LNG (Liquified Natural Gas) and its impact on the Gulf of Mexico

[LadyFish]

As many of you know, I took a position as an advocate with the Gulf Restoration Network about a month ago.

The Gulf Restoration Network (GRN) is a diverse network of local, regional and national groups dedicated to protecting and restoring the valuable resources of the Gulf of Mexico. The GRN has members in the five Gulf states of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida and nationwide.

One of the most immediate concerns is the LNG (Liquified Natural Gas) process Shell oil is currently undergoing plans to develop just off the Coast of Lousiana.

You might say why should you care about fish in the Gulf of Mexico, I live far inland or not even close to the Gulf. The answer is that over 40% of the nation's fish come out of the gulf of Mexico, the economic impact could be devestating from the negative effects this will have on our marine eco system.

This is a grass roots effort in order to urge Shell Oil to take the lead, spend a little bit more and do the right thing for the environment. The overall cost to Shell to use a close loop system which would have minimal effects on the environment versus an open loop system is the equivalent of one day's profit.

Join us and thousands of others and tell Shell to:

Follow Freeport's Lead, Close the Loop on LNG
Liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals pose a developing threat to commercial and recreational fishing in the Gulf. Shell Gas and Power corporation is currently the only company with both the permit and intent to build an off-shore, open loop LNG terminal in the Gulf of Mexico.
Shell's terminal alone would use 136 million gallons of Gulf water a day to vaporize the imported natural gas. The drastic temperature change, chlorination, and physical damage caused by the process would destroy fish eggs and larvae by the billions. The cumulative impacts of these facilities would be a significant blow to our fisheries. Shell's terminal could destroy the equivalent of 5% of Louisiana's annual redfish catch.

Alternatives to open-loop terminals exist. Take action today to tell Shell to abandon its flawed proposal and embrace a fish-friendly alternative.

Please take a moment to personalize the beginning of the suggested letter below. By adding your specific concerns your message will be far more effective. Click here to send your concerns. http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizationsORG/GRN/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=3471


Learn More about LNG.....
http://healthygulf.org/LNG.htm

 

[QC]

Re: LNG (Liquified Natural Gas) and its impact on the Gulf of Mexico

LF,

I hope you know that I highly respect your opinion, and that we are generally in agreement on most issues.

With that little bit of qualifying/clarifying/butt-kissing out of the way, I have some comments regarding this. I am very involved with LNG across the globe, however, I do not know anything about the actual impact open loop import terminals have on surrounding seawater temperature. I will, however, apply the same logic that I apply to all of these types of reports which is that I don't believe any of them, because there is always an agenda.

The other assumption I make here is that a "closed loop" vaporizer would have to get heat from somewhere to offset the BTU's added to the LNG that would at the same time cool the "loop" water. Wouldn't there then be somebody on the Global Warming patrol that would say "whoa there big fella, you are now adding a bunch of CO2 to the atmosphere"?

LNG import terminals have the ability to lower our dependence on Foreign oil (yes replaced with Foreign LNG, but at least it throws the risk around a little). It also allows us to build more NatGas fired power plants if similar enviro factions won't allow us to build more Nukes. BTW, Nukes heat adjacent ocean waters . . . :$ And LNG (unvaporised) can be used quite effectively in Heavy Duty trucks (my business) and is already in use in the Houston area. This can be beneficial to local air quality and again reduce reliance on Foreign oil.

I guess in conclusion I am not sure that:

a) anything that delays these terminals is good

b) open loop is better/worse than closed loop (depends on your agenda)

c) that anybody can trust any data from anyone.

I truly would like to understand this better, but when I looked at the report on one of the links above it was over my head and the egg and larvae charts were not clear to me. Comments?

 

[LadyFish]

Re: LNG (Liquified Natural Gas) and its impact on the Gulf of Mexico

QC the way it was explained to me as far as the open-loop and global warming concern – yes a closed loop terminal will use 1 – 1.5% of the product to rewarm the water used to vaporize the LNG. But as to overall global warming emissions, all the product on each ship is going to get used one way or the other, so it will be contributing to green house gas emissions. But natural gas has been considered a carbon light fuel source when compared to coal, so not as big a problem as it could be.

Given the expansion of the existing LNG terminal in Lake Charles, the permitting of the Freeport McMoRan terminal off the mouth of the Mississippi (closed-loop), and a couple other on-shore, fish friendly LNG terminals breaking ground around the Gulf, the question isn’t whether foreign LNG is coming to the Gulf, but whether we’re willing to pay the price by jeopardizing our fisheries.

As to the math and science of the eggs/larvae impacts, yes, it’s above the heads of most of us, but those we pay taxes to safeguard our resources (Texas Parks and Wildlife, NOAA-Fisheries, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, et al) have uniformly opposed the open-loop technology. I think they are honest brokers in this debate, and fairly agenda free.

 

[QC]

Re: LNG (Liquified Natural Gas) and its impact on the Gulf of Mexico

yes a closed loop terminal will use 1 – 1.5% of the product to rewarm the water used to vaporize the LNG. But as to overall global warming emissions, all the product on each ship is going to get used one way or the other, so it will be contributing to green house gas emissions. But natural gas has been considered a carbon light fuel source when compared to coal, so not as big a problem as it could be.

Still sounds like 1 - 1.5% more fuel use ultimately to me, but I TOTALLY agree that NatGas is Greenhouse friendly as long as Methane itself is not vented. It only bothers me if the push to closed loop ultimately delays the terminal . . .

As to the math and science of the eggs/larvae impacts, yes, it’s above the heads of most of us, but those we pay taxes to safeguard our resources (Texas Parks and Wildlife, NOAA-Fisheries, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, et al) have uniformly opposed the open-loop technology. I think they are honest brokers in this debate, and fairly agenda free.

I hope so, as it would be REALLY nice to be able to trust somebody in these debates . . . Good luck!!!

 

[rolmops]

Re: LNG (Liquified Natural Gas) and its impact on the Gulf of Mexico

It is very refreshing to see a political conservative go out of her way to conserve the environment.Ladyfish,you have my support!

 

[PW2]

Re: LNG (Liquified Natural Gas) and its impact on the Gulf of Mexico

I agree, Rolmops. Kudos to LF.

I admit I don't understand the science involved in LNG processing, but I feel comfortable that there are scientists out there that do, and there has got to be a way to minimize the impact on the environment while making available the energy we need.

And haste to make it available quicker is no excuse to do it wrong from the start.

 

[LadyFish]

Re: LNG (Liquified Natural Gas) and its impact on the Gulf of Mexico

Thanks guys. I certainly understand the need for local energy and living on the coast as I do recognize the positive impact it has on our economy. However, since alternatives do exist that would not have such a severe negative impact environmentally, we need to urge the oil companies and government to do the right thing.

 

[oddjob]

Re: LNG (Liquified Natural Gas) and its impact on the Gulf of Mexico

It is very refreshing to see a political conservative go out of her way to conserve the environment.Ladyfish,you have my support!

refreshing? :}

 

[QC]

Re: LNG (Liquified Natural Gas) and its impact on the Gulf of Mexico

It is a little offensive for our liberal friends to pat LF on the back for being a good little conservative . . . None of us care less about the environment than the other (well of course some do, but it is definitely not conservative=dirty, liberal=clean as rolmops' post suggests). My concerns are always that this stuff is based on sound science. I hope that it is as simple as reminding some that DDT bans are suspected as being responsible for increased malaria deaths to make scepticism valid and probably even honorable.

 

[oddjob]

Re: LNG (Liquified Natural Gas) and its impact on the Gulf of Mexico

quote

:It is a little offensive for our liberal friends to pat LF on the back for being a good little conservative . . .



THANK you QC...well put. ^

 

[LadyFish]

Re: LNG (Liquified Natural Gas) and its impact on the Gulf of Mexico

Simmer down, I take compliments anyway I can get them.

Besides, I am a good little conservative.8)

 

[QC]

Re: LNG (Liquified Natural Gas) and its impact on the Gulf of Mexico

I know, I know . . . I was going to suggest that I wasn't trying to pick a fight, but it does need to be pointed out that a conservative that is concerned about the environment is not some bizarre exception. With that said, I am probably guilty of believing that liberal positions are all based on emotion. Just as they may feel that conservative positions are cold and based on profit only . . .

It also bothers me that my comments are probably considered as full steam ahead, build nukes, import LNG, spill a little if you want, just do it. I chose and choose my words carefully and generally intend them literally in this type of context. FWIW, I have actually been burned on my eyelid by LNG; I know that reaaaaaaallllly cold stuff is potentially dangerous. Thank God we have eyelids . . .

 

[PW2]

Re: LNG (Liquified Natural Gas) and its impact on the Gulf of Mexico

When a group (conservatives) basically calls every group that expesses an interest in preserving the environment "Enviro-whackos", then those of us with a progressive outlook get just a touch skeptical of their motives.

I have no problem if the debate centers around sound science. My experience is few of them do, and further experience suggest conservatives tend to be predominately on one side of the debate.

 

[JRJ]

Re: LNG (Liquified Natural Gas) and its impact on the Gulf of Mexico

What is chlorine used for in the process?

 

[QC]

Re: LNG (Liquified Natural Gas) and its impact on the Gulf of Mexico

What is chlorine used for in the process?

Good question . . . resident good, and I've heard hot conservative, do you know?

 

[kenimpzoom]

Re: LNG (Liquified Natural Gas) and its impact on the Gulf of Mexico

It seems to me if Shell designed their seawater retention ponds correctly, the temperature of the water would be pretty close to normal when resurned to the Gulf.

They could use solar energy to heat the seawater during hot days and LNG energy to heat during the winter.

The simplest solution would be to make a law that says all discharge water must be within 10 degrees of intake temperature.

Then let them figure out how to meet that spec.

Ken