Liquefied Natural Gas (Lng)

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Liquefied Natural Gas (Lng) Working Document of the NPC North American Resource Development Study Made Available September 15, 2011 Paper #1-10 LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS (LNG) Prepared for the Resource & Supply Task Group On September 15, 2011, The National Petroleum Council (NPC) in approving its report, Prudent Development: Realizing the Potential of North America’s Abundant Natural Gas and Oil Resources, also approved the making available of certain materials used in the study process, including detailed, specific subject matter papers prepared or used by the study’s Task Groups and/or Subgroups. These Topic and White Papers were working documents that were part of the analyses that led to development of the summary results presented in the report’s Executive Summary and Chapters. These Topic and White Papers represent the views and conclusions of the authors. The National Petroleum Council has not endorsed or approved the statements and conclusions contained in these documents, but approved the publication of these materials as part of the study process. The NPC believes that these papers will be of interest to the readers of the report and will help them better understand the results. These materials are being made available in the interest of transparency. The attached paper is one of 57 such working documents used in the study analyses. Also included is a roster of the Task Group for which this paper was developed or submitted. Appendix C of the final NPC report provides a complete list of the 57 Topic and White Papers and an abstract for each. The full papers can be viewed and downloaded from the report section of the NPC website (www.npc.org). Working Document of the NPC North American Resource Development Study Made Available September 15, 2011 Resource & Supply Task Group Chair Andrew J. Slaughter Business Environment Shell Exploration & Advisor – Upstream Production Company Americas Government Cochair Christopher J. Freitas Senior Program Manager, U.S. Department of Office of Oil & Natural Energy Gas, Office of Fossil Energy Assistant Chair Kevin M. O’Donovan* Director, Policy and State Shell Oil Company Government Relations, Government Affairs Marianne Funk Director, CO2 Advocacy Shell Oil Company Alternate Government Cochair John R. Duda Director, Strategic Center U.S. Department of for Natural Gas and Oil, Energy National Energy Technology Laboratory Secretary John H. Guy, IV Deputy Executive Director National Petroleum Council Members Richard P. Desselles, Jr. Chief – Resource U.S. Department of the Evaluation Methodologies Interior Branch, Resource Evaluation Division, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Jackie Forrest Director, Global Oil IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates Thomas A. Menges Houston, Texas Brenda S. Pierce Program Coordinator, U.S. Department of the Energy Resources Interior Program, U.S. Geological Survey Working Document of the NPC North American Resource Development Study Made Available September 15, 2011 Kevin P. Regan Manager, Long-Term Chevron Corporation Energy Forecasting Robert C. Scheidemann, Jr. Geological Advisor Shell Upstream Americas Charles E. Sheppard, III Independent Industry, Kingwood, Texas Government and Public Service Don K. Thompson Vice President, Green Enbridge Inc. Energy Douglas J. Tierney Vice President, Business Encana Corporation Development Alan P. Wilson Team Leader, Business Encana Oil & Gas Development (USA) Inc. Gerry A. Worthington** U.S. & Argentina Joint ExxonMobil Production Interest Company Gregory J. W. Zwick Director, Energy Market TransCanada PipeLines Analysis Limited * Replaced by Marianne Funk in April 2011. Individual has since changed organizations but was employed by the specified company while participating in the study. ** Retired April 2011. Working Document of the NPC North American Resource Development Study Made Available September 15, 2011 LNG White Paper 1. Introduction LNG, or liquefied natural gas, comprises a small but important and growing part of the global natural gas market. According to the BP Review of World Energy, LNG consumption in 2009 was 23.5 Bcf/d or 8.2% of total world demand for natural gas. Although 2009 natural gas consumption in its entirety declined by 2.1% in 2009 due to the recession, LNG demand grew by 7.2%. This continues a multi- decadal growth pattern of 6 to 7% per year, far faster than the overall growth in the total natural gas market of 2 to 4%. The U.S. imported 1.24 Bcf/d in 2009 or approximately 5.2% of the global trade of 23.5 Bcf/d. The inclusion of Canada and Mexico raises that volume to 1.67 Bcf/d for slightly over 7% of the worldwide total. North America is thus having a demonstrable effect on the LNG industry although the rapid expansion of shale gas production has called into question the region’s future share of the market. 2. History Liquefied natural gas is created by cooling natural gas to minus 161 degrees Celsius. At that temperature, natural gas becomes a liquid and the volume drops by a factor of approximately 600. Thus 600 cubic feet of natural gas at room temperature can be contained in a volume of a single cubic foot when liquefied. That decrease in volume allows natural gas to be economically transported by specialized ships to distant markets. The United States is itself a producer of LNG from its Kenai, Alaska facility which opened in 1969 using gas from the Cook Inlet nearby Anchorage. LNG has been continuously produced from the 200 MMcf/d plant since its inception and sold to its long term contract holders, Tokyo Gas and Tokyo Electric.The United States first imported LNG in 1971 to a regasification terminal in Everett, Massachusetts. The Elba Island, Georgia and Cove Point, Maryland import terminals opened in 1978 while the Lake Charles, Louisiana terminal became commercial in 1982. Due to changes in world markets and prices, the Elba Island and Cove Point terminals ceased operation in 1980 and the Lake Charles project closed shortly after it opened in 1982. The Everett facility, however, protected by downstream contracts in a region that needed LNG for winter peaking demand services, continued to operate. The inoperative terminals gradually came back into service, first Lake Charles in 1989 followed by Cove Point in 1995. The latter, however, initially served solely as a storage facility, using small scale liquefaction located on site, and did not actively receive import cargoes until 2003. Elba Island was the last of the first wave of terminals to reactivate, when it reinitiated cargo imports in 2001. The four original terminals, plus new projects, enabled import growth to 2.11 Bcf/d in 2007, when LNG provided 3.3% of total U.S. consumption. The last several years have seen lower volumes due to higher global prices that have attracted cargoes to alternate markets in Asia and Europe. Working Document of the NPC North American Resource Development Study Made Available September 15, 2011 Figure LNG 1, US LNG Imports, Excel file NARD RSTG LNG Whitepaper 12-28-10 The late 1980 - 1990’s saw a steady erosion in proved gas reserves in the United States, at the same time as domestic consumption was rising. The reduced reserves to production ratio led to an increased emphasis on drilling unconventional reservoirs, such as coal-bed methane and tight gas sands. Although these reservoirs allowed producers to add an impressive amount of reserves, their low permeability required costlier drilling and production techniques, supporting higher prices for produced natural gas. With the decline in conventional reserves and the increase in the average price of domestic natural gas, energy companies and consultants forecast an increased need for LNG imports. Although the cost to produce, liquefy and transport LNG would be high, it was believed those import costs would most likely be lower than the future marginal cost of U.S. gas. Working Document of the NPC North American Resource Development Study Made Available September 15, 2011 Figure LNG 2, US Natural Gas Prices, Excel file NARD RSTG LNG Whitepaper 12-28-10 As a result of the expected need for LNG imports, expansion activities began at the existing four terminals and multiple firms began development of new regasification facilities. A January 2003 report on LNG by the Energy Information Administration (EIA) cited 11 different domestic regas projects and listed 7 more in the Bahamas, Canada and Mexico that were designed to supply natural gas to U.S. markets. Development activity continued to expand and a February 16th 2007 report from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) showed five operating U.S. terminals (the original four plus the Excelerate Gulf Gateway facility) and twenty four projects approved for construction; nineteen onshore and five offshore. In addition, nine projects had been formally proposed to the FERC, which has jurisdiction for onshore developments, and five more to the United States Coast Guard, which takes precedence for off shore facilities. Still more proposals were in an evaluation stage in the U.S. and other efforts were active in both Canada and Mexico. At about this time, however, it became apparent that U.S. proved reserves of natural gas were rapidly growing due to development of tight gas sands and coalbed methane resources. In addition, promising early results from the Barnett shale gas were just becoming public. By 2008 the basic premise that the United States had to import large amounts of LNG to meet projections of rising natural gas demand was called into question. As shown in the chart below produced from Annual Energy Outlooks (AEO) developed by the EIA, expectations for future LNG imports began to plummet by the end of the decade and LNG regasification development efforts began to wind down with a number of projects either suspended or cancelled. Working Document of the NPC North American Resource Development Study Made Available September 15, 2011 Figure LNG 3, US Projected LNG Imports, Excel file NARD RSTG LNG Whitepaper 12-28-10 3.
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...

11 pages remaining, click to load more.

Recommended publications
  • Potential for Terrorist Nuclear Attack Using Oil Tankers
    Order Code RS21997 December 7, 2004 CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web Port and Maritime Security: Potential for Terrorist Nuclear Attack Using Oil Tankers Jonathan Medalia Specialist in National Defense Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division Summary While much attention has been focused on threats to maritime security posed by cargo container ships, terrorists could also attempt to use oil tankers to stage an attack. If they were able to place an atomic bomb in a tanker and detonate it in a U.S. port, they would cause massive destruction and might halt crude oil shipments worldwide for some time. Detecting a bomb in a tanker would be difficult. Congress may consider various options to address this threat. This report will be updated as needed. Introduction The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, heightened interest in port and maritime security.1 Much of this interest has focused on cargo container ships because of concern that terrorists could use containers to transport weapons into the United States, yet only a small fraction of the millions of cargo containers entering the country each year is inspected. Some observers fear that a container-borne atomic bomb detonated in a U.S. port could wreak economic as well as physical havoc. Robert Bonner, the head of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), has argued that such an attack would lead to a halt to container traffic worldwide for some time, bringing the world economy to its knees. Stephen Flynn, a retired Coast Guard commander and an expert on maritime security at the Council on Foreign Relations, holds a similar view.2 While container ships accounted for 30.5% of vessel calls to U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Disposal of Dredged Material and Other Waste on the Continental Shelf and Slope John L
    Disposal of Dredged Material and Other Waste on the Continental Shelf and Slope John L. Chin and Allan Ota Summary and Introduction The history of waste disposal in the Gulf of the Farallones (fig. 1) is directly linked with the history of human settlement in the San Francisco Bay region. The California Gold Rush of 1849 triggered a massive influx of people and rapid, chaotic development in the bay region. Vast quantities of contaminated sediment and water from mining in the Sierra Nevada were carried by rivers into San Francisco Bay, and some was carried by currents through the Golden Gate and into the gulf. The burgeoning region’s inhabitants also contributed to the waste that flowed or was dumped into the bay. Eventually, waste began to be dumped directly into the gulf. Hundreds of millions of tons of waste has been dumped into the Gulf of the Farallones. Since the 1940’s, this has included sediment (sand and mud) dredged from shipping channels, waste from oil refineries and fruit canneries, acids from steel production, surplus munitions and ships from World War II, other unwanted vessels, and barrels of low-level radioactive waste (fig. 1). Because of navigational errors and inadequate record keeping, the location of most waste dumped in the gulf is poorly known. Between 1946 and 1970 approximately 47,800 containers of low-level radioactive waste were dumped into the gulf south and west of the Farallon Islands. From 1958 to 1969, the U.S. military disposed of chemical and conventional munitions at several sites in the gulf, mostly by scuttling World War II era cargo vessels.
    [Show full text]
  • T2 Tanker “Scotts Bluff”
    National Park Service Scotts Bluff U.S. Department of the Interior Scotts Bluff National Monument Nebraska T2 Tanker “Scotts Bluff” T2 Tanker The S.S. Scotts Bluff T2-SE-A1 tanker was the 67th out of the 153 T2 tankers built at the Kaiser Com- Scotts Bluff pany’s Swan Island Shipyards in Portland, Oregon. The tanker was named after the historic Scotts Bluff National Monument, a landmark on the Oregon Trail. The Scotts Bluff was completed in June 1944 and launched on October 5,1944. At the time, the Scotts Bluff was built in a record of 39 days. T2-SE-A1 By the winter of 1940-1941, the Nazis controlled all of the coast of Europe. German aircraft and Tankers submarines seemed likely to strangle Britain by destroying its shipping. Though U.S. ships were for- bidden to enter the cambat area by the Neutrality Act of 1939, President Franklin Roosevelt wanted to aid Britain while simultaneously strengthening the defense of the Western Hemisphere. He an- nounced his intention to create an emergency shipbuilding program by building 200 standard-type cargo ships, later known as “Liberty Ships”. The T2 tanker, Scotts Bluff, was one of the 481 T2-SE-A1 tankers built at four different shipyards. The T2 tanker was an oil tanker constructed and produced in large number in the United States dur- ing World War II. These were the largest “Navy Oilers” at the time and were constructed between 1940 and 1945. During that time, the average production time from” laying of the keel” to “fitting out” was 70 days.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessment of Shipping's Efficiency Using Satellite AIS Data
    UCL ENERGY INSTITUTE Assessment of Shipping’s Efficiency Using Satellite AIS data Tristan Smith, Eoin O’Keeffe, Lucy Aldous and Paolo Agnolucci Prepared for the International Council on Clean Transportation March 2013 CONTENTS CONTENTS ................................................................................................................................................................. i LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................................... iii LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................................................................... v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................................................... vi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................................... 1 OBJECTIVE ........................................................................................................................................................... 1 METHOD .............................................................................................................................................................. 1 FURTHER WORK .................................................................................................................................................. 2 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • LNG Review October 2018 - Recent Issues and Events - Hiroshi Hashimoto∗
    IEEJ: November 2018© IEEJ2018 LNG Review October 2018 - Recent issues and events - Hiroshi Hashimoto∗ Introduction Northeast Asia's overall LNG prices were the highest in October 2018 since 2014 and are expected to stay in high levels for the next couple of months as the JCC (Japan's average crude oil import price) came near to USD 80 / bbl in October. On the other hand, although spot LNG prices in the region stayed above the levels in the last four years in October 2018, they began to stabilize due to slightly warmer weather and higher storage levels in the markets ahead of winter. According to the two countries' custom statistics, during the first ten months of 2018, China imported 72.06 million tonnes of natural gas (including pipeline gas supply and LNG), a 33% increase over the same period in 2017, compared to 69.26 million tonnes or a tiny decrease by Japan. Meanwhile Korea increased LNG imports by 18%, or 5.46 million tonnes year-on-year in the ten- month period in 2018. During the month of October, the Ichthys LNG project in Australia started exporting LNG. Thanks to increases demand in Asia, the world is expected to trade 310 million tonnes of LNG in the year. There were notable discussions on flexibility and security in the LNG market in the month. A hybrid approach that ties term-contract LNG prices to multiple indices was the most favoured by attendees at the annual LNG Producer- Consumer Conference in Nagoya Japan. Japan's and the European Commission's expert group proposed wording for LNG contracts to enhance flexibility and leads to a more liquid market.
    [Show full text]
  • Shipping US Crude Oil by Water: Vessel Flag Requirements and Safety Issues
    Shipping U.S. Crude Oil by Water: Vessel Flag Requirements and Safety Issues John Frittelli Specialist in Transportation Policy July 21, 2014 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R43653 Shipping U.S. Crude Oil by Water: Vessel Flag Requirements and Safety Issues Summary New sources of crude oil from North Dakota, Texas, and western Canada have induced new routes for shipping crude oil to U.S. and Canadian refineries. While pipelines have traditionally been the preferred method of moving crude overland, they either are not available or have insufficient capacity to move all the crude from these locations. While rail has picked up some of this cargo, barges, and to a lesser extent tankers, also are moving increasing amounts of crude in domestic trade. The rather sudden shift in transportation patterns raises concerns about the safety and efficiency of oil tankers and barges. The United States now imports less oil than five years ago by oceangoing tankers, while more oil is moving domestically by river and coastal barges. However, the Coast Guard still lacks a safety inspection regime for barges similar to that which has long existed for ships. The possibility of imposing an hours-of-service limit for barge crews as part of this regime is controversial. Congress called for a barge safety inspection regime a decade ago, but the related rulemaking is not complete. The Coast Guard’s progress in revamping its Marine Safety Office is a related issue that Congress has examined in the past. The majority of U.S. refineries are located near navigable waters to take advantage of economical waterborne transport for both import and export.
    [Show full text]
  • Prevalence of Heavy Fuel Oil and Black Carbon in Arctic Shipping, 2015 to 2025
    Prevalence of heavy fuel oil and black carbon in Arctic shipping, 2015 to 2025 BRYAN COMER, NAYA OLMER, XIAOLI MAO, BISWAJOY ROY, DAN RUTHERFORD MAY 2017 www.theicct.org communications@theicct.org BEIJING | BERLIN | BRUSSELS | SAN FRANCISCO | WASHINGTON ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors thank James J. Winebrake for his critical review and advice, along with our colleagues Joe Schultz, Jen Fela, and Fanta Kamakaté for their review and support. The authors would like to acknowledge exactEarth for providing satellite Automatic Identification System data and for data processing support. The authors sincerely thank the ClimateWorks Foundation for funding this study. For additional information: International Council on Clean Transportation 1225 I Street NW, Suite 900, Washington DC 20005 communications@theicct.org | www.theicct.org | @TheICCT © 2017 International Council on Clean Transportation TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ................................................................................................................. iv 1. Introduction and Background ............................................................................................1 1.1 Heavy fuel oil ................................................................................................................................... 2 1.2 Black carbon .................................................................................................................................... 3 1.3 Policy context ..................................................................................................................................4
    [Show full text]
  • Millennium Class Tanker Structural Design – from Owner Experience to Shipyard Launching Ways
    Millennium Class Tanker Structural Design – From Owner Experience to Shipyard Launching Ways James Read1, Arne Stenseng2, Rod Hulla3 and Darold Poulin4 ABSTRACT Three 125,000 DWT double hull tankers are currently under construction for ARCO Marine, Inc. at Litton Avondale Industries in New Orleans, LA. These Millennium Class tankers are being built to transport crude oil from Valdez, AK to Cherry Point, WA. The design satisfies the requirements of OPA 90 and incorporates a unique structural design philosophy intended to enhance the structural performance of the vessel. This paper will illustrate how the Owner’s experience with previous vessels in Gulf of Alaska trade is reflected in the structural design of the new ships. The human elements of safety, inspection and maintenance are discussed and the influence of these factors on the structural arrangement is highlighted. In concert with these human factors are structural design improvements that have been implemented to specifically address fatigue and stress cracking with the intent of reducing repair requirements. These topics are presented in a discussion that follows the structural design from concept, through design and analysis and into the construction of the vessels. Lessons learned throughout the process are presented. 1 ARCO Marine, Inc., Long Beach, California 2 MCA Engineers, Inc., Costa Mesa, California 3 John J. McMullen and Associates, New York, New York 4 Litton-Avondale Industries, Avondale, Louisiana 1 FOREWORD vessels was quickly dismissed. Cargo capacity lost in retrofitting an inner hull to an exiting 120,000 DWT The goal of this paper is to broadly illustrate the vessel was impractical. It was also understood that the process by which the structure for the Millennium Class outer hull, while in good structural condition, would tankers was conceived, designed and constructed.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Flag Privately-Owned Merchant Fleet
    U.S. Department of Transportation Maritime Administration ‐ Office of Policy and Plans 02/04/2019 United States Flag Privately‐Owned Merchant Fleet Oceangoing, Self‐Propelled, Vessels of 1,000 Gross Tons and Above that Carry Cargo from Port to Port Summary of Changes from 2016 Onward e r e g e g n t r e l n a i p o e e a me u t s mb y T g P A a a A Ch T B U n u T S S A r T Ch W I f N G r J l a N i p V o l i D a M V e pe e O h e M Ch p e s O t S Y y s a M T I e D V IN Jan‐16 9680853 PERLA DEL CARIBE Container ship 36912 45000 2016 Totem Ocean Trailer Express N N N Y Y Vessel flagged into U.S. Flag Fleet IN Jan‐16 9448334 SLNC GOODWILL Tanker 30241 50326 2009 Nord Goodwill LLC NNNNY Vessel flagged into U.S. Flag Fleet Vessel Operator changed from Handytankers K/S OPERATOR Jan‐16 9255244 MAERSK MICHIGAN Tanker 28517 47047 2003 Maersk Line A/S NNY NY to Maersk Line A/S OUT Feb‐16 8919922 COURAGE Ro‐Ro 52288 29213 1991 American Roll‐On Roll‐Off Y Y N N Y Vessel flagged out of U.S. Flag Fleet IN Feb‐16 9782493 COASTAL STANDARD General Cargo 2451 2565 2016 Coastal Transportation Inc. N N N Y Y Vessel flagged into U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Tanker Technology: Limitations of Double Hulls
    (A37851) TANKER US Coast Guard TECHNOLOGY : LIMITATIONS OF DOUBLE HULLS photo A Report by Living Oceans Society www.livingoceans.org photo: Natalia Bratslavsky limitations (A37851) o f d o u b l e - h u l l ta n k e r s Acknowledgements This report was made possible through the generous support of the Tar Sands Campaign Fund of Tides Foundation. Living Oceans Society would also like to thank Dave Shannon for his many valuable 2 contributions and insights into the writing of this report. Living Oceans Society Box 320 Sointula, BC V0N 3E0 Canada 250 973 6580 info@livingoceans.org www.livingoceans.org © 2011 Living Oceans Society Terhune, K. (2011). Tanker Technology: limitations of double hulls. A Report by Living Oceans Society. Sointula, BC: Living Oceans Society. (A37851) Contents Executive Summary . 4 Sole owner responsibility . 12 Introduction . 5 Corrosion . 12 Background . 6 Protective coatings . 14 Double hull design . 6 Fatigue cracks . 14 Regulation . 7 Inspection . 15 Oil Pollution Act of 1990 . 7 Human Factors . 16 International Convention for the Double-Hull Tanker Spills . 17 Prevention of Pollution from Ships . 7 Bunga Kelana 3 . 17 Oil Pollution Prevention Regulations . 7 Eagle Otome . 17 Limitations of Double Hulls . 8 Krymsk . 17 Design and construction issues . 8 Conclusion . 18 Lack of experience . 8 Glossary . 19 Factory techniques . 8 Bibliography . 21 Limited warranty . 8 Appendix A . 23 Weakened class rules . 9 Double-Hull, Double-Bottom and Use of high tensile steel . 10 Double-Sided Spills . 23 Operational issues . 10 Higher stress levels . 10 Cargo leaks . 10 Gas detection . 11 Intact stability . 12 Mud build-up .
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Department of Transportation Maritime Administration
    U.S. Department of Transportation Maritime Administration MERCHANT FLEETS OF THE WORLD PRIVATELY-OWNED, OCEANGOING MERCHANT VESSELS OF 1,000 GROSS TONS AND OVER AS OF JANUARY 1, 2016 *Includes Government-owned ships (U.S. and Foreign-Flag) Please refer to the Data Notes provided on the MARAD Data & Statistics Page for more information Source: IHS Markit Lloyds Maritime Database Files Grand Total Container Dry Bulk General Cargo LNG/LPG Passenger Ro-Ro Tanker Registry Number of Ships GT DWT Number of Ships GT DWT Number of Ships GT DWT Number of Ships GT DWT Number of Ships GT DWT Number of Ships GT DWT Number of Ships GT DWT Number of Ships GT DWT United States of America 337 9,400,648 10,616,525 69 2,848,323 3,101,484 47 974,120 1,893,394 21 294,276 288,986 83 436,546 94,661 63 2,567,241 1,419,010 54 2,280,142 3,818,990 Privately-Owned Merchant Fleet 167 6,648,597 7,782,930 63 2,744,436 2,998,326 6 158,936 260,045 17 153,008 179,042 28 1,339,124 577,233 53 2,253,093 3,768,284 Jones Act Eligible 90 3,250,891 4,562,872 23 656,309 696,122 3 72,502 107,031 7 14,319 10,604 9 373,251 177,462 48 2,134,510 3,571,653 Non Jones-Act Eligible 77 3,397,706 3,220,058 40 2,088,127 2,302,204 3 86,434 153,014 10 138,689 168,438 19 965,873 399,771 5 118,583 196,631 Great Lakes Trading 41 815,184 1,633,349 41 815,184 1,633,349 Passenger/Ferry 83 436,546 94,661 83 436,546 94,661 Ready Reserve Fleet 46 1,500,321 1,105,585 6 103,887 103,158 4 141,268 109,944 35 1,228,117 841,777 1 27,049 50,706 FOREIGN REGISTRIES Grand Total Container Dry Bulk General Cargo
    [Show full text]
  • LNG Plant and Storage Facility
    MAYOR AND COUNCIL AGENDA CODE: WS DATE SUBMITTED: March 25, 2005 DATE TO GO BEFORE COUNCIL: March 28, 2005 SUBMITTED BY: Stuart Eisenberg STAFF MEMBER: Darsey Nicklasson SUBJECT: Proposed Liquefied Natural Gas Plant and Storage Facility at Chillum near West Hyattsville Metro RECOMMENDATION: To discuss and to develop a policy statement in the form of a resolution that can be shared and jointly signed by the area Municipalities and Civic Associations. SPECIFIC ACTION TO BE TAKEN: To adopt a Resolution of Opposition to the proposed location of the Washington Gas Light LNG Plant and Storage Facility. BACKGROUND: Washington Gas Light Company is requesting the Prince George’s County Planning board to approve a minor change to a special exception (SE-245) for a natural gas storage tank facility located at 2130 Chillum Road. The location is within the West Hyattsville Metro Transit District Overlay Zone (TDOZ) and adjacent to the Northwest Branch and stream valley park. Washington Gas is proposing to reinstate the currently decommissioned site as a liquefied natural gas (LNG) plant and storage facility to meet projected customer demand in the developing tier. The site was decommissioned in 1999. The proposed storage tank is approximately 144 feet in diameter and 153 feet tall and will be located in the footprint of one of the prior gas holding tanks. Additional piping and gas processing equipment will be required. CH-IV is the engineering firm out of Benville, MD that is designing the proposed facility and is expected to oversee its construction. The proposed facility would be located within 1,500 feet of the Metro station and within 2,000 feet distance of the homes of 3,000 residents.
    [Show full text]