Showing posts with label natural gas. Show all posts
Showing posts with label natural gas. Show all posts

Sunday, November 22, 2015

NATURAL GAS: Enormous Northwest refineries would feed China exclusively

Port of Tacomoa

NATURAL GAS:  Enormous Northwest refineries would feed China exclusively



SEATTLE -- China is seeking to tap the flood of cheap natural gas coming from the interior of North America by converting it to methanol at three huge refineries in Washington and Oregon.

The processing plants, collectively called Northwest Innovation Works, have received little attention despite their head-snapping impact:
  • The refineries could increase demand for natural gas in the Pacific Northwest by 40 percent.
  • They would more than triple the size of the fast-growing U.S. methanol industry.
  • With an estimated $7 billion price tag, the refineries would be one of the largest investments ever by China in new U.S. manufacturing.
  • The largest plant, planned for Tacoma, could use more water than all the residential customers of the city's public utility district combined.
"This is really a cross-Pacific collaboration," said Simon Zhang, the project's CEO and a former official with BP who is based in Shanghai. "It's very unique in that it brings a benefit to both sides of the Pacific very clearly."

However, the plan is being viewed warily by Pacific Northwest environmental groups, which have proved effective at slowing a long list of proposals to deliver coal, oil and natural gas from the continent's midsection to hungry markets in Asia.

"They fit into the pattern of more fossil-fuel infrastructure built on the Columbia that we have concerns about," said Brett VandenHeuvel, the executive director of Columbia Riverkeeper. Two of the three refineries would sit on the banks of the Columbia River.

The Chinese proposal, first made public last year, is different from other projects that would export raw fossil fuels. First, the end goal is methanol, a crucial building block of plastic and many other materials of modern life. Second, China would be the sole recipient.

Third is that it aims to lower greenhouse gas emissions in China, while raising them to a lesser degree on American shores. China is the world's largest producer and consumer of methanol, and it manufactures almost all of it from coal, which creates a great deal of carbon emissions.

Reducing carbon emissions across industries is an increasingly urgent goal for China, which will be a key player at the Paris climate talks at the end of this month. In September, China announced it would establish a carbon-trading market by 2017.

The Pacific Northwest venture claims that using natural gas instead would reduce emissions by 70 percent, and that it will employ a new technique that reduces the carbon footprint even further.
Northwest Innovation Works says the three refineries would create 3,000 construction jobs and 460 permanent jobs. It could spawn new customers for natural gas in the Pacific Northwest, where industrial jobs have been on the wane. The proposal has received an enthusiastic endorsement from Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (D).

The factories would also use enormous quantities of water, an obvious selling point for China and a potential flashpoint in the Pacific Northwest. China has chronic water shortages, while Washington and Oregon have lots of it -- though that supply is in question as climate change reduces the region's snowpack.

Two of the refineries would sit on opposite banks of the Columbia River, one in Clatskanie, Ore., about an hour's drive northwest of Portland, and the other at the Port of Kalama in Washington state. Both would produce about 5,000 metric tons of methanol a day, which would put them on par with the world's largest methanol plants.

But both would be dwarfed by a third proposed refinery at Tacoma, a busy industrial port a half-hour south of Seattle. Double the size of the other two, it would be the largest methanol refinery ever built.

 

Cheap gas fires up U.S. methanol

The new refineries would bring an even steeper growth curve to an already fast-growing methanol industry in the United States.

Methanol, also known as methyl alcohol or wood alcohol, is a precursor to hundreds of products, from plastics to fabrics to paints to windshield wiper fluid. The Washington and Oregon projects, like other plants, would combine natural gas with steam and heat to make a synthesis gas of carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and hydrogen. That gas is heated and compressed and run over a catalyst to make a crude methanol, and then it is distilled with water.

The resulting methanol -- colorless, flammable, and a liquid at atmospheric temperature -- would be shipped to China, where it would be converted into olefins, such as ethylene and propylene, and used to make a range of products.....   read more here



Friday, July 10, 2015

Distortion and Secrecy: Oil and Rail Industries Fight Disclosure





 Methane data collected from Florida to California in 2010. http://bit.ly/1TqwNZP

Oil & Gas Industry Mangles More Facts, Turns EDF Study Results Upside Down

Mark Brownstein, Vice President in the Climate and Energy Program at Environmental Defense Fund
HuffPost Green  7/10/15

Here we go again.

A new set of peer-reviewed scientific papers pointing to 50 percent higher than estimated regional methane emissions from oil and gas operations in Texas were published this week. And like clockwork, the oil and gas industry's public relations machine, Energy In Depth, proclaimed that rising emissions are actually falling, and that the industry's meager voluntary efforts are responsible.

This is, of course, wrong on both counts. In fact, it's a willful misrepresentation of the findings.

First, the assertion that emissions are going down is flat wrong. EPA's latest inventory released in April reports that in 2013 the oil and gas industry released more than 7.3 million metric tons of methane into the atmosphere from their operations--a three percent increase over 2012--making it the largest industrial source of methane pollution. So much for those voluntary efforts.....  more here


Bakken oil trains rumble through downtown Milwaukee, leaving some city officials and residents afraid of what might happen if there is a spill and explosion, as has happened elsewhere.

Bakken oil trains rumble through downtown Milwaukee

Michael Murphy hits railroad for refusal to share bridge safety data

By Crocker Stephenson      Journal Sentinel   July 9, 2015    

A frustrated Milwaukee [ Wisconsin ] Common Council President Michael Murphy called for a change in federal law Thursday after Canadian Pacific railroad refused to share the results of its inspection of a rusty-looking downtown bridge.

The bridge crossing W. Oregon St. at S. 1st St. is used by rail cars carrying potentially explosive crude oil through the heart of the city. City engineer Jeffrey Polenske told members of the council's Public Safety Committee that Canadian Pacific not only refused to share the results of its inspection of the bridge, conducted in May, but also refused to send a representative to the committee to brief aldermen on the bridge's condition.

Polenske said the email he received from Canadian Pacific "went on to reassure us that they were following all federal regulations and standards and that the bridge was in compliance."

"There wasn't a whole lot of detail or specifics," he said.

Murphy appeared incredulous.

"The current structure is, Canadian Pacific evaluates these bridges and then tells the U.S. government or our state and local government, 'Don't worry about it. It's fine.'

"Why are we allowing a private company to determine our safety?"

Murphy said he wanted the federal law changed so that an independent agency — not the rail companies — would be responsible for safety inspections.

He also called on Wisconsin's congressional delegation to send a letter to the Federal Railroad Commission, signed by all, demanding release of the inspection's report.....    more here

 

 July 8, 2015  by Dan Zegart, Senior Fellow at the Climate Investigations Center

The former Department of Justice lawyer who led the watershed lawsuit against tobacco companies, says that the news out today about oil giant ExxonMobil knowing as early as 1981 about the threat posed by climate change could worsen the fossil fuel industry's liability picture. 


Wednesday, August 27, 2014

Action for today!

Your Comments are needed, deadline 8/28
The fifth refinery crude-by-rail proposal has a comment period closing the 28th. This one is the Shell Anacortes refinery proposal, and Skagit County is lead on the shoreline permit. They have determined there are no significant adverse impacts requiring an environmental impact statement. This is, of course, absurd.

I've written an article explaining the situation as best I understand it, which is here:  http://www.nwcitizen.com/entry/an-imminent-threat-the-state-plans-for-cbr-disaster-while-counties-punt. In it, I discuss the fact that the state must intervene and assume lead agency status, because Skagit County is refusing to study rail impacts at all beyond the site, much less cumulative rail and vessel traffic (for folks in the Grays Harbor area: the issues are very similar to the ones you faced there). The state may intervene during this comment period, so their deadline is alsoAugust 28th.

There is also information in the article on how to comment on the study being conducted by the state Dep't of Ecology, at the direction of the governor, on risks associated with transporting Bakken crude-by-rail. The irony is that everyone acknowledges there are risks; the only issue is how to respond to the inevitable impacts? Yet, the counties are being allowed to issue mitigated determinations of nonsignificance. This has to stop!

Please take a moment to read the article, and contact your networks to let them know we have a very narrow window to press the state to intervene in Skagit County. Please feel free to frame the issues in your own words, in whatever way you believe best communicates the issues and the urgency.

Thank you!
Terry

Terry J. Wechsler
Bellingham, WA

Columbia River Gorge fire chiefs learned mile-long oil trains moved through their communities not from railroads but because of this April photo by an amateur photographer. (Jozsef Urmos/Special to The Oregonian)

As Oregon meets to strengthen oil train disclosure, BNSF questions media's presence

"Wouldn't it be easier if the press wasn't here?" BNSF's Pat Brady asked. 


The Columbian editorial board meets with Oil Execs concerning oil train safety



5 things you should know about Oregon's coal terminal permit rejection

Oregon's Department of State Lands on Monday dealt a serious blow to Ambre Energy's proposed coal terminal, denying a key permit needed for a project to export 8.8 million tons of coal annually to Asia.
Here are five things you need to know about the decision and what happens next.

Also:

Bad news for the coal industry — Oregon just blocked plans for exports to Asia

via Vox


The coal industry got some bad news on Monday night: Oregon officials have rejected a permit for a terminal that would export 8.8 million tons of coal each year to Asia.
Why is that a big deal? The fight over US coal exports has become one of the major environmental battles in recent years. Coal use is on the decline in the United States, thanks to both a glut of natural gas from fracking and a spate of new air-pollution regulations. So US mining companies are looking to ship more coal abroad, particularly to Asia.



Monday, June 16, 2014

After oil, natural gas may be next on North American rails


 



File photo of Irving Oil workers inspecting rail cars carrying crude oil at the Irving Oil rail yard terminal in Saint John, New Brunswick

Irving Oil workers inspect rail cars carrying crude oil at the Irving Oil rail yard terminal
By Edward McAllister
NEW YORK (Reuters) - As politicians debate the dangers of a massive increase in oil carried by rail in North America, railroads and energy producers are considering the same for natural gas.
   
Buoyed by the unexpected success of crude by rail, companies are beginning to consider transporting natural gas as remote drilling frontiers emerge beyond the reach of pipelines, executives said.
   
Natural gas by rail is years away and likely to face strong public resistance after a series of explosive crude-by-rail accidents. But the potentially multibillion-dollar development could connect gas-rich regions like North Dakota with urban centers, presenting an opportunity for railroads, drillers and tank car makers already cashing in from hauling oil on trains.
   
It could also be a cure for environmentally unfriendly flaring, a growing problem......continued here