DOCX

INTRODUCTION

By Emma Mcdonald,2014-11-16 02:49
13 views 0
INTRODUCTIONINTROD

    JCEP LNG TERMINAL PROJECT

    Resource Report 10 Alternatives

    See the

    Following To Verify Compliance with this Minimum FERC Filing Requirement: Resource Report

    Section:

    Discuss the "no action" alternative and the potential for accomplishing the proposed Section 10.1 objectives through the use of other systems and/or energy conservation. Provide an analysis Section 10.2 of the relative environmental benefits and costs for each alternative. (? 380.12(l)(1))

    Describe alternative routes or locations considered for each facility during the initial screening for the project. (i) For alternative routes considered in the initial screening for the project but eliminated, describe the environmental characteristics of each route or site, and the reasons Section 10.3 for rejecting it. Identify the location of such alternatives on maps of sufficient scale to depict Section 10.4 their location and relationship to the proposed action, and the relationship of the pipeline to existing rights-of-way. (ii) For alternative routes or locations considered for more in-depth Table 10.3-1 consideration, describe the environmental characteristics of each route or site, and the Table 10.3-2 reasons for rejecting it. Provide comparative tables showing the differences in environmental Table 10.3-3 characteristics for the alternative and proposed actions. The location of any alternatives in this paragraph shall be provided on maps equivalent to those required in paragraph (c) (2) of this section. (? 380.12(l)(2))

     RESOURCE REPORT 10

     JCEP LNG Terminal Project

    Docket No. CP13-___-000

    RESOURCE REPORT 10

    ALTERNATIVES

    CONTENTS

    10. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................10-1 10.1 NO ACTION OR POSTPONED ACTION ..............................................................10-3 10.2 SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES ...................................................................................10-3

    10.2.1 LNG Terminal System Alternatives ..........................................................10-4

    10.2.1.1 Existing LNG Export Terminals ...............................................10-4

    10.2.1.2 LNG Export Terminal Projects In Development East/Gulf

    Coasts ....................................................................................10-4

    10.2.1.3 LNG Export Terminal Projects In Development - West Coast .10-7

    10.2.2 Existing LNG Peak Shaving Plants ........................................................ 10-11 10.3 ONSHORE PORT ALTERNATIVES ................................................................... 10-12

    10.3.1 Study Area Definition ............................................................................. 10-12

    10.3.2 Identification of Potential Ports within the Study Area............................. 10-12

    10.3.3 Major Natural Gas Pipeline Infrastructure within the Study Area ............ 10-13

    10.3.4 Identification of Candidate Ports in Study Area ...................................... 10-13

    10.3.5 Comparison of Candidate Ports ............................................................. 10-15

    10.3.6 Identification of Preferred Port ................................................................ 10-17 10.4 ALTERNATIVE SITE LOCATIONS IN COOS BAY ............................................. 10-19 10.5 ALTERNATIVE SITE CONFIGURATIONS/LAYOUTS ........................................ 10-20

    10.5.1 Project Design Concept ......................................................................... 10-20

    10.5.2 Site Configurations ................................................................................. 10-21 10.6 ELECTRIC POWER ALTERNATIVES ................................................................ 10-23

    10.6.1 Existing Electric Power Infrastructure ..................................................... 10-23

    10.6.2 Renewable Energy ................................................................................. 10-23

    10.6.2.1 Wind ..................................................................................... 10-23

    10.6.2.2 Solar ..................................................................................... 10-25

    10.6.2.3 Tidal...................................................................................... 10-26 10.7 REFERENCES ................................................................................................... 10-26

    Page i May 2013

    RESOURCE REPORT 10

     JCEP LNG Terminal Project

    Docket No. CP13-___-000

    RESOURCE REPORT 10

    ALTERNATIVES

    CONTENTS (Continued)

    TABLES

    Table 10.3-1 Summary of Potential Ports

    Table 10.3-2 Summary of Preliminary Screening of Potential Ports Table 10.3-3 Scoring Summary of Candidate Ports

    FIGURES

    Figure 10.3-1 Potential Ports in the Study Area

    Figure 10.3-2 Major FERC and CPUC Regulated Transmission Pipelines in the Study

    Area

    Figure 10.3-3 Short List of Candidate Ports in the Study Area Figure 10.4-1 Potential Coos Bay Area Project Sites Figure 10.4-2 JCEP LNG Terminal Project Site

    APPENDICES

    Appendix A.10 Candidate Port Scoring Basis Summary Tables Appendix B.10 Navigation Database Development - Final Report

    Page ii May 2013

     RESOURCE REPORT 10

     JCEP LNG Terminal Project

    Docket No. CP13-___-000

    RESOURCE REPORT 10

    ALTERNATIVES

    ACRONYMS

    BC British Columbia, Canada

    Bcf Billion Cubic Feet

    Bcf/d Billion Cubic Feet Per Day BOG Boil-off Gas

    BPA Bonneville Power Administration 2Btu/hr/ft British Thermal Units Per Hour Per Square Foot

    CM Channel Mile

    CPUC California Public Utilities Commission DOE U.S. Department of Energy

    EFSC Energy Facility Siting Council FEED Front-end Engineering and Design FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission FLSO Floating Liquefaction and Storage and Offloading System

    FTA Free Trade Agreement

    HRSG Heat Recovery Steam Generator JCEP Jordan Cove Energy Project, L.P. LNG Liquefied Natural Gas 3m Cubic Meter 3m/hr Cubic Meters Per Hour

    MARAD U.S. Maritime Administration MLLW Mean Lower Low Water

    MMcf Million Cubic Feet

    MMTPA Million Metric Tons Per Annum MW Megawatt

    MWh Megawatt Hour

    NGA Natural Gas Act

    ODOE Oregon Department of Energy OPT Ocean Power Technologies

    PCGP Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline U.S. United States

    USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers 3yd Cubic Yard

    Page iii May 2013

     RESOURCE REPORT 10

     JCEP LNG Terminal Project

    Docket No. CP13-___-000

    RESOURCE REPORT 10

    ALTERNATIVES

10. INTRODUCTION

    Jordan Cove Energy Project, L.P. (JCEP) is requesting authorization from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to site, construct, and operate a natural gas liquefaction and export facility (LNG Terminal or Project), located on the bay side of the North Spit of Coos Bay, Oregon. The Project will provide a facility capable of liquefying natural gas and storing the liquefied natural gas (LNG) for export. Once the Project facilities are completed and placed in service, natural gas will be delivered to the LNG Terminal via the proposed Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline (PCGP), which will connect the Project with existing interstate natural gas pipeline systems. The authorization required for the PCGP will be addressed in a separate application filed by PCGP pursuant to Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA).

    Natural gas received at the LNG Terminal will be cooled into liquid form and stored in two 3160,000 cubic meter (m) full-containment LNG storage tanks. The proposed Project facilities will have the capability to allow export of six million metric tons per annum (MMTPA). Approximately 90 LNG carriers per year will be required to transport the LNG to locations in the United States (U.S.) and around the world.

    The following facilities will be constructed for the Project:

     A pipeline gas conditioning facility consisting of two feed gas cleaning and dehydration

    trains with a combined natural gas throughput of approximately 1 Bscf/d;

     Four natural gas liquefaction trains, each with the export capacity of 1.5 MMTPA;

     A refrigerant storage and resupply system;

     An Aerial Cooling System (Fin-Fan);

     An LNG storage system consisting of two full-containment LNG storage tanks, each with 3a net capacity of 160,000 m (1,006,000 barrels), and each equipped with three fully

    submerged LNG in-tank pumps sized for approximately 11,600 gallons per minute (gpm)

    each;

     An LNG transfer line consisting of one 2,300-foot-long, 36-inch-diameter line that will

    connect the shore based storage system with the LNG loading system;

    3 An LNG carrier cargo loading system designed to load LNG at a rate of 10,000 m per 33hour (m/hr) with a peak capacity of 12,000 m/hr, consisting of three 16-inch loading

    arms and one 16-inch vapor return arm;

    ? A protected LNG carrier loading berth constructed on an Open Cell technology sheet

    pile slip wall and capable of accommodating LNG carriers with a range of capacities;

     The improvement of an existing, on-site unimproved road and utility corridor to become

    the primary roadway and utility interconnection between the LNG Terminal and South

    Dunes sites, including between the pipeline gas conditioning units on the South Dunes

    Power Plant site and the liquefaction trains on the LNG Terminal site;

     A boil off gas (BOG) recovery system used to control the pressure in the LNG storage

    tanks;

    Page 10-1 May 2013

     RESOURCE REPORT 10

     JCEP LNG Terminal Project

    Docket No. CP13-___-000

     Electrical, nitrogen, fuel gas, lighting, instrument/plant air and service water facility

    systems;

     An emergency vent system (ground flare);

     An LNG spill containment system, a fire water system and various other hazard

    detection, control, and prevention systems; and

     Utilities, buildings and support facilities.

    The following facility, although not jurisdictional to FERC, will also be constructed to support the Project:

     The South Dunes Power Plant, a 420 megawatt (MW) natural gas fired combined-cycle

    electric power plant inclusive of heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) units for the

    purpose of powering the refrigeration systems in the natural gas liquefaction process

    and supplying steam to the conditioning units.

    Purpose of Report

    This Resource Report contains a discussion of, and an evaluation of, the comparative merits of the various alternatives to the Project that might achieve most of the Project objectives (see below). The range of alternatives includes no action or postponed action, using alternative LNG terminals at other locations in the U.S. and Canada, as well as alternative sites along the Pacific Northwest coast of the U.S. and within the Oregon International Port of Coos Bay (Port) for the liquefaction and exportation of a like quantity of LNG.

    Agency Communications

    The identification of alternatives incorporates comments received from agency and stakeholder consultations during the preliminary stages of Project development (see Section 1.8 in Resource Report 1 General Project Description for the list of agencies and stakeholders consulted) as well as comments received during the public open house conducted by JCEP. Report Organization

    Resource Report 10 is divided into five main sections, plus a references section. Section 10.1 describes the no action or postponed action alternative, Section 10.2 the system alternatives, and Section 10.3 the onshore port alternatives, including a description of the Project site selection process. Section 10.4 provides a discussion of the process used to identify and select a site within the Port and Section 10.5 provides a discussion of alternative site configurations/layouts for the preferred site in the Port. Section 10.6 includes a discussion of electric power alternatives. Section 10.7 lists references used in the preparation of this Resource Report.

    Project Objectives and Evaluation Criteria

    The Project is designed to meet each of the primary objectives listed below. Accordingly, each of the alternatives was first evaluated against these Project objectives.

     Develop an LNG terminal facility on the U.S. Pacific Coast where natural gas from

    supply basins in Western Canada and the Northern Rockies in the U.S. can be delivered

    through new or existing natural gas pipeline system infrastructure, liquefied, and loaded

    onto LNG carriers for delivery to Asian and non-coterminous U.S. Pacific markets;

     Use a port location with a suitable and maintained depth for deep draft vessels;

    Page 10-2 May 2013

     RESOURCE REPORT 10

     JCEP LNG Terminal Project

    Docket No. CP13-___-000

     Use a port location with sufficiently sized developable land that meets the requirements

    for an LNG terminal facility; and

     Use a site location in a port that is consistent with existing industrial land uses, meets all

    applicable regulations, accommodates industry standard LNG carriers and minimizes

    community and environmental impacts.

    Potential alternatives that reduce one or more potentially significant environmental impacts were developed. If an alternative attained most of the Project objectives, then other criteria, such as feasibility, were used to narrow the evaluation to a reasonable range of alternatives. 10.1 NO ACTION OR POSTPONED ACTION

    The no action alternative would eliminate construction of the LNG Terminal at the site in the Port of Coos Bay. The principal purposes of the Project are to develop a West Coast LNG terminal to provide market outlets, through new and existing pipeline infrastructure, for the increasing gas supplies from both the western Canadian and the U.S. Rocky Mountain supply basins and to serve the growing demand for natural gas in international, and particularly Asian, markets, as well as U.S. domestic markets including Hawaii and Alaska. Further, the Project will be located partially within and directly adjacent to a previously disturbed site. Although the no action alternative would completely avoid the environmental impacts associated with the construction and operation of the Project facilities, it would not provide the desired market outlets for growing gas supplies or the ability to serve new domestic and international markets. The postponed action alternative would only defer construction-related effects to a future date, which could stimulate other proposals by other companies that could result in greater adverse environmental effects than those associated with the Project.

    The no action or postponed action alternatives would not achieve the Project’s purpose of

    linking gas producers that have excess supplies with markets in which they can sell to both foreign and domestic gas consumers that have increasing requirements. The development of vast shale gas resources in North America has led to an imbalance in which North American gas supplies exceed the domestic market demand for gas, leading to low gas prices which in turn lead to gas production cutbacks. LNG exports are needed to enhance the development of a healthy natural gas market one that achieves a balance of supply and demand (see

    Section 1.1.1.2 in Resource Report 1 General Project Description). In the absence of the

    Project, the additional market outlets to international customers, as well as to domestic customers in Alaska and Hawaii, will not be available and the opportunity to thereby strengthen the U.S. natural gas market will be foregone. Additional benefits of the Project that will be foregone include boosting the depressed local, state and regional economies, creating jobs, fostering growth in the upstream natural gas sectors, stimulating the U.S. economy, reducing the U.S. trade deficit, promoting international markets, encouraging liberalized trade, assisting other countries with the diversification of their supply base, and encouraging overseas switching from oil or coal to cleaner natural gas with its environmental benefits. In sum, neither the No Action nor the Postponed Action alternatives would achieve the Project objectives or result in a reduction of potential environmental impacts.

    10.2 SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES

    System alternatives to the Project using existing and proposed onshore and offshore LNG facilities are discussed in the following sections.

    Page 10-3 May 2013

     RESOURCE REPORT 10

     JCEP LNG Terminal Project

    Docket No. CP13-___-000

10.2.1 LNG Terminal System Alternatives

    10.2.1.1 Existing LNG Export Terminals

    There is only one existing LNG export terminal in North America, the Kenai LNG Plant located in Alaska. While it was scheduled to be shuttered, due to declining natural gas reserves and well-head deliverability in the Cook Inlet region, it is being operated by ConocoPhillips Natural Gas Corporation and Marathon Oil Company at the present time on a temporary, year-by-year basis. The Kenai LNG Plant exports LNG primarily to Japanese markets. Because of its remote location, it cannot access supplies from the western Canadian and the U.S. Rocky Mountain supply basins that would be exported by the Project. Moreover, it does not have sufficient capacity to serve the broader Asian markets to be served by the Project. In sum, the Kenai LNG Plant is not well-positioned to meet the stated objectives of the Project and cannot be considered a true system alternative.

    10.2.1.2 LNG Export Terminal Projects In Development East/Gulf Coasts

    East Coast

    There are two LNG export terminal projects in development along the East Coast: Dominion Cove Point LNG - Dominion Cove Point LNG, LP (Dominion) has proposed to use

    its existing LNG terminal on the Chesapeake Bay in Lusby, Maryland for exports. It has received U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) approval to export LNG (1 billion cubic feet (Bcf) per day (Bcf/d)) to Free Trade Agreement (FTA) nations and has a pending application for authorization to export LNG (1 Bcf/d) to non-FTA nations. Dominion has completed the FERC pre-filing process and its FERC application for the liquefaction facilities was noticed by FERC on April 12, 2013. Dominion anticipates that its customers would access supplies primarily from the Marcellus Shale.

    Southern LNG Company - Southern LNG Company, LLC (Southern LNG) has proposed to use

    its existing LNG terminal on Elba Island in Savannah, Georgia for exports. It has received DOE approval to export LNG (0.5 Bcf/d) to FTA nations and has a pending application for authorization to export LNG (0.5 Bcf/d) to non-FTA nations. On December 5, 2012 Southern LNG initiated the FERC pre-filing process and it has recently filed draft resource reports. The proposed in-service date of the liquefaction facilities is December 2016.

    Due to their geographic locations relative to the Project, neither Dominion nor Southern LNG is strategically located, as the Project is, to provide market outlets for abundant gas supplies from both the western Canadian and the U.S. Rocky Mountain supply basins or to serve Asian markets and domestic markets in Hawaii and Alaska. Simply stated, these two East Coast projects cannot meet the Project’s objectives and therefore they are not viable system

    alternatives to the Project.

    Gulf Coast

    There are a number of LNG export terminal projects that are being proposed or are under construction along the Gulf of Mexico. All these Gulf Coast projects anticipate that supplies will come from, inter alia, gas fields in the Permian, Anadarko and Hugoton basins and

    unconventional gas fields in the Barnett, Haynesville and Eagle Ford basins. While additional Gulf Cost projects continue to be proposed, the first fourteen projects to commence the regulatory processes are briefly described in the following paragraphs.

    Page 10-4 May 2013

     RESOURCE REPORT 10

     JCEP LNG Terminal Project

    Docket No. CP13-___-000

Sabine Pass The Sabine Pass LNG terminal in Sabine, Louisiana commenced import

    operations in 2008; it has recently re-exported imported LNG. Sabine Pass Liquefaction, LLC (Sabine) proposes to use the existing infrastructure at the Sabine Pass terminal, including five storage tanks and two berths, and to add liquefaction facilities, including four modular LNG trains, each with a peak processing capacity of up to approximately 0.7 Bcf/d, to make the terminal bi-directional. Sabine received FERC authorization to construct and operate liquefaction and export facilities and construction is underway. Sabine has also received DOE approvals to export (2.2 Bcf/d) to both FTA and non-FTA nations. Of the proposed export projects currently in development, Sabine is the only one that has received FERC authorization for the necessary facilities and is the only export project that has received non-FTA nations authority. Sabine anticipates commencing export operations in 2015.

    Freeport - The Freeport LNG terminal on Quintana Island near Freeport, Texas began operations as an import facility in 2008, and has re-exported imported LNG. Freeport LNG Expansion, L.P. and FLNG Liquefaction, LLC (together Freeport) are now proposing to add liquefaction infrastructure and use the single berth and two storage tanks at the existing terminal. Freeport LNG has completed the FERC pre-filing process and its FERC application for adding an export capacity of 1.9 Bcf/d, noticed by FERC on September 12, 2012, is currently pending. Freeport has received two separate DOE approvals to export (1.4 Bcf/d each) to FTA nations and has pending before DOE two separate applications to export (1.4 Bcf/d each) to non-FTA nations. Freeport anticipates commencing liquefaction and export operations in 2017. Lake Charles The Lake Charles terminal in Lake Charles, Louisiana began import operations in 1981. As expanded as of 2006, it has two berths and four storage tanks with a total capacity of 9 Bcf. Trunkline LNG, the terminal’s owner, plans to install liquefaction facilities and operate

    the Lake Charles terminal as a bi-directional facility. It initiated the FERC pre-filing process in March 2012 and recently responded to scoping comments. Lake Charles Exports, LLC (Lake Charles) has received DOE approval to export (2.0 Bcf/d) to FTA nations and has pending before DOE an application to export (2.0 Bcf/d) to non-FTA nations. Lake Charles anticipates that export operations will begin in August 2018.

    Cameron The Cameron LNG terminal in Hackberry, Louisiana began operations as an import facility in 2008; it has re-exported imported LNG. Cameron LNG, LLC (Cameron) is now proposing that the terminal become a bi-directional facility by using the existing facilities, including two marine berths capable of accommodating Q-Flex sized LNG ships and four LNG 3storage tanks with a combined storage capacity of 640,000 m, and adding three liquefaction

    trains for a total export capability of 12 MMTPA. Cameron has completed the FERC pre-filing process and its application, noticed by FERC on December 26, 2012, is currently pending. Cameron has received DOE approval to export (1.7 Bcf/d) to FTA nations and has pending before DOE an application to export (1.7 Bcf/d) to non-FTA nations. Cameron anticipates commencing liquefaction and export operations using its first train in late 2016. Gulf Coast LNG - Gulf Coast LNG proposes to export LNG from a natural gas liquefaction facility and LNG export terminal located at the Port of Brownsville in Brownsville, Texas. The project will have four liquefaction trains capable of liquefying up to 2.8 Bcf/d of natural gas, full containment tanks (number and size not specified), a marine berth, and a pipeline connecting the terminal to natural gas transportation lines. Gulf Coast has received DOE approval to export (2.8 Bcf/d) to FTA nations and has pending before DOE an application to export (2.8 Bcf/d) to non-FTA nations. Gulf Coast has not yet initiated the FERC pre-filing process. Gulf Coast anticipates that the project will be in-service by 2018.

    Page 10-5 May 2013

     RESOURCE REPORT 10

     JCEP LNG Terminal Project

    Docket No. CP13-___-000

    Corpus Christi Corpus Christi Liquefaction, LLC (Corpus Christi) proposes a project comprising a liquefaction and export plant and import facilities with regasification capabilities to be located at the site of the Corpus Christi LNG Import Terminal in Corpus Christi, Texas (which is no longer authorized, construction having been suspended in 2008). As proposed, the facility will have one berth, three storage tanks, two vaporization trains and three liquefaction trains. The liquefaction capacity would be 1.8 Bcf/d. Corpus Christi has completed the FERC pre-filing process and its application, noticed by FERC on September 14, 2012, is currently pending. Corpus Christi’s affiliate, Cheniere Marketing, LLC, has received DOE approval to export LNG

    from the Corpus Christi terminal (2.1 Bcf/d) to FTA nations and has pending before DOE an application to export (2.1 Bcf/d) to non-FTA nations. Corpus Christi has an anticipated in-service date of December 2017.

    Gulf LNG The Gulf LNG Energy import terminal in Pascagoula, Mississippi was authorized by FERC in 2007 and commenced operations in 2011; the facility has a single berth and two storage tanks. Gulf LNG Liquefaction Company, LLC (Gulf LNG) is taking steps to add liquefaction facilities and export capacity to make the terminal bi-directional. Gulf LNG has received approval from DOE to export (1.5 Bcf/d) to FTA nations and has pending before DOE an application to export (1.5 Bcf/d) to non-FTA nations. Gulf LNG requested to initiate the FERC pre-filing process on December 5, 2012, but FERC declined to consider the request until Gulf LNG has complied with the procedures required by FERC’s Regulations.

    Lavaca Bay Excelerate Liquefaction Solutions I, LLC (ELS) plans to construct, own, and operate two purpose built floating liquefaction and storage and offloading systems (FLSO) that would produce LNG. The FSLOs would be permanently moored at a shore side dock to be constructed in Port Lavaca located in Calhoun County, Texas. Each of the two FLSOs will have 3four liquefaction trains and storage for up to 250,000 m of LNG. The FLSOs will each produce

    up to five MTPA. The project will require improvement dredging of the existing Matagorda Ship Channel to accommodate the delivery of the FLSOs and new dredging to create a berth for the FLSOs and a berth and turning basin for the LNG carriers. Lavaca Bay Pipeline System, LLC would construct and operate an approximate 27-mile-long 36-inch diameter natural gas pipeline, two compressor stations, metering, and appurtenant facilities to connect with nine interstate and intrastate pipelines. Lavaca Bay initiated the FERC pre-filing process in November 2012 and has recently filed draft resource reports. It has received approval from DOE to export (1.38 Bcf/d) to FTA nations and has pending before DOE an application to export (1.38 Bcf/d) to non-FTA nations. The proposed in-service date is December 2017.

    Golden Pass Golden Pass Products LLC is proposing to add liquefaction and export

    capabilities to its affiliated existing import terminal owned and operated by Golden Pass LNG Terminal LLC and located in Sabine Pass, Texas, utilizing the existing five tanks (with a 3combined storage capacity of 155,000 m), two berths and 70 miles of pipeline infrastructure.

    The project’s send-out capacity would be 15.6 MMTPA. Golden Pass has received DOE

    approval to export (2.6 Bcf/d) to FTA nations and has pending before DOE an application to export (2.6 Bcf/d) to non-FTA nations. Golden Pass expects to initiate the FERC pre-filing process soon.

    Main Pass Main Pass Energy Hub LLC received DOE approval to export (3.22 Bcf/d) to FTA nations in January 2013. It has stated that it will apply at a later date for authorization to export to non-FTA nations. Main Pass proposes to export from existing and new facilities (including six FLSOs) that it intends to modify, build and operate at the MPEH Deepwater Port located in Federal waters in Main Pass Block 299, 16 miles offshore southeastern Louisiana, which was

    Page 10-6 May 2013

Report this document

For any questions or suggestions please email
cust-service@docsford.com