“NO LNG” week continues…… Fracking & LNG Connection

So I am trying to find out what the link is between Fracking and LNG. From what I can make out,  Fracked gas would be liquefied for storage and transport through a LNG facility, such as the proposed Port Ambrose. The ban on fracking in NY State is actually a loss for the LNG facility.

There is no ‘LNG storage’ at Port Ambrose, but because the tanker would take 17 days to unload and longer to load, the LNG is technically stored on the ships out in the water. This is what happens to transports moving liquified gas. READ: [Liquified] Gas Explosion Shatters Mexico City Maternity and Children’s Hospital

Can you imagine if this happened in our ocean?

port-ambrose-map-web

The LNG cavern storage is also big issue right now in Seneca Lake, NY. Check out WE ARE SECENCA, where locals are doing everything they can (including jail time) to block the Crestwood’s gas storage facility.

Thank you ALL OUR ENERGY for help on this article.

Please read the terms of service before you comment.

comments

12 thoughts on ““NO LNG” week continues…… Fracking & LNG Connection”

  1. NYs fracking ban is meaningless with respect to this terminal, other than it causing the continued lack of economic development for upstate NY. Pennsylvania is allowing it, and they will produce huge volumes of natural gas from that formation, but have no way to export it without a terminal at sea. Southern new england lacks the gas pipeline infrastructure to make use of all this gas being produced, and the politics of those states will see to it that pipelines never gets built. So new england will be stuck continuing to burn filthy home heating oil while thinking they are “green” for not allowing a natural gas infrastructure to be built there. We are lucky that at least on long island, we have a decent infrastructure for gas delivery and alot of people have already converted away from oil. This offshore terminal is a bad idea for Long Beach, for reasons that have nothing to do with fracking and the general positive effects of natural gas on the environment, its one of the cleanest forms of energy there is both for residential use, and for electricity generation.

  2. I have no doubt in my mind that this will become an export terminal. We will end up with the same re-liquification terminal as seen in the Chesapeake
    http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/09/30/3573843/cove-point-liquefied-natural-gas-terminal-approval/.
    Enter “Williams Transco Gas Pipeline” in a Google Image search and you can see where the pipeline that currently runs under Long Beach Road originates. Somewhere down in Texas. 21 miles off Long Beach is a lot closer to Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Finland, and much of Western Europe that rely on the Russian LNG monster that is Gazprom, than setting sail from the Texas Gulf. How better to cripple the Russian economy than to start selling LNG to all of these countries?
    Here’s another group in the fight down in Maryland
    http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/01/28/maryland-residents-fight-lng-export-plans-threaten-turn-area-industrial-site
    Unless politicians truly believe the issue will cost them the next election, everything they say is just lip service. They are heavily funded by the energy industry and when they leave office they usually become lobbyist for them.

  3. Solar and wind energy would be cleaner and do far less damage to the surrounding area. But since no big money can be made by a corporation harnessing the sun these planet raping pipelines and LNG terminals will continue to be pushed. As opposed as I am to the terminals, the idea of shipping PA fracked gas through NY to this terminal is worse.

    Google images of fracking areas of PA to see how far away from green this form of fuel is. There is little point of worrying about air quality if you have allowed the water and earth to be destroyed…..for nothing more than greed.

  4. Anthony, FWIW

    In order to liquefy the natural gas you would need a plant capable of lowering the temperature of the gas. That plant would need to be very close to the vehicle being used to transport it, they could not liquefy the gas in Pennsylvania and pipe it to Port Ambrose, in fact it would be impossible to even have the plant in Long Beach and pipe the LNG the 21 miles out to Port Ambrose

    The explosion in Mexico was caused by LPG more commonly referred to as propane, what most of us use for grilling and a good number of Americans use as their primary heating and cooking fuel.

    The facility in Seneca is for the storage of LPG(propane) not LNG, it would be impossible to store LNG in caverns since it needs to be stored at minus 260 degrees F. There is simply no way to insulate a cavern to maintain that temperature.

    The 17 days unloading time seems high but according to filings it will take between 5 and 16 days to offload. I can only guess that the time is related to the flow on the Lower Lateral, the more gas LB and other connectors are consuming the faster they can offload. 5 to 16 does seen a large variance of time, but what do I know I get most of my facts from the patch.

  5. @Captain O. It’s referred to as FLNG. Floating Liquefaction. It’s done aboard ships anchored off shore. I am highly suspect that this lateral will be used as an export terminal. The energy conglomerates will sell any excess LNG, and as overseas demand grows, our domestic prices will go up. This export aspect of increasing prices is happening in Australia right now.

  6. Gassy,
    Where are most of these FLNG’s currently operating? “Excess LNG”= no such thing. With the current high demand for natural gas in the NY Metro area any gas that was delivered here would be immediately be consumed locally, it would not make sense for the supplier to consider exporting gas from NY, since we are already one of the highest cost markets for natural gas

  7. Solar and wind are fantasies. Try disconnecting the gas or oil heat in your house, and heat it with solar or wind. You can’t. And electricity generation with rooftop solar is marginal at best.

  8. Today, one may not be able to heat with wind or solar power but if the investment were made it could become as main stream as oil. It need not totally replace either, just eliminate our dependence on them.

    There will never be any change if we don’t try.

  9. Demand in the northeast could be higher, but the distribution system for natural gas in southern new england is non-existent, and will never be built. It doesn’t matter what the demand could be, or what the price is – the product can’t be delivered to places where it could be used. This will be an export terminal.

  10. OK, here we go again on this. First I will say that yes we should try and use more renewable energy, that there are some serious environmental concerns regarding Port Ambrose, and that energy companies make too much in profits. That being said, can’t we debate this issue on facts versus exaggerated claims regarding the dangers of Port Ambrose?
    The article cited has nothing to do with LNG so it has no place in this debate and shouldn’t be a part of it as it is completely different in every way. As pointed out by Capt O. this article relates to Propane gas (not LNG) being transferred from a truck to a storage facility. This happens every day all around us already and has a very good safety record. Let’s compare Apples to Apples please.

    In regards to the physical environmental hazards they primarily will exist only during the construction of the pipeline to connect Port Ambrose to the existing pipeline. Yes it will disturb sediments and seafloor habitats during the construction. However the same damage will be caused by the construction of a wind farm and all of the undersea cables required to connect it to the mainland and that damage will be spread out over an ever larger area as will the security zone around the proposed wind farm taking away even more habitat for recreational and commercial fisheries. In addition the scouring that is predicted to happen by the buoy’s mooring happens every day by the all the tankers anchored off our beach constantly. If Port Ambrose eliminated some of the need for those oil tankers and the damage that they cause to the seafloor.
    Finally when comparing the two projects (windfarm/LNG), I don’t see how two buoys are more of a hazard to navigation than a sea of windmills.

    I’m sure I’ll get flack for this posting but I just want honest debate not hysterics and fear mongering.

  11. The link between fracking and Port Ambrose is simply this: antifracking activists have used this project to lie to people. They have used the project which is clearly a delivery project as an excuse to talk about fracking.

  12. @Karen O. If I understand you correctly, the “simple” link between an LNG terminal off Long Beach and hydraulic fracking (one of the more common method of extracting LNG) is that anti-fracking activists, who must have been in search of a project to concoct lies about, happened upon Port Ambrose and now have something to talk/lie about. You seem pretty sure that this will remain a delivery port and not an export terminal. What are you basing that on? And please don’t say that they didn’t even apply for a permit to export.

Comments are closed.