LNG article in today's Globe -- Nov. 23

[large_diver]

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/11/23/rules_stand_in_way_of_lng_station/

Interesting comments about another project being considered for the Gloucester area (~10 miles off shore). This involves creation an off-shore terminal, where ships would offload at sea to a pipe that would feed the gas directly into an underwater pipeline. There would be no above-water structure...simply a coupling supported by buoys. Companies have had some limited success creating this type of facility in the Gulf of Mexico.

 

[Diesel298]

im not a engineer, but it sounds a little sketchey..
and what about security on a underwater pipeline?

 

[archman]

and what about security on a underwater pipeline?

As there are currently thousands of miles of underwater pipeline already in place throughout the U.S. coastline, security is probably of little concern.

I think cyklon knows a bit about these LNG terminals; maybe he'll pipe in. I personally haven't heard of any significant downside to the "offshore option", other than start-up costs.

 

[jchaplain]

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/11/23/rules_stand_in_way_of_lng_station/

Interesting comments about another project being considered for the Gloucester area (~10 miles off shore). This involves creation an off-shore terminal, where ships would offload at sea to a pipe that would feed the gas directly into an underwater pipeline. There would be no above-water structure...simply a coupling supported by buoys. Companies have had some limited success creating this type of facility in the Gulf of Mexico.

Thats great news that Outer Brewster might get the protection it should have.

/rant on
Setting aside the islands as parkland and then just handing them over to the oil companies a few years later? Thats just plain wrong. The WHOLE idea of setting them up as parkland is and was to protect them from private interest. Some people have no respect at all for parklands and the work people went though to get this protection in place, and they want to just hand them over at the first oil company that comes by without even questioning if there is a better way.
/rant off

I'm all for an offshore facility/pipeline, but they can make a platform just a bit further out and leave the harbor islands alone! ( I hope that is what they end up doing.)

Now why the heck are they saying that even with a LNG facility at the outer harbor LNG tankers will still have to come into Everett? I don't get it.

John C.

 

[Dragon2115]

Now why the heck are they saying that even with a LNG facility at the outer harbor LNG tankers will still have to come into Everett? I don't get it.

Quite simply because demand is exceeding supply.

 

[jchaplain]

Quite simply because demand is exceeding supply.

Not so simple, you should expand on your statement if you actually know the answer to this.

If they can pipe it in, why would they need to still come into Everett with these ships?
( After a new facility at the outer harbor is in place.)

If they make a new facility I would suspect that they can make it large enough to handle 2 ships at once if that is what is needed and make the pipeline big enough to handle it.

 

[Dragon2115]

Not so simple, you should expand on your statement if you actually know the answer to this.

This doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out, but for you I'll try and put it into simpler terms.

If they can pipe it in, why would they need to still come into Everett with these ships?
( After a new facility at the outer harbor is in place.)

If they make a new facility I would suspect that they can make it large enough to handle 2 ships at once if that is what is needed and make the pipeline big enough to handle it.

1. It is unlikely that any one site will have the real estate to hold a facility large enough that it can handle the total projected demand for the region.
   
2. Therefore Outter Brewster will be inadaquate to supply the projected needs of the region by itself. Everett will still be necessary, at least in the short term.
   
3. Tom Mennino has been pushing since 9/11 to have the Everett facility shut down due to the security risk. Eventually he may win because it is a high risk facility with very serious potential damage due to the large surrounding population. I think that the Fall River proposal will eventually be shot down for the same reason.
   
4. It also wouldn't be a good idea to have only one facility handle everything in case of an accident that closes the terminal, for obvious reasons.
   

 

[jchaplain]

This doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out, but for you I'll try and put it into simpler terms.

1. It is unlikely that any one site will have the real estate to hold a facility large enough that it can handle the total projected demand for the region.

Yes, please explain for me, and put it in simple terms that even a non-rocket scientist like me can understand as to exactly why one pipeline facility off the outer harbor cannot carry enough gas into Boston. How much "real estate" does it take?

Would the pipe coming from this "real estate" not be large enough? Is the distance too far to pump? Are platforms not a viable option? I'm only asking this because you seem to know so much about it.

There must be an actual physical reason for this. Or maybe could it be that "because the oil company says so" is how you are basing your knowledge?

 

[Dragon2115]

Part of the problem is that we're not just talking about meeting todays needs or even tomorrows. We're talking about meeting the projected needs of the region twenty years down the road. According to estimates, that nobody is challenging btw, adding just one new facility will not be enough. That's why there are proposals for one in Fall River, and a platform off of Cape Ann.

The reason real estate size comes into play is because not only do we need to off-load it from the ship and return it to its gaseous state, we need to store it for in between deliveries. That's why I said what I did in point #1 that you quoted. Because of the projected demand of the region one facility is not going to be able to store enough NG. It's also not a good idea to rely on only one facility either. If something happens and they're the only game in town...

Platforms for the off-loading are indeed viable options, but they're not without thier own problems. One is weather. How bad can the weather get before off-loading operations become too dangerous for the ship, the platform, and the crews? Even after we overcome that hurdle we invariably come back to the problem of storage, platforms typically don't have much space for storage so a facility will have to be located elsewhere. That opens up another can of worms because nobody wants an NG storage tank in their neighborhood. Whether they are or they aren't they're perceived as dangerous and everybody fights tooth and nail to block their construction.

Nobody wants the terminal near them, nobody is willing to give up one island which is a reasonable distance from residential homes, already has access to a deep water channel, is within a reasonable distance of an existing gas main, and nobody wants a new storage tank near them. So basically nobody is willing to give up anything to solve the problem. But they'll also be the first and the loudest to scream bloody murder when the power or the heat goes out. You watch.

So, where do we go from here?

 

[Boston Diver Services]

I believe Matt Silvia wants two storage facilities in his neighborhood. P.