Why is LNG getting such a bad deal?

Tim McElwain

Here in the Northeast LNG (Liquefied Natural Gas) gas has become a political football. On my visit to Dunkin Donuts recently a discussion with all the cronies who hang out there (all retired) all certainly experts on all things many wild and untrue statements came forth about LNG.



What is LNG? It is natural gas which was in a vapor state and then had its temperature lowered to -270°F or lower. This accomplishes taking approx 600 cubic feet of gas and reducing it into a one (1) cubic foot storage area.



It comes into most areas by super tankers which are very large and difficult to maneuver in narrow passages in many ports. This by the way is one of the issues.



Things I hear in my travels about LNG:



1. Many people have died breathing the fumes.



2. Several of those tankers have exploded.



3. LNG spilling into the water will freeze all the fish.



4. It is one of the major causes of Carbon Monoxide.



5. I know of several cases of it causing wildlife to die.



6. A simple rifle shot to one of those tankers would cause a major explosion.



7. It is much more dangerous to the environment than an oil or gasoline spill as it never dissipates



8. Those cylinders people have in their yards full of LNG are dangerous.



9. I know a guy who tried to run his truck on it and it froze the engine.



The list goes on  all untrue and by the way some of those comments are by politicians who here in the NE if you are against LNG terminals or LNG tankers you will get elected to office. There are actually hate groups called "I hate LNG" or "Not in My Neighborhood".



What say you here on the Wall who know all things?



What do you think is the advantage Of LNG versus pipeline distributed gas?

Jamie Hall

I suppose...

that if you managed to ram an LNG tanker with another one, you might get some interesting fireworks.  Other than that, an LNG tanker is less of a hazard than a barge load of home heating oil - the stuff boils and then evaporates if it spills.  No problem in smaller amounts.  In larger amounts, yeah you could have a problem.  But that applies to pretty much any fuel...



And an LNG tanker is the only way to get the stuff across the pond, last I looked anyway.



LNG vs. pipeline, assuming in one case you are transloading to say a barge on the Mississippi and then transloading back in, say, Boston?  Hmm.  I think that boils down to economics -- which is the less expensive way to go?  Pipelines blow up from time to time (ask the folks in San Francisco) and bad things happen to barges, so on the safety thing it's kind of take your pick.  They're both pretty safe, as these things go.

hot_rod

the way it is presented

as a fuel that is produced domestically and endless in supply. If that is the case why are we tankering it in from SA?

 Ask the residents of New Mexico about that endless supply experienced last winter :)

Also the concern around fracking to access it.  Take a look at the movie Gasland.



hr

lchmb

can we

Tim can we add LPG to the discussion since that is what I deal with??

Tom Blackwell_2

Dry

As Tim said, LNG is simply liquified methane, which is a cryogenic. It is stored as a low pressure liquid at about 15 psi, the vapor that boils off due to heat absorption is drawn off to keep the pressure at this level. The only problem I know of, aside from having to deal with the extremely cold temperatures of the liquid, is that the liquefication process leaves only pure methane, and all of the hydrates, oils and other impurities are removed. A lot of dresser couplings are used as repair devices for underground pipes, and the use of methane that does not contain the oils causes the gasket material to dry out and shrink. This has caused several high profile gas explosions in the last few years. As far as safety goes, the release of methane into the atmosphere is no different than a normal gas leak-it will dissipate since it is lighter than air. I went to an LNG school when I was a firefighter, and one of the training aids was to release 3,000 gallons of LNG into a pit and light it, quite a fire but no explosion. We actually put it out using dry chemical. We transport liquid nitrogen and other gasses as a cryogenic all the time with little problem. No reason LNG should be any different.

Tim McElwain

Sure can Tom

While we are discussing the safety side why not also the way we get these very volatile products to the end user the customer. What are some of the myths about Propane or Butane for that matter?



How many of you have a Gas Detector for determining if an environment is safe to enter? The nose does not know percentage it only knows the smell of gas.

bill_105

like it or not ...

there"s more on the way from Valdez. With Conoco and BP out, LNG is the only answer.

http://www.adn.com/2011/05/17/1867232/bp-conoco-drop-bid-for-alaska.html

Tim McElwain

Here is some interesting info

For charts not seen www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/analysispaper/global/exporters.html



The Global Liquefied Natural Gas Market: Status and Outlook     Report #:DOE/EIA-0637

  Release Date: December 2003

  Next Release Date: One-time





LNG Exporters

1. In 2002, 12 countries exported 5.4 Tcf (113 million tons) of natural gas as LNG, up from 9 countries and almost 4 Tcf (84 million tons) in 1997.
2. Indonesia is the world’s largest LNG producer, exporting about one-fifth of the world’s total volume in 2002.
3. The Pacific Basin4 is the largest LNG-producing region in the world, supply­ing nearly half (49%) of all global exports in 2002. Indonesia alone supplied 21 percent. Countries in the Middle East, led by Qatar, exported 23 percent, while countries in the Atlantic Basin, led by Algeria, exported about 29 percent that year.
4. In the first nine months of 2003, two new LNG trains began operating in Trinidad and Tobago and in Malaysia, increasing world annual liquefaction capacity5 by around 6 percent to 6.6 Tcf (135 million tons).
5. New projects under construction in Australia, Russia, Norway, and Egypt, together with expansions of existing facilities throughout the world, will increase annual liquefaction capacity by 2.8 Tcf (58 million tons) by 2007, increasing global capacity to 9.4 Tcf (197 million tons) per year, which represents 10 percent of 2002 global natural gas consumption.
6. Potential new exporters such as Iran, Yemen, Equatorial Guinea, Angola, Venezuela, Bolivia (via Peru or Chile), and Peru are looking to LNG exports as a way of monetizing their natural gas resources.

Pacific Basin Exporters

Pacific Basin LNG exporters produced 2.6 Tcf (55 million tons) in 2002, about 49 percent of total world LNG production. As of late 2003, five Pacific Basin exporters had 3.1 Tcf (63 million tons) of annual liquefaction capacity. Liquefac­tion capacity in the Pacific Basin is expected to increase by 780 billion cubic feet (Bcf) or 16 million tons of annual capacity over the next few years to more than 3.8 Tcf (80 million tons) per year by 2007.

1. Indonesia is the world’s largest LNG producer and exporter. In 2002, Indonesia exported 1.1 Tcf (23 million tons) of LNG or 21 percent of the world’s total LNG exports. Most of Indonesia’s LNG is imported by Japan with smaller volumes going to Taiwan and South Korea. Indonesia’s annual liquefaction capacity is 1.4 Tcf (30 million tons) from the two exporting complexes at Bontang and Arun. An additional train at Bontang is under consideration but has yet to contract for the capacity. BP is leading development of a two-train, 341-Bcf-per-year (7.0-million-tpy) project at Tangguh scheduled to start up in 2007. The Tangguh LNG is destined for China, other Asian markets, and potentially the United States.
2. Malaysia, the world’s third largest LNG exporter after Indonesia and Algeria, exported 741 Bcf (15.6 million tons) in 2002. These exports went primarily to Japan, with smaller volumes to Taiwan and South Korea. Three liquefaction terminals have been developed at the Bintulu LNG complex in Sarawak, Malaysia Satu, Dua, and Malaysia Tiga, the first train of which went on-stream in mid-2003. A second train will come online in November 2003, raising the total capacity of the Bintulu complex to an annual 1.1 Tcf (22.7 million tons).
3. Australia exported 367 Bcf (7.7 million tons) of LNG from the Northwest Shelf project in 2002, primarily to Japanese utilities. The project owners have started construction on an additional 205-Bcf-per-year (4.2-million-tpy) train scheduled to come online in 2004. An additional train is under consideration. Three new projects are also in various stages of development. ConocoPhillips has begun construction on a 175-Bcf-per-year (3.6-million-tpy) Darwin LNG project, to monetize reserves in the Timor Sea shared by Australia and East Timor. ConocoPhillips is also working with Shell, Osaka Gas, and Woodside Petroleum to develop the 258-Bcf-per-year (5.3-million-tpy) Greater Sunrise project via a floating LNG facility. ChevronTexaco, in partnership with ExxonMobil and Shell, is spearheading a two-train Gorgon project with an annual capacity of 487 Bcf (10.0 million tons) to monetize reserves discovered offshore Northwest Australia.
4. Brunei Darussalam has a two-train liquefaction terminal at Lumut with an annual capacity of 351 Bcf (7.2 million tons). About 90 percent of its output goes to customers in Japan and the remaining 10 percent to South Korea.
5. The United States has a 68-Bcf-per-year (1.4-million-tpy) liquefaction terminal at Kenai, Alaska, that has been exporting LNG to Japan for more than 30 years. There are currently no plans to expand this facility.
6. Russia’s first LNG plant is under construction on Sakhalin Island off Russia’s east coast. The two-train facility will have an annual capacity of 466 Bcf (9.6 million tons), with exports of 234 Bcf (4.8 million tons) per year from the first train scheduled to begin in 2007. The partners have already secured sales contracts with three Japanese utilities for 136 Bcf (2.8 million tons) per year over 20 years. There are reports that Russian officials have also expressed interest in exporting LNG from the giant Shtokman field in the Barents Sea to the United States and elsewhere.

Middle East Exporters

Exporters from the Middle East produced 1.2 Tcf (25 million tons) in 2002, about 23 percent of total world LNG production. As of late 2003, the three Middle Eastern exporters had 1.4 Tcf (29 million tons) of annual capacity. Expansions to facilities in Qatar and Oman will add 619 Bcf (13 million tons) of annual liquefaction capacity, increasing Middle East capacity to 2.0 Tcf (42 million tons) per year by 2007.

1. Qatar ranks fourth in world LNG exports and has an annual capacity of 726 Bcf (14.9 million tons) from two liquefaction plants owned by the Qatargas and Ras Laffan LNG (RasGas) consortia. The Qatargas plant is being debottlenecked, and two more trains are being added to the RasGas facility, which would add 458 Bcf (9.4 million tons) of annual capacity by 2005. Most of Qatar’s exports go to customers in Japan and South Korea, but short-term cargos have also been shipped to the United States and Europe. Its enormous natural gas reserves and low upstream production costs give Qatar the potential to signifi­cantly expand its LNG exports to a targeted annual capacity of 2.9 Tcf (60 million tons) by 2015.
2. Oman has one LNG export terminal, which began operation in 2000 with two liquefaction trains and an annual capacity of 356 Bcf (7.3 million tons). Most of the LNG is sold to South Korea’s Kogas. Smaller volumes are shipped to customers in Japan, the United States, and Europe. A planned third train would add 161 Bcf (3.3 million tons) per year in 2006. Further expansion potential for LNG exports from Oman is limited by the modest size of the country’s reserves.
3. The United Arab Emirates (UAE) has the world’s fifth largest natural gas reserves and ranks ninth in LNG exports. Abu Dhabi Gas Liquefaction Co. operates the nation’s only export facility with a capacity of 278 Bcf (5.7 million tons). Roughly 90 percent of UAE LNG production is exported to Japan. Despite its large reserves, the UAE is unlikely to expand its pro­duction of LNG since it uses much of the gas for domestic purposes.

Atlantic Basin Exporters

Atlantic Basin exporters produced 1.5 Tcf (32 million tons) in 2002, about 29 percent of total world LNG production. As of late 2003, Atlantic Basin LNG producers had 2.1 Tcf (43 million tons) of annual capacity. Expansions in Nigeria and Trinidad and Tobago, as well as new facilities in Egypt and Norway, would increase annual Atlantic Basin liquefaction capacity to 3.3 Tcf (73 million tons) by 2007.

1. Algeria was the second largest LNG exporter in 2002, shipping 935 Bcf(19.6 million tons) mainly to Europe (France, Belgium, Spain, and Turkey) and the United States. A major renovation in 1999 raised the country’s LNG production capacity to more than 1.1 Tcf (23.1 million tons) per year. Algeria also exports more than 1.0 Tcf of natural gas per year to Europe by pipeline. The Algerian State-owned oil and gas company Sonatrach owns and operates four liquefaction complexes, the first of which started up in 1964, making Algeria the world’s first LNG exporter. Algeria has no new liquefaction capacity planned before 2008 but in the long term is planning to add another train.
2. Nigeria exported 394 Bcf (8.2 million tons) of LNG in 2002, mainly to Turkey, Italy, France, Portugal, and Spain. Nigeria has also delivered more than 20 cargos under short-term contracts to the United States over the past three years. The total annual capacity of Nigeria’s Bonny Island LNG plant is 463 Bcf (9.5 million tons), and Nigeria LNG has begun construction of two additional 200-Bcf-per-year (4.1-million-tpy) trains that are scheduled to begin operation in 2005. Additional trains are under discussion as are three new projects that have been considered in the West Niger Delta (by ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco, and ConocoPhillips), Brass River (by the Italian company ENI and ConocoPhillips), and a floating offshore project (by Statoil and Total).
3. Trinidad and Tobago exported 189 Bcf (4.0 million tons) of LNG in 2002. Trinidad and Tobago’s LNG facility at Point Fortin has three trains and an annual capacity of 482 Bcf (9.9 million tons). In June 2003, the Government of Trinidad and Tobago approved the construction of a fourth train that could produce an additional 253 Bcf (5.2 million tons) per year. Trinidad and Tobago exports LNG to the continental United States, Puerto Rico, Spain, and the Dominican Republic.
4. Libya exported 21 Bcf (0.4 million tons) of LNG in 2002. The plant at Marsa El Brega has an annual capacity of about 131 Bcf (2.7 million tons). Only about 25 percent of the total capacity, or 29 Bcf (0.6 million tons) per year, is available for export due to maintenance issues.
5. Two LNG export projects are being built in Egypt: a one-train liquefaction facility at Damietta, which will start operations in 2004 with an annual capacity of 244 Bcf (5.0 million tons), and a two-train project at Idku with a 2005 startup date and a projected annual capacity of 175 Bcf (3.6 million tons). All of the Idku LNG is contracted to Gaz de France. Commitment to a second 175-Bcf-per-year (3.6-million-tpy) train was announced in September 2003. British Gas (BG) has agreed to buy the entire output for U.S. and Italian markets.
6. Beginning in 2006, Norway plans to export LNG from a 200-Bcf-per-year (4.1-million-tpy) liquefaction terminal now being built on Melkøye Island in the Norwegian Sea. Exports are targeting markets in Spain, France, and the United States.

Potential New LNG Exporters

At least seven additional countries are exploring their potential as LNG exporters.

Pacific Basin

1. A project is proposed for exporting natural gas from Peru’s Camisea field to a terminal in Mexico.
2. Several European and U.S. companies are proposing a project to pipe gas from Bolivia to either Peru or Chile on the Pacific Coast where it could be liquefied and shipped to a terminal on the West Coast of North America.

Middle East

1. With the world’s second largest proved gas reserves, Iran has great potential to export gas to markets in Europe, Asia, and India by pipeline and as LNG. The Iranian government is considering at least four projects, each of 390 to 490 Bcf (8 to 10 million tons) per year, to process reserves in the South Pars-North field in partnership with companies in Europe and Asia.
2. An LNG project has been proposed in Yemen for more than a decade but to date has not made significant progress.

Atlantic Basin

1. In Venezuela, an LNG project has been discussed since the early 1970s. Shell and Mitsubishi have signed preliminary agreements to develop a 229-Bcf-per-year (4.7-million-tpy) project called Marisal Sucre based on offshore reserves. Discus­sions have been held with neighboring Trinidad and Tobago to bring Venezuelan gas to their Atlantic LNG plant for processing until a Venezuelan LNG plant can be built.
2. In Angola, ChevronTexaco, ExxonMobil, BP, Total, and Sonangol are proposing to build a plant based on offshore associated gas for export to North American and European markets. The plant would initially have a single 195-Bcf-per-year (4.0-million-tpy) train with the option for development of additional trains later.
3. Equatorial Guinea is looking to export LNG from its offshore Alba field. In May 2003, U.S.-based firm Marathon Oil signed a 17-year draft agreement to supply British Gas with 166 Bcf (3.4 million tons) per year of LNG to be delivered to the Lake Charles regasification facility in the United States. The project is currently undergoing advanced engineering feasibility studies, and a final investment decision is due in the first quarter of 2004.

lchmb

ok

ok..so LPG is derived from fossil fuels. It burns fairly clean with few emissions. If released into the enviroment it has little impact as far as the ozone is concerned. Overall any spill involving LPG is generally controlled by water fogging. And of course keeping form's of ignition clear.

It is transported and stored in bulk and then distributed to the home through what we refer to as bobtails. Each of our trucks are inspected every 6 months. The tank and pumping equipment is inspected to meet all state and federal requirements. Hydro testing and pump testing is done as required or more if there is any question.

All of the driver's must have a cdl license to include hazmat and tanker. They are also required to attend CTEP class's and work with experienced drivers until they are familiar and safe to be on their own.

All of the company tech's are also CTEP certified and then trained in the field. NH has recently required all tech's hold a license and follow a journeyman course if needed.

As a company, we only service equipment we deliver to. As such we maintain all of the tanks, which are ASME rated. We also require all customer's to pass a gas check prior to setting our tanks. This requires all equipment be installed to manufacturers spec's and all line set's be pressure tested.

As far as gas meter's, the company I work for presently has two. We are presently in the process of purchasing enough to cover all technicians.

As far as the plus's and minus's. I believe that having control of the system's (as much as possible) makes them safer for the customer. Our drivers inspect the tanks every time they fill them. They look for any changes and or damage to the general area. We also ask that they inform us of any changes so we can see if something was installed against code. If there is a run out, we require a pressure test to verify the system is still tight.

lchmb

oh

One other thing, if you were to fill an area with LPG it could cause a suffocation issue as it displaces air...

Tim McElwain

What about odorant?

How do you ensure that the gas is odorized? A recent incident last year propane was delivered in the New England area without odorant. What is being done to prevent this from happening again?



Is there any instruments that can measure the amount of odorant in gas?

Tom Blackwell_2

Odorant

Forgot about that-the gas in cross-country pipelines and that derived from LNG has no odorant. The Mercaptan is injected before the gas travels into the local distribution system. Perhaps one of our readers can chime in and educate us about this process. The company I used to work for blew up a penthouse on a hospital in Kentucky by purging a gas line while waiting for the odorant to appear-problem was that the utility had run out of mercaptan and were not adding it at that time...they even admitted that fact in court.

lchmb

Hi Tim

As far as odorant, each step of the delivery process requires the driver to do a sniff test. This is indicated on our delivery ticket's in each stage (transport to bobtail). As far as a tester, I do know there is one available but will have to check if our transport driver's have one or what the actual protocol is. I'll check with our safety dept (they are doing some training in our office this week) and get back to you..:)

Tim McElwain

Here is some information on the odorant issue.

I have access to some first hand information as it comes forward as I have a close association with Joe Rose the President of the PGANE.





A push is under way to develop a device to test odorant levels in propane





A familiar issue has lingered in the air for years, hanging over the propane industry, casting doubts and clouding the senses.



Only recently has it risen to the forefront, given a voice by a self-labeled small marketer from Minnesota who has been bothered by the industry’s reliance on – of all simple processes – its sense of smell.



Last October, Michael Sheehan of Sheehan’s Gas Co. addressed the topic of odorant testing during the Propane Education & Research Council (PERC) meeting in Baltimore. He was driven by well-documented odorization shortfalls unfolding in the Northeast, conversations with colleagues on the matter and an overall motivation that change into how the industry tests for odorant was needed.



“I wanted to make [PERC] aware that it’s a huge problem,” says Sheehan, a third-year council member. “When you fill a bulk truck, you test that you can readily smell odorant, but everybody’s nose is different. There isn’t a good test. That’s why it’s ludicrous that we don’t have something that can prove how many parts per million of ethyl mercaptan is in propane.”



Sheehan spoke to the propane industry, and the industry appears to have listened. According to Greg Kerr, director of research and development for PERC, the council is exploring the answer. Laboratories and manufacturers are being approached about creating a portable and cost-efficient device that can measure the amount of odorant in each product load. Kerr says there is some early interest from manufacturers.



“Can we get it done? I don’t know. It’s never been done before,” says Sheehan, who markets propane and natural gas. “But we have to take a fresh look at it.”



Fueling the issue



Joe Rose’s cell phone ended up in his freezer for two hours. His wife put it there during a dinner party because she couldn’t take the constant calls.



To say late 2010 was busy for Rose, executive director of the Propane Gas Association of New England, would be an understatement. His region faced supply challenges earlier than usual, but one in particular had him answering to Massachusetts state authorities.



Low levels of odorant were suspected in a fatal propane explosion at a condominium construction site in July. The incident touched off an investigation into whether the region’s propane supplies were adequately odorized. Several facilities were closed temporarily for testing – which was performed in different ways – and the attorney general in Massachusetts warned consumers that a potential odorization problem existed in the marketplace.



“The issue came out of the blue and just smacked us,” Rose says.



Rose detailed this series of events at a National Propane Gas Association meeting last fall in Baltimore. Sheehan was in attendance, thinking, “If we had a machine that we could use [to detect odorant in propane], we would be in much better shape.” A few days later at the PERC meeting, Sheehan spoke out.



A week after the fall NPGA meetings, the New England association hosted an odorization seminar that drew about 250 people and, due to the many questions from attendees, lasted about three-and-a-half hours (when it was scheduled for two).



The issue continues to gather momentum in the industry, as propane odorization seminars are scheduled for the NPGA Southeastern Convention & International Propane Expo April 16-18 in Atlanta.



The standard



While there are several types of odorant-testing methods available to the propane industry, including stain tubes, odorometers and gas chromatographs, “the sniff test is the only process because it’s the standard,” recognized by NFPA 58, Rose says. And some within the industry are saying that’s simply not good enough.



“From the beginning, there’s always been that sniff test to detect odorant,” adds Bill Mahre, a propane industry veteran of nearly 60 years.



Odorization requirements for the industry were first documented in 1937. An odorant – measured at 1 pound of ethyl mercaptan per 10,000 gallons of propane – must be detected at one-fifth the lower limit of its flammability.



According to NFPA 58, all LP gases must be odorized prior to delivery to a bulk plant. Verification of odorization is required through sniff testing or other means – at the bulk plant, when shipments bypass a bulk plant or on each delivery to a small LP gas system – and the results must be documented.



Basically, “NFPA 58 says when you transfer product from one vessel to another, you have to sniff,” Rose notes.



Concerns remain about the odorant tests available to the industry. The sniff test is subject to sense-of-smell issues, while the stain tube test, which involves taking a liquid propane sample and running it through a glass tube, has been called into question as well.



“Whenever human beings are involved, there’s a possibility of error,” Rose says.



Legal challenges



An odorant-testing device also could help the propane industry in the legal arena. Propane companies are often targets of plaintiff’s attorneys, and Mahre has seen a high percentage of odorization-related cases over the past 15 years.



As the owner of Minnesota-based Propane Technical Services, Mahre specializes in investigations of propane- and natural gas-related accidents, providing legal assistance and developing codes and standards for the propane industry.



“Litigators on the plaintiff’s side specialize in gas odorization actions and also gas detector actions against the propane industry,” says Mahre, a special expert to the NFPA 58 committee and a member of NPGA’s Technology, Standards and Safety Committee. “That’s all the cases they take. There are half a dozen very dominant ones in the U.S. that take case after case.”



Sheehan adds, “It’s just a gray area of how you test for odorant and how you prove it in court that you did have enough odorant in the gas.”



Instruments already exist that measure and record gases and chemicals in the air, Mahre notes. He utilizes a device at investigation sites that measures the amount of propane in the air, and he has a “truck full of test equipment” from several manufacturers. So why couldn’t the propane industry take this technology one step further so it could measure odorant in propane, he wonders?



“The technology industry could develop a unit of some type that would measure ethyl mercaptan,” Mahre says. “There isn’t anything right now to do that. Everybody says that it hasn’t been invented, but that doesn’t mean that it can’t be.”



While the legal investigations into odorization have been ongoing for years, Mahre recognizes the potential benefits of a new odorant-testing device – “some method that a marketer could use to take a sample of gas very easily throughout the distribution chain; a piece of equipment they could have as part of their test kit, just like gauges and wrenches; something quick and easy that can be read out and recorded, where they can say, ‘That gas is properly odorized, and there’s got to be some other reason that the customer didn’t smell it.’”

lchmb

lesson learned

that explains why I was told it's the sniff test only. The only change is it is now indicated on all loading and delivery tickets. That was the change made after the propblem from last year. Btw Tim, I am one of those with the sniff test problem. If I smell propane you want to be headed down the road because the building is flooded.