| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
loulan
Advanced Member
USA
654 Posts |
|
|
dhudson29
Average Member
USA
256 Posts |
 Posted - 11/15/2006 : 10:47:01 AM
|
I know that Trunkline is building a huge LNG project in Lake Charles.
Semper Fidelis |
 |
|
|
ed mcintyre
Administrator
USA
6079 Posts |
Posted - 11/15/2006 : 9:21:34 PM
|
louis, there are a number of them now pending, but due to the efforts of mike lane and a few others, all of the applications that have been approved, the open loop is dead, and the closed loop is in!!!
remember we did not inherit these resources from our parents, we are merely borrowing them from our children |
|
|
|
loulan
Advanced Member
USA
654 Posts |
Posted - 11/17/2006 : 8:41:41 PM
|
That's good news 1 Atta-boy for Mike and crew..
loulan |
|
|
|
ClassicBassMaster
New Member
10 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2006 : 10:05:21 PM
|
Just got back from Iraq, so I am trying to catch up on everything. Where does LNG stand? Are we any closer to keeping ALL LNG terminals off our coast? What's going on from our side to kill the terminals? Sorry if this has been answered somewhere else in the forum, but I haven't had time to read through everything yet.
|
|
|
|
dhudson29
Average Member
USA
256 Posts |
Posted - 11/29/2006 : 08:32:48 AM
|
what is so bad about the LNG projects?
Semper Fidelis |
|
|
|
Hookahfish
Junior Member
USA
102 Posts |
Posted - 11/29/2006 : 6:08:06 PM
|
hey d,
as i know you are in the oil feild industry lng projects toyou are important as it means food on your table.but to anglers as well as coastal home owners are bad news , reason being, (im sure theres a bunch but i think this is our biggest problem) when the oil industry comes in to drill for gas , oil etc. they dig access canals to get to where the head is , this promotes erosion as well destroys our wetlands . to anglers as well as hunters this means less bait-filled marsh and in turn no fish/wildlife. to home owners this is our vital protection against storm surges . take the m.r.g.o, had it not been for this waterway (dug for the navigationable pourposes of new orleans ports)st. bernard might have made it through the storm ok . but we didnt. thankfully as of today , there are plans to shut this waterway down. as one's motto states, we didnt inherit it from our forefathers but mearly borrowing from tomorrows generation.
|
|
|
|
pooldoo73
Average Member
USA
169 Posts |
Posted - 11/29/2006 : 6:55:34 PM
|
Here is a quick update on where we are in relation to fighting the open-loop LNG's in offshore waters.
1) Shell has received a Permit to build an open-loop LNG Terminal offshore Louisiana. No construction of any sort has been started on this Terminal up to now.
2)Exxon/Mobil withdrew their application to build "Pearl Crossing" offshore LNG Terminal before a FEIS was published. Exxon said they had secured enough re-gas capacity at onshore facilities.
3)Freeport/McMoran received a Permit and is presently constructing an offshore LNG Terminal that will use closed-loop technology. It is called Main Pass Energy Hub.
4)Conoco's "Compass Port" off the coast of Alabama was designed to be an open-loop offshore LNG Terminal, but Conoco withdrew the application after the FEIS was published and just one day before the Alabama Governor was to VETO to Terminal unless Conoco agreed to use closed-loop technology.
5)Conoco's "Beacon Port" offshore open-loop LNG Terminal off the coast of Texas/Louisiana just recently had its FEIS published. Conoco withdrew its application right after the FEIS was published, effectively stopping the project.
6) El Paso Energy Bridge is the only currently operating offshore open-loop LNG Terminal in the Gulf. It is located ~100 miles offshore the Texas/Louisiana coast.
7)Chevron has received a Permit to build and operate "Port Pelican" offshore open-loop LNG Terminal off Louisiana. This permit was issued ~2 years ago and Chevron has since informed MARAD that they DO NOT plan to build the Terminal.
8) TORP Bienville Offshore Energy Terminal is yet another proposed offshore open-loop LNG Terminal. It is presently in the data collecting stages and a DEIS is being prepared.
That is where the proposed offshore Terminals for the northern Gulf are at in the Permiting process.
One thing to note is that Conoco can proceed with completing either of their 2 withdrawn applications when/if the political climate of the Gulf States changes.
edit: There are presently over 25 proposed and approved onshore LNG Terminals in the works in the US. The above is only regarding the offshore LNG Terminals in the northern Gulf.
Edited by - pooldoo73 on 11/29/2006 18:58:28 |
|
|
|
dhudson29
Average Member
USA
256 Posts |
Posted - 11/30/2006 : 07:40:50 AM
|
Thanks Hook-a-fish! What you wrote makes alot of sense. There is a project in Lake Charles (Trunkline LNG) that should kick off sometime in the next month or two. I know this because the company that I work for is trying to get awarded the project. If anyone knows the project that I am talking about please inform me as to the impact of such a project would have on our environment. The Project is on a site that already has navigatable waterways to it so I don't see why they would disturb any more land. I think it is on the Intercoastal waterway.
Semper Fidelis |
|
|
|
Bigoledude
Average Member
USA
125 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2007 : 11:37:51 PM
|
Hook ain't got a clue about what LNG's impact is. The issue with LNG has nothing to do with pipeline canals or construction of canals. BTW, they don't find a well-head and then dig canals to reach them. They dig canals to drill and install wells and, to lay the pipe that carries their product to other locations.
Not all LNG units are harmful. Open-loop LNG's are the harmful ones. These open loop facilities use sea water to reheat natural gas and and then return this cold water back into the Gulf from whence it came. EVERY living creature in the 150 million gallons of cooled water (per day) they use, dies!
Closed loop systems use the same water over and over. They only kill the organisms in the initial batch of water they take in. The petroleum companies must then use THEIR OWN gas to reheat the water. Big Whup!
Unless dhudson29 is an officer within an oil company, I can't imagine anyone working in offshore industry losing salary because of using closed-loop over open-loop.
I don't think any LNG project would have an impact on how much hurricane damage we sustain here in Chalmette. Reheating natural gas out in the Gulf of Mexico is not impacting coastal erosion in any meaningful way.
Jesus is alive. HE sits right next to God, pointing towards us who believe and obey. Asking GOD to help us! |
|
|
|
NWTFHUNTER
New Member
USA
10 Posts |
Posted - 01/12/2009 : 08:02:57 AM
|
Bigoledude, new here. Why does the return of cold water from the plant kill everything ?
My Girlfriend thinks Im working, My boss thinks Im sick... But all my buddies know...... Im Hunting |
|
|
|
hbk2859
Junior Member
108 Posts |
Posted - 01/12/2009 : 10:44:26 AM
|
| I am not an engineer or a marine biologist; however, I believe the cooling of the water kills the eggs and larvae of the marine animals that is in the water. These plants apparently circulate tremendous amounts of water. |
|
|
|
NWTFHUNTER
New Member
USA
10 Posts |
Posted - 01/21/2009 : 5:56:48 PM
|
How cold is the returned water that it would kill them ?
My Girlfriend thinks Im working, My boss thinks Im sick... But all my buddies know...... Im Hunting |
|
|
|
ed mcintyre
Administrator
USA
6079 Posts |
Posted - 01/22/2009 : 10:06:54 PM
|
when you first realize that lng is minus 260 degrees fairenheit to begin with, and that you are going to warm it up with raw sea water and not allow the sea water to be warmed when it is returned to the gulf, you will get a better perspective on what this extreme cold water would do to the warm gulf environment.
remember we did not inherit these resources from our parents, we are merely borrowing them from our children |
|
|
|
NWTFHUNTER
New Member
USA
10 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2009 : 02:48:33 AM
|
Ed, so what kind of temp change are you talking about.. Ie temp of water going in and then returning ?
This is new to me so I am just trying to understand..
My Girlfriend thinks Im working, My boss thinks Im sick... But all my buddies know...... Im Hunting |
|
|
|
Outsideallthetime
Administrator
1717 Posts |
Posted - 02/24/2009 : 7:04:11 PM
|
Well, its not the temperature of the water, so to speak.....it's the fact that raw Gulf of Mexico water is being used to raise the temperature of the extremely cold LNG (liquid natural gas). So its also about using fertile (with critters) water, in a way that uses HUGE volumes of water that winds up being STERILIZED due to a huge temperature change.....does that help make the idea a bit more clear?
If I am understanding the concept, that is what I am seeing....PLEASE correct me if I am not seeing it! |
|
|
|
pooldoo73
Average Member
USA
169 Posts |
Posted - 02/25/2009 : 09:18:33 AM
|
| The temperature change of the water is not the main problem. The water is chlorinated as it enters the system in order to stop all biological growth on the equipment. The cholirinated water is then dumped into the gulf chlorinated. Everything that enters the intakes is killed due to the flow of the water through the pumps. The water will be cold enough and chlorinated enough that the estimates provided by the oil companies of the dead zone from the discharge would extend about 300 feet from the discharge. |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
Sportsman's Paradise Vol 09-37
UPDATE ON LNG TERMINALS
