As one LNG project moves forward, another caught in regulatory tussle
Sempra Energy and Cheniere want to construct export terminals
By Rhiannon Meyers and Ryan Holeywell
August 7, 2014
One plan to export natural gas from the Gulf Coast moved forward this week toward construction of a $10 billion facility, while another got caught in a tussle between two federal agencies.
Sempra Energy and its partners announced their final investment decision in favor of a plan to add gas liquefaction and export capability to the existing Cameron LNG import terminal in Hackberry, La. They expect to bring it online in 2018.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said a federal energy regulator hasn't done enough to determine how Cheniere Energy's proposed liquefied natural gas export terminal near Corpus Christi would affect the air, water, wetlands and wildlife.
The projects are among a wave of proposed LNG export facilities looking to capitalize on cheap and abundant supplies of natural gas produced in the U.S. shale boom. Chilling natural gas into a liquid makes it possible to transport the fuel on tanker ships.
Cameron LNG obtained Federal Energy Regulatory Commission clearance in June to build and operate the project, and has a conditional permit from the Department of Energy to export natural gas to countries with which the United States doesn't have free trade agreements.
It will have three liquefaction plants, called trains, with a total capacity to produce 12 million metric tons of LNG per year.
Cheniere's proposed Corpus Christi export terminal has yet to receive approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which is conducting environmental assessments and other reviews of Cheniere's permit application.
It was the environmental component that drew the negative comments from the EPA. In a letter Monday to FERC, the EPA said its fellow agency's draft environmental review for Cheniere's proposed Corpus Christi expansion was insufficient.
The EPA comments aren't likely to slow down the overall approval process significantly, but the final environmental review may be delayed slightly, depending on how much the energy regulator needs to do to address the EPA concerns, said Daniella Landers, head of Sutherland Asbill and Brennan's environmental practice.
She said it depends on the extent to which FERC has to do additional studies.
Activists may take note
While FERC will give the EPA's input the same weight it gives other comments, Landers said, the EPA's concerns could provide fodder for environmental groups and others opposed to the project to argue against it.
In the letter, Craig Weeks, chief of the EPA's office of planning and coordination, said his agency identified "a number of potential adverse impacts to aquatic resources, air quality, environmental justice populations and wetlands," and recommended specific issues be addressed in the energy regulator's final plan.
Without an adequate plan to mitigate potential impacts, the terminal, proposed for a 991-acre site along the northern shore of Corpus Christi Bay, could cause a number of environmental problems, according to the EPA. Among them, the terminal could take away wetlands and special aquatic habitats, while dredging and frequent ship traffic could contribute to chronic cloudiness in the water, which inhibits the growth of underwater plants on which fish and shellfish feed, the EPA said.
[...]
Deals for half of output
[...]
Houston-based Cheniere already has begun construction on liquefaction and export facilities at its existing Sabine Pass import plant in Cameron Parish, La. The project has Energy Department and FERC approval.
http://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/article/As-one-LNG-project-moves-forward-another-caught-5675870.php
|
Wonder if that's the Japanese $10billion facility in the Gulf Coast, or if the figure's just a coincidence and the money's from somewhere else?
Anyway, there's a shale boom ... and there's a scramble to build LNG export facilities.
cheap and abundant supplies of natural gas produced in the
U.S. shale boom. Chilling natural gas into a liquid makes it possible
to transport the fuel on tanker ships.
LNG? HELLO EUROPE.
** NOTE - Europe (ie Economic Union) is on the proposed free trade agreements list -
here.
Does this mean US is preparing to export LNG to Europe?
