Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : LNG -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dennis Roth who wrote (270)	11/17/2004 7:28:59 PM
From: SunSunM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 919

Dennis, I thought I sent you a message, but could not find it, sorry if duplicate. Wondering who else is in the building LNG offshore terminals business? Any companies in LNG tanker shipping business? Thank you in advance. KC. disclosure: long oil and gas E&P.

To: Dennis Roth who wrote (270)	2/7/2005 9:39:32 AM
From: Dennis Roth	Respond to of 919

Activists take aim at proposed LNG projects in U.S. Companies looking to build facilities close to gas consumers on East and West coasts By SHAWN McCARTHY Monday, February 7, 2005 - Page B5 theglobeandmail.com NEW YORK -- They shut down the last nuclear-power plant built in the United States before it even opened, and now Long Island activists are taking aim at the proposed $700-million (U.S.) offshore LNG project that is a joint venture between Calgary's TransCanada PipeLines Ltd. and Royal Dutch/Shell Group. The Broadwater LNG facility, to be built 14 kilometres offshore in the Long Island Sound, is one of about 40 liquefied natural gas projects planned for North America to fill the anticipated gap between booming demand for natural gas and constrained domestic supply. While most of those projects are proposed for the Gulf of Mexico, where residents are accustomed to oil and gas development, companies are also looking to build facilities close to consumers on the East and West coasts in order to eliminate the need for lengthy and expensive pipelines. Would-be natural gas importers are facing determined resistance and legal battles from opponents who regard the LNG supertankers and storage facilities as little more than massive, floating bombs. On Long Island's sparsely developed north shore, activists staged a protest rally last month to oppose the Broadwater project as it begins the lengthy regulatory process to obtain approval from the State of New York and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Opponents say they remember too well what can happen when fanatics take control of a transport vehicle loaded with highly explosive fuel -- and they aren't eager to become a tempting target for terrorists. "We view this as the biggest threat to safety and environment since the Shoreham nuclear power plant 25 years ago . . . and it was closed without generating a kilowatt hour of electricity by dint of Long Island opposition," said Richard Amper, executive-director of the Long Island Pine Barrens Society, a member of the anti-Broadwater coalition. "Long Island would be ground zero for any incident, accidental or terrorist in nature, and it's not the place we want Long Island to be." He added that the construction of the storage facility and pipeline, along with the supertanker traffic, would disrupt recreational boating and the commercial and recreational fisheries in Long Island Sound. While Long Islanders commence their battle, citizens' groups on the other side of the country in California have launched court actions in an effort to stop companies from constructing LNG terminals without local approval. Australian energy company BHP Billiton Ltd. wants to build a deep-water LNG facility on the Pacific coast off Ventura County, while Houston-based Crystal Energy LLC proposes to put a terminal on an abandoned oil platform in the same area. Japan's Mitsubishi Corp. has a plan to build a terminal onshore at Long Beach Harbor. Richard Sharples, executive-director of the Center for Liquefied Natural Gas, an industry lobby group, said the United States cannot bow to the "not-in-my-backyard" opposition that routinely coalesces around any major energy project. Natural gas demand is forecast to grow by 30 per cent over the next 10 years to supply both heat and electricity, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. And energy experts agree that LNG represents a critical source of supply to meet that demand. By 2025, LNG is expected to account for up to 17 per cent of U.S. needs. "We clearly need additional energy supplies in this country and it needs to be where the demand is," Mr. Sharples said. "There isn't enough pipeline space now -- to put [the LNG terminals] where there are no people, that doesn't solve the problem." But Mr. Sharples conceded that not all of the 40 plants that have been proposed would be built. "The market is now in the process of deciding what gets built," he said. The Broadview LNG plant would be the first floating facility built on the U.S. East Coast in nearly 30 years, though older terminals exist near Boston; in Cove Point, Md., and at Elba Island, Ga. Two such plants have already been approved in Canada, one in New Brunswick and one in Nova Scotia, while TransCanada and Petro-Canada have proposed to spend $660-million (Canadian) to construct an LNG plant in eastern Quebec, a plan that has stirred up considerable local opposition. The Long Island project would be one of the largest in North America, with storage of eight billion cubic feet and the capability of delivering one billion cubic feet a day, between a quarter and a third of current natural gas demand in the New York region. John Hritcko, project director for Broadwater, said the company will answer all the concerns of its critics as it moves through the approval process, which will include community hearings this spring by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Mr. Hritcko said the LNG terminal will connect with the existing pipeline at a spot under the Sound and therefore needs no right-of-way on land. He added the double-hulled supertankers that will make two to three deliveries a week are only marginally bigger than the oil tankers that regularly ply the Sound on their way to New Haven, Conn., the second busiest seaport in New England. "You have to look at this on a factual basis with knowledgeable people who understand safety and security and who understand these systems, and not to go out and make these sensationalized claims that it's going to be doom and gloom and harm for the folks on the shoreline," he said.