Google
 

View Full Version : Carl Hiaasen, Miami Herald: LNG Pipeline Spells Disaster


islandgyal
05-02-04, - 02:17 PM
Posted on Sun, May. 02, 2004
Miami Herald

CARL HIAASEN/IN MY OPINION
Pipeline to the Bahamas spells disaster

COMMENTARY

Sometime in the near future, two companies will begin trenching heavy pipelines across the ocean bottom from the Bahamas to South Florida.

Not only will the construction scar the reefs and disperse marine life, the pipes will be used to carry millions of cubic feet of natural gas, which ignites rather spectacularly when exposed to oxygen and a spark.

Nonetheless, both projects have won hearty approval from the state Department of Environmental Protection, an agency that obviously needs to change its name.

In endorsing the Bahamas-to-Florida pipelines, the DEP conceded that the drilling might cause ``potential damage to the coral reefs and other important marine resources.''

Yet those concerns were outweighed by the rosy conclusion that the pipelines ``will help satisfy the growing demand for natural gas in Florida.''

How these goofball schemes got the go-ahead so swiftly, and with minimal public input, would seem a mystery. But not really.

The idea was to transport the gas in liquid form from Africa and other places to the Bahamas. There it would be converted to vaporized fuel and piped to Florida, for distribution along the Eastern seaboard.

One of the plans was first hatched by those fine corporate citizens at Enron, and has since been taken over by an outfit called Tractebel. It calls for 90 miles of underwater pipe running from a gas plant on Grand Bahama all the way to Port Everglades.

The second pipeline would cross 54 miles from Ocean Cay, near Bimini, to Dania Beach. The company that's building it is a subsidiary of AES Corp., whose chairman is Richard Darman, a heavy Republican playmaker who was budget director when the first George Bush was president.

Given the current George Bush's chummy relationship with the gas and oil industry, it's no surprise that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission breezily approved both Florida pipelines.

Permanent damage to reefs

Yet for one fleeting moment it appeared that the president's own brother might throw a wrench in the works. In mid-March, Gov. Jeb Bush delayed a cabinet vote on the pipelines, saying he was concerned about the environmental impact as well as dangers to humans.

Bush heard a presentation by Raymond McAllister, professor emeritus of ocean engineering at Florida Atlantic University. McAllister had stated that the pipelines could not be built without permanently damaging the reefs, and that leaks could create a potentially lethal hazard for boaters and beachgoers.

Evidently the governor's worries evaporated after what pipeline officials characterized as a period of ''education.'' Whatever malarkey they told Bush in private, he apparently bought it.

Two weeks ago, the cabinet approved both Bahamas pipelines with little debate. A third pipeline, to be operated by a unit of Florida Power & Light, will soon be up for a vote.

Each company insists that its project will be safe, secure and kind to the deep blue sea. AES and Tractebel say they'll clear a path for the lines by drilling horizontally beneath the reefs, then fitting the pipes through the rock.

To make things even more interesting, the segments must be laid through the Gulf Stream, against a current of three to four knots.

No problem, the companies say. Don't you fret about a thing.

Right. They're going to chew through 90 miles of ocean bottom and leave it just the way God made it. Who are they kidding?

Humongous underwater drill

Here's a well-known fact about coral reefs: Silt and sediment can kill them deader than a doornail.

Nothing stirs up sediment like a humongous underwater drill, yet we're supposed to believe that all that suspended debris -- millions of tons -- will be transported harmlessly away from the reefs.

No way.

The last bureaucratic hurdle for the pipeline builders is the Army Corps of Engineers, an agency that probably knows which questions to ask. Whether it is immune from the clout of Darman and the others is doubtful, however.

Under their agreement with the state, the pipeline companies can't sell or transfer the easement rights if the projects go bust. They will also be liable for up to $1.5 million for any damage done to the marine habitat.

Unfortunately, because of the extreme distances and depths of the pipe, the damage is likely to be irreparable at any price. Dead coral tends to stay dead, and the sea life that depends on it never returns.

Florida is home to the last of the continent's living reefs, a fact we boastfully trumpet to lure tourists. It's startling that Gov. Bush and the cabinet would so casually put this already-imperiled treasure at risk, for so little gain to the public.

It's even more disturbing that, with the future of our shores and ocean waters at stake, Bush would dismiss the concerns of scientists and trust the word of energy hustlers. They might call it an ''education,'' but it smells like a sellout.

Rory
05-03-04, - 01:35 AM
who cares!

What is the pipeline going to do for me? :-)

Seriously, what is it for? Cable Internet??? I Havent seen anything in the news when i had time to read the news papers, so sorry if im a little behind on this..I would like to know what it is for.

Rory

k.o.o.l.b.o.n.z.e
05-03-04, - 01:43 PM
who cares!

What is the pipeline going to do for me? :-)

Seriously, what is it for? Cable Internet??? I Havent seen anything in the news when i had time to read the news papers, so sorry if im a little behind on this..I would like to know what it is for.

Rory

it's a pipeline for that liquified Natural gas project that's been in the media for a while now.

*back to studying for BGCSEs*

Rory
05-03-04, - 09:06 PM
it's a pipeline for that liquified Natural gas project that's been in the media for a while now.

*back to studying for BGCSEs*

ok thanks, so nothing really for us in the deal?!

Or the gov gets some of the dollars to spend on higher politician salaries. :confused:

Ejluv
05-04-04, - 02:09 AM
Better yet, killing off not only Florida's marine life but that of Bahamas!!!

Ejluv
05-04-04, - 02:34 AM
Hmmm, please read the Nassau Guardian May 5 edition... 'LNG pipeline companies bidding for Bahamas'.

islandgyal
05-14-04, - 07:43 PM
May 14, 2004
Fears Drain Support for Natural Gas Terminals
By SIMON ROMERO

OUSTON, May 13 - Add natural gas terminals to the list of projects that people do not want in their backyards.

As the supply of natural gas tightened in recent years, energy companies announced plans to build a host of new terminals where large amounts of gas could be imported by tanker in liquefied form and then distributed by pipeline to American customers.

But a growing outcry over the environmental and safety risks associated with the terminals is blocking those plans in one community after another, eroding hopes that imports of liquefied gas will provide any relief from high gas prices for years to come.

Opposition has been most pronounced in California, New England and northwestern Mexico, where environmental and civic groups have focused largely on the danger of catastrophic explosions at terminals, either from accidents or from terrorist attacks.

The problems that companies have had in gaining approval for terminals, which can cost from $500 million to $1 billion and take three to five years to build, come at a critical time for a rapidly growing sector of the energy industry. Wholesale gas prices have risen by more than half in the last two years, climbing above $6 for each million B.T.U.'s in most areas of the country and reaching almost $7 in the New York area.

Nearly every major energy company and many smaller ones have bet that over the next decade or so, the international market for natural gas will develop to rival that for crude oil, with American demand serving as a major driving force. For that to happen, the United States would need a vast expansion of its capacity to import gas from outside North America.

Those bets have begun to look shaky in recent months, as several high-profile gas projects have been killed. Intense local opposition led the Calpine Corporation to withdraw plans in March for a gas receiving terminal at Eureka in Northern California. ConocoPhillips canceled a terminal project in Harpswell, Me., for the same reason. Marathon Oil pulled out of a project near Tijuana, Mexico, that would have supplied gas to Southern California after the land for it was seized by the state government of Baja California. Exxon Mobil suspended work on a terminal near Mobile, Ala.

Encouraged by those decisions, opposition has spread to projects in the Bahamas, Florida, Massachusetts, and other parts of California and Maine, often from local officials who said that energy companies had singled out their communities as easy targets: small towns, on the margins of larger population centers, that were judged to have little political influence.

"They might consider us docile here, but we're going to fight this thing tooth and nail," said Manuel López, the mayor of Oxnard, Calif., a working-class, predominantly Latino city 46 miles northwest of Los Angeles. Two companies, BHP Billiton and Crystal Energy, have proposed offshore gas terminals nearby.

In other communities, officials who were initially willing to consider terminal projects have changed their minds after being hit with a storm of opposition. On Monday, the town council of Cumberland, Me., called off a June referendum on the Hope Island gas terminal project proposed by TransCanada PipeLines, less than a week after first scheduling it, when scores of local residents packed a council meeting to speak against the project, according to The Portland Press-Herald. One council member, Michael Savasuk, told the paper that the issue was "too big for any one town."

In all, some 30 terminal projects in the United States and several more in Mexico and Canada are still being pursued to import liquefied natural gas. Minor amounts of gas - less than 2 percent of national consumption - now reach the United States by ship through five existing terminals. The shipments are coming mainly from Algeria or Trinidad and Tobago; large-scale expansion could add countries like Qatar, Indonesia, Russia and Peru to the list.

Importing natural gas is much more complex and expensive than importing crude oil or refined products like gasoline, because the gas must be chilled to minus 260 degrees and carried in specially built tankers under high pressure, then warmed again before it can be distributed.

Opposition to liquefied natural gas terminals has intensified because of two recent revelations. One involved an explosion at a gas plant in the Algerian port city of Skikda in January that killed more than 20 people. Sonatrach, Algeria's national energy company, initially attributed the explosion to a faulty steam boiler, but a subsequent investigation suggested that a leak of liquefied natural gas could have been the cause. The explosion renewed fears about an industry that, on the whole, has had a good safety record over the last 30 years, with countries like Japan and South Korea importing large amounts of liquefied gas without incident.

On top of concerns over a Skikda-type accident occurring in the United States, opponents of gas terminals have seized upon a passage in "Against All Enemies," the recent book by Richard A. Clarke, the Bush administration's former counterterrorism chief, in which Mr. Clarke wrote that Al Qaeda operatives may have been traveling to Boston from Algeria on liquefied gas tankers shortly after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

"Had one of the giant tankers blown up," Mr. Clarke wrote, "it would have wiped out downtown Boston."

Mr. Clarke wrote that officials persuaded the Coast Guard to temporarily close Boston Harbor, halting gas shipments by the Belgian energy company Tractebel for several weeks.

Since Mr. Clarke's book was published, federal officials have sought to assuage public concerns about the safety of natural gas tankers. "I think we have been very, very detailed - very, very rigorous - in dealing with the security risk," Adm. Thomas H. Collins, commandant of the Coast Guard, told the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee in March.

Experts disagree on just how dangerous it may be to handle large shipments of imported natural gas. In its liquefied form, it is not generally combustible.

More alarming to federal officials and executives in the energy and chemicals industries are the prospects of prolonged natural gas shortages in the United States, because production in North America is not keeping pace with demand.

Alan Greenspan, chairman of the Federal Reserve, has spoken in favor of terminal development. "If North American natural gas markets are to function with the flexibility exhibited by oil, more extensive access to the vast world reserves of gas is required," Mr. Greenspan said in a speech in April. "Access to world natural gas supplies will require a major expansion of L.N.G. terminal import capacity and the development of the newer offshore regasification technologies."

Those arguments have made little headway with people who would be living near those operations. "Once you get away from a petroleum- or natural-gas-friendly environment, it's a very tough sell," said Michael S. Smith, chief executive of Freeport LNG, a Houston-based joint venture led by ConocoPhillips that is trying to win approval for a terminal on the sparsely populated Quintana Island, near Houston.

Federal and state regulatory agencies have complicated matters by feuding over jurisdiction. In California, the state public utilities commission is challenging an effort by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to centralize approval for natural gas projects under its command, a dispute that could delay or cancel more projects.

In fact, some analysts and industry executives are quietly discussing the possibility that only a handful of the 30-odd proposed terminals will be built. Those few would almost certainly be in Texas or Louisiana or nearby in the Gulf of Mexico, because energy ventures of any stripe have traditionally met the least resistance there.

"The problem with this scenario is that the East and West Coasts, the places with the greatest constraints of natural gas supplies, would have limited access to the new imports," said Sara Banaszak, director of the gas and power group at PFC Energy, a consulting firm in Washington.