EXXON TO FLOAT LNG

Liquified natural gas (LNG): Cleaner than coal but not clean. More plentiful than oil but not renewable. A beautiful girl who's your very good friend but, alas, not your girlfriend.

The Bigs in the oil and gas industry have long been laying plans for this method of delivering LNG supplies to populated Western centers from remote oil and gas fields around the world. Pushback against the potentially dangerous LNG terminals from citizens and environmental groups was a temporary setback. Plans for floating offshore terminals far from shipping lanes, ports, and recreational areas like this BlueOcean Energy may solve the NIMBY problem. Nobody has experience working offshore like these guys.

Connecticut Attorney General Blumenthal’s vehement objection to Broadwater Energy, a very similar proposal, proves every project will face individual scrutiny.

ExxonMobil planning a floating offshore LNG terminal
January 3, 2008 (Oil & Gas Journal)
and
Connecticut Urges Rejection of Long Island Sound Gas Terminal
January 8, 2008 (Environmental News Service)

WHO
ExxonMobil Corp., Shell Oil and TransCanada Corp., US Maritime Administration, US Coast Guard and John Farmer, former New Jersey Atty. Gen./security expert/senior counsel to the 911 Commission; Connecticut Atty Gen. Richard Blumenthal; Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)

Artist's rendering: Floating LNG terminal. (click to enlarge)

WHAT
ExxonMobil wants approval for BlueOcean Energy, a $1 billion+ offshore LNG terminal to be situated to bring natural gas to New York and New Jersey. Blumenthal, accepting of BlueOcean Energy, wants regulatory powers to reject the Shell/Transcanada Broadwater Energy terminal rejected as unsafe.

WHEN
- ExxonMobil hopes BlueOcean Energy will be ready by 2015.
- The Shell/TransCanada Broadwater Energy project has been under consideration since 2006. Blumenthal’s objections were first raised in 2007.

click to enlarge

WHERE
- BlueOcean Energy will be in 150 ft waters 30 miles off Long Island. A 30 mile subsea pipeline will cross New Jersey’s Raritan Bay.
- ExxonMobil has 3 other terminal projects: Sabine Pass, Tex., Wales and off the Adriatic coast of Italy.
- Broadwater Energy is farther out to sea at the south end of Long Island Sound and would require a longer, less safe pipeline.

WHY
- The Deepwater Port Act puts responsibility for reviewing/approving LNG terminals on the Maritime Administration and the Coast Guard.
- Both Broadwater Energy and BlueOcean Energy will be double-hulled. Insulated tanks inside them will be filled from double-hulled LNG tankers. Both terminals would service 2 tankers per week.
- The BlueOcean Energy permitting process is expected to be lengthy and rigorous.
- ExxonMobil has voluntarily commissioned Farmer to conduct a safety and security assessment of BlueOcean Energy.
- FERC does not consider Broadwater Energy to be as much of a threat as Blumenthal does and points out a need for natural gas service to New York City and Connecticut. The Long Island Power Authority does not see an immediate need for new gas supply but expects a future need.
- Citizens Campaign for the Environment objects to Broadwater Energy’s required 1.5 sqaure mile “no go” zone, the first exclusion of the public in long Island Sound.

Has LNG's time come? (click to enlarge)

QUOTES
- Blumenthal: "BlueOcean Energy is a clear, direct alternative to Broadwater, which is obviously far less dangerous and destructive to the environment than Broadwater…While Broadwater would devastate pristine, untouched areas in Long Island Sound and endanger the lives of countless recreational and commercial sailors, the BlueOcean Energy project would be located…away from crowded areas of the Sound…"
- FERC: "There is a potential for an increased risk to public health and safety [from Broadwater Energy], but we consider the potential risk to be very low…"