HOUSTON, TEXAS: Proposals to build and operate liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals in the U.S. and other parts of the world continue to face opposition from government officials, citizens and environmental groups.

In the U.S., projects in the Pacific Northwest and the U.S. East Coast continue to stir controversy over environmental and security risk concerns, as does the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC's) handling of the LNG facility review and licensing process.

A number of LNG terminals were originally proposed as a means to bring natural gas, which was anticipated to be in short supply, to the U.S. However, technological breakthroughs that have allowed for the exploration and production of gas from unconventional plays, such as tight sands, coal-bed methane and shale, in the U.S. and Canada, has increased the available supply, leaving some to question whether all of the proposed LNG terminals will be needed.

Historically, shipments of LNG have been directed away from the U.S. to Asia, where greater demand could command higher prices. However, with Asian and European demand falling due to the global economic recession and weather issues, the level of LNG imports to the U.S. is expected to increase this year, resulting in a glut of gas in the U.S.

Varied projects proceed around the globe

New projects such as AGA Gas AB's LNG terminal at Brunnsviksholme outside Nynäshamn, Sweden, have been announced. It will be the first of its kind in Sweden.
The LNG tank will be 33 meters (108 ft) high and 38 meters (124 ft) in diameter and will be constructed in slip form in August 2009 and completed during the first half of 2010 by NCC Construction Sweden AB.

NCC will also construct a harbor able to receive tankers with a maximum length of 160 meters (524 ft) and a depth of nine meters (29 ft). An approximately 100-meter-long (328-ft-long) bridge will connect Brunnsviksholme with the mainland. The assignment also includes construction of a service building, an access road to Norviksvägen, a vehicle bay for receipt of LNG and some ground work.

Elsewhere in the world, LNG projects such as Qatargas 2 and Sakhalin 2 have come online. In Qatar, Qatargas has inaugurated Qatargas 2, which it says is the world's first fully integrated value chain LNG venture.

Combined, Qatargas 2 consists of three offshore unmanned platforms, two world class LNG trains, five storage tanks, two loading berths and a fleet of 14 state of the art LNG ships. The main destination for the LNG will be the specially built South Hook terminal located in the deep-water port of Milford Haven, Wales. From there the gas will find its way to customers in the British natural gas market.

Qatargas 2 is capable of providing up to 20 percent of Britain's natural gas needs.

The South Hook LNG Terminal is the largest LNG receiving terminal in Europe with a capacity of 15.6 million tonnes (17.2 million tons) per annum. The terminal features the largest diameter storage tanks in the world.

A tanker carrying about 67,000 tons of liquefied natural gas docked last month at an LNG receiving terminal in Sodegaura, Chiba Prefecture, Japan, marking the arrival of the first shipment of LNG from Russia's Sakhalin-2 project.

Tokyo Gas Co. and Tokyo Electric Power Co., which jointly operate the LNG storage facility southeast of Tokyo, will share in shipments equally, with the gas company supplying the LNG as town gas and the electricity firm using it as fuel for its thermal power plants.

With Russia's LNG project, Tokyo is hoping to reduce its energy dependence on the Middle East while Moscow is aiming to boost natural gas sales in the Asia-Pacific region in addition to Europe.

However, Tokyo Gas has said it anticipates it will purchase less LNG in fiscal year 2009 versus 2008. In fiscal year 2009, Tokyo Gas expects its volume of gas production and purchasing, including LNG, will be 12.3 Bcm (434.3 Bcf), down from 13.1 Bcm (462.6 Bcf) in fiscal year 2008.

Despite the projected decline in LNG purchases, Tokyo Gas is forging ahead with plans to augment the infrastructure for its pipeline network between cities and LNG terminals. These plans include the installation of vaporizers in three terminals on Tokyo Bay and the Hitachi Branch terminal and installation of a vaporizer and construction of a fourth LNG tank at the Ohgishima terminal.

LNG market outlook

The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) reports that U.S. LNG imports are expected to increase to about 480 Bcf in 2009, up from 352 Bcf in 2008, because of lower global economic activity and the start up of new liquefaction capacity in the Middle East and other parts of the world. 

In its monthly Short-Term Energy Outlook for April, EIA reports that depressed LNG demand in Asia and Europe should tend to increase the amount of LNG available to the United States.  However, the agency's LNG projection is subject to considerable uncertainty. 

Initial production from new liquefaction capacity has been slowed or delayed for extended periods, and U.S. natural gas demand is also projected to be lower in 2009. 

As a result, expanded LNG flows into the United States likely would depend on there being less domestic natural gas production or imports from Canada than forecast.  In the agency's current view, U.S. pipeline imports are expected to decline by about 11 percent in 2009. 

Zach Allen, president of PanEurasian Enterprises, said that a good deal of LNG is "slushing around the market now."

"We've been seeing interesting competitions between pipelines, or sources of gas connected from production areas to consumption areas, and LNG in Europe, and that will happen here."

Recently, Europe has been seeing an increase in LNG imports, especially into France and the UK, partly because prices for LNG have come down and now are competitive with European prices. Right now, Europe has extra capacity to take in LNG after stores were depleted during last winter's Russian/Ukrainian dispute, in which gas shipments were curtailed, forcing European countries to draw more gas from storage. Norway and Russia have lately been pushing more gas into the market, unwilling to give up their market share for LNG, Allen added.

However, the global recession has hurt electricity demand, and Spain, Japan and South Korea, which last year accounted for over 60 percent of the total world LNG market, have curtailed their LNG buying. "These countries have a tremendous impact on LNG. If they need it and they're buying aggressively, there's not much left over. If they're not buying, that means there's a lot more LNG available in the market," Allen said.

While LNG has been heading for Europe in recent months, cargoes will begin bringing LNG to the U.S. as temperatures rise and demand slips in Europe. Typically, the U.S. has been the destination for LNG in the summer months as European demand wanes.

Steve Johnson, president of Houston-based Waterborne Energy, reports seeing a 28 percent increase in LNG imports during the first quarter of 2009 versus first quarter 2008, and expects LNG imports in the second quarter of this year to increase.

The global economic crisis, which has hampered energy demand, has resulted in LNG supply being backed out of Asia, and then Europe. The U.S., which has traditionally been a market of last resort, will see a significant influx of LNG imports this year, Johnson noted. "We're seeing the beginning of a short-term global oversupply. Global supply by mid-2010 is likely to increase by 30 percent, which is enormous by any industry standards.

"Production has been bleeding slowly into the markets, and with seven new plants starting operations this year alone, the U.S. will see its first large incremental increase in imports, maybe 80 Bcf by May or June," Johnson said.

A significant amount of LNG is likely to be headed to the U.S. from Nigeria and Algeria, where outages at LNG terminals have kept about 50 Bcf of supply off the market. That supply will likely be pushed to the U.S. when these plants come back online.
 
"We have a perfect storm brewing, even though we'll be stirring US$2.50/Mcf gas by this summer. We're running into a situation where it's more about storage capacity as opposed to price. There are a lot of the capacity holders in U.S. who are the primary spot players in market. It's likely these capacity holders will start bringing in this product," Johnson said.

The economic recovery will likely cause "an enormous whiplash" in the LNG business. A demand increase of five percent in Japan is a huge amount, and when the market turns around, demand for LNG will cause prices to take a severe hit. "It won't be in five years or six months, but perhaps a year, a year and a half," said Allen.

Import fears hit U.S. producers

Some industry associations, such as the Denver-based Independent Petroleum Association of Mountain States (IPAMS), warned that the influx of foreign gas, in particular the agreement between Shell and the state-run Russian natural gas company Gazprom to import 20 million tons of Russian LNG to the Costa Azul LNG terminal in Baja California, could have devastating effects on independent natural gas producers in the Western United States.

The Gazprom-Shell agreement marks the entry of Gazprom into the North American market. As part of the transaction, Gazprom affiliates, under long-term assignment from Shell, will take capacity in Sempra's Energia Costa Azul LNG import terminal in Baja California, Mexico, and pipeline capacity to enable gas to be transported to Southern California.

"America is currently awash with American-produced natural gas," said John Harpole, president of Mercator Energy and member of the IPAMS board of directors. "In fact, due to recent technological advances, our proved reserves have increased dramatically in the past few years, placing the U.S. in an elite group of the world's most natural-gas rich nations. We have no need for Russian natural gas, and the result will be a loss of American energy jobs."

The short and medium-term impact of potential LNG imports to the U.S. on U.S. gas prices remains to be seen, according to the FERC's State of the Market report. During 2008, the U.S. received less than 1 Bcf/d of LNG as prices in the rest of the LNG-importing world were higher than U.S. prices, Asian and European demand was high, and there were occasionally supply shortfalls.

However, world LNG prices have fallen substantially since the end of 2008, to the point that northeast prices for natural gas were on par with the rest of the world by the end of March 2009.

In addition, additional LNG supplies are coming online and Asian and European demand continue to fall. Some analysts forecast U.S. imports greater than 3 Bcf/d by the third quarter of this year. A large inflow of LNG could put substantial downward pressure on natural gas prices, especially if U.S. demand does not rebound or production growth does not slow.

Many U.S. East Coast projects face opposition

While FERC has approved a number of LNG projects, several have been postponed or prevented from construction because they lack necessary permits from state agencies.

In the past, critics have said that FERC was too easily green lighting projects, a trend seen by some as likely to change with the appointment of a new FERC chairman, Jon Wellinghoff.

However, Allen said he can't see FERC behaving differently now that a new chairman is in office. "They may tighten up and be more rigorous in environmental examinations, but they've been very rigorous already, I think. The law is pretty specific as to what FERC can or can't say. FERC is in a box, and they have to determine whether or not a facility is environmentally acceptable."

Controversy continues to surround a number of proposed projects. Last month, the U.S. Department of Commerce issued a decision upholding the state of New York's objection to the proposed construction and operation of a floating LNG terminal and subsea pipeline that would be located in Long Island Sound.

Broadwater Energy LLC and Broadwater Pipeline LLC proposed constructing the terminal to which tankers would deliver LNG. The terminal would have delivered up to 1.25 Bcf/d of gas to fuel electric generating plants and heat homes. As proposed, the terminal would consist of a floating storage and regasification unit (FSRU) that would measure about 1,215 feet (370 m) long and 200 feet (61 m) wide, rising approximately 80 feet (24 m) above the water line of the sound in New York state waters.

New York objected to the project under its Coastal Zone Management Act, asserting that the proposal was inconsistent with the Long Island Sound Coastal Management Program. Broadwater appealed the state's objection to the Department of Commerce on June 6, 2008.

While the Broadwater LNG project faced a lot of public opposition from residents on Long Island and in Connecticut, but some acceptance from the business community, FERC did not have grounds to reject it. Some believe that another source of gas in the region may be economically advantageous, as Long Island and Connecticut have some of the most expensive gas in the U.S. Northeast.

"We are disappointed in the Commerce Secretary's ruling, in light of unanimous approval of Broadwater's proposal by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the issuance of a positive Letter of Recommendation from the U.S. Coast Guard," said John Hritcko, Broadwater Energy senior vice president and regional project director.

"We appreciate the tremendous, broad-based support the Broadwater proposal received throughout the regulatory process. We will review the specifics of the ruling before making a decision on our next steps," Hritcko said last month after the ruling.

BP, which has proposed the Crown Landing LNG facility for construction in Gloucester County, N.J., has had its request to FERC granted to extend the time  to construct the terminal and associated pipelines.

BP subsidiary Crown Landing said that current market conditions are severely hampering the construction and development of LNG terminals in the U.S. and that a reconfiguration of the project must be developed, filed with, and approved by FERC before construction can begin.

The project has faced opposition from the state of Delaware over safety concerns. The U.S. Supreme Court in 2008 ruled that Delaware can block New Jersey industrial projects that jut into the state under the Delaware River, including BP's Crown Landing LNG project.

BP's proposed project would deliver up to 1.2 Bcf/d of gas to the Mid-Atlantic region.

President Barack Obama on March 30 signed into law H.R. 146, the Omnibus Public Lands Management Act of 2009, which designates about 2 million acres of new wilderness areas. The passage of the bill has been viewed by some as an attempt to block development of the proposed Weaver's Cove liquefied natural gas terminal in Fall River, Mass.

Under the bill, the Taunton River in Massachusetts will become part of the Wild & Scenic River system. The "Wild and Scenic" designation would cover the main stem of the Taunton River from its headwaters at the confluence of the Town and Matfield Rivers in the town of Bridgewater downstream 40 miles (64 km) to the confluence with the Quequechan River at the Route 195 Bridge in the city of Fall River.

Critics of the bill say that the lower segment of the Taunton River has been a highly developed, industrialized river for a long time and does not  possess the "remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural or similar values" that qualify a river for wild and scenic designation.
  Weaver's Cove Energy has said the designation will not effect the construction of a liquefied natural gas import terminal along the river's banks in Fall River.
Many LNG projects proposed for the U.S. East Coast face opposition from local officials, but not all. In Maine, Gov. John Baldacci and local industry has urged the Canadian province of New Brunswick to approve the development of LNG facilities in Maine in exchange for the state's support of an energy corridor that would pass through New Brunswick and Maine.
The current economic environment is affecting the progress of some LNG projects. Earlier this month, FERC approved Cameron LNG LLC's request for an extension of time until Dec. 31, 2009, to place the Cameron LNG terminal near Hackberry, La., in service.

Cameron LNG said in a March 16, 2008, filing that it has experienced construction delays and will be unable to complete construction of all its facilities within the time originally required. Cameron LNG submitted information indicating that it has completed the construction of a great majority of the project. Cameron LNG expects to complete all construction activities and make the facilities available for service by Dec. 31 of this year.
 Construction costs for LNG projects rose substantially in the past few years, in some cases doubling and tripling. Given the fall in LNG demand and gas prices, companies will likely begin aggressive cost cutting in the next six months, according to Steven Miles, head of the project development and finance section, as well as the LNG practice, at the international law firm of Baker Botts.

U.S. Gulf of Mexico - too many terminals?

The U.S. Coast Guard issued letters of recommendation on April 10 for eight LNG facilities located throughout the Gulf Coast, including four in Texas, two in Louisiana and two in Mississippi.

The letters indicate that the waterways associated with Calhoun LNG, Point Comfort, Texas; Freeport LNG Phase II, Freeport, Texas; Golden Pass LNG, Sabine Pass, Texas; Port Arthur LNG, Port Arthur, Texas; Creole Trail LNG, Cameron, La.; Sabine Pass LNG Phase II, Cameron Parish, La.; Casotte Landing LNG, Pascagoula, Miss.; and Gulf LNG Clean Energy, Pascagoula, Miss., are suitable for the expected vessel traffic at the facilities.

The Coast Guard made its suitability recommendations after comprehensive reviews that followed applicable Coast Guard Navigation and Vessel Inspection circulars.  The reviews focused on navigational safety, maritime security risks and the measures needed to responsibly manage the risks. 
   The letters of recommendation show that the waterways where these projects are proposed for construction are suitable for LNG traffic, said Mike O'Berry, chief petty officer of the Eighth Coast Guard district.

Regasification operations began last year at the first phase facilities at Freeport LNG. The terminal has a send-out capacity of 1.5 Bcf/d of gas. Freeport LNG has 20-year contracts to supply LNG from the terminal to ConocoPhillips, Dow Chemical and Mitsubishi, all of which operate major petro-chemical facilities in the Freeport area.

Also in Texas, FERC earlier this year concluded that Sabine Pass LNG's proposal to export LNG from the Sabine Pass LNG import terminal in Louisiana, with appropriate mitigating measures, would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.

Sabine Pass said its proposal would provide customers of the Sabine Pass terminal the opportunity to purchase cargoes of LNG at current LNG world market prices that may be higher than prices in U.S. markets, with the intent that such LNG subsequently could be exported for redelivery to a foreign market at a later date.

In order to operate its facility for the purpose of exporting LNG, Sabine Pass is proposing to modify four 24-inch diameter check valves located on Transfer Arms A and D on the East and West Jetty Platforms. The modifications to the check valves would allow LNG to flow in the direction for shiploading from the LNG Storage Tanks.
 The terminal operations currently utilize the Phase I facilities. Until the Phase II facilities are fully operational, LNG export operations would be limited to one transfer arm at a maximum rate of 6,000 cubic meters (21,888 cubic feet) per hour. Once the Phase II facilities are fully operational, two transfer arms on one jetty would be used for exporting LNG at a loading rate of 12,000 cubic meter (423,776 cubic feet) per hour.

The terminal would be able to operate in a dual import/export capacity or solely as an import terminal depending on market conditions. In a dual operational capacity that utilizes Phase I and II facilities, one jetty would be dedicated for loading and the other for unloading. However, the valve modifications and unloading arms would not be permanent and could either be returned to full unloading or kept in-place to allow for dual import/export functionality.
The first phase of Sabine Pass LNG commenced service in April 2008, with 10.1 Bcf of LNG storage in three tanks, each with an LNG capacity of 160,000 cubic meters (5.6 MMcf), and a maximum continuous regasification rate of 2.6 Bcf/d. The first stage of Phase 2 will include the addition of a fourth and fifth storage tank, additional vaporizers that will bring the maximum continuous regasification rate up to 4.0 Bcf/d with a peak send out capacity of 4.3 Bcf/d. In the future stages of Phase 2, Cheniere may add a sixth storage tank and related facilities to bring the total LNG storage volume to 20.2 Bcf.

ExxonMobil's Golden Pass LNG terminal is expected to begin operations in mid-2009. The LNG terminal will be located approximately 10 miles south (16 km) of Port Arthur and two miles (3.2 km) northwest of Sabine Pass, Texas, in an area zoned for industrial use on the Sabine-Neches Waterway, an industrial ship channel.
In August 2007, FERC concluded that construction of Calhoun Point Comfort's proposed Calhoun LNG project with appropriate mitigating measures, as recommended, would have limited adverse environmental impact.

The proposed Calhoun LNG facility will be capable of receiving, storing and regasifying up to 1 Bcf/d of LNG.  The project would ultimately consist of two 5.6 MMcf storage tanks with appropriately sized separation and vaporization facilities.  The project will be located near Port Lavaca, Texas. The facility could be operational in late 2009 or early 2010.

Sempra Energy's Port Arthur LNG project has been permitted, but construction has not begun as the company is waiting on capacity supply contracts to be put into place first.

West Coast projects remain controversial

The three LNG projects proposed in Oregon continue to generate controversy, mainly focused around FERC's process of reviewing and licensing LNG facilities.
Three LNG projects, Oregon LNG, Bradwood Landing LNG and Jordan Cove LNG, have been proposed for construction and operation in Oregon.

They have generated concerns among state and local officials, environmental groups and local residents over the projects' impact on the local environment and wildlife, safety risks and impact on local industries such as forestry. Some critics also view the projects as a means of using Oregon as a backdoor to supply more energy to California.

Both Allen and Johnson think it's unlikely that LNG projects proposed for construction on the U.S. West Coast will be commercially viable. "It's counterproductive and expensive to try and push through projects there," Johnson said.

In a bid to regulate how and whether LNG projects are approved for construction and operation in Oregon, a bill was submitted to the Oregon Legislative Assembly that would establish certain requirements before applicants seeking to construct LNG terminals or related pipelines may be issued specified permits and authorizations. However, the bill died in committee.

Despite the local opposition to LNG import terminals, FERC has concluded that the proposed Jordan Cove LNG project and associated Pacific Connector pipeline project would have limited adverse environmental impacts if constructed.

However, FERC said if the project is constructed and operated in accordance with applicable laws and regulations, with implementation of Jordan Cove's and Pacific Connector's proposed mitigation measures, and the additional mitigation measures recommended by staff, environmental impacts would be substantially reduced.

The U.S. Coast Guard also has issued a letter of recommendation for the Oregon LNG receiving terminal proposed for construction on the Skipanon Peninsula in Warrenton, Ore.
The Coast Guard has determined that, while portions of the Columbia River and its approaches are not currently suitable for the proposed traffic, they could be made suitable for the type and frequency of LNG marine traffic associated with the project. "Additional measures are necessary to responsibly manage the maritime safety and security risks," the Coast Guard said.

Specific risk mitigation measures recommended to manage the safety and security risks of the project include a moving safety-security zone to be established around the LNG vessel extending 500 yards around the vessel but ending at the shoreline. No vessel may enter the safety/security zone without first obtaining permission from the Coast Guard Captain of the Port.

Construction of the import facility and an associated pipeline is anticipated to begin in 2010. The project is expected to begin serving customers in 2013.
The Oregon LNG receiving terminal will be designed with a natural gas send out capacity of 1.0 Bcf/d and a peak of up to 1.5 Bcf/d. The project will be designed to receive LNG from oceangoing LNG carriers up to 266,000 cubic meters (9.4 MMcf) in size and will feature three 160,000 cubic meters (5.6 MMcf) aboveground, full containment LNG storage tanks.

The Coast Guard also issued letters of recommendation for the other two proposed Oregon LNG terminals, Bradwood Landing and Jordan Cove.

Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski had said in January the state would appeal FERC's decision to license the proposed Bradwood Landing LNG terminal before environmental mitigation plans were fully evaluated and approved and the state permitting process was complete.

"I have been clear that FERC should not issue a license until all environmental issues are appropriately addressed and not before state permit decisions have been rendered," Governor Kulongoski said. "I am deeply disappointed that FERC has chosen to ignore Oregon's concerns in this matter and have asked the Attorney General to seek prompt judicial review."

Long Beach happy to use LNG

While opposition to LNG terminals along the U.S. West Coast has been strong, LNG is finding a foothold as an alternative fuel for trucks. The city of Long Beach last month unveiled a new LNG fueling station for the city's growing feet of alternative fuel vehicles. The 32,000-gallon fueling station handles a two-week supply of LNG for the city's 79 LNG vehicles, including the only LNG-powered street-sweeping fleet in the United States.

"The city's long history with alternative vehicles and fuels has allowed it to become a leader among public agencies," Mayor Bob Foster said.  "Creating a world-class green fleet is one of the many sustainable programs that the city has implemented.  This LNG fueling station will save costs, and burns much cleaner than diesel fuel."

The LNG fueling station will soon be publicly accessible for use by other LNG vehicles, and was partially funded by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD).

By using LNG vehicles and retrofitting diesel vehicles with particulate traps, the city of Long Beach has removed more than 2.8 metric tons (3.1 tons) of particulate matter from the atmosphere.

Additionally, the conversion of a large portion of the city's solid waste fleet to LNG powered vehicles has reduced carbon dioxide emissions by 19.54 metric tons (21.5 tons) per year, significantly reducing greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming.

The LNG is produced and supplied to Long Beach by Topock, Ariz.-based Applied LNG Technologies.

Australia develops as LNG hub

Australia is rapidly becoming a hub for LNG activity, albeit with environmental concerns by at least one government agency.

Despite its conditional approval, EPA Chairman Paul Vogel said the agency still opposes the location of industry on Barrow Island, a Class A nature reserve.

Vogel stated, "Given the very high environmental and unique conservation values of Barrow Island, which are reflected in its status as a class A Nature Reserve, it is the view of the EPA that, as a matter of principle, industry should not be located on a nature reserve and specifically not on Barrow Island."

The EPA has concluded that the proposal could meet the EPA's objectives provided stringent conditions are imposed. If the recommended conditions are not applied to the project, the EPA has requested that the proposal be remitted back to it for fresh advice.

EPA has recommended that the Minister for Environment seek advice from the Marine Turtle Expert Panel on how EPA's objective could be achieved.

The EPA said it also regards the increased potential impacts of dredging and marine infrastructure construction on the high value coral dominated habitat of the Lowendal Shelf as an important issue.

Gas from the Gorgon field is high in carbon dioxide. A fundamental justification by the proponent for using Barrow Island was the need for access to a suitable aquifer beneath the island for long term carbon dioxide storage. If injection and long term storage of the carbon dioxide product.