Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Please stop adding Cheniere Energy. This article is about the entire WORLD, and what
LNG is, it is not a place to promote your favorite stock, or where you work. If you want to
add a NEW section at the bottom and talk about ALL of the regasification plants around the
world, not just the ONE'S in Sabine Pass, Freeport, or Corpus Christi! Also talk about ALL
the companies involved in putting up new terminals, or adding to existing terminals.
Here is a partial list of just the proposed North American terminals to get you started:
I want to see FAIR and EQUAL treament or I will submit the article to be LOCKED, and
you will not be able to edit it. If you want to create a new article about Cheniere Energy and
then have a reference in that article to LNG for an explination of what it is, that is fine.
WikiDon 22:56, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Contents
[hide]
1 Based on current Wikipedia policy, please add new comments to the bottom, not
the top.
2 What I know about LNG terminals in the U.S.
3 Non US Plants
4 A ton of tons
5 Moved from Royal Dutch Shell
6 Heat value
7 Correction
Based on current Wikipedia policy, please add new comments to the bottom, not the top.
[edit]
1) There are five LNG regasification terminals operating in the United States:
o Everett, MA : 1.035 Bcfd (Tractebel - DOMAC)
o Cove Point, MD : 1.0 Bcfd (Dominion - Cove Point LNG)
o Elba Island, GA : 0.68 Bcfd (El Paso - Southern LNG)
o Lake Charles, LA : 1.0 Bcfd (Southern Union - Trunkline LNG)
o Gulf of Mexico: 0.5 Bcfd, (Gulf Gateway Energy Bridge - Excelerate
Energy)
2) It is easier for an existing terminal to expand, and receive approvals, than it is for
a new terminal to be built.
o
o
o
o
5) Just because a company has received FERC approval does not mean that a
terminal will be built. The local community still has the right to reject a plan. The
Coast Guard has FINAL say on all plans, after the FERC approval.
6) In addition to the eight above, two more have passed on through the
MARAD/Coast Guard approval process:
o Port Pelican: 1.6 Bcfd, (Chevron Texaco)
o Louisiana Offshore : 1.0 Bcfd (Gulf Landing - Shell)
7) In addition to plants in the U.S., LNG can also be brought to Mexico and Canada
and then piped in the form of natural gas to markets in the U.S., there are five such
plants approved in Canada and Mexico:
o St. John, NB : 1.0 Bcfd, (Canaport - Irving Oil)
o Point Tupper, NS 1.0 Bcf/d (Bear Head LNG - Anadarko)
o Altamira, Tamulipas : 0.7 Bcfd, (Shell/Total/Mitsui)
o
o
8) The regulatory hurdles for these plants may be less than in the U.S.,
o A) Due to local population density in Canada and their local economy.
o B) Due to standards that may be lower and economic conditions in Mexico.
9) In addition to the above-mentioned plants, there are 23 more plants that have
submitted for applications from either FERC or MARAD/COAST GUARD:
o Fall River, MA : 0.8 Bcfd, (Weaver's Cove Energy/Hess LNG)
o Long Beach, CA : 0.7 Bcfd, (Mitsubishi/ConocoPhillips - Sound Energy
Solutions
o Corpus Christi, TX : 1.0 Bcfd (Vista Del Sol - ExxonMobil)
o Sabine, TX : 1.0 Bcfd (Golden Pass - ExxonMobil)
o Logan Township, NJ : 1.2 Bcfd (Crown Landing LNG - BP)
o Bahamas : 0.5 Bcfd, (Seafarer - El Paso/FPL )
o Corpus Christi, TX: 1.0 Bcfd (Ingleside Energy - Occidental Energy
Ventures)
o Providence, RI : 0.5 Bcfd (Keyspan & BG LNG)
o Port Arthur, TX: 1.5 Bcfd (Sempra)
o Cove Point, MD : 0.8 Bcfd (Dominion)
o LI Sound, NY: 1.0 Bcfd (Broadwater Energy - TransCanada/Shell)
o Pascagoula, MS: 1.0 Bcfd (Gulf LNG Energy LLC)
o Bradwood, OR: 1.0 Bcfd (Northern Star LNG - Northern Star Natural Gas
LLC)
o Pascagoula, MS: 1.3 Bcfd (Casotte Landing - ChevronTexaco)
o Cameron, LA: 3.3 Bcfd (Creole Trail LNG - Cheniere LNG)
o Port Lavaca, TX: 1.0 Bcfd (Calhoun LNG - Gulf Coast LNG Partners)
o California Offshore: 1.5 Bcfd (Cabrillo Port - BHP Billiton)
o So. California Offshore : 0.5 Bcfd, (Crystal Energy)
o Louisiana Offshore : 1.0 Bcfd (Main Pass McMoRan Exp.)
o Gulf of Mexico: 1.0 Bcfd (Compass Port - ConocoPhillips)
o Gulf of Mexico: 2.8 Bcfd (Pearl Crossing - ExxonMobil)
o Gulf of Mexico: 1.5 Bcfd (Beacon Port Clean Energy Terminal ConocoPhillips)
o Offshore Boston, MA: 0.4 Bcfd (Neptune LNG - Tractebel)
10) If you look at some of the names on all the lists that I have provided, you will
notice some with vastly larger financial resources than Cheniere. Additionally you
say: NONE of those companies you list has both an approved terminal and
sufficient capacity deals lined up to merit construction! Only Cheniere does! But
what these companies do have is hugh financial resources, they can BUY the
companies that obtian approval just by opening the checkbook. I will only cite one
for further demonstration:
o ExxonMobil has $18.5 billion in cash.
o Not to mention Shell, BP, etc., etc., etc.
12) The U.S. Government could adopt an National Energy Policy that promotes
other forms of energy, financially impacting LNG and Cheniere. FROM Chenieres
most recent 424B5 (03-December-2004):
o The failure of LNG to become a competitive supply alternative to domestic
natural gas, oil and other import alternatives could have a material adverse
effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and
prospects.
14) CONCLUSION:
o A) If you want to write an article about LNG regasification terminal plants
in the United States, inlcude ALL OF THEM, not just the one you think will
be the winner.
15) Sources:
o http://www.ferc.gov
o http://www.sec.gov
[edit]
Non US Plants
Seems to me that this argument shouldn't centre around the small US market. The article is
about LNG and this is a worldwide subject with most plants operating outside domestic US.
Cherniere is a very small player when compared with the worldwide market and expertise.
It is a tiny player in the petrochemical field and given that it hasn't any resources can only
be considered an operator. It doesn't yet seem to have an LNG plant?
This article certainly isn't the place to make a case for investment in the future. I agree with
Wikidon that if you want to have an article about Cherniere then by all means do so. I think
it would be fair for Wikidon to rank the position of all operating companies and we can see
the amount of work that needs to be done before it is worth considering Cherniere as a
player.
Finally please annotate comments on this page with a signature so that it is easier for others
to follow the argument. --Rjstott 03:57, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit]
A ton of tons
What in the world are "tons" in the table in this article? Gene Nygaard 12:49, 18 August
2005 (UTC)
[edit]
offshore gas onshore? A quarter? And what proportion of these have the gas piped through
inhabited areas?
Lapsed Pacifist 18:42, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
129.173.105.28 has provided you with a link where you could put together the statistics and
work out your own ratio; browsing through the site I can quickly see that there are many
projects where gas is refined onshore. There are hundreds of offshore gas projects, you are
asking someone else to do a significant amount of work for you. Based on your edits you I
feel you have a POV on the issue. Can you provide the actual numbers for the pressures.
All gas pipelines are "high pressured". --Csnewton 19:45, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm given to understand that the pressure is much higher before the gas is refined. I'm not
looking for exact offshore/onshore or inhabited areas/uninhabited areas ratios, a rough
estimate from someone more familiar with the industry would suit me fine. Based on my
edits, exactly what POV do you think I have?
Lapsed Pacifist 05:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
I don't think many people would have a rough estimate of the numbers you are looking for.
You could try asking other places in wikipedia. You seem to be searching relentlessly for
evidence that onshore refining is not the norm or common. The pressure of a pipeline
depends on its use. For instance, a transport pipeline for refined gas would likely be at a
similar pressure to the pipeline originating at the platform. A distribution pipeline would
have less pressure. --Csnewton 12:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC) The pressures in all gas
pipelines are decided by the desired flowrate, the gas consistency and the terrain over
which they must pass. Unrefined NGL is sent by underground pipeline from St Fergus to
Mossmorran a total of 212km. It passes close to many properties and nearby Aberdeen and
Perth. There is no odoriser and the pressure in the pipe at it highest (lowest elevation) is
similar (probably greater) to Corrib. Unprocessed gas arives at St Fergus and at Bacton in
the UK from offshore. Unprocessed gas is collected thoughout Northern Netherlands from
the Gronigen field and piped through hundreds of km of flow lines to gathering stations.
There is no change in the safety position for odorised gas compared with unodorised gas. A
leak remains equally likely and equally problematical. Use of odoriser would provide little
value.--Rjstott 03:48, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Surely the odoriser would warn anyone near the pipe that there was a leak?
Lapsed Pacifist 06:00, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Given the number of explosions in houses caused by leaking gas where odoriser is
obviously present it seem that detection by smell isn't effective and too late by far to have
any purpose. As the pipeline passes through a largely unpopulated area detection by smell
is not somethin any responsible operator would rely on. It is much more important that all
precautions are taken to ensure the pipeline is properly maintained and protected. Other
important safety solutions requires leak detection, the capability to shut down, isolate,
depressurise and act quickly. All responsible Gas pipeline operators will have clear plans in
any emergency which will be regularly tested.
That's fair enough. Should'nt blast radius be a factor if the pipe passes close to houses,
though?
Lapsed Pacifist 04:12, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
The radius is quite small even for gas mixed at precisely the right proportions. Gas
explosions are also considered soft (slow), especially unless constrained. At around 50
metres from a gas release point, there is considered to be little risk of ignition. However,
lots of factors need to be considered such as prevailing wind and weather, terrain, pressure,
leak size, pipe depth, leak detection capability, temperature etc. This discussion would be
better on the LNG talk page if it is to have any general value.--Rjstott 10:30, 27 August
2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Royal_Dutch_Shell"
[edit]
Heat value
Can somebody add to the article typical heat values for LNG? For a fuel, this is absolutely
necessary info. Metric units would be fine, but BTU's/ft3 are OK too. --FocalPoint 13:36,
21 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit]
Correction
The Staten Island Incident and Fluxys LNG incidents were not due to leaks of LNG. Other
fire/explosion incidents have occurred that were due to leaks of LNG, but not these.
No one is sure what caused the Staten Island incident but it was not LNG. The tank
contained no LNG at the time when the explosion occurred. LNG remains in its liquid form
only when its temperature is below -160C. At these temperatures, it is quite impossible for
any residual LNG to have been in the tank while workers were also present. A more likely
explanation is that the explosion was due to ignition of vapours from solvents that were
being used in connection with repair of the lining of the tank.
The Fluxys incident was an explosion at a gas pipeline, not an LNG pipeline. "Fluxys
LNG" is simply the name of the company that operated the pipeline.
[edit]
Article
Discussion
Edit this page
+
History
Personal tools
Navigation
Main Page
Community Portal
Current events
Recent changes
Random article
Help
Contact Wikipedia
Donations
Search
Go
Search
Toolbox
Upload file
Special pages
Printable version
Permanent link