Congress prepared to move on LNG

The Mobile Register ^ | 7/27/05 | Seab Reilly

[AzaleaCity5691]

Congress prepared to move on LNG Legislation would give federal government ultimate authority on development of onshore terminals Wednesday, July 27, 2005 By SEAN REILLY Washington Bureau WASHINGTON -- Taking the position that national energy needs come before state and local safety concerns, Congress is poised to cement the federal government's control over the siting of onshore liquefied natural gas terminals.

Although the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission would have to consult with state governments, it would get "exclusive authority to approve or deny an application for the siting, construction, expansion or operation" of an LNG terminal onshore or in state waters, according to a draft of almost-complete energy legislation posted on a congressional Web site.

As they put the finishing touches Tuesday on the bill to overhaul national energy policy, negotiators on a House/Senate conference committee also appear to have ignored a recent request from U.S. Rep. Jeff Sessions and U.S. Rep. Jo Bonner, both Mobile Republicans, to require offshore liquefied natural gas terminals to use "closed-loop" gas recovery systems that aren't destructive to sea life.

Advertisement

Sessions could not be reached for comment Tuesday afternoon. Bonner said he wants to get Alabama Gov. Bob Riley's opinion about the LNG language. Bonner added that he would vote against the entire energy bill if there is no provision for closed-loop systems and Riley feels the legislation fails to adequately assure a voice for states and local communities in deciding where LNG facilities will go.

Both the House and Senate are expected to vote on the final bill by the end of the week.

Amid a predicted boom in natural gas imports, the issue of LNG oversight has flared up in coastal areas around the country. Among them is Mobile County, where a public backlash last year forced ExxonMobil Corp. to drop plans for a terminal on Mobile Bay. FERC is not currently reviewing any permit applications for onshore facilities in coastal Alabama.

But one motive behind Congress' intervention is to help the federal commission prevail in a court fight with the California Public Utilities Commission over where terminals should go.

Marnie Funk, a spokeswoman for Senate Energy Committee Chairman Pete Domenici, R-N.M., said the new legislation simply aims to clarify lawmakers' aim in passing the Natural Gas Act almost 70 years ago.

"One hopes that courts will recognize that Congress intended for FERC to have siting authority," she said Tuesday.

To Domenici and other backers of the federal commission's position, natural gas is too valuable to the nation's energy supply to let state and local objections hold up projects indefinitely. Critics of FERC respond that the commission -- which sees its top job as providing "dependable, affordable energy," according to its mission statement -- is neither willing nor able to scrutinize the hazards associated with super-chilled, explosive liquefied natural gas.

In an apparent bid to allay those doubts, the final legislation includes a section requiring FERC to consult with a designated state agency regarding various issues, including the emergency response capabilities of the surrounding communities. The state agency can then file an advisory report with the federal commission on those issues within a month after the permit application is filed.

Casi Callaway, executive director of Mobile Bay Watch Inc., an advocacy group, welcomed that nod to federal-state cooperation, but still warned that the new legislation would be "devastating" to south Alabama.

"I think there couldn't be a more dangerous removal of states' and individual rights," said Callaway, who is also a member of the Gulf Fisheries Alliance, an organization that favors LNG technology -- such as closed-loop systems -- believed to be not harmful to fish populations. By contrast, open-loop systems use sea water to thaw the gas, destroying large amounts of sea life in the process.

While the legislation would not affect states' ability to regulate development under several federal pollution and coastal management laws, Callaway saw LNG oversite as primarily a public safety issue.

It was not clear how the legislation would have affected the strategy that Riley used last year against the ExxonMobil project, when he refused to allow the sale of the former Navy home port site to proceed until a full-blown safety study was completed.

The legislation does say, however, that most disputes will go to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, rather than be heard by state or federal courts closer to the affected community.

U.S. Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., was critical of the provision, saying it represents another tilt in the federal government's favor. "The argument is to take each one of these siting decisions as far away (as possible) from the state which will be affected," he said.

[Modernman]

If you want to build an LNG plant in a populated area, build it in a slum.....don't locate it in a nice area where there is something to be lost

Wow. You want the benefits of natural gas, so long as the only people endangered by it are poor folks living in a slum.

How nice.

[kaktuskid]

Of course your "neighborhood" would also disappear if a gasoline tanker or LPG truck blew up (and there are 1000s on the road every day)

[Diddle E. Squat]

Some other company, 12 miles offshore of Dauphin Island.

Which would be a perfectly safe location, so no reason to oppose it. Its a big ocean and bay, so plenty of areas for you to 'fish' outside of a couple mile radius of the facility.

[ran15]

It is sad it has come to this, but when every state is infected with anti-development, anti-civilization zealots the feds need to take action.

Same thing may have to happen with nuclear power in the future. We can't be ruled by the irrational fears and superstitions of the population(who is implanted with those misconceptions by a media with alterior anti-American agendas), unless we want to be a second class nation.

[Southack]

"Locals should have a right to make decisions in these matters because it affects their community, their property values, even their lives."

That's fine, but locals shouldn't be permitted to stop offshore terminals from piping gas inshore.

Pick an acceptable distance offshore, get most Americans to agree on that distance, and then pass legislation that stops locals from blocking the piping in of gas from terminals located that far out.

The alternative to the above is to have LNG ships unload directly in port, inside your city limits, rather than miles offshore...

...Which is what you're already doing with fertlizer ships (see: Texas City explosion).

Pause

What's really going on is that radicals are using the "explosive" nature of this issue to further the left-wing agenda of stopping all new construction in America. Imagining large "blast areas" and then hyperventilating about it makes headlines and gets normally rational people to suddenly oppose practical matters.

In this case, building LNG terminals *offshore* is better than unloading LNG ships in your harbor itself...but the radicals have got citizens fighting the *offshore* terminals themselves!

...And all the while, highly explosive fertilizer ships are coming in to your ports to unload and you aren't making a sound about them.

[AzaleaCity5691]

"Wow. You want the benefits of natural gas, so long as the only people endangered by it are poor folks living in a slum."

In this country there is a thing called education, and a thing called work. People who work hard and get an education will be rewarded with wealth.

Those who screw around in school and choose to be lazy on the job will be rewarded with poverty.

It is up to each person who lives whether they want to be poor or not. If they are willing to work hard, they can get ahead. If they want to be lazy and just live off government assistance, then they shouldn't be surprised when the government wants to locate a superfund site in their neighborhood.

The reason this country is going down today is because people believe they are entitled to something, rather then believing that they have to actually earn something.

[Marysecretary]

But, but, we're talking about the GOVERNMENT here. They don't do much intelligently.

[AzaleaCity5691]

How come none of them have been proposed in the state to the east of us. Why is it that they get to be off-limits to project like this, but the rest of us are prime targets.

When they locate several of these terminals in counties in Florida such as Duval, Collier, Dade, Pinellas, etc. When they start doing that, then maybe I'll be less opposed to one of these being in my neck of the woods.

[Modernman]

It is up to each person who lives whether they want to be poor or not. If they are willing to work hard, they can get ahead. If they want to be lazy and just live off government assistance, then they shouldn't be surprised when the government wants to locate a superfund site in their neighborhood.

The fact that people are poor is in no way a justification for government to place superfund sights or LNG terminals in their neighborhoods in order to avoid offending the sensibilities of rich NIMBYists.

Our government is supposed to treat the citizenry equally, regardless of wealth and social status. I find your view that the poor should be subjected to more danger by government to be disgusting and un-American.

[Diddle E. Squat]

How exactly are you or any Alabaman endangered by a facility 12 miles offshore?

[AzaleaCity5691]

Alabamian is the correct word

And the fact is, if you put this facility under federal protection, that makes it harder for Montgomery to take punitive action if something goes wrong.

Right now, Alabama has to approve something like this, so if there were an accident at the plant, the state could take legal action. If this becomes a matter of FERC control, it becomes harder for the state of Alabama to take punitive action against the company because Washington will be standing in the way.

[AzaleaCity5691]

I'm not saying they should, but what I am saying is

Actions have consequences. The truth is, in this society, the way people are treated often is determined by how much they are worth monetarily, it's not ideal, but it's just the way things are.

Everyone grows up knowing how this is and everyone grows up knowing what you have to do to be considered a success in this country, the effort required etc. Everyone knows the benefits we reward success with, and the non-benefits we reward failure with.


I'm not saying we "should" put the terminals in the ghetto to punish people, but the sad fact of life is, thats just the way things work, and everyone knows it. The choice of whether or not you will succeed or fail is entirely up to you.

[Old Professer]

If they are speaking of liquified methane then we are dealing with a flammable compound that, as a gas, is considerably lighter than air.

Since any pressurized vehicle needs a bit of free-air space to allow for thermal expansion when exposed to direct sunlight we must assume that these vessels have, at best, 20% of expansion space in which an explosion could occur if it were possible to initiate ignition inside the pressurized container.

If the vessels were ruptured as a result of an external device which itself produced flames. the worst case would be a low-level "explosion" and one heck of a towering flame.

[Lokibob]

Why wait for the uncertainty of an accident, then? You could clear cut the area with a premature LPG fire, eliminating the poor, then not let the educated move into it.

What you say is ridiculous. You remind me of a 15 year old that said once "kill everybody 45 and older, so they don't have to suffer bad health in old age".

[AzaleaCity5691]

And you missed my point too

My primary point is, these shouldn't be put in populated areas at all, but if they are put in populated areas, it is likely those without who are going to be put at greatest risk.

[Diddle E. Squat]

Doesn't matter, because at 12 miles offshore such a facility poses zero danger to any community, as illustrated by your complete inability to name a single danger presented by such a facility.

[Southack]

"If you want to build an LNG plant in a populated area, build it in a slum (I even wrote Exxon telling them where a good location would be), don't locate it in a nice area where there is something to be lost" - AzaleaCity5691

You are such the picture perfect Alabama Democrat. Don't even pretend to be anything else (I know you will, but you won't be believed).

That's such a repulsive thought to state.

I must say that putting you Democrats out of power here in my state has been well worth my time and money.

[Southack]

"Right now, Alabama has to approve something like this, so if there were an accident at the plant, the state could take legal action. If this becomes a matter of FERC control, it becomes harder for the state of Alabama to take punitive action against the company because Washington will be standing in the way." - AzaleaCity5691

Why should *you* care? Do you think that federal lawsuits and fines are going to be more lenient, or are you just looking for *any* trick to stop construction in your backyard?

Weren't you ranting about urban sprawl earlier, too??

[ScreamingFist]

My primary point is, these shouldn't be put in populated areas at all, but if they are put in populated areas, it is likely those without who are going to be put at greatest risk.

Don't put anything that might reduce property values in my city, unless it's the slums (other states are OK too), and don't mess with my fishing. Got it.

I was on a thread yesterday where some freepers expressed opinions stating that killing of Americans is perfectly acceptable, your attitude isn't any different. You want your big house, big car and big life style.....but the infrastructure required for those blessings should be built in the yards of those less fortunate. Sheesh....this country is finished.......

[Past Your Eyes]

"...U.S. Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., was critical of the provision..." Ed Markey is among the slimiest of Massachusetts politicians, and that's really saying something, considering the rest of the lot. Or is that Marty Meehan?? I always get those two mixed up.