[JayHMorrison]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('onequestionwonder', '
')
Why would either Russia or Iran construct any liquefaction plants?

I realize that some nations aren't going to have the wherewithal to resist the beast, but if you can, keeping the industrial production of the products that depend on natural gas at home is more more logical to me, than exporting LNG.

[pea-jay]

Spencer Abraham once commented on the desirability of a global gas market. At least now (for the rest of the world's sake) if our gas runs out--and evidence is pointing in that direction--gas elsewhere is safe from our grubby hands. In a global market your gas is ours, so please treat it nicely until we can come collect it.

[pea-jay]

I have been pestering Sempra for the answers to LNG (and Natural Gas in general) questions I have been formulating. Two weeks and counting with no response, though I have worked my way up the food chain there.

So while I wait and remind, take a look at some of the questions i intend to ask.

1. Ensenada plant will be rated at one BCF, half of which may flow north to the US. What percentage of the current CA market does that comprise? How soon before Mexican demand consumes the entire BCF?

2. Have the gas supplies been lined up? Contracts? With whom and for how long? What percentage of will be comprised of "spot demand" purchases?

3. Where is the gas originating from? How many trips? Deals worked out with liquifaction facilities?

4. Do you have ships under contract? With whom, how long? Capacity?

5. How many total trips do you anticipate per year? Percentage of capacity?

6. Will LNG deliveries to texas terminals make it to CA market?

7. How will Socalgas work with non-Sempra LNG facilities proposed for CA coastline

8. What are the plans if LNG does not pan out or in smaller amounts than forecast?

Thats what I got so far. Any additional questions?

[BabyPeanut]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')url=http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/news/local/12998249.htm]PGW's spending plans for LNG put on hold (link)[/url]
By RAMONA SMITH - Philadelphia Daily News
Wed, Oct. 26, 2005

The city Gas Commission has refused to approve any more spending on a plan to ship hazardous liquefied natural gas up the Delaware River until it finds out how likely the deal is to happen - and whether PGW's hard-pressed gas customers ever will be paid back.

"I would say that this project is in lots and lots of trouble," said City Councilman Juan Ramos, after he and other members of the Gas Commission unanimously shelved PGW's request for nearly $3 million to pay for outside legal work on the project. "That is why the commission voted today not to expend a single penny till we can get more information."

For the second time in little more than a month, the commission demanded a detailed briefing from Philadelphia Gas Works officials on the status of their negotiations with an energy company that would bring massive tankers loaded with imported LNG up the Philly waterfront to PGW tanks in Port Richmond. The plan has been drawing increasing opposition in waterfront neighborhoods, where a terrorist attack might pose the risk of intense heat from a pool of fire.

Ramos predicted that if PGW and the developer can't soon step up and convince residents that the plan for an LNG import terminal is safe, the whole project would be "on its death bed."

Yesterday's budgeting stalemate followed a Daily News report of public comments by Councilman Frank DiCicco, who told a South Philly audience flatly last week that the most likely developer, Hess LNG, had pulled out of a deal.

PGW has repeatedly denied that negotiations were in trouble. Vice president David Griesing yesterday described the talks as "very active.

"We have exchanged documents and we're working on negotiating the final agreements."

PGW sees the project as "a very important part of our long-term strategy to stabilize, if not reduce, gas rates," Griesing said.

But as a result of the uncertainty over the lagging talks, Ramos said, "It is reasonable to doubt that agreement on any terms will occur in the near future."

As a result, the commission yesterday supported Ramos' motion to include none of the $2.9 million PGW had sought for outside legal work on the LNG project in a $76.4 million interim appropriation approved to tide the gas company over until Dec. 31. The commission will deal with the rest of the gas company's proposed operating budget later, and could decide to look again at the funds for legal work.

The move won't block PGW from using its own staff lawyers to pursue a contract with the would-be developer, which is generally believed to be Hess. Neither PGW nor Hess has confirmed that it's the company that's been talking with PGW for several months.

The issue of who pays for the pre-contract work on the LNG project was first raised by a commission hearing examiner, Janet Parrish, who noted that over a three-year period, PGW had budgeted a total of nearly $5 million for consulting, lobbying and legal work - a total since trimmed to about $4.6 million. Of that, about $1.7 million has actually been spent.

PGW had asked for $1.7 million in the current fiscal year, and then sought to tack on an additional $1.2 million left over from last year, for a total of $2.9 million for outside legal work in fiscal 2006. Commissioners shelved both 2006 requests yesterday, saying they didn't want gas customers to be stuck with the expense if it couldn't be recovered.

Councilwoman Marian Tasco, the commission chairperson, said the panel had been told the developer would pay back the preliminary costs so customers wouldn't be stuck with them. "But now, at this point," she said, "we are not clear that that is going to take place."

[Tanada]

Sounds like Canada can once again get richer due to the NIMBY syndrome, the LNG terminals will be built in Canada and then the nat gas will be piped to the border and sold to the USA, raising the profit levels for Canadians. Serves the USA right for loving the NIMBY syndrome.

[lawnchair]

I'm not convinced the Canadians will play along. Maybe not quite so NIMBY, but highly explosive ships in Halifax harbour... well... there's a history.

I'm thinking a offshore a little south of Matamoros and a little south of Tijuana. The Mexican government needs something to tax to death after Cantarell and Pemex start to decline.

[Tanada]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lawnchair', 'I')'m not convinced the Canadians will play along. Maybe not quite so NIMBY, but highly explosive ships in Halifax harbour... well... there's a history.

I'm thinking a offshore a little south of Matamoros and a little south of Tijuana. The Mexican government needs something to tax to death after Cantarell and Pemex start to decline.

[PWALPOCO]

It seems that some of the requirements to demostrate that the whole transportation operation is "safe" are too demanding.

Certainly you should be forced to demonstrate that the method is inherently safe , "under normal operational conditions". But to have to demonstrate it is safe from terrorism is too much !!

Can anyone prove to me that my house is safe from an act of terrorism ? Someone could easily just blow up a 747 overhead and have it land on me from above.... Lockerbie anyone !

You could do a "risk assesment" on practically ANYTHING and say "What if a terrorist does ........."

Nuclear Powerstations would have a division of marines assigned to protect it with 24/7 fighter cover. Skyscrapers wouldnt be built. Refineries and storage facilities would all be underground. All employees would have to wear a bulletproof vest .... yadda yadda.

Assess for realistic dangers, ships colliding in the night. There are other people out there responsible for keeping the terrorists away.


Paul

[BabyPeanut]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PWALPOCO', 'Y')ou could do a "risk assesment" on practically ANYTHING and say "What if a terrorist does ..."

[karina]

There are a lot of natural gas terminals in Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. In fact the biggest liquefied natural gas market is in the Far East. I am wondering how they could build LNG terminals in their rather small territories.

[PWALPOCO]

Babypeanut

I agree , Im sure terrorists have targetted such facilities in the past.

I think in my time terrorists have targetted ;

Market Places
Pubs
Clubs
Shop Fronts
Shopping Centers
Financial Centers
City Centers
Public Parks
Railway Stations
Tube Trains
Planes
Ships
Hotels
Embassys
Blah Blah Blah

Basically a terrorist can target anything. All of the businesses or facilities I have outlined above still operate in most parts of the world that I know of... none of them are prevented from operating for being a terrorist bullet magnet.

I can understand your concern , that the right target can become a WMD in itself but in the end , like I said , ANYTHING can be a target to terrorists. I guess something similar would be someone using an RPG on a road petrol tanker ..... but they still can be seen rolling on our roads.


Paul

[Tanada]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'T')anada and lawnchair

i don't know where to begin? Why don't you two armchair (get it armchair? lawnchair?) patriots site the lng in your backyard. I certainly don't want it in mine. This is what they look and act like.

Imagine two or three 20-story round steel balls floating down the middle of your local harbor on a 700-foot tanker.

Now imagine a bulls-eye painted on each ball.

Finally visualize this---some guy on the shore with a rocket launcher or even a freakin WWII bazooka.

The result? Incineration zone is 1 mile diameter. That means people, building, the entire ball-o-wax. 3rd degree burns is 3 miles from ground zero. 2nd degree 7 miles.

we fought and kept one out of our lovely little Victorian Harbor up here on the North Coast. Unfortunately the BushBoy is out to get us. Hell, we'll stop him also.

[Tanada]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'T')anada and lawnchair

.

[Tanada]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'Y')our criticism of those who refuse LNG terminals is from a place of safety and convenience. But we do not have that luxary. A terminal would severly impact our fisheries by shutting down port access during security windows. This is serious and dangerous in the north pacific. The mere presence of a giant terminal would destroy the small tourist business that our harbor depends on. The terminal's potential for catastrophic accident or target threatens the lives of locals. Finally a terminal would generate very little money as the construction would be done by outside contractors. but you lecture me on NIMBYism?

[Kingcoal]

Actually, the trouble with getting this deal through is typically Philadelphian and less to do with terrorism. Philadelphia is famous for its hemming and hauling during negotiations.

These ports need to be built, however. NG is scarce in the US, but relatively plentiful throughout the rest of the world. Old cities like Philly are very dependent on gas, which goes back to the old days when it was made as a byproduct from the steel industry. Philly is pretty much completely powered by gas. Right now, a lot of its gas compliment is manufactured at the Sunoco refinery at the south end of town. This is very expensive and can be gotten rid of with LNG tankers.

[Free]

The Guardian

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Safety fears for fleet of new LNG tankers after leaks are found

· Soaring demand for gas raises pressure on BG
· Scare adds to alarm over 'floating bombs' since 9/11

Terry Macalister
Wednesday December 21, 2005
The Guardian


A fleet of new ships built for BG and other companies to meet Britain's growing energy needs by bringing in liquefied natural gas (LNG) from abroad has been hit by leaks and safety scares.

[FireJack]

I have wondered about this, if there was somekind of fire on a LNG tanker would it explode or would it simply burn off.