LNG Tanker Ships are Gross Contributors to Global Climate Change

From an Article by Jon Hurdle, New Jersey Spotlight, July 17, 2019

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers divulged new details yesterday about plans for New Jersey’s first export terminal for liquefied natural gas, showing it would be supplied by as many as 15 trucks an hour — around the clock — to fill an ocean-going tanker every two weeks.

The previously unpublished information about the proposed terminal at Gibbstown in Gloucester County, the Army Corps said Tuesday, came from new details it had received about the plan by the developer, Delaware River Partners, since the agency published an earlier notice on the project in April.

The new document said LNG — a super-cooled form of natural gas that can explode if its vapor is mixed with air in an enclosed space — would not be processed or stored on site but would be pumped directly from trucks into ships.

To limit the impact of the heavy truck traffic on residential areas, Gloucester County is proposing a new access road to a port that would be expanded to accommodate the terminal, the document said. The new road would be about 110 feet from the nearest residential area; the terminal’s loading area would be built at least a mile away from those homes.

The developer has also proposed carrying the LNG to the terminal by rail but that idea hasn’t yet been approved by the U.S. Department of Transportation, the Army Corps report said. Until that happens, the Corps said it’s not possible to predict the volume of LNG that would arrive by rail or the number of trains.

Opening markets for fracked Marcellus Shale gas

The Corps, which must approve some aspects of the planned Gibbstown Logistics Center, said there was nothing inaccurate about its first notice, but that it wanted to “expand our discussion of the public interest factors relevant to the Corps of Engineers review” of the project.

But disclosure of the new detail may fuel critics who say that DRP and some government agencies have not been fully transparent about a project that would bring explosive materials to a residential area, and which would stimulate the production of fracked natural gas, boosting climate-changing carbon emissions.

The gas, harvested from Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale would be liquefied at a proposed plant in Bradford County, Pa., built by New Fortress Energy, a LNG company.

The terminal would expand the market for gas from the Marcellus geological formation — one of the biggest reserves in the world — after about a decade in which some of it has been “shut-in” because of a shortage of pipelines or other infrastructure for shipping it to customers.

If built, the Gibbstown facility would be the first LNG export terminal in New Jersey, and would join at least nine others around the country built over the last decade in response to the boom in production of natural gas obtained by fracking, also known as hydraulic fracturing.

Critics have accused DRP and some government agencies of covering up the details of their plans, which would result in 360 trucks a day, each carrying 12,000 gallons of LNG, leaving the planned liquefaction plant in northeastern Pennsylvania and arriving in Gibbstown 24 hours a day. The terminal would have the capacity to export 1.67 million barrels of LNG per month.

“New Fortress Energy keeps playing games, and only giving out little bits of information at a time,” said Jeff Tittel, director of the New Jersey Sierra Club. “Every day we look at this, the project gets bigger and more dangerous.”

‘Supplemental public notice’ seems appropriate

Tittel argued that the Corps acted properly in issuing the new notice because it needed to make the public aware of the new information from the applicant.

Steve Rochette, a spokesman for the Corps’ Philadelphia office, said the new notice arose from conversations with the applicant since the first notice was issued.

“As a result of those conversations, this office felt the public would benefit from a supplemental public notice explaining the project in more detail. This in turn will allow the public to better understand the project and address any concerns that may arise,” he wrote in an email.

In evaluating the application for permits, the Corps said it will consider a range of factors including whether the project would help to meet national and local energy needs; whether dredging and dock construction would affect water quality, and whether those activities would erode shorelines.

DRP’s plans to dredge the Delaware River and construct an extra dock got a green light last month from the Delaware River Basin Commission in the face of criticism from environmentalists that it had not allowed the public the opportunity to comment. The DRBC said this week it is considering a request by the environmental group Delaware Riverkeeper Network to take another look at its approval, and hold a public hearing.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

NOTICE TO RESIDENTS, CONSERVATIONISTS & VACATIONERS

Beware to Delaware Bay, Cape Henlopen State Park, as well as the beaches including Lewes, Cape Shores, Rehoboth, etc. Sediment can become a problem. Fish kills can occur. The increased shipping can interfere with existing activities as the Cape May to Lewes Ferry. DGN

Providence legislators oppose ‘dangerous’ new LNG development

From an Article by Steve Ahlquist on August 3, 2016

A group of Providence elected officials announced their strong opposition to a proposal by National Grid to develop a new fracked gas liquefaction facility at Fields Point in South Providence. Citing concerns ranging from costs to ratepayers, safety risks and climate impact, the legislators — including Representatives Joseph S. Almeida (D-Dist. 12, Providence), Grace Diaz (D-Dist. 11, Providence), Aaron Regunberg (D-Dist. 4, Providence), Chris Blazejewski (D-Dist. 2, Providence), Edith H. Ajello (D-Dist. 1, Providence) and John J. Lombardi (D-Dist. 8, Providence) and Senators Juan Pichardo (D-Dist. 2, Providence), Gayle Goldin (D-Dist. 3, Providence) and Sen. Harold M. Metts (D-Dist. 6, Providence) — called on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to reject National Grid’s application, and warned the City of Providence against signing a tax stabilization agreement with the utility to facilitate the project.

Last summer, National Grid submitted a proposal to FERC to develop a $180 million facility to produce Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) directly from a Spectra Energy pipeline that delivers fracked gas from Marcellus Shale to Providence. LNG is produced by cooling natural gas to -260°F, which reduces its volume by 600 times and puts it into liquid form. As described in its application, National Grid would then utilize tanker trucks to export the LNG produced in Providence, primarily to locations in Massachusetts.

“No matter how you look at it, this project is a money-maker for the utility at the expense of our community and our state,” said Representative Almeida. “National Grid is asking us, the ratepayers, to foot the $180 million bill for this project, for what? So they can increase their own profits by exporting LNG out of the state! This does nothing to benefit our constituents, and it does nothing to benefit my neighbors on the South Side. All this proposal will do is transfer money from ratepayers’ pockets to National Grid’s coffers, and we’re not going to accept it.”

Legislators also expressed concerns about the safety risks of the proposed project.

“LNG is a dangerous substance,” said Representative Diaz. “Just two years ago, an LNG facility in Washington state exploded, causing an evacuation of everyone within a two-mile area. If that were to happen at this site, all of my constituents would be in danger. Why is it always our community that must shoulder the collateral damage and safety risks from these toxic projects?”

LNG is stable in liquid form, and without air it is not flammable. However, at any temperature over -260°F it converts to methane gas and expands by 600 times, rapidly pressurizing any sealed container. If LNG spills and mixes with airs, it becomes highly flammable and potentially explosive.

“I remember when Keyspan, which has since been bought by National Grid, applied to FERC with a similar proposal to build an LNG import facility at Fields Point in 2005,” said Senator Pichardo. “That application was denied due to the very real safety concerns of this kind of development. In fact, FERC Commissioner Nora Brownell cited the risks of accidents and explosions when turning down the proposal, stating that the project would not meet current federal safety standards. If doubling down on this dangerous fuel was unsafe ten years ago, it is unsafe for our neighborhood today, and I urge FERC to once again listen to the community’s opposition to this harmful development.”

Finally, the elected officials demanded that the climate consequences of the expanded fossil fuel infrastructure be taken into account.

“The science on climate change is clear. If my generation is to have any chance of inheriting an Ocean State with any state left in it, we need to transition to a clean energy economy as quickly as possible. This proposal would sink millions of ratepayer dollars into unnecessary new fossil fuel infrastructure that would be used for decades past our climate’s point of no return, and that is a betrayal of our children,” said Representative Regunberg. “Mayor Jorge Elorza and the Providence City Council have taken credit for being leaders on climate and environmental issues. But if the city awards a tax stabilization agreement to National Grid to support this project, then it is our belief that the mayor and council can no longer claim this kind of climate leadership. We hope they will do the right thing and tell National Grid that Providence will not facilitate this wasteful, ratepayer-funded, environmentally catastrophic scheme.”

The Providence legislators reported that they are submitting letters detailing their concerns to FERC, joining a growing list of community members and neighborhood organizations opposing National Grid’s application.

See also: www.FrackCheckWV.net

Tanker Truck in Holding Pond

Residual Wastewater Tanker Truck Out of Control in Holding Pond

Commentary by S. Tom Bond, Retired Chemistry Professor and Resident Farmer, Lewis County, WV

Recorded human history goes back some 8 or 10,000 years. How much future does the human race have?

I recently came across a reference to an article in the Oil and Gas Journal published in 2012 which states that the following: “The recovery efficiency for the 5 major [shale gas] plays averages 6.5% …. This contrasts significantly with recovery efficiencies of 75 – 80% for conventional gas fields.” That means that with present technology, some 93.5% of the gas in place is left behind, with the shale altered in such a way that requires still another technology as yet un-conceived-of to remove it, if it is ever done. Not what you would call a mature, efficient technology.

I sent the above picture to a friend at the top of another business in California. He sarcastically remarked, “Is that tanker demonstrating a method of loading the truck by submerging it, like pushing a water pail under the surface of a pond?” Then he said, “If they can’t even keep their trucks from falling into the pond, what can they be expected to control?”

Another interesting article appeared in the Financial Times section on CNBC. Shale gas now amounts to 40 percent of all gas produced in the U. S. Also, the vast reserve claimed depends on what can be removed with technology available today, but without regard for cost of extraction. To use this small fraction it must be available for 12, 14, 18 dollars a thousand someday. When?

Resource exhaustion, and global warming are among several hugely divisive public concerns today. Ignoring them seems to be the litmus test for conservatives. Modern “conservatism” isn’t an extension of what it meant to be a conservative 40 or 50 years ago, but a radical new position favoring big business and concentration of wealth in the hands of those who control these business interests. The rest of us should be content with “trickle down,” to use Ronald Regan’s term. It is no accident that the leading climate change denier in the Senate is Jim Inhofe, of Oklahoma, where oil and gas rule.

There is an article in a newspaper from our state capitol that suggests some modern conservatives are getting the message. In part it reads: At a House hearing on climate change, Rep. Bob Inglis (R-SC) mocked his Republican colleagues for refusing to acknowledge the truth and danger of global warming. “You need to be accountable for all of your costs,” Inglis said, referring to future costs, including environmental damage. “We need to put an ‘upstream tax’ at the mines and at the pipelines to pay for the social costs of [producing and transporting] fuel. We can increase costs of production and cut some taxes.” So what needs to be done can be done with classic conservative principles, he says.

Both considering resource exhaustion (allowing for a lengthy future of the human race) and global warming are wrapped up together. The replies to an article that appeared in Chemical and Engineering News in January include the following comments:

(1) The issue of exporting natural gas comes down to how fast we are willing to hydraulically fracture or “frack” shale to get the gas. The faster we go, the cheaper the gas and the greater will be the urge to export it.

(2) Could it be that the gas industry wants to rush, not just to make money today, but also fearing that slowing down would result in a better understanding of the risks?

And finally, (3). Decades ago, several people in the [chemical] industry were pointing out that crude oil (and natural gas) are so valuable as feedstocks for production of chemicals that maybe those fossil fuels should be saved for chemicals production rather than the ca. 4% currently used.