In that Telegraph Journal article we read:

> "This resulted in liquid natural gas erupting out and over the
> flare stack tip and liquid product cascading down the flare stack
> while it was igniting, causing a large flame and vapour cloud,"
> Oickle said.

Is this a plausible explanation?  This is a brand new facility.  Or is this to be expected when the growth of LNG handling facilities outpaces the growth of trained, experienced operators?

Saint John was lucky this incident had a benign outcome.  

Cliff

 
   

In that Telegraph Journal article we read:

> "This resulted in liquid natural gas erupting out and over the
> flare stack tip and liquid product cascading down the flare stack
> while it was igniting, causing a large flame and vapour cloud,"
> Oickle said.

Is this a plausible explanation?  This is a brand new facility.  Or is this to
be expected when the growth of LNG handling facilities outpaces the growth of
trained, experienced operators?

Saint John was lucky this incident had a benign outcome.

Cliff

http://telegraphjournal.canadaeast.com/city/article/821129

Hi all,

This Thursday and Friday is the Pipeline Safety Trust's annual
conference in New Orleans. This years theme is "Pipeline Safety -
What Communities Want to Know", and features many of the recent
recipients of the new Community Technical Assistance Grants from the
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA).

For those of you who can't join us in New Orleans but are interested
in watching some of the sessions we are webcasting a majority of the
conference live. The conference starts Thursday morning at 9 AM
Central Time. The link to the webcast and the webcast agenda can be
found on our website at:
http://www.pstrust.org/conference/2009conference.htm

Once the webcast starts there is also a box on the webcast page where
you can ask questions of the speakers.

Let me know if you have any questions

Thanks

Carl


--
Carl Weimer, Executive Director
Pipeline Safety Trust
1155 N. State St  Suite 609
Bellingham, WA  98225
360-543-5686
http://www.pstrust.org

Shale gas blasts open world energy market

American firms have cracked the technology to tap vast new reserves

Peterson: Make liquid fuels with Alaska's gas

By Tim Bradner
Web posted Friday, October 30, 2009
http://www.alaskajournal.com/stories/103009/oil_img10_001.shtml


An Anchorage-based development company says there are other ways to
market North Slope natural gas rather than put it in a pipe and ship
it to the Lower 48 or to a liquefied natural gas plant in Valdez.

If U.S. markets are too saturated with natural gas and world markets
have a surplus of LNG, Alaska gas could instead be converted to
high-quality liquid products like ultra-clean diesel or
petrochemicals.

The state could receive several times the value for its royalties
than it would if it were sold just as natural gas, says Richard
Peterson, president of Alaska Natural Gas-to-Liquids Co., an
organization formed by Peterson and several partners in 1998 to
pursue such a project.

Peterson has years of experience in the natural gas business. He
presented his ideas to the Alaska Support Industry Alliance in
Anchorage Oct. 22.

Many in the audience were intrigued and stayed around to talk with
Peterson after his presentation.

One was Chris Birch, a manager at NANA Pacific LLC and an Anchorage
assemblyman.

"I was struck by the differences in value if the gas is sold as
liquid transport product rather than as gas. I think it's an
intriguing idea that deserves further study," Birch said.

Peterson said a gas-to-liquids plant built in Southcentral Alaska
could provide the much needed large industrial customer for a bullet
line pipe built from the North Slope to Southcentral, a fallback plan
the state is now investigating in case a big pipeline is delayed.

It would help get North Slope gas to Southcentral Alaska even if the
big pipeline is built because large industrial customers are needed
even for a spur pipeline built to Southcentral off the big pipe.

Peterson said a bullet-line would be unaffordable for consumers to
pay for without a major new industrial customer, and large state
subsidies would be needed. The same may be true for a spur line.

A gas-to-liquids plant would eliminate the need for state subsidies
for either pipeline, he said.

That caught the attention of Rep. Mark Neuman, R-Big Lake, co-chair
of the House Resources Committee. Neuman said he is familiar with
Peterson's work and believes a GTL project could help bring North
Slope gas to Southcentral Alaska.

The project doesn't compete with the big gas pipeline because it
would be a customer for gas delivered through that system from the
North Slope to at least Fairbanks or even for new Cook Inlet gas
production if large discoveries were made in the Southcentral region.

Peterson's company is working to attract a major company with
commercial experience with GTL. South African energy company Sasol
and Shell are leading candidates, he said.

Sasol and several other companies are interested in prospects for an
Alaska bullet line and GTL plant, but are uncertain as to the state's
position on major value-added industries, Peterson told the Alliance.

This is Peterson's biggest obstacle for now.

"The perception in many circles is that when it comes to gas, Alaska
supports only a pipeline to the Lower 48 or an LNG project in Valdez,
and is not open to other ideas," he said.

That perception may be incorrect, and state officials need to make
explicit statements that Alaska is "open for business" for other
approaches, particularly ones that add value to the state's raw
resources and create jobs, he said.

A large gas-to-liquids plant manufacturing 70,000 barrels a day of
liquid products would cost several billion dollars to build and could
employ several hundred people. A plant could be located in Cook
Inlet, perhaps in Nikiski.

But Peterson's base case for his project is Port Mackenzie in the
Matanuska-Susitna Borough, because that location ties in with bullet
line studies the state now has underway.

One of the criticisms of gas-to-liquids plant is that the
Fischer-Tropsch process is inefficient because it consumes a third of
the gas in making liquid products when compared to pipelines and LNG
plants, which deliver 80 percent to 90 percent of the gas to
customers.

Peterson said this is technically true, but what's important is
thermal efficiency: how much of the energy content is used and the
value of the products sold in the market.

A large amount of waste heat is given off from that third of the gas
used in the process, and if this energy is captured as waste heat for
power generation, as would be the case with an Alaska plant, the
energy efficiency rises sharply.

Waste heat from an Alaska GTL plant making 70,000 barrels per day of
products could generate 300 megawatts of power, Peterson said.

Modern GTL plants being built by Sasol and Shell have total energy
efficiencies approaching 90 percent, Peterson said. This is superior
even to a modern combined-cycle gas-fired power plant, which achieve
about 50 percent thermal efficiency.

Besides, even if a third of the gas is used to make the liquid
products that are manufactured, the point is that the products are
worth far more in the market than the natural gas consumed to make
them.

"In July, diesel was being sold on the West Coast for a price of
$15.38 per million Btus (British Thermal Units), compared with the
price of natural gas of $3.53 per million Btus," Peterson said.

In other words, the sales price of the product made, the diesel, is
more than four times the price of gas consumed in making the diesel.

Another criticism is that the process produces substantial amounts of
carbon dioxide.

Again true, Peterson said. However, the Fischer-Tropsch process also
requires carbon dioxide to be concentrated into a stream, in a pipe,
so that it can be sequestered or used.

That's different than gas used in a turbine for a power plant, for
example, where the carbon dioxide goes up the stack and is much more
costly, and difficult, to capture.

Most important, however, is that a key advantage of locating a GTL
plant in Cook Inlet is that the carbon dioxide can be injected into
depleted oil or gas reservoirs in the region, or used in enhanced oil
recovery to produce more oil from fields nearing depletion.

There were questions taken during the Oct. 22 Alliance meeting, some
of them from employees of major oil companies, about why the big
three North Slope producers weren't pursuing gas-to-liquids
themselves.

Actually they are, Peterson said, although they have felt so far that
a conventional gas pipeline is better for the bulk of North Slope
gas. In fact, a GTL plant could help a pipeline, amid the current gas
market uncertainties, because the liquid products would sell into a
different fuels market, displacing imported oil and not adding to the
gas glut in the Lower 48.

Peterson said major companies have varying levels of comfort with the
Fischer-Tropsch process.

Because different companies have or are pursuing their own process
for Fischer-Tropsch, typically involving the catalysts used, there
are patent issues involved that create commercial obstacles for
widespread use of Fischer-Tropsch, although these can be overcome.

The three North Slope producers may also have other reasons for being
less than enthusiastic about an Alaska GTL plant, Peterson said. All
three companies own major conventional crude oil refineries on the
West Coast and may see a GTL plant as competing with these, he said.

There are only two major companies, Sasol and Shell, with operating
plants and commercially proven Fischer-Tropsch processes, Peterson
said. Sasol has operated Fischer-Tropsch plants for decades in South
Africa using coal and more recently gas in Qatar.

Shell has substantial gas-to-liquids experience and operates a GTL
plant in Malaysia that manufactures ultra-clean diesel and
petrochemical feedstocks. The petrochemical feedstock is sold in Asia
and some of the diesel is sold to refiners in California who blend it
with conventional diesel to meet strict air quality standards.

The U.S. West Coast would be the major market for an Alaska
gas-to-liquids plant, Peterson said.

Other companies, like ExxonMobil, have done a lot of research with
their own Fischer-Tropsch processes but do not yet have operating
Fischer-Tropsch plants. ExxonMobil considered GTL its leading
candidate for commercializing North Slope gas in the late 1990s until
the company was persuaded by BP and ConocoPhillips to join them in
re-examining a conventional pipeline to the Lower 48. The three
companies' work on a Lower 48 pipeline resumed in earnest in 2000.

Peterson said he doesn't know what plans North Slope producers may
now have for their gas. The Lower 48 energy market is awash in gas
from new shale gas production and there is a surplus of LNG on world
markets with more plants now coming on line.

In such a changing environment, North Slope producers will not
discount any potential market for their gas, including GTL, Peterson
said.

"Most people are focused on the big gas line to the Lower 48 or
Valdez, but we see a Southcentral GTL program starting the big line
today, at least from the North Slope to Fairbanks," he said.

The Denali or the TransCanada/ExxonMobil pipeline groups could work
with ANGTL to build a 48-inch line from the North Slope to Fairbanks,
"a pre-build if you will, with only one compressor station to move
about 1 billion cubic feet of gas per day," Peterson said.

A smaller pipeline would be built to carry the gas from Fairbanks to
Southcentral Alaska. That amount of gas would be sufficient for the
Interior and Southcentral utility markets and a GTL plant, he said.

"If the gas market in the Lower 48 or an LNG market justifies the big
gas line to be built to Alberta or Valdez from Fairbanks down the
road, the pipeline company can just add compression to increase
capacity on the northern segment from 1 bcf to 4 or 5 bcf," Peterson
said.

Tim Bradner can be reached at

tim.bradner@....
--

Port extends LNG land deal
http://www.theworldlink.com/articles/2009/10/31/news/doc4aebe6afa8e94625849397.t\
xt

By Alexander Rich, Staff WriterContact editorial department
Saturday, October 31, 2009 | No comments posted.

COOS BAY - Developers who'd like to build a liquefied natural gas
terminal on Coos Bay's North Spit have pushed back plans to start
construction until spring 2011.

The change in plans has led to an extension of land-purchase deals on
the North Spit.

Oregon International Port of Coos Bay commissioners agreed Friday to
extend their three-way purchase option for 1,300 acres of
Weyerhaeuser Co. land with Jordan Cove Energy Project. They also
tentatively approved an 18-month extension that would keep the option
good through the middle of 2011. Port staff plan to present a final
deal at the commissioners' Nov. 19 meeting.

The parties previously extended the contract by a year twice, but
developers need more time, said Bob Braddock, Jordan Cove's project
manager. The LNG company now intends to make a final investment
decision in fall 2010. If it chooses to proceed, it would close on
the land deal in late spring 2011 and start construction immediately.

The global economic slow-down brought the delay, though LNG suppliers
have told Braddock they will want a West Coast terminal by fall 2014.
Jordan Cove has said it will take about three and a half years to
build the terminal.

"We want to meet that in-service day," he said.

The 18-month extension would not change the basic principles of the
agreement, but it would alter loan payment arrangements.

Umpqua Bank, which holds one of the port's loans, will opt out of the
agreement, with Weyerhaeuser essentially taking over the $10 million
note to the port. Jordan Cove will pay the port $165,000 a month, for
the agency to pay interest on the $10 million loan and a $15 million
loan from the state, covering the rest of the purchase price.

The port will pay $60,000 a month to Weyerhaeuser, with half of those
funds going toward the land purchase price.

"We are establishing equity," said Martin Callery, director of
communications for the port.

The new deal also would allow the state to get back its $15 million
by December 2011, instead of June 2012.

The full board of commissioners voted in favor of the extension,
though seven audience members were not happy with the ruling.

Jody McCaffree, an anti-LNG activist from North Bend, argued that the
port was providing too much authority to Jordan Cove and urged it to
seek a new appraisal of the land. McCaffree contends the land isn't
worth $25 million.

Coos County resident Mary Margaret Muenchrath said the commissioners
weren't doing justice for those they represent.

"I don't understand what you are thinking," she said. "You are not
thinking about this area."

The only commissioner to speak was Chairman David Kronsteiner, who
thanked the women for their comments, as well as port staff for
negotiating the deal.

"You did an exceptional job of bringing this together," he said. "You
took risk away from the port and made it into a better deal. Thank
you."
--

•A subsidiary of Exxon says the Mackenzie Valley gas pipeline has not been killed again, but a Canadian newspaper says officials in Ottawa are giving it the cold shoulder.

"Sources report that Ottawa has decided not to proceed with federal investment in the $16.2 billion Mackenzie Valley natural gas pipeline, throwing the future of Canada's largest construction proposal into doubt," the National Post reported Tuesday.

The gist of the report is that  Canada's environment minister proposed a package of financial incentives for the project and was turned down by the cabinet because of worries about the cost of the project.

"The 750-mile pipeline from the Beaufort Sea in the Northwest Territories to markets in Alberta has been the dream of many northerners for 40 years. However, market analysts continue to question the viability of the multibillion-dollar project, which comes at a time when gas prices are sagging and the fuel can be found in abundance in Canada and the Lower 48 states."

Meanwhile, the Calgary Herald quoted an official of Imperial Oil, an Exxon subsidiary, as saying that the company is moving forward. 

"We remain committed to the project," Imperial spokesman Pius Rolheiser told the Herald. "We are working on a number of fronts, including ongoing discussions on the fiscal framework of the project."

Exxon owns about 70 percent of Imperial Oil. The group of companies backing the project, which has been talked about and sometimes portrayed as a competitor to an Alaska project since the 1970s, also includes Shell Canada and ConocoPhillips.

The Calgary newspaper quoted Doug Matthews, a Calgary energy consultant, as saying the latest news is not good for the pipeline.

"The way the feds have handled this hasn't exactly basked themselves in glory," he said. "I hate to be negative, but there's a whole bunch of things piling up against it. I can't say I'm optimistic."

The newspaper said, "Market observers said Mackenzie gas has essentially priced itself out of the market. The pipeline, which was originally expected to cost about $7 billion, skyrocketed to $16 billion when the most recent estimates were released in the spring of 2007."

Peter Linder with Delta One Capital Partners in Calgary said Arctic gas can not compete with shale gas.

"Mackenzie Delta gas makes no sense whatsoever—it's never made sense, not even 25 years ago. I don't think we need that pipeline in my lifetime or even in yours," he told the Herald.

I'm sorry our government feels it is something to celebrate to once
again give approval for the United States to import a foreign source of
energy.  We liked our foreign oil and prices so much, didn't we?   Get
ready for Russian-supplied liquefied natural gas.

Sandra

--- In LNGsafety@yahoogroups.com, Carl Weimer <carl@...> wrote:
>
> Obama Administration Issues Key Approval for Florida LNG Facility
> http://media-newswire.com/release_1104154.html
>
> (Media-Newswire.com) - WASHINGTON - Acting Maritime Administrator
> David T. Matsuda today approved the construction of a deepwater port
> for liquefied natural gas ( LNG ) off the coast of Florida. As part
> of the approval agreement, officials for Port Dolphin Energy, LLC,
> agreed to provide employment and training opportunities to American
> mariners on ships using the port. The Maritime Administration is an
> agency of the U.S. Department of Transportation.
>
> "This energy project is a win for Florida consumers, and for U.S.
> maritime workers," said Transportation Secretary LaHood. "We will
> continue our focus on creating job opportunities for American
> seafarers and other maritime workers."
>
> The Port Dolphin facility will be located in the Gulf of Mexico,
> approximately 28 miles southwest of Tampa Bay. Deepwater ports are
> offshore facilities used to transfer imported oil and natural gas
> from carrier vessels to shore via sub-sea pipelines. The apparatus
> is submerged most of the time, and is marked by a buoy. A tanker
> pulls the apparatus up, connects and offloads, and then, when the
> deepwater port is not being used, it submerges, which minimizes its
> environmental impact. When the Port Dolphin facility is operational,
> it is expected to deliver about 400 million cubic feet of natural gas
> per day to Florida facilities, with the ability to deliver up to
> 1,200 million cubic feet a day at peak capacity.
>
> Construction is expected to begin in early 2013, and operations are
> expected to begin late that same year.
> --
>

Obama Administration Issues Key Approval for Florida LNG Facility
http://media-newswire.com/release_1104154.html

(Media-Newswire.com) - WASHINGTON - Acting Maritime Administrator
David T. Matsuda today approved the construction of a deepwater port
for liquefied natural gas ( LNG ) off the coast of Florida.  As part
of the approval agreement, officials for Port Dolphin Energy, LLC,
agreed to provide employment and training opportunities to American
mariners on ships using the port.  The Maritime Administration is an
agency of the U.S. Department of Transportation.

"This energy project is a win for Florida consumers, and for U.S.
maritime workers," said Transportation Secretary LaHood.  "We will
continue our focus on creating job opportunities for American
seafarers and other maritime workers."

The Port Dolphin facility will be located in the Gulf of Mexico,
approximately 28 miles southwest of Tampa Bay. Deepwater ports are
offshore facilities used to transfer imported oil and natural gas
from carrier vessels to shore via sub-sea pipelines.  The apparatus
is submerged most of the time, and is marked by a buoy.  A tanker
pulls the apparatus up, connects and offloads, and then, when the
deepwater port is not being used, it submerges, which minimizes its
environmental impact.  When the Port Dolphin facility is operational,
it is expected to deliver about 400 million cubic feet of natural gas
per day to Florida facilities, with the ability to deliver up to
1,200 million cubic feet a day at peak capacity.

Construction is expected to begin in early 2013, and operations are
expected to begin late that same year.
--

Before the recent development of natural gas from shale formations, I
understand that North American natural gas production has already
been peaking in recent years and that global gas production peak has
been estimated at around 2020.

Does anyone have revised estimates that account for the recent "discoveries"?

Mike Ewall
Energy Justice Network
catalyst@...
http://www.energyjustice.net

Hi all,

The Pipeline Safety Trust has just published our latest newsletter.
You can find it under "New Publications on our home page
(http://www.pstrust.org), or download it directly at
http://www.pstrust.org/library/docs/pstnewsletter_Fall09_online.pdf
The newsletter provides a review of many of the Community Technical
Assistance Grants that PHMSA recently awarded. Another round of grant
applications will be accepted soon, so this is a great resource to
see what types of projects qualified the first time around.

The newsletter also includes a special discount for our 4th annual
Pipeline Safety Conference being held in New Orleans on November 5th
and 6th. This years conference is built around the theme "Pipeline
Safety - What Communities Want to Know." Many of the speakers will be
representatives from the various community groups and local
government agencies that were recently awarded these grants. There is
a good deal of information in the newsletter or you can learn more
about the conference at:
http://pstrust.org/conference/2009conference.htm

If you are interested in attending and have any questions feel free
to send me an email. The hotel room block is only guaranteed through
this coming Friday, so make your reservations soon if you plan to
attend.

Thanks

Carl


--
Carl Weimer, Executive Director
Pipeline Safety Trust
1155 N. State St.  Suite 609
Bellingham, WA  98225
360-543-5686 phone
360-543-0978 fax
http://www.pstrust.org

FYI,

Bob

Push for LNG pipeline from Oregon's Coos Bay
David R. Baker, Chronicle Staff Writer

Sunday, October 4, 2009

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Coos Bay snakes from the Pacific into the hilly Oregon coast, its waters
sheltered from the ocean by a long, sandy spit.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resident Jody McCaffree sees it as a place of sand dunes and shore birds, where
the slumping local economy hasn't destroyed a high quality of life. But a group
of energy companies, including PG&E Corp., sees Coos Bay as a potential source
of fossil fuel.

The companies plan to build on the bay's northern shore a terminal for importing
liquefied natural gas, deeply chilled fuel that, when warmed up, can run power
plants, furnaces and stoves.

A proposed pipeline from the terminal would cut through 234 miles of rural land,
mostly forest, before stopping at the town of Malin on the California border.
There, an existing pipeline would move the gas north to the Pacific Northwest
and south to California.

"You're tearing up half of Oregon for a pipeline to import foreign energy," said
McCaffree, who has helped spearhead opposition to the project with her group
Citizens Against LNG.

McCaffree fears that if an LNG tanker suffered an accident in the narrow bay, it
would form a vapor cloud capable of igniting into a fast-moving fireball. About
17,000 people live within a 3-mile radius of the proposed terminal, called
Jordan Cove.

"Maybe there's a reason California doesn't want these things on its shore,"
McCaffree said.

Radical market change
Five years ago, energy companies were racing each other to build LNG terminals
on the West Coast. Natural gas production in the United States was falling, and
prices were rising, pushing up home heating bills in the process. Despite fierce
opposition from people like McCaffree, many state and federal officials saw
importing liquefied natural gas as the answer.

But the natural gas market has changed radically since then. Improved technology
helped energy companies tap gas that had been locked in shale rock in places
like Arkansas, Louisiana and Texas. Domestic production boomed. Prices fell. And
interest in LNG - at least in America - fizzled.

Diversify for future
So why are PG&E and its partners pushing ahead in Coos Bay?

Jonathan Marshall, a spokesman for the San Francisco company, said PG&E is
trying to plan ahead. The company is part of a consortium that would build the
$1.1 billion pipeline, called the Pacific Connector, while another consortium
would build the $1.2 billion terminal.

"None of us has a crystal ball," Marshall said. "It goes back to supply
diversity. As we've seen before, prices can shift very quickly. Right now
they're shifting down. But small changes in demand, in supply, can trigger big
changes in price."

The projects have applied for approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, and a vote could come as early as the commission's next meeting,
later this month. The projects would still need permits from several other
federal and state agencies.

Demand fuels project

But Bob Braddock, project manager for the terminal, said neither the terminal
nor the pipeline will be built if there isn't demand for the gas. If LNG
exporters overseas don't think they can get a good price in America, they won't
sign contracts to use either facility.

"This will never be built unless the capacity for the terminal and the pipeline
are contracted," he said. "Right or wrong, (the exporters) are making decisions
based on what they see the prices will be in America 25 years from now."

Big energy infrastructure projects - from coal-fired power plants to wind farms
- often provoke opposition. But not like LNG. Fierce resistance already helped
block proposals to build LNG import terminals in Eureka and Long Beach, on
Vallejo's Mare Island and off the coast of Ventura County.

Opponents tend to focus on safety.

Ignition danger

LNG is natural gas cooled to minus 260 degrees Fahrenheit, at which point it
turns into a clear liquid. Ships carry it in insulated tanks. If those tanks are
punctured and the liquid escapes, it will turn back into gas and hover on the
surface of the ocean until it disperses in the wind, rather than forming a slick
like spilled petroleum.

But before it disperses, spilled LNG can ignite. In 1944, a Cleveland facility
that produced and stored liquefied natural gas leaked, creating a vapor cloud
that seeped into a nearby residential neighborhood. The vapor ignited, and 130
people died. In 2004, an explosion at an Algerian LNG plant killed 27 people.

Proponents of the fuel say that despite those rare incidents, the LNG industry
has a good safety record. And some parts of the world welcome LNG. San Ramon's
Chevron Corp., for example, announced recently that it would build a $37 billion
project off Australia's northwest coast to pump natural gas from undersea
reservoirs, chill it and ship it to customers in China, Korea and Japan. Chevron
has already signed contracts for much of the gas.

Purpose questioned
The fact that other countries are eager to buy LNG while America isn't makes
McCaffree and other Jordan Cove opponents wonder if it isn't an export terminal
in disguise.

The Pacific Connector pipeline, they note, could easily link to another proposed
pipeline, called Ruby, that would enter Oregon from the east, supplying the West
Coast with natural gas from the Rocky Mountains. If Jordan Cove is really
designed for export, then any private property condemned to build the Pacific
Connector pipeline would be condemned solely for corporate profit, McCaffree
said, not to fill a community need the way an import facility arguably would.

"I just don't understand why PG&E's still pursuing it, unless it's going to be
an export terminal," she said. "There's no way we need all that gas." She
considers any LNG project - import or export - a waste of money and effort when
the country needs to be building more renewable power facilities and weaning
itself off fossil fuels.

Export too costly
Braddock said that turning Jordan Cove into an export terminal would require
completely redesigning the project and reapplying for government permits. And
the proposed site on Coos Bay isn't big enough to accommodate the equipment
needed for cooling the natural gas into a liquid, he said. An export terminal
would also cost far more to build - closer to $5 billion.

"I couldn't make the economics of that work no matter how hard I'd try,"
Braddock said. "It's not like someone can just flip a switch. The technical
issues are huge."

E-mail David R. Baker at dbaker@....

Read more:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgif=/c/a/2009/10/04/MNGM19SPCT.DTL#ixzz0T\
lnmDIHd