are no standards for foreign-flag vessels entering U.S. ports -- all LNG ships are foreign flag." Marine Vessel Emissions Will Exceed Power Plant Emissions! "On November 13, 2002, David Stein from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District addressed the City's Health and Safety Subcommittee. Mr. Stein revealed that he had been given emissions data by Bechtel-Shell for one tanker and one tugboat, and that those emissions alone would exceed the power plant emissions!" This is an  underestimate of all the emissions because it does not even consider multiple tugboats, coast guard escort vessels, helicopters, and diesel-fueled dredgers.

LNG is a fuel cocktail with inconsistent amounts of methane, butane, propane and other liquid hydrocarbons.

Inconsistent quality of natural gas causes dangerous levels of carbon monoxide emissions in homes, increased pollution from power plants, and needless wear and tear on gas turbines and home appliances. Equipment can't be properly calibrated ahead of time, resulting in excessive carbon monoxide emissions, excess soot, and other damage to gas stoves, water heaters, and furnaces that could also reduce their life spans by as much as 50 percent. Without adjustments the "wet" unprocessed gas, which burns hotter, cause power plants to unintentionally spew more pollutants.

LNG burns hotter, just like the "wet" gas, and thus has the potential to cause problems.

April 30, 2004 ENN.com ENVIRONMENTAL NEWS NETWORK https://www.enn.com/news/2004-04-30/s_23344.asp Inconsistent quality of natural gas raises safety and reliability concerns By Brad Foss It used to be that natural gas producers would strip out traces of propane and butane before piping the desired fuel, pure methane, to power plants and utilities. The impurities were actually worth more than the natural gas itself, so collecting them gave producers a nice side business. But today, with gas supplies tight and valued at twice their historical average, many producers want to pump as much as they can, impurities included. The result is a fuel cocktail that many power plants and home appliances weren't designed to handle, presenting a number of safety, environmental, and reliability concerns. Industry officials frustrated by the increasingly inconsistent quality of natural gas have warned federal regulators about potentially dangerous levels of carbon monoxide emissions in homes, increased pollution from power plants, and needless wear and tear on gas turbines and home appliances. With as much as one-third of the natural gas from the lower 48 states no longer processed to remove propane, butane, and other liquid hydrocarbons, "it can lead to a number of consequences, all of which are bad," according to Keith Barnett, vice president of fundamental analysis at American Electric Power Inc., one of the largest producers of electricity. In New York, the utility KeySpan Energy was forced to shut down a plant several times in 2003 after receiving unprocessed fuel that differed significantly from "what the plant was originally designed to handle," according to a filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The characteristics of natural gas are also changing as high prices attract more imports and domestic drillers find new sources of fuel in unconventional geologic formations once deemed too costly to tap. Such is the case in Utah, where Quester Gas Co., has been urging some customers to spend upwards of $100 per home to adjust settings on older furnaces and water heaters. The company is concerned that the carbon-dioxide rich gas it is siphoning out of coal seams might emit dangerous levels of carbon monoxide without the changes. Several industry officials said it is too soon to know just how widespread and severe the problems may be. However, around the country power producers and utilities are facing higher maintenance costs and have, at times, been forced to cut off service to clean equipment. "This is not a panic situation by any stretch of the imagination," insisted Lori Traweek, senior vice president of operations and engineering at the American Gas Association, which represents local gas distribution companies. "There has to be comfort in knowing that this issue is being addressed." Yet other industry officials were more cautious in their analysis, stressing the need for more research into the potential safety and reliability risks. "We're still in the learning phase," said Mark Kendall, vice president of technical affairs at the Gas Appliance Manufacturers Association, an Arlington, Virginia, trade group that will hold a conference on the issue in June. Concerns at GAMA are excessive carbon monoxide emissions, excess soot, and other damage to gas stoves, water heaters, and furnaces that could reduce their lifespans by as much as 50 percent, Kendall said. Robert D. Wilson, director of environmental operations at KeySpan Energy, told FERC in a March 22 filing "the assumption that existing appliances will not be significantly impacted by gas quality variability would not be prudent and additional technical evaluation is needed prior to drawing any conclusions." Meanwhile, the National Petroleum Council, a consortium of energy executives that advises the Energy Department, urged the government last September to address the issue of natural gas standards in preparation for rising imports of liquefied natural gas (LNG). FERC held a conference on the matter in February after it began to see a growing number of legal disputes over gas specifications between natural gas suppliers and pipeline owners. While the problems associated with inconsistent fuel quality have been known for decades, they are more relevant now as the industry tries to keep up with rising natural gas demand. In the past, suppliers had an economic incentive to strip out impurities from the methane, creating a relatively uniform product from year to year. But in recent years it has made more financial sense for suppliers to leave them mixed in the gas stream, boosting overall volume and revenue by about 5 percent as well as eliminating the need for expensive processing plants. Trouble is, a natural gas stream with a heavier concentration of liquid hydrocarbons can damage equipment that isn't properly calibrated ahead of time. The industry has safeguards to prevent "slugs" of liquid from gumming up gas turbines and appliances, but executives acknowledged these protections don't always work. In fact, some protective equipment was taken out of the system in the 1990s when it seemed that natural gas would remain cheap and uniform in quality. "There have been instances where these liquids get carried all the way to the turbines, which damages them and sometimes shuts them down," said AEP's Barnett, who estimated it would cost several hundred thousand dollars per power plant to make highly sensitive equipment more flexible to different gas varieties. Without these adjustments the "wet" unprocessed gas, which burns hotter, could also cause power plants to unintentionally spew more pollutants than they are allowed to under laws set by the Environmental Protection Agency, Barnett said. Another trend drawing attention to the chemical characteristics of the nation's natural gas supply is the increase of LNG being imported to make up for declining domestic production. Much of that fuel, shipped to the United States in refrigerated tankers from as far away as Qatar and Nigeria, burns hotter, just like the "wet" gas, and thus has the potential to cause similar problems. In spite of the potential problems, industry officials said they are equally concerned about regulatory changes that could limit the supply of natural gas. For now, FERC is giving the industry time to work up a collaborative solution — probably a combination of new standards for producers and end-users as well as methods for adhering to them. A fix will likely require extra spending on gas processing and new equipment, and a portion of those costs is expected to be passed along to consumers.

AQMD: LNG's Natural gas will foul air Press-Enterprise (subscription) - Riverside, CA

______________________________________________________

The LNG Importation Scheme Will Waste Energy - up to 25% of Natural Gas   

The boil-off rate for LNG tankers transporting chilled natural gas is currently in the range of 15 to 25 per cent.

Larger LNG ships pose technical challenges  By DAVID HUGHES  https://business-times.asia1.com.sg/story/0,4567,110505,00.html 

______________________________________________________

Federal Docket #: USCG-2004-16877, State Clearinghouse #2004021107  https://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf90/309696_web.pdf

Comments written on behalf of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and their 550,000 members, tens of thousands of whom reside in Southern California. Attached to it is a letter sent on behalf of the Statewide LNG Environmental Stakeholder Working Group, which consists of over 25 local, state, and national environmental groups including web hosts Tim and Hayden Riley. This group has formed to address the issue of the importation, regassification, and reselling of LNG via onshore or offshore LNG plants in California and Baja, California, and out of mutual concern for the character and pace of the LNG debate.

______________________________________________________

September 8, 2004

U.S Government officials and Greenpeace survey potential damage to Mexican wildlife islands earmarked for Gas Plant

 https://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/releases/u-s-government-officials-and-g#

Send San Diego, United states — State policymakers and legislators from California today traveled with Greenpeace to the proposed site of ChevronTexaco's liquid natural gas (LNG) facilities on the Coronado Islands. Located off the Baja California Coast of Mexico, the islands are an important habitat for wildlife; home to one of the most diverse seabird colonies, gray whales and harbor seals. All face devastation from the construction of a LNG terminal.

The Greenpeace ship, MV Arctic Sunrise, and a research vessel set off from Ensenada, Mexico and San Diego this morning with the Mexican and U.S. delegations respectively, to survey the islands. U.S. state officials discussed the issues and concerns with expert naturalists and engineers on board.

"The LNG facilities pose severe environmental and safety risks. Mexico's coastal treasures should not be sacrificed for California's energy consumption. The truth is California does not need LNG. ChevronTexaco must invest in clean energy like wind and solar," said Greenpeace U.S Energy Specialist John Coequyt.

This tour coincides with the release of a new report produced by Greenpeace 'Liquid Natural Gas: A roadblock to a clean energy future'. The report provides the first comprehensive analysis of why LNG is unsafe, unnecessary and unjust. Greenpeace is asking Californian policy makers not to commit the state to long-term contracts to LNG from either Mexico or California. In addition, it recommends that multinational companies and the Governments of California and Mexico invest in clean energy technologies, like wind and solar power, creating good jobs without risking the public's health and safety.

"Mexico's renewable energy potential is currently underused and completely ignored as the Mexican Government rushes to embrace the wishes of multinational companies like ChevronTexaco, Shell, and Sempra," said Arturo Moreno, Greenpeace Mexico Campaigner.

In 2003, the Mexican National Congress proposed that a Natural Protected Area be created that includes the Coronados. However, as the islands have yet to receive this official protection status and with an LNG project looming, Greenpeace and Conservacion de Islas placed a plaque on the island declaring it a Natural Protected Area.

The 2001-2006 Energy Plan and the National Development Plan never indicated that LNG would be part of Mexico's energy portfolio. State and federal governments however are not adhering to their plans and are now advocating for rapid approval for LNG. Currently, Mexico produces enough energy for its own needs and can meet future demands through investment in renewables; therefore the proposed LNG facilities in Baja California are unnecessary, only benefiting corporate business, predominantly in the U.S.

"We are at a crossroads in determining the fate of California's energy future. I believe the responsibility of the California Public Utilities Commission is to get the facts straight about the environmental, economic, and operational impacts of LNG before making profound changes to California's energy policies in order to facilitate LNG," says Commissioner Loretta Lynch. Commissioner Lynch was joined by Drew Bohan, California EPA, CEC Commissioner Jim Boyd among others.

______________________________________________________

March 5, 2005

Mississippi Press

LNG plan under fire for impact on marine life

https://www.gulflive.com/news/mississippipress/index.ssf?/base/news/111002134544523.xml

By JOHN SURRATT

PASCAGOULA -- ConocoPhillips came under fire Friday night for its proposed method of heating liquefied natural gas (LNG) and an environmental impact statement that some environmentalists said failed to look at all the marine species that could be affected by the company's proposed Compass Port LNG facility.

ConocoPhillips wants to build the offshore LNG terminal 11 miles south of Dauphin Island in the Gulf of Mexico to receive LNG from carriers, convert it from a liquid to gas and send it along an underwater pipeline to an on-shore station at Coden Alabama.

To reconvert the frozen liquid gas back to a gas, the ConocoPhillips officials said they plan to use an open loop system that pulls in an estimated 136 million gallons of water per day from the Gulf of Mexico to warm the gas and then discharge the cold water back into the sea. The water would be treated with chlorine to prevent algae build-up in the lines.

It's a system that has triggered a firestorm of criticism from environmentalists and fisheries and conservation officials.

"This system would have a negative impact on many Gulf fisheries by destroying fish eggs, larva and zooplankton," said Aaron Viles, fisheries campaign director for the Gulf Restoration Network in New Orleans.

He added that there were no statistics to show the effect on shrimp, a major Gulf commodity and money crop for the Coast that may be living in the area around Compass Port.

Compass Port, he said, would be in an area called the "fertile fisheries crescent" in the Gulf, adding that while no one can say for certain what the effects of sterilizing 130 million gallons of water may have on the marine life, "we fear the fisheries impacts would be significant."

According to charts displayed by Entrix, a environmental consulting firm working with the Coast Guard in evaluating the project's environmental impact statement, Compass Port would have a minimal effect of less than two percent on red drum and even less on red snapper and menhaden, another commercially harvested fish.

Entrix representative John Harvat said the figures were based on information from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Viles said challenged those figures, saying the process could destroy as much as the equivalent of 14.9 percent of Mississippi's and Alabama's redfish catch.

"Due to these significant fisheries impacts, open loop terminals are opposed by a variety of organizations, including the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission, NOAA Fisheries, as well as non-governmental fishing and conservation organizations," he said.

Edwin W. Cake of Ocean Springs, a biologist with Gulf Environmental Associates, urged federal officials to perform an impact assessment on oyster beds on Portersville Bay, where the pipeline crosses on its way to Coden.

"An open system is not going to just take in water, it's going to take everything in the water," Paula Vassey of Gautier said. "And 95 percent of the marine life in that area lives on the bottom."

Vassey also said the environmental impact statement did not take in endangered species like the gulf sturgeon.

"(Protected and endangered species in the area) should be checked," she said.

Reporter John Surratt can be reached at jsurratt@themississippipress.com or (228) 934-1427.

______________________________________________________

March 30, 2005

Experts: LNG plant would hit fish hard

ConocoPhillips seeks to build receiving facility 11 miles south of Dauphin Island in Gulf of Mexico

https://www.al.com/news/mobileregister/index.ssf?/base/news/111217772712080.xml

By BEN RAINES Staff Reporter

A proposed ConocoPhillips Co. liquefied natural gas terminal could wipe out about a quarter of the annual redfish harvest in Alabama and Mississippi, according to calculations from the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council and the National Marine Fisheries Service.

In letters to federal officials dated March 23, the fishery agencies -- charged by the federal government with protecting the Gulf's aquatic resources -- state that fish-killing impacts from the LNG terminal's gas-warming process would be localized in Alabama and Mississippi.

The terminal would primarily affect fish populations in the areas closest to the facility, which would be 11 miles south of Dauphin Island. The agencies also state that similar impacts would be expected for many other species.

ConocoPhillips officials, in a statement to the Register, wrote that any estimates of negative effects on Gulf fisheries that were not included in their formal application documents would be "misleading and not valid."

ConocoPhillips seeks permission to build an offshore receiving facility for ships delivering liquefied natural gas from abroad.

The company wants to use about 140 million gallons of warm Gulf water each day to heat up the superchilled LNG cargo. The LNG, which arrives as a minus-260-degree liquid, must be heated up and turned back into a gas before it can be injected into the nation's natural gas pipeline network.

More than 6 million gallons of seawater per hour would be sucked into the plant. Federal scientists say everything in the water will be killed, including more than 6 million fish eggs and larvae per day, representing the microscopic young of almost every creature that swims in the northern Gulf.

The coastlines of Mississippi and Alabama form what scientists call the "fertile fisheries crescent." Larvae of 16 families of fish -- including snapper, grouper and amberjack -- are most abundant in this part of the Gulf, indicating the area is a primary nursery for Gulf populations of those species, according to biologists.

The existing LNG terminals in the United States use natural gas to heat and regasify LNG. By using Gulf seawater instead of natural gas for the reheating, ConocoPhillips would save between $20 million and $40 million per year, according to Coast Guard documents.

The company's Compass Point terminal is expected to import more than a billion dollars' worth of natural gas per year, according to Register calculations.

Six other companies have applied to use the seawater method. One terminal off Louisiana has already received approval for seawater warming.

The U.S. Coast Guard -- which conducts the permit approval process -- concluded that impacts from the terminal will likely be "minor" and suggested in the draft Environmental Impact Statement that the terminal would kill less than 2 percent of the Gulf's annual redfish harvest.

But the fisheries agencies say the Coast Guard approach of measuring the terminal's impact against the entire Gulfwide population of redfish is misleading.

The letter suggests that the Coast Guard impact statement dilutes the potential local effects of the terminal by looking at all Gulf redfish between Mexico and Florida, rather than looking specifically at fish populations in Alabama and Mississippi, which would be most affected by the terminal, according to the fisheries agencies. Redfish, they note, don't migrate over a large area.

The Gulf Fishery Management Council letter states that if the estimates of redfish kill included in the Environmental Impact Statement are correct, the terminal's impact could amount to 26 percent of the red drum landed in Alabama in 2002 and 34.9 percent of the red drum landed in Mississippi in 2002.

Both the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Gulf Council criticize the science behind the Coast Guard's investigation, saying it ignores impacts on shrimp and crab populations and fails to properly consider the combined impacts of the seven similar terminals that have so far been proposed for the Gulf.

If all seven terminals are approved, scientists estimate that more than 10 billion fish eggs and 15 billion fish larvae per year will be destroyed, and approximately 350 billion gallons of seawater will be "sterilized" annually. Scientists say nearly all species of fish, shrimp, crab and zooplankton would be affected to some degree.

"ConocoPhillips stands by the numbers quoted in our draft environmental impact statement, and those are the only numbers that should be referenced for Compass Port," the company wrote in its statement.

"The numbers in the (environmental impact statement) were calculated by a well respected environmental firm using the methodology that has been agreed to by several federal agencies, including NOAA. We believe numbers quoted from outside the (impact statement) process are misleading and not valid for Compass Port."

The letters written by the fisheries agencies are considered to be a critical part of the review process for the Environmental Impact Statement, and under federal regulations will have to be carefully considered before the terminal gains final approval.

"It is our assessment that the potential loss of the equivalent of 22 percent of the harvestable population of red drum in Mississippi and Alabama from this LNG facility is a significant adverse impact," National Marine Fisheries Scientist's wrote in the agency's comment letter. "Gulfwide, the cumulative threats posed by multiple facilities are extremely significant and should be avoided."

Copyright 2005 al.com. All Rights Reserved.

______________________________________________________

February 2, 2005

The Salem News

Fishermen object to LNG plan

By Tom Dalton Staff writer

SALEM — An open house on a proposed $200 million liquefied natural gas, deep-water port off Cape Ann drew a large crowd last night to the Bentley School, including a lot of angry fishermen who said the facility could put them out of business.

"That's exactly where a lot of us go," said Bill Porter of Marblehead. "There are so many closures and cutbacks now — they're trying to take away another big chunk of our ocean."

Mike Sosnowski, a Salem city councilor who works as a lobsterman, said he and many others would be crippled financially by the construction of a terminal for LNG tankers about 12 miles off the coast of Gloucester. The area would have to be large enough, he said, for two LNG tankers, each the length of three football fields, and also have a wide buffer zone that would be off-limits to fishermen.

More: https://www.ecnnews.com/cgi-bin/04/s/sstory.pl?fn-slng02

______________________________________________________

February 11, 2005

Gloucester Daily Times

LNG loading terminal: Flushing seawater a concern

https://www.ecnnews.com/cgi-bin/04/g/gstory.pl?fn-glng12

By Lisa Arsenault Staff writer

Liquefied natural gas tankers docked at a proposed terminal 10 miles off the coast Gloucester would take in 57 million gallons of seawater a day to cool engines and generators onboard the ships, according to the company leading the project.

Environmentalists and fishing industry advocates say they're not sure how taking in and flushing out that much water would affect marine life in the area.

The biggest concern is that intake pipes bringing seawater onto the tankers would also suck in marine life — especially tiny eggs and larvae, said David Lincoln, environmental consultant for the Gloucester Fishermen's Wives Association.

"The screens that are in front of the intake pipes have spaces large enough to allow eggs and larvae to go between the spaces. The question is how many," Lincoln said.

Fishing grounds in that area are closed part of the year to protect spawning fish stocks.

Mark K. Lane, operations manager for Excelerate Energy, which is proposing the $200 million project, said fittings over the intake pipes called seachests reduce water velocity coming into the pipe to avoid sucking things in. Aside from the environmental concerns, he said, sucking in sea life creates problems aboard the ship.

"In general, we're not interested in clogging up our condenser with sea life. It's detrimental to our efficiency and creates work for us," he said.

Excelerate Energy is proposing putting in two underwater buoys for docking and off-loading LNG tankers within five miles of the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary, 842 square miles of protected waters that stretch along the eastern edge of Massachusetts Bay.

One of two tankers would be docked at the buoys at all times and during that time, they would be taking in seawater, Lane said.

LNG tankers that already travel to Boston in shipping lanes just south of the proposed area for the LNG terminal take in roughly 100 million gallons of seawater a day while they're moving, Lane said.

Lane says the LNG tankers that would dock in Gloucester use less water than most large ships.

A similar project by the same company 100 miles offshore in the Gulf of Mexico would have used 125.4 million gallons of seawater a day to vaporize the LNG onboard the ship before it is pumped into natural gas pipelines. In Gloucester, the company is planning to use a closed loop system that will not use seawater in the vaporization process because the temperature of the water in the northeast is too cold to be effective, Lane said. Instead, they will make a fresh water solution on board the ship and heat it with steam.

"In the closed loop mode we don't take the water from Massachusetts Bay and run it over the vaporizers," he said.

Rob Gardiner, vice president of the Conservation Law Foundation, said he doesn't know how taking in 57 million gallons of water per day would alter the ecosystem.

"It's a lot of water, but in the middle of the ocean it may not be," Gardiner said.

The Conservation Law Foundation has not come out against the project because a number of questions still need to be answered, Gardiner said. Those questions include how much seawater will be pumped onto and off of the ships, an environmental assessment of how it would affect marine life, or precautions that would be taken to keep marine life from being sucked in by the ship's seawater intake pipes.

"I think that's going to turn out to be the big issue. We're still lacking a lot of the information about that project to be able to judge it," Gardiner said.

That information is required in environmental impact reports the company has to submit as part of the approval process for the project.

Bill Adler of the Massachusetts Lobstermen's Association said if the company is sucking in 50 million gallons a day, that is bound to cause problems.

"When you're using that much water from the ocean, sucking it in, doing something with it and putting it back, you're hurting the water quality of that ecosystem," he said.

Excelerate Energy first announced plans for the LNG terminal off Gloucester last summer. Since then they have had several meetings with local communities about the project. They plan to file an application with the state and federal government by May and begin construction in the winter of 2006.

The project has been opposed by city officials, fishermen and fishing industry advocates, who say it is dangerous and would hurt the fishing industry. Many are concerned that the docking facility will disturb fish habitats and force more fishing ground closures in areas invaluable to Gloucester's dayboat fleet.

______________________________________________________

February 4, 2005

Bayoubuzz.com

LNG Bad For Louisiana?

by Nora Walls

Liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals are coming to Louisiana, but are they worth it? The Gulf Restoration network says LNG’s pose a threat to commercial and recreational fishing in the Gulf. With 21 facilities proposed for the western Gulf, LNG could have a huge impact on our region, according to GRN, because imported natural gas shipped to the U.S. in a liquefied form must be warmed to be "re-gasified," and then delivered to our gas pipeline infrastructure.

Seven of the 21 facilities intend to use an open rack vaporizer, or open loop system, running Gulf seawater through radiator-like racks. One terminal alone could use up to 200 million gallons of Gulf water a day to "re-gasify" the natural gas. The drastic temperature change and physical damage caused by the process will destroy fish eggs and larva by the billions. For example, Shell´s Gulf Landing facility could impact red drum in the Gulf by as much as the equivalent of 3.8% of Louisiana´s annual landings, according to the latest analysis.

The Houston Business Journal reported January 14th that The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, a federal panel empowered to oversee fishing in the Gulf, says the proposed terminal will kill as much as 8.5 percent of the annual red drum population off the Louisiana coast. The council has asked that federal regulators require Shell either to pay the cost for the loss of up to 1 million pounds of red drum a year, or change the design of its plant.  More: https://www.bayoubuzz.com/articles.aspx?aid=3224

September 8. 2004 Save The Bay Opposes Proposed LNG Facility at Weaver's Cove Plan to dredge 144 acres of vital habitat poses unacceptable threat to marine life in already fragile Mount Hope Bay Save The Bay files as intervener in the permitting process PROVIDENCE, RI - Save The Bay, in testimony prepared for a September 8 public hearing before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), strongly articulated its opposition to the Liquefied Natural Gas facility proposed for Weaver's Cove in Fall River, Massachusetts.

Save The Bay also today announced that it will file as an intervener, asking FERC for the right to participate as a party in the process. The move will allow Save The Bay to participate in all administrative hearings, obtain copies of all relevant documents and allow Save The Bay to appeal the process should it proceed to court.

Save The Bay objects to the project's Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) because of the proposed project's direct and significant environmental impacts from construction and operation, as well as the impact on the public use of coastal resources.

These concerns include the long-term and short-term impacts on fish habitat and water quality from dredging the channel and turning basin. Save The Bay also finds unacceptable the approach to the disposal of the contaminated dredging sediments. The proposed project site is located on a section of the Taunton River presently listed as an impaired water body under the State of Massachusetts' 303(d) list. It is already subject to impacts from a range of sources, including the Brayton Point power station. Save The Bay is concerned about the additional burden on this impaired, yet productive and ecologically important area.

In the proposed dredged channel and turning basin, the project would permanently impact 191 acres of river bottom. This includes 144 acres of relatively shallow habitat specifically identified as spawning beds for winter flounder. By deepening this area from its natural, existing depth, it changes the habitat and thus represents a permanent impact.

In addition to the direct environmental impacts of the facility, there may also be significant use conflicts posed to other users of Narragansett Bay and the Taunton River.

``Our review of the DEIS has determined beyond doubt that the Weaver's Cove proposal is unacceptable,'' said Save The Bay Executive Director Curt Spalding. "The health and future of Narragansett Bay relies on a robust and environmentally protected Taunton River. We believe there are overwhelming reasons why this project cannot go forward as proposed. Mount Hope Bay is too fragile to sustain the loss of fish habitat that would be permanently destroyed by such massive dredging. We will oppose any plan that poses a threat to our waters,'' Spalding said.

``While our opposition to the Weaver's Cove proposal is unequivocal, Save The Bay at the same time strongly recommends a public and thoughtful dialogue about the role well-placed and environmentally sensitive LNG facilities could play in helping meet the region's energy needs,'' Spalding added.

Save The Bay testified it opposes the DEIS for many reasons, including that:

-- It failed to identify and assess potential impacts on the natural environment from the proposed dredging and dredge disposal -- It failed to address cumulative impacts from the project on Mount Hope Bay, considering the impacts from Brayton Point Power Station on winter flounder (or the ecosystem). -- It failed to identify alternative routes for the pipeline and provide an opportunity for the public to review and comment on avoidance, mitigation and alternatives. -- It failed to adequately explore viable alternatives and summarily dismissed "offshore" alternatives. -- It failed to determine, or even review, whether the project is consistent with MA and RI CZMA. Such a determination should be made before it is permitted, not before construction. -- It failed to describe the potential environmental impacts on MA resources and show that all feasible means to avoid damage to the environment will be implemented. The state does not have adequate information to make permitting decisions.

``... there are over- whelming reasons why this project cannot go forward as proposed. Mount Hope Bay is too fragile to sustain the loss of fish habitat that would be permanently destroyed by such massive dredging.'' - Curt Spalding, Executive Director Save The Bay

Save The Bay, Inc. of Providence, Rhode Island is an independent, not-for-profit organization. Save The Bay® is a registered trademark of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation.

______________________________________________________

February 16, 2005

MSNBC

Newsday

New war on the Sound

More: https://MSNBC.msn.com/id/6963342/

It wasn't the weather that drew 75 environmental and civic activists to a North Shore beach last month to launch their campaign against a $700 million proposal to place a natural gas terminal in the middle of Long Island Sound.

The temperature was 5 degrees and the northwest wind whipped off the water at 20 miles per hour, but what mattered to the freezing activists was the backdrop their protest signs presented for news photographers and television cameras: the shuttered $6 billion Shoreham nuclear power plant.

"We wanted to send a message to the people of Long Island that this has the magnitude of the threat that Shoreham had," said Richard Amper, executive director of the Long Island Pine Barrens Society.

Amper is a key organizer of a new coalition of civic and environmental groups - 33 have signed on so far - mobilizing to fight a terminal that at 1,200 feet would be slightly longer than the world's largest ocean liner, the Queen Mary II. It would be located about nine miles north of the Shoreham-Wading River area, almost halfway between New York and Connecticut.

But the environmentalists were sending another message, too, and it was aimed at scaring off Broadwater Energy, the partnership of TransCanada Corp. and Shell that is touting the project as a way to trim the region's sky-high energy costs.

The message: Two decades ago, a similar grassroots opposition movement managed to overcome the federal government and the energy industry, preventing a completed and fully licensed nuclear plant from operating for the only time in U.S. history.

"Long Island environmental and civic groups have an unequaled track record," Amper said. "We don't lose these fights."

______________________________________________________

April 1, 2005

Offshore LNG Terminals Worry US Gulf Anglers
Reuters - USA
HOUSTON (Reuters) - "US Gulf of Mexico sport fisheries may be depleted by the influx of offshore liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals that use seawater to ..."

______________________________________________________

April 12, 2005

Sierra Club fights development of LNG terminals in the South
Times Picayune - New Orleans,LA,USA
NEW ORLEANS (AP) -- "The Sierra Club is condemning the wave of development of liquefied natural gas terminals along the Gulf of Mexico coast..."

______________________________________________________

April 15, 2005

Court asked to review LNG terminal permit
Washington Times - Washington, DC, USA

New Orleans, LA, Apr. 15 (UPI) -- Three groups Friday asked a federal appeals court in New Orleans to review a permit issued for an offshore natural gas facility in the Gulf of Mexico.

The Sierra Club, the Gulf Restoration Network and Louisiana Charter Boat Association alleged in the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals that the permit was issued for Shell's Gulf Landing facility despite its potentially severe impact on marine life.

Aaron Viles, the network's fisheries campaign director, said, "There is complete agreement among fisheries managers that these facilities will destroy marine wildlife, the only question is to what extent."

______________________________________________________