noLNG

More US LNG projects scrapped as economics become less favorable

"The logic says that there won't be any more," he said. "There is no need
for more capacity. It's a very simple number to do."
Full article:

http://www.platts.com/RSSFeedDetailedNews/RSSFeed/HeadlineNews/NaturalGas/6418769/

Out of several proposed natural gas pipelines in Oregon, only one moves forward

Ted Sickinger, The Oregonian

 Before the recession, upbeat developers proposed no fewer than seven new long-haul natural gas pipelines in Oregon.

On paper, the lattice of new pipes crisscrossed the state to fill what developers described as a looming supply gap by importing more fuel from the Rocky Mountains and overseas via liquefied natural gas tanker.

As of last week, however, only one project was definitively moving forward. Several others have disappeared entirely. And the remainder are in regulatory and financial limbo.

Full story: http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2010/09/out_of_seven_natural_gas_pipel.html

LNG pipeline issue moves to county

Complete article: http://www.dailyastorian.info/main.asp?SectionID=2&SubSectionID=395&ArticleID=73082

 

Essent, Vopak Cancel Eemshaven LNG Terminal Project

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-01/essent-vopak-cancel-eemshaven-lng-terminal-project-update1-.html

This be the second LNG project cancelled by the Royal VOPAK (in Canada/Netherlands), could this be a trend? No surprise for this blogger, the numbers (dollars) or the need aren't there.

Portland Business Journal - by Erik Siemers Business Journal staff writer

The developer of a proposed 234-mile natural gas pipeline has filed a federal lawsuit against two Oregon land officials the developer claims are improperly using state law to delay the project.

Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline LP claims that delays to the Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline project appear to be part of a “pervasive opposition” among Oregon state officials to liquefied natural gas terminals and pipelines.

The lawsuit, filed Friday in U.S. District Court, pits Pacific Connector against Louise Solliday, director of the Oregon Department of State Lands, and Richard Whitman, director of the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development.

The proposed natural gas pipeline would snake diagonally across Oregon, starting from the proposed Jordan Cove liquefied natural gas terminal near Coos Bay and ending near Milan in the state’s southeastern corner.

It would be constructed and managed through a partnership between The Williams Companies Inc., a Tulsa, Okla.-based natural gas transportation firm; Fort Chicago Energy Partners LP of Calgary, Alberta; and PG&E Strategic Capital Inc.

In the lawsuit, Pacific Connector says regulation of pipeline projects is strictly the domain of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

But before granting a permit for construction, the Department of State Lands is requiring the pipeline developers to obtain signatures from about 220 landowners whose property may be affected.

Without that permit, the state Department of Land Conservation and Development will not review whether the project is consistent with the federal Coastal Zone Management Act — a requirement to getting certification from federal regulators, according to the lawsuit.

More: http://www.bizjournals.com/portland/stories/2010/08/30/daily17.html?t=printable

Analysts: Most proposed LNG import projects will not survive

By Sean Sullivan

Contrary to the optimism expressed by LNG developers in the face of economic and political challenges, experts said abundant natural gas supply and low prices mean it is not a good time to bet on LNG import terminals at the blueprint stage in North America.

"The pro-LNG import faction has a hard time arguing that we need to bring gas in to address a shortfall of supply," BENTEK Energy LLC Managing Director E. Russell Braziel told SNL Energy on Aug. 26. "They don't have much of a compelling case."

"All the [planned] LNG import terminals were proposed when we were supposed to be running out of domestic supply," said Kelly Bennett, a senior energy analyst at BENTEK. Bennett leads a team that is wrapping up a report on the world outlook for new LNG imports.

Their comments came after Netherlands-based LNG developer 4Gas decided to cancel its proposed MapleLNG facility in Nova Scotia, and as LNG projects in the United States face similar peril.

Projects in the United States also have faced questions about their future, including those being developed by Weaver's Cove Energy LLC in Massachusetts, Calais LNG Project Co. LLC and Downeast LNG LLC in Maine, and Oregon LNG at the mouth of the Columbia River.

More: http://www.snl.com/Interactivex/article.aspx?CdId=A-11638061-10811

 

Washington DOE letter of Denial

Download DOE Letter of Denial LNG

Check out the Coalition's new website

See the all new site "We Agree, No LNG". at:  http://weagreenolng.org

The WFOR website will continue to bring you local LNG interest items and national and international trends on LNG development. 

LNG foes appeal pipeline ruling

By KATIE WILSON
The Daily Astorian

The decision to approve a liquefied natural gas pipeline project in Clatsop County is only a day old, but one group is already planning to enter the appeals process.

Columbia Riverkeeper begin_of_the_skype_highlighting  end_of_the_skype_highlighting, one of the more persistent opponents of liquefied natural gas projects in the county, will be appealing the county's Hearings Officer Peter Livingston's decision to conditionally approve Oregon Pipeline, LLC's land use application, the group announced Monday afternoon.

"We will fight this project at every step," said Brett VandenHeuvel, executive director of Columbia Riverkeeper begin_of_the_skype_highlighting  end_of_the_skype_highlighting. Riverkeeper maintains that the project conflicts with the county's land-use law.

"At a time when LNG import terminals are actively switching to export and when state leaders have repeatedly said there is no need for LNG, there is simply no way to justify the massive disruption and damage that this pipeline would cause in Clatsop County," VandenHeuvel said.
More: http://www.dailyastorian.info/main.asp?SectionID=2&SubSectionID=395&ArticleID=72802

For Immediate Release. August 23, 2010.

LNG Opponents Prepare to Challenge Oregon LNG Land Use Decision

Astoria, OR – A Hearings Officer approved a land use application for Oregon LNG despite extensive evidence that the liquefied natural gas (LNG) pipeline harms forests, farms, and salmon.  A coalition of citizen groups is preparing to challenge the Hearing Officer’s recommendation.  The Clatsop County Planning Department and independent experts hired by the County both recommended denial of the Oregon LNG pipeline because it does not comply with local land use law.  Contrary to these recommendations, the Hearings Officer approved the pipeline. 

The County land use approval is one of dozens of necessary permits for the Oregon LNG project to proceed.

Cheryl Johonson, a retired school librarian and Clatsop County resident stated, “We are disappointed in the conclusion of the Hearings Officer.  We agree with County staff and the vast majority of public testimony that the Oregon LNG pipeline is unnecessary and destructive to our river and our communities.  There is no question that the people of Clatsop County oppose LNG, and we hope the County Commission steps in and denies this pipeline.”

Brett VandenHeuvel, executive director of Columbia Riverkeeper, anticipated that the decision would face additional scrutiny.  “This decision contradicts public testimony from fishermen, affected landowners and even Clatsop County’s own staff.  We think that this project fundamentally conflicts with the County’s land use law.”

Added VandenHeuvel, “At a time when LNG import terminals are actively switching to export and when state leaders have repeatedly said there is no need for LNG, there is simply no way to justify the massive disruption and damage that this pipeline would cause in Clatsop County.  We will fight this project at every step.”

Oregon LNG’s pipeline drew heavy criticism during public hearings because of the damage it would cause to local farms, forests, and rivers.  Public agencies such as the Elsie-Vinemaple Fire District, ODOT and Oregon Dept. of Forestry raised concerns about the project and its impact on local roads, fire risks, and emergency services.

Today’s decision can be appealed to the Clatsop County Commission.  The County Commission’s decision can then be appealed to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA).

“This is starting to look like Bradwood all over again,” stated VandenHeuvel.  Clatsop County previously approved similar land use applications for Bradwood Landing LNG, but these approvals were twice overturned by LUBA.