Mega-tankers will be standard before LNG arrives in Oregon


Monday, August 18, 2008 | 21 comment(s)

Font Size: Shrink Font Enlarge Font | Submit your news
ASTORIA (AP) — Liquefied natural gas companies are building even bigger tankers to meet import needs, and experts say they likely will be the industry standard when terminals open for business — if they ever are federally approved.

They say the larger sizes will bring a slight increase in risk.

A study by the Sandia National Laboratory in New Mexico quantified the increased fire hazards associated with the new ships, some of which carry twice as much LNG as the ships currently in use.

There are proposals to build three terminals in Oregon, including Jordan Cove Energy Partners’ proposal for Coos Bay, along with one near Warrenton and one 20 miles up the Columbia River at Bradwood Landing.

The current fleet of LNG carriers ranges from capacities of 125,000 to 145,000 cubic meters of liquefied gas.

Because the bigger ships carry more LNG in each tank, the lab reported, a tank breach would result in more natural gas spilling out at a faster rate. However there has never been such a breach in 40 years of LNG transport.

The Sandia report concludes the hazard zone would increase by about 7 percent to 8 percent, less than 100 yards, to 1,400 meters.

The worst risk to people within the thermal hazard zone would be second-degree burns which occur on bare skin after 30 seconds of exposure.

Russ Berg of the U.S. Coast Guard’s inspection division said the increase in risk is relatively minor. But he said required depth of water, pier length and maneuvering characteristics also come into play.

The Coast Guard’s suitability report for Bradwood Landing — the furthest along in the permit process — was based on the smaller tanker sizes. The larger ones jump from a maximum length of 928 feet to 1,131 feet, and would be about 40 feet wider.

Berg said the larger ships would require a new suitability report or an amended assessment.

The largest ship that can deliver to Bradwood under the rules outlined in the report is one that carries 148,000 cubic meters of LNG.

NorthernStar, which would operate Bradwood, says it is building the facility for ships with capacities of from 100,000 and 200,000 cubic meters.

Joe Desmond, vice president of external relations for NorthernStar, said it is premature to estimate what size ships will actually use the terminal.

Oregon LNG in Warrenton is still working with the Coast Guard on its suitability assessment.

Oregon LNG CEO Hansen visited Korean shipyards in Korea where the largest carriers are being built and concluded his site is well-suited for them.

He said they will be more fuel-efficient.
Tags » astoria, lng



Previous
Next

Have you checked out The World Link Forums?

Comments

The comments below are from users of theworldlink.com and do not necessarily represent the views of The World or Lee Enterprises. Participation Guidelines

Note: There is a maximum of 200 words per comment. If you wish to post more, please visit our forum.
Comment Policy

The World welcomes your comments about stories, and we encourage a robust dialogue on this site. All comments must meet reasonable standards of decency and civility.

Please follow these basic rules:

  • No defamatory comments about individuals or businesses.
  • No deliberately false information.
  • No obscenity or racially offensive language.
  • No harassment, verbal abuse, threats or personal attacks.
  • No information that invades another person's privacy.
  • No business solicitations or charitable solicitations.
Comments that violate these standards will not be posted. Users with repeated violations may be banned from future posting.

Comments will be approved throughout the day during business hours. After hours and weekend comments may not appear until the following business day. It may take a couple of hours before comments are approved.

The World generally does not edit comments, but we reserve the right to edit any comment that does not meet our standards.

Close Guidelines

everyman wrote on Aug 26, 2008 3:27 PM:

Hey, why did this story suddenly become de-linked? I type in "mega-tankers" and nothing. I type in "lng" and no link to this article?

What gives?

Return of the Middle Man wrote on Aug 26, 2008 12:04 AM:

Part 2

Combined the projects if built would be worth around $3 billion dollars (thanks to the price of steel), the entire assessed value of the county is only $3.4 billion (Source: Oregon Blue Book), and if my math is right that is about an 88% increase in taxable value. Plus we get more gas in the state through a project we never could pay for ourselves (true it will be more expensive than gas is today but gasoline was less expensive three years ago than it is today, yes?). We do get the risk that something might happen (and you know it could, bad things do happen), that has to be considered and not lightly at that, but the odds are pretty low. It is a fossil fuel and will have a larger carbon footprint than some renewable sources, but T. Boone Pickens says its better than coal.

All of this paid for by California, so who is scamming who?

Another Middle Man wrote on Aug 26, 2008 12:03 AM:

Part 1

This whole notion of a “California LNG Scam” has intrigued me for some time. I checked and terminal would be built here in Coos County, I think we can agree on that. The terminal will have 60 jobs (sounds small but go count 60 houses and see how big a neighborhood that would be or better yet write down a list of 60 friends, I couldn’t get that many) plus another 60 working in the support services (police, fire, longshoremen, pilots, tug operators). There will be vendors that sell things to the terminal like uniforms, insurance, gasoline and a great number of other things that every business uses. The terminal will pay a lot of taxes to the urban renewal agency, which can use the money to build infrastructure in Coos County. The pipeline will pay a lot of taxes to the Counties, which can be used to hire back a lot of deputies, keep parks open in Coos County (more to follow in Part 2).

Middle Man wrote on Aug 25, 2008 11:04 PM:

Isn’t Bob Braddock from Colorado? I was under the impression the equity fund providing capital for Jordan Cove was from Canada. Why is Canada so evil to people here in Coos Bay? Are they taking your jobs, running off with your men, women – maybe your children? I think I appreciate Canadians, some of them have died don'tcha know for our freedom. The “eh” thing is a little much but I think I can look past that.

Fortress Investments is a good American hedge fund, yes? I believe they are also run by a good Oregon State graduate. The fact that they are American is comforting to the people working at the mills I bet. At least it’s not some darn Canadian taking their job.

Edward wrote on Aug 25, 2008 7:23 PM:

I have to admit, I have NEVER heard anyone use the word "shill" in any form of conversation until Gene. Thanks for bringing back that nineteenth century thinking, Gene!

everyman wrote on Aug 25, 2008 9:58 AM:

...at least I know the differance between a question and a statement (Sense, why are answering a question when you haven't asked one?)

If it's too expensive, let the market determine the viability of this plant.

If it's too dangerous, let the entities with better information than you or I determine the viability and allow or deny the permits needed to build this plant.

But you and your ilk should really stop telling people to ignore me...(starting to turn green)...

It's starting to make me (swelling up)...angry...and you won't like me when I'm angry...


EVERYMAN SMASH!!

Common Sense wrote on Aug 25, 2008 8:59 AM:

What's wrong with this picture:

LNG ship travel within 1/2 mile of populated areas at coast & bay & LNG ship has a 2 mile hazard burn zone, which mean 1 1/2 miles of populated areas will be at risk every time a LNG ship arrives to deliver LNG at Jordon Cove? Then you add bigger LNG ships & the 2 mile hazard burn zone increases effecting more residents of this area!

Answer:

Great deal for foreign investor Bob Braddock ($$$) & California gettin the gas! Bad deal (Possible deadly deal) for Oregon on this expensive (2X more expensive then natural gas used today by Oregon residents) that Oregon's Dept of Energy says is not needed in Oregon!

P.S. Ignore everyman, he talks alot, but has NOTTA (NO facts) to offer to any discussion...child like only (Lookin for attention).....

everyman wrote on Aug 25, 2008 8:17 AM:

Thanks, Cents (btw, nice word-play on the looney-tunes postings of common sense).

I AM growing tired of the "us vs them" mentality of the extremists (on BOTH sides of the issue) and wish we could communicate on more of a "lets reason together" field rather than a "LNG SCAM, NO JOBS, BOB BRADDOCK IS THE DEVIL" field...

I mean, can't we all just stand, hold hands, and sing "We are the world"...

I am the Walrus

Kumbaya

Everyman

Common Cents wrote on Aug 24, 2008 7:55 PM:

Hey Thomas, who died and left you in charge?

Thanks, Everyman for being a "CIS warrior" your witty response is delightful.

We Should Take Notice of Freeport LNG wrote on Aug 23, 2008 10:43 PM:

Operators of a newly opened Texas liquefied natural gas import terminal want to re-export the fuel to other countries, saying it will help them weather the current slowdown in the U.S. LNG business.The facility has long-term commitments from a number of customers, but its startup was ill-timed because higher natural gas prices in Asia and Europe have diverted shipments of LNG away from U.S. ports so far this year.

That's why Freeport, which is owned by a consortium including ConocoPhillips, Dow Chemical and others, has asked the Department of Energy to grant it a permit to export up to 24 billion cubic feet of foreign-supplied LNG over the next two years, according to public filings.

The company isn't looking to export domestically produced natural gas. Rather, it wants to store foreign LNG shipments and then reload them back on tankers for delivery to other countries, including the United Kingdom, Belgium, Spain, Japan, South Korea, India, China, Taiwan, France and Italy.

See: "Freeport venture seeks to re-export LNG" http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/biz/5956709.html

This entire LNG terminal and pipeline is a very bad idea. It's already not working in Freeport...we should take notice.

Middle Man wrote on Aug 23, 2008 7:53 PM:

I do not see any basis to discern THE truth in your posts either Thomas. The problem with most fanatics is their propensity to be oblivious to their own bias. Opinions are personal perspectives; the relative truth, more often than not, is a composite of opinions both pro and con. There are no absolutes in life other than death and many will argue that as well. I generally reject extremist views and attempt to look at the whole record and form intelligent conclusions based on facts. I find that things are not all bad nor are they all good (and of course there are always exceptions to every rule). There are apparently a lot more of us than there are extremists in this community or this issue would have died a long time ago. Good luck, but some of us are getting a little tired of your ilk’s incessant raving, which is in danger of being dismissed out of hand as just more extremist drivel.

gene wrote on Aug 23, 2008 7:07 PM:

This article says (The worst risk to people within the thermal hazard zone would be second-degree burns which occur on bare skin after 30 seconds of exposure)
OH REALLY! I would say the worst risk would be death. Clearly written by an industry shill.

 wrote on Aug 23, 2008 5:06 PM:

LET'S TAKE A POLL SEE HOW MANY PEOPLE IN COOS COUNTY ACTUALLY WANT A LNG Terminal AT Jordan Cove! How safe can the ships be since they are not being made in the USA. RONOP and EVERYMAN go get some 2nd degree burns and then you clowns might change your minds. Mr.Berg of the U.S.Coast Gaurd probably doesn't even live in Coos County.

Just Say No wrote on Aug 23, 2008 2:45 PM:

To:RONOP, Can "YOU" personally guarantee that the LNG Terminal is safe and that no one will ever get hurt or killed? Are you really that desperate for a job? We do need jobs for this area, but this is "NOT" the way to do it. I don't see any yard signs in support of LNG, because there are not any. If you support this LNG Project then put a yard sign out and let everyone know how you feel. If you have the "NERVE". LOL!

Gene wrote on Aug 23, 2008 12:55 PM:

You know guys, that horse has been beaten to death and nothing more is going to hurt it. The LNG Port is going to go in regardless of what the local citizens against everything think they can do. The area needs those jobs and unless the people against this project can come up with something better than I think they need to get a life and let other have one too.

Oh yeah, the Saturday edition comes on line very early and gets updated all morning.

Thomas wrote on Aug 20, 2008 9:41 PM:

OK EVERYMAN, then you're just a local version of a common internet sophistry warrior ......... so do carry on, as you lose here the more that is posted.

everyman wrote on Aug 19, 2008 10:12 PM:

don't work at the world....but i do know that they update thier online stuff at around 11am , local time...sooner than i get my paper at home. And i have never heard of tom hanson...


Im just a regular guy, with a regular job...and a pro-lng stance...Hard to believe, I know, but we are out here...and we exist in larger numbers than you think...


PS - I don't lie and am not a huckster, although I have nothing to do with LNG

ronop wrote on Aug 19, 2008 9:42 AM:

It does not matter that the US has a glut of natural gas. We need the imported LNG terminal here and soon. It is safe and nobody will ever be killed or injured. Thats a fact.

Thomas wrote on Aug 18, 2008 8:15 PM:

Yep EVERYMAN, and why not? Only thing consistent about LNG hucksters that they always lie.

BTW, your being able to make an early solo posting here just about clnches that you must be a World employee, albeit you write like Koos News' Tom Hanson ......... could be both?

Jay wrote on Aug 18, 2008 4:02 PM:

More inacurate and incomplete information.
We have plenty of Natural Gas in the U.S.New fields in Pennsylvania.
Why do we want to be dependent on imported
energy. Not a solution. Higher cost and another energy mistake. ENRON #2

everyman wrote on Aug 18, 2008 12:04 PM:

Oh, brother, here we go....again...


*Member ID:
*Password:
 

Not already registered?

Do not use usernames or passwords from your financial accounts!

Note: Fields marked with an asterisk (*) are required!



*Create a Member ID:
*Choose a password:
*Re-enter password:
*E-mail Address:
*Year of Birth:
 

(children under 13 cannot register)

*First Name:
*Last Name:
Would you like to be added to our mailing lists?
Daily Headlines
Breaking News
Special Offers
 
Advanced Search
Web Search powered by YAHOO! SEARCH

Blogroll

Most Popular

Polls

» View Past Poll Results
» Suggest a Poll

Marketplace

Special Sections

More Special Sections