# Presentation: 448477

## The FERC Review Process and The Importance of Safe Pipeline and LNG Terminal Operation

**NASFM Annual Meeting- July 8, 2005**
**Office of Energy Projects**
**Federal Energy Regulatory Commission**

## Who is FERC?

- Independent Regulatory Commission
- Five members
- Appointed by the
- President
- Confirmed by the
- Senate

## Natural gas – a critical source of energy and raw material 

**Vital to the US Economy**
**1⁄4 of U.S. energy requirements**
**environmental fuel of Choice and regulation**
**provides about 19% of electric generation**
**residential customers --60 million in 2001**
**U.S. industries- over 40% of all primary energy **
**Industrial consumption, up by almost 48% from 1986 to 2001.  Increase continues.....**
**Production U.S. lower-48 and non-Arctic Canada flat to declining,**
**LNG and Arctic gas will become the major supply source, providing 20-25% of U.S. demand by 2025.**
**And lastly........**

**Notes:**
Natural gas provides about 19% of electric generation.

Of the 200,000 megawatts of new power plant capacity recently constructed or about to be placed in service over the next few years, well over 90% are fueled with natural gas

residential natural gas customers grew from 48 million in 1987 to 60 million in 2001.
new sources of supply will be required to meet the projected growth in natural gas demand.

## Over 90 percent of the 185 GW of new electric generation since June 2001 is natural gas

- Source: Derived from Platts POWERmap

## Safety?– How Important?

- Essential
- Prevention is Possible
- Compliance
- Design Standards & Review
- No Dig Rules
- Testing and Repair Rules
- Inspection

**Notes:**
Also CRITICAL!!
ALSO Absolutely IMPORTANT

Prevention Fire Marshal programs –are part of that prevention. 
I’ll discuss access to information issues later. 

## Existing and Proposed 

_**CONSTRUCTED**_
**A. Everett, MA :  **1.035 Bcfd  (Tractebel - DOMAC)
**B. Cove Point, MD :  **1.0 Bcfd  (Dominion - Cove Point LNG)
**C. Elba Island, GA :  **0.68 Bcfd  (El Paso - Southern LNG)
**D. Lake Charles, LA :  **1.0 Bcfd  (Southern Union - Trunkline LNG)
**E. Gulf of Mexico:** 0.5 Bcfd,  (Gulf Gateway Energy Bridge - Excelerate Energy)
_**APPROVED BY FERC**_
**1. Lake Charles, LA:**  1.1 Bcfd (Southern Union - Trunkline LNG)** **
**2. Hackberry, LA : **1.5 Bcfd,  (Sempra Energy)
**3. Bahamas : ** 0.84 Bcfd,  (AES Ocean Express)*
**4. Bahamas : ** 0.83 Bcfd,   (Calypso Tractebel)*
**5. Freeport, TX : ** 1.5 Bcfd,   (Cheniere/Freeport LNG Dev.)
**6. Sabine, LA :  **2.6 Bcfd (Cheniere LNG)
**7. Elba Island, GA:  **0.54 Bcfd (El Paso - Southern LNG)
**8. Corpus Christi, TX: **2.6 Bcfd, (Cheniere LNG)
**9. ****Corpus Christi, TX :  **1.0 Bcfd (Vista Del Sol - ExxonMobil)
**10. Fall River, MA :** 0.8 Bcfd,  (Weaver's Cove Energy/Hess LNG)
**11. Sabine, TX :  **1.0 Bcfd (Golden Pass - ExxonMobil)
_**APPROVED BY MARAD/COAST GUARD**_
**12. Port Pelican:** 1.6 Bcfd,  (Chevron Texaco)
**13. ****Louisiana Offshore : ** 1.0 Bcfd (Gulf Landing - Shell)
_**CANADIAN APPROVED TERMINALS**_
**14. St. John, NB :  **1.0 Bcfd,  (Canaport - Irving Oil)
**15. Point Tupper, NS  **1.0 Bcf/d  (Bear Head LNG - Anadarko)
_**MEXICAN APPROVED TERMINALS**_
**16. Altamira, Tamulipas :  **0.7 Bcfd,  (Shell/Total/Mitsui)
**17. Baja California, MX :  **1.0 Bcfd,  (Sempra & Shell)
**18. Baja California - Offshore :**  1.4 Bcfd,  (Chevron Texaco)
_**PROPOSED TO FERC**_
**19. Long Beach, CA :** 0.7 Bcfd,  (Mitsubishi/ConocoPhillips - Sound Energy Solutions)
**20. Logan Township, NJ :  **1.2 Bcfd (Crown Landing LNG - BP)
**21. Bahamas : ** 0.5 Bcfd,  (Seafarer - El Paso/FPL )
**22. Corpus Christi, TX**:  1.0 Bcfd (Ingleside Energy - Occidental Energy Ventures)
**23.**** Port Arthur, TX:**  1.5 Bcfd (Sempra)
**24. Cove Point, MD :  **0.8 Bcfd  (Dominion)
**25. LI Sound, NY:  **1.0 Bcfd (Broadwater Energy - TransCanada/Shell)
**26.** **Pascagoula, MS:**  1.0 Bcfd (Gulf LNG Energy LLC)
**27. Bradwood, OR:**  1.0 Bcfd (Northern Star LNG - Northern Star Natural Gas LLC)
**28.** **Pascagoula, MS:**  1.3 Bcfd (Casotte Landing - ChevronTexaco)
**29. Cameron, LA:  **3.3 Bcfd (Creole Trail LNG - Cheniere LNG)
**30. Port Lavaca, TX:  **1.0 Bcfd (Calhoun LNG - Gulf Coast LNG Partners)
**31. Freeport, TX: ** 2.5 Bcfd, (Cheniere/Freeport LNG Dev. - Expansion)
_**PROPOSED TO MARAD/COAST GUARD**_
**33. California Offshore**: 1.5 Bcfd (Cabrillo Port - BHP Billiton)
**33. So. California Offshore :** 0.5 Bcfd,  (Crystal Energy)
**34. Louisiana Offshore : ** 1.0 Bcfd (Main Pass McMoRan Exp.)
**35. Gulf of Mexico:**  1.0 Bcfd (Compass Port - ConocoPhillips)
**36. ****Gulf of Mexico:**  2.8 Bcfd (Pearl Crossing - ExxonMobil)
**37. Gulf of Mexico:  **1.5 Bcfd (Beacon Port Clean Energy Terminal** - **ConocoPhillips)
**38. Offshore Boston, MA:**  0.4 Bcfd (Neptune LNG - Tractebel)
**39. Offshore Boston, MA:**  0.8 Bcfd (Northeast Gateway - Excelerate Energy)

**Existing and Proposed **
**North American LNG Terminals**

**As of June 30, 2005**

*FERC*

*Office of Energy Projects*

- A

- 3

- 4

- 21

- 32

- 19

- 34

- 33

- 13

- 23

- B

- 1

- 24

- 35

- 22

- US Jurisdiction
-     FERC
-        US Coast Guard

- *    *US pipeline approved; LNG terminal pending in Bahamas*

- 26

- 10

- 25

- 20

- 29

- 7

- C

- 2

- D

- 11

- 23

- 36

- 37

- 12

- 5,31

- 9

- 6

- 38

- 27

- E

- 14

- 16

- 15

- 17

- 18

- 30

- 39

- 8

## Potential North American

_**POTENTIAL U.S. SITES IDENTIFIED BY PROJECT SPONSORS**_
**40. Coos Bay, OR:  **0.13 Bcfd,  (Energy Projects Development)
**41. Somerset, MA: ** 0.65 Bcfd (Somerset LNG)
**42. California - Offshore:**  0.75 Bcfd,  (Chevron Texaco)
**43. Pleasant Point, ME :**  0.5 Bcf/d (Quoddy Bay, LLC)
**44. St. Helens, OR:**  0.7 Bcfd (Port Westward LNG LLC)
**45. Galveston, TX:**  1.2 Bcfd (Pelican Island - BP)
**46. Philadelphia, PA:**  0.6 Bcfd (Freedom Energy Center - PGW)
**47. Astoria, OR:  **1.0 Bcfd (Skipanon LNG - Calpine)
_**POTENTIAL CANADIAN SITES IDENTIFIED BY PROJECT SPONSORS**_
**48. Quebec City, QC :  **0.5 Bcfd (Project Rabaska - Enbridge/Gaz Met/Gaz de France)
**49. Rivière-du- Loup, QC:**  0.5 Bcfd (Cacouna Energy - TransCanada/PetroCanada)
**50. Kitimat, BC:**  0.61 Bcfd (Galveston LNG)
**51. Prince Rupert, BC:** 0.30 Bcfd (WestPac Terminals)
**52. Goldboro, NS**  1.0 Bcfd (Keltic Petrochemicals)
_**POTENTIAL MEXICAN SITES IDENTIFIED BY PROJECT SPONSORS**_
**53. Lázaro Cárdenas, MX :  **0.5 Bcfd** **(Tractebel/Repsol)
**54. Puerto Libertad, MX:  **1.3 Bcfd** **(Sonora Pacific LNG)
**55. Offshore Gulf, MX:  **1.0 Bcfd** **(Dorado - Tidelands)
**56. Manzanillo, MX:  **0.5 Bcfd
**57. Topolobampo, MX:  **0.5 Bcfd

**Potential North American**
**LNG Terminals**

**As of June 30, 2005**

*FERC*

*Office of Energy Projects*

- 43

- 42

- 40

- US Jurisdiction
-     FERC
-        US Coast Guard

- 41

- 46

- 45

- 44

- 47

- 55

- 48

- 49

- 51

- 50

- 52

- 53

- 54

- 56

- 57

## LNG Review Process

- Notice of Application

- Interventions/ Protests

- Notice of Intent

- Scoping Meeting / Site Visit

- Data Requests, Analysis & Agency Coordination

- Issue DEIS

- Public Meeting / Comments

- Issue FEIS

- Authorization / Denial

**Safety & Engineering**

- Cryogenic Design &
- Safety Review

- Technical Conference

- Waterway Suitability Assessment

- Waterway Suitability Report

- USCG Letter of Recommendation
- (issued independently)

## Pre-Filing Process –Increased Public Involvement

- More interactive NEPA/permitting process, no shortcuts
- Earlier, more direct interaction between FERC, other agencies, landowners
- Time savings realized only if we are working together with stakeholders
- FERC/Agency staff are advocates of the Process, not the Project!
- Goal of “no surprises”

**Notes:**
How do we do that?

As agencies responsible for issuing permits, we're in this together.  More efficient permitting does not mean shortcuts.  It means getting those projects that are worthy moving forward quickly, and getting those that aren’t off of our plates.

We need to be proactive about getting all the stakeholders to come to the table and to lay out their cards as early as possible.  

We all should be mindful of establishing and sticking to a process that works, regardless of the specifics of the project.  Treating all projects equally.

The goal is that when the process is complete and ripe for a decision, that we can confidently say we’re aware of and have addressed al the issues.  No show stoppers.

## Timelines:  Traditional vs. Pre-Filing Process

- Announce
- Open
- Season

- Announce
- Open
- Season

- Develop
- Study
- Corridor

- Develop
- Study
- Corridor

- Approve PF Request, Conduct Scoping

- Conduct
- Scoping

- 0  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28

-  Review Draft
- Resource Reports
- & Prepare DEIS

- Issue
- Draft
- EIS

- Issue
- Draft
- EIS

- File
- At
- FERC

- Issue
- Order

- Issue
- Order

- File
- At
- FERC

- Prepare Resource
- Reports

- Prepare Resource
- Reports

- Issue
- Final
- EIS

- Issue
- Final
- EIS

**Traditional - Applicant**

**Traditional - FERC**

**NEPA Pre-Filing - Applicant**

**NEPA Pre-Filing - FERC**

- Application
- Complete

- (months)

**Notes:**
The point we’re illustrating is that here both projects start planning at the same time and are following essentially the same path.  They are starting their open seasons at the same time, developing their corridors at the same time. 

It is the Commission’s timeline that shifts.  Note that there is no shortcut in the NEPA process.  

The time savings in the Commission’s decision-making process is reflective of the efforts by all the stakeholders, the applicant, and FERC staff in identifying and resolving issues at the earliest possible point.  We believe this will be a benefit

If the process is successful, the range of issues left for the Commission to address is a small and already well known, with no surprises.  Result --quicker decisions!

## Opportunities for Public Involvement

**The FERC Process:**
- Issue Notice of the Application
- Project Sponsor Sends Landowner Notification Package
- Issue Notice of Intent to Prepare the NEPA  Document (i.e., scoping)
- Hold Scoping Meetings

**Public Input:**
- File an Intervention; register for e-subscription
- Contact the project sponsor w/questions, concerns; contact FERC
- Send letters expressing concerns about  environmental impact
- Attend scoping meetings

## Opportunities for Public Involvement

**The FERC Process:**
- Issue Notice of Availability of the DEIS
- Hold Public Meetings on DEIS
- Issue a Commission Order

**Public Input:**
- File comments on the adequacy of DEIS
- Attend public meetings to give comments on DEIS
- Interveners can file a request for Rehearing of a Commission Order

## Interagency Agreements

**Agreement for Environmental Review of Natural Gas Facilities**
- Signed May 2002
- Signed by 10 Federal agencies with jurisdiction or expertise
- Establishes FERC as lead agency for environmental review
- Ensures early participation and cooperation
- Work with schedule set by FERC

**Notes:**
There are several relevant agreements signed by a number of Federal agencies that address some of the issues we just discussed.

First is the Interagency Agreement signed by nine Federal agencies and the FERC regarding the environmental review of interstate natural gas facilities.  

## Interagency Agreements

**Agreement for LNG Safety and Security**
- Signed January 2004 by FERC, USCG, DOT
- Defines roles and responsibilities
- Establishes FERC as lead for environmental review
- Stresses coordination, seamless review
- Coordination continues from initial review through construction and operation
- Includes terminal facilities and ships

## Onshore Facility Safety

*FERC*

*Office of Energy Projects*

**Onshore Facility Safety**

- Compliance with        49 CFR Part 193 and NFPA 59A
- Cryogenic Design and Technical Review – Report 13
- Exclusion Zones – Thermal Radiation and Flammable Vapor
- Seismic design review

## Thermal Exclusion Zones

*FERC*

*Office of Energy Projects*

**Notes:**
1600 – design spill
	Property line that can be built upon.

1600 – tank impoundment
	Outdoor assembly area occupied by 50 or more people.

3000 – tank impoundment
	Off-site structures used for occupancies or residences.

10000 – tank impoundment
	Property line that can be built upon.

1,600 Btu/ft2-hr flux level - an exposed person experiencing burns within about 30 seconds.

3,000 Btu/ft2-hr, an exposed person would experience burns within 10 seconds; however, a wooden structure would not be expected to burn and affords protection to sheltered persons.  

10,000 Btu/ft2-hr, clothing and wood can ignite spontaneously.

## Flammable Vapor Exclusion Zone 

*FERC*

*Office of Energy Projects*

**Notes:**
1⁄2 lower flammability range (2.5%) cannot cross the property line.

## Cryogenic Design Review

*FERC*

*Office of Energy Projects*

**Cryogenic Design Review**

- Process Flow and Material Balance
- Piping and Instrumentation Diagrams
- LNG Storage Tank Design
- Hazard Detection and Emergency Shutdown Systems
- Hazard Control – Fire Water, Dry Chemical,
- High Expansion Foam
- Technical Conference

**Notes:**
Onshore Facility Review
- Cryogenic design and technical review
- Safety systems – detection and control
- Exclusion zone calculations
- Security and emergency plans
Marine Safety Review
- Coordination w/ US Coast Guard
- LNG vessel operations and controls
Cargo spill hazard analysis 
Pressure Relief and Vent Systems
Locally Vented vs. Manifolded
Relief Valve Inspection and Test Frequency
Piping Materials
Questionable Relieving Capacity or Location
Inappropriate Relief Valve Orientation/ Discharge

## Marine Traffic and Vessel Safety

*FERC*

*Office of Energy Projects*

**Marine Traffic and Vessel Safety**

- Compliance with 33 CFR Part 127
- Letter of Intent to initiate U.S. Coast Guard Letter of Recommendation
- June 2005 NVIC
- Marine Safety Analysis – Thermal Radiation and Flammable Vapor Hazards
- Vessel Traffic Congestion

## ABSG Report – Models for CalculatingSite-Specific Hazards 

*FERC*

*Office of Energy Projects*

- Spill rates from cargo tank holes
- Spread of unconfined pool on water
- Vapor generation from spills on water
- Thermal radiation from fires
- Flammable vapor dispersion

**ABSG Report – ****Models for Calculating****Site-Specific Hazards **

## Sandia Report –Cargo Tank Breach Analysis 

*FERC*

*Office of Energy Projects*

**Accidental breach scenario conclusions:**
- Groundings and low speed collisions - no cargo spill
- High speed collisions - 0.5 to 1.5 m2 cargo tank hole
**Intentional breach scenario conclusions:**
- Cargo tanks holes range from 2 to 12 m2
- Nominal tank hole size of 5 – 7 m2

**Sandia Report –****Cargo Tank Breach Analysis **

## Sandia Report –General Hazard Analysis 

*FERC*

*Office of Energy Projects*

**Zone 1** - significant impacts to public safety / property within 500 meters (1,640 feet) due to thermal hazards from a fire.
**Zone 2** – transition to less severe thermal hazard levels to public safety / property - 500 to 1,600 meters.
**Zone 3** - lower public health and safety impacts beyond 1,600 meters (5,250 feet).
- Large, unignited LNG vapor cloud unlikely, but could extend to 2,500 meters (8,200 feet).

**Sandia Report –****General Hazard Analysis **

## Application of ABSG and Sandia Reports to LNG Project Review

*FERC*

*Office of Energy Projects*

- Cargo hole sizes/scenarios - Sandia Report
- Site-specific hazard calculations - ABSG Report
- Risk-based management options - Sandia Report

**Application of ABSG and Sandia Reports to LNG Project Review**

## Site-Specific HazardCalculations

*FERC*

*Office of Energy Projects*

| LNG Release and Spread |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Hole Area | 0.8 meters2 | 5 meters2 | 7 meters2 | 12 meters2 |
| Hole Diameter | 1.0 meter | 2.5 meters | 3.0 meters | 3.9 meters |
| Spill Time | 94 minutes | 15 minutes | 10.6 minutes | 6.1 minutes |
| Pool Fire Calculations |  |  |  |  |
| Maximum Pool Radius | 340 feet | 817 feet | 935 feet | 1,103 feet |
| Fire Duration | 94 minutes | 15 minutes | 10.8 minutes | 6.5 minutes |
| Distance to: |  |  |  |  |
| 1,600 BTU/ft2-hr | 2,200 feet | 4,340 feet | 4,810 feet  | 5,476 feet |
| 3,000 BTU/ft2-hr | 1,710 feet | 3,330 feet | 3,701 feet | 4,206 feet |
| 10,000 BTU/ft2-hr | 1,040 feet | 1,970 feet | 2,174 feet | 2,459 feet |

**Site-Specific Hazard****Calculations**

## NVIC (June 14, 2005)

*FERC*

*Office of Energy Projects*

**NVIC (June 14, 2005)**

- Waterway Suitability Assessment (WSA)
- Validation of WSA through Port Committees
- 	(i.e. – Area Maritime Security Committee)
- Waterway Suitability Report for DEIS
- Security Resource Requirements for DEIS
- Letter of Recommendation follows FEIS

## Oversight of Construction

- Review of final design and changes by FERC.
- Clearances for design/construction changes by Director of OEP.
- Site inspections by FERC during major construction activity.
- Authorization to commence service from Director of OEP.

**Oversight of Construction**

## Monitoring Operations

- Semi-annual reports of plant activities, maintenance, and problems
- Immediate notification of serious accidents
**Operating Inspections:**
- Inspect condition of all major plant equipment
- Review plant operations; maintenance
- Review changes in design; operations; safety systems
- Inspect security measures
- Update Cryogenic Design and Inspection Manual

**Monitoring Operations**

## Opportunities For Fire Officials

- Public Notices/Meetings
- Cryogenic Design Reviews
- NVIC
- Emergency Response Plans
- LNG Pilot Program
- Pre-Filing Consultations
- _______________________

## Existing and Proposed 

_**CONSTRUCTED**_
**A. Everett, MA :  **1.035 Bcfd  (Tractebel - DOMAC)
**B. Cove Point, MD :  **1.0 Bcfd  (Dominion - Cove Point LNG)
**C. Elba Island, GA :  **0.68 Bcfd  (El Paso - Southern LNG)
**D. Lake Charles, LA :  **1.0 Bcfd  (Southern Union - Trunkline LNG)
**E. Gulf of Mexico:** 0.5 Bcfd,  (Gulf Gateway Energy Bridge - Excelerate Energy)
_**APPROVED BY FERC**_
**1. Lake Charles, LA:**  1.1 Bcfd (Southern Union - Trunkline LNG)** **
**2. Hackberry, LA : **1.5 Bcfd,  (Sempra Energy)
**3. Bahamas : ** 0.84 Bcfd,  (AES Ocean Express)*
**4. Bahamas : ** 0.83 Bcfd,   (Calypso Tractebel)*
**5. Freeport, TX : ** 1.5 Bcfd,   (Cheniere/Freeport LNG Dev.)
**6. Sabine, LA :  **2.6 Bcfd (Cheniere LNG)
**7. Elba Island, GA:  **0.54 Bcfd (El Paso - Southern LNG)
**8. Corpus Christi, TX: **2.6 Bcfd, (Cheniere LNG)
**9. ****Corpus Christi, TX :  **1.0 Bcfd (Vista Del Sol - ExxonMobil)
**10. Fall River, MA :** 0.8 Bcfd,  (Weaver's Cove Energy/Hess LNG)
**11. Sabine, TX :  **1.0 Bcfd (Golden Pass - ExxonMobil)
_**APPROVED BY MARAD/COAST GUARD**_
**12. Port Pelican:** 1.6 Bcfd,  (Chevron Texaco)
**13. ****Louisiana Offshore : ** 1.0 Bcfd (Gulf Landing - Shell)
_**CANADIAN APPROVED TERMINALS**_
**14. St. John, NB :  **1.0 Bcfd,  (Canaport - Irving Oil)
**15. Point Tupper, NS  **1.0 Bcf/d  (Bear Head LNG - Anadarko)
_**MEXICAN APPROVED TERMINALS**_
**16. Altamira, Tamulipas :  **0.7 Bcfd,  (Shell/Total/Mitsui)
**17. Baja California, MX :  **1.0 Bcfd,  (Sempra & Shell)
**18. Baja California - Offshore :**  1.4 Bcfd,  (Chevron Texaco)
_**PROPOSED TO FERC**_
**19. Long Beach, CA :** 0.7 Bcfd,  (Mitsubishi/ConocoPhillips - Sound Energy Solutions)
**20. Logan Township, NJ :  **1.2 Bcfd (Crown Landing LNG - BP)
**21. Bahamas : ** 0.5 Bcfd,  (Seafarer - El Paso/FPL )
**22. Corpus Christi, TX**:  1.0 Bcfd (Ingleside Energy - Occidental Energy Ventures)
**23.**** Port Arthur, TX:**  1.5 Bcfd (Sempra)
**24. Cove Point, MD :  **0.8 Bcfd  (Dominion)
**25. LI Sound, NY:  **1.0 Bcfd (Broadwater Energy - TransCanada/Shell)
**26.** **Pascagoula, MS:**  1.0 Bcfd (Gulf LNG Energy LLC)
**27. Bradwood, OR:**  1.0 Bcfd (Northern Star LNG - Northern Star Natural Gas LLC)
**28.** **Pascagoula, MS:**  1.3 Bcfd (Casotte Landing - ChevronTexaco)
**29. Cameron, LA:  **3.3 Bcfd (Creole Trail LNG - Cheniere LNG)
**30. Port Lavaca, TX:  **1.0 Bcfd (Calhoun LNG - Gulf Coast LNG Partners)
**31. Freeport, TX: ** 2.5 Bcfd, (Cheniere/Freeport LNG Dev. - Expansion)
_**PROPOSED TO MARAD/COAST GUARD**_
**32. California Offshore**: 1.5 Bcfd (Cabrillo Port - BHP Billiton)
**33. So. California Offshore :** 0.5 Bcfd,  (Crystal Energy)
**34. Louisiana Offshore : ** 1.0 Bcfd (Main Pass McMoRan Exp.)
**35. Gulf of Mexico:**  1.0 Bcfd (Compass Port - ConocoPhillips)
**36. ****Gulf of Mexico:**  2.8 Bcfd (Pearl Crossing - ExxonMobil)
**37. Gulf of Mexico:  **1.5 Bcfd (Beacon Port Clean Energy Terminal** - **ConocoPhillips)
**38. Offshore Boston, MA:**  0.4 Bcfd (Neptune LNG - Tractebel)
**39. Offshore Boston, MA:**  0.8 Bcfd (Northeast Gateway - Excelerate Energy)

**Existing and Proposed **
**North American LNG Terminals**

**As of July 1, 2005**

*FERC*

*Office of Energy Projects*

- A

- 3

- 4

- 21

- 32

- 19

- 34

- 33

- 13

- 23

- B

- 1

- 24

- 35

- US Jurisdiction
-     FERC
-        US Coast Guard

- *    *US pipeline approved; LNG terminal pending in Bahamas*

- 26

- 10

- 25

- 20

- 29

- 7

- C

- 2

- D

- 11

- 23

- 36

- 37

- 12

- 5,31

- 9

- 6

- 38

- 27

- E

- 14

- 16

- 15

- 17

- 18

- 39

- 8

- 22

- 30

## Potential North American

_**POTENTIAL U.S. SITES IDENTIFIED BY PROJECT SPONSORS**_
**40. Coos Bay, OR:  **0.13 Bcfd,  (Energy Projects Development)
**41. Somerset, MA: ** 0.65 Bcfd (Somerset LNG)
**42. California - Offshore:**  0.75 Bcfd,  (Chevron Texaco)
**43. Pleasant Point, ME :**  0.5 Bcf/d (Quoddy Bay, LLC)
**44. St. Helens, OR:**  0.7 Bcfd (Port Westward LNG LLC)
**45. Galveston, TX:**  1.2 Bcfd (Pelican Island - BP)
**46. Philadelphia, PA:**  0.6 Bcfd (Freedom Energy Center - PGW)
**47. Astoria, OR:  **1.0 Bcfd (Skipanon LNG - Calpine)
_**POTENTIAL CANADIAN SITES IDENTIFIED BY PROJECT SPONSORS**_
**48. Quebec City, QC :  **0.5 Bcfd (Project Rabaska - Enbridge/Gaz Met/Gaz de France)
**49. Rivière-du- Loup, QC:**  0.5 Bcfd (Cacouna Energy - TransCanada/PetroCanada)
**50. Kitimat, BC:**  0.61 Bcfd (Galveston LNG)
**51. Prince Rupert, BC:** 0.30 Bcfd (WestPac Terminals)
**52. Goldboro, NS**  1.0 Bcfd (Keltic Petrochemicals)
_**POTENTIAL MEXICAN SITES IDENTIFIED BY PROJECT SPONSORS**_
**53. Lázaro Cárdenas, MX :  **0.5 Bcfd** **(Tractebel/Repsol)
**54. Puerto Libertad, MX:  **1.3 Bcfd** **(Sonora Pacific LNG)
**55. Offshore Gulf, MX:  **1.0 Bcfd** **(Dorado - Tidelands)
**56. Manzanillo, MX:  **0.5 Bcfd
**57. Topolobampo, MX:  **0.5 Bcfd

**Potential North American**
**LNG Terminals**

*FERC*

*Office of Energy Projects*

- 43

- 42

- 40

- US Jurisdiction
-     FERC
-        US Coast Guard

- 41

- 46

- 45

- 44

- 47

- 55

- 48

- 49

- 51

- 50

- 52

- 53

- 54

- 56

- 57

**As of July 1, 2005**

## Applications Approved:			 	    Status of
							    Construction

Trunkline, Lake Charles Expansion (CP02-60)  #1	    Underway,
							    Service 4th Q ’05

Sempra, Cameron LNG (CP02-374)  #2		    Underway, 						   	    Amendment Authorized

AES, Ocean Express Pipeline (CP02-90)  #3    	    Amendment Authorized

Tractebel, Calypso Pipeline (CP01-409)  #4	    	    Pending

Freeport LNG (CP03-75)  #5			    Construction Clearance 						    Authorized

- * Status as of July 1, 2005

*FERC*

*Office of Energy Projects*

_**Applications Approved**_**:****	****	****	**** ****	****    **_**Status of**_
**	****	****	****	****	****	****	****    **_**Construction**_
- Trunkline, Lake Charles Expansion (CP02-60)  #1	    Underway,
- 							    Service 4th Q ’05
- Sempra, Cameron LNG (CP02-374)  #2		    Underway, 						   	    Amendment Authorized
- AES, Ocean Express Pipeline (CP02-90)  #3    	    Amendment Authorized
- Tractebel, Calypso Pipeline (CP01-409)  #4	    	    Pending
- Freeport LNG (CP03-75)  #5			    Construction Clearance 						    Authorized

## LNG Onshore Project Status -Approved Projects*

**	****	****	****	****	****	****	****    **_**Construction**_
- Cheniere LNG - Sabine, LA (CP04-47) #6		    Authorized
- Southern LNG – Elba Island (CP02-380) #7	    	    Underway
- Cheniere, Corpus Christi (CP04-37)  #8		    Pending
- Vista Del Sol, Corpus Christi (CP04-395)  #9	    Pending
- Weaver’s Cove Energy, Fall River (CP04-36)  #10	    Pending
- Exxon Mobil, Golden Pass (CP04-386)  #11		    Pending

- LNG Onshore Project Status -Approved Projects*

*FERC*

*Office of Energy Projects*

- * Status as of July 1, 2005

## Rejected LNG Onshore Projects

*FERC*

*Office of Energy Projects*

- As of July 1, 2005

_**Applications Rejected**_**:****	****	****	****         ****	**
- Keyspan, Providence (CP04-223)

## Onshore LNG Project Status*

_**Pre-Filing**_**: **
- Broadwater, LI Sound (PF05-04)  #25
- Gulf Energy, Pascagoula (PF05-05)  #26
- Casotte Landing, Pascagoula (PF05-09) #28
- Creole Trail, Cameron (PF05-08) #29
- Northern Star, Bradwood (PF05-10) #27

*FERC*

*Office of Energy Projects*

- * Status as of July 1, 2005

## Applications Filed:				
Working on DEIS
Sound Energy Solutions, Long Beach (PF03-6, 
	CP04-58)  #19 
Sempra, Port Arthur (PF04-11, CP05-83)  #23
Calhoun LNG, Port Lavaca (CP05-91) #30
Dominion, Cove Point (PF04-15, CP05-130)  #24
Freeport Expansion (CP05-361) #31

**Working on DEIS**
- Sound Energy Solutions, Long Beach (PF03-6,
- 	CP04-58)  #19
- Sempra, Port Arthur (PF04-11, CP05-83)  #23
- Calhoun LNG, Port Lavaca (CP05-91) #30
- Dominion, Cove Point (PF04-15, CP05-130)  #24
- Freeport Expansion (CP05-361) #31

- Onshore LNG Project Status*

*FERC*

*Office of Energy Projects*

- * Status as of July 1, 2005

## Onshore LNG Project Status*

**Working on FEIS**
- BP, Crown Landing (PF04-2, CP04-411)  #20
- Ingleside/Occidental, Corpus Christi (CP05-11)  #22

*FERC*

*Office of Energy Projects*

- * Status as of July 1, 2005

## Filed at FERC : 					
El Paso, Seafarer (PF04-08, CP05-25)  #21
Excelerate Energy, Northeast Gateway (CP05-383) #39
Applications Filed:
Working on DEIS with USCG
Freeport-McMoran, Main Pass (CP04-68)  #34
Working ON FEIS with USCG
Conoco Phillips, Compass Port (CP04-114)  #35
Exxon Mobil, Pearl Crossing (CP04-374)  #36

- El Paso, Seafarer (PF04-08, CP05-25)  #21
- Excelerate Energy, Northeast Gateway (CP05-383) #39
_**Applications Filed**_**:**
**Working on DEIS with USCG**
- Freeport-McMoran, Main Pass (CP04-68)  #34
**Working ON FEIS with USCG**
- Conoco Phillips, Compass Port (CP04-114)  #35
- Exxon Mobil, Pearl Crossing (CP04-374)  #36

- LNG Project Status -Associated Pipelines*

*FERC*

*Office of Energy Projects*

- * Status as of July 1, 2005

**Notes:**
The Seafarer pipeline would bring gas into Florida from an LNG terminal in the Bahamas

The other three pipelines would be connected to LNG terminals located in deepwater in the Gulf of Mexico.  The terminal applications are filed with the US Coast Guard under the Deepwater Port Act.  The applicants also filed at the FERC for authorization for the onshore portions of the pipelines.  We are cooperating with the USCG in the preparation of the necessary NEPA documents that will address both the offshore and onshore facilities. 

## North East LNG Terminals

**Pleasant Point, ME (43)**

**Everett, MA (A)**

**Offshore Boston - Neptune (38)**

**Fall River, MA (10)**

**Somerset, MA (41)**

- 	**Legend:**
- 	Existing Terminal
- 	Approved Terminal
- 	Proposed Terminal: Pre-Filing
- 	Proposed Terminal: Filed
- 		Working on DEIS
- 		Working on FEIS
- 	Potential Terminal

**North East LNG Terminals**

**July 1, 2005**

**Offshore Boston - Excelerate (39)**

**Providence, RI Rejected**

## Mid-Atlantic LNG Terminals

- 	**Legend:**
- 	Existing Terminal
- 	Approved Terminal
- 	Proposed Terminal: Pre-Filing
- 	Proposed Terminal: Filed
- 		Working on DEIS
- 		Working on FEIS
- 	Potential Terminal

**Cove Point, MD (B/24)**

**Logan Township, NJ (20)**

**Mid-Atlantic LNG Terminals**

**Long Island Sound, NY (25)**

**Philadelphia, PA (46)**

**July 1, 2005**

## South East LNG Terminals

**South East LNG Terminals**

**Elba Island, GA (C/7)**

**Bahamas (3/4/21)**

- 	**Legend:**
- 	Existing Terminal
- 	Approved Terminal
- 	Proposed Terminal: Pre-Filing
- 	Proposed Terminal: Filed
- 		Working on DEIS
- 		Working on FEIS
- 	Potential Terminal

**(Pipelines only)**

**July 1, 2005**

## Gulf Coast LNG Terminals

**Corpus Christi, TX (8)**

**Lake Charles, LA (D/1)**

**Port Pelican (12)**

**Pearl Crossing (36)**

**Freeport, TX (5/31)**

**Golden Pass (11)**

**Port Lavaca, TX (30)**

**Port Arthur (23)**

**Sabine Pass, LA (6)**

**Gulf Coast LNG Terminals**

**Freeport **
**McMoran (34)      **

**Hackberry (2)**

**Gulf Landing **
**(13)**

**Compass **
**Port**** ****(35)**

- 	**Legend:**
- 	Existing Terminal
- 	Approved Terminal
- 	Proposed Terminal: Pre-Filing
- 	Proposed Terminal: Filed
- 		Working on DEIS
- 		Working on FEIS
- 	Potential Terminal

**Galveston, TX (45)**

**Pascagoula, MS (26/28)**

**Cameron (29)**

**Beacon**
**Port **
**(37)**

**Gulf Gateway (E)**

**Vista Del Sol (9)                              **

**Ingleside LNG (22)**

**July 1, 2005**

## Southwest LNG Terminals

**Long Beach, CA (19)**

**California Offshore (32/33/42)**

**Southwest LNG Terminals**

**Chevron Texaco (42)**

**BHP Billiton (32)**

**Crystal Energy (33)**

- 	**Legend:**
- 	Existing Terminal
- 	Approved Terminal
- 	Proposed Terminal: Pre-Filing
- 	Proposed Terminal: Filed
- 		Working on DEIS
- 		Working on FEIS
- 	Potential Terminal

**July 1, 2005**

## North West LNG Terminals

**North West LNG Terminals**

**Coos Bay, OR (40)**

**Bradwood, OR (27)**

- 	**Legend:**
- 	Existing Terminal
- 	Approved Terminal
- 	Proposed Terminal: Pre-Filing
- 	Proposed Terminal: Filed
- 		Working on DEIS
- 		Working on FEIS
- 	Potential Terminal

**Astoria, OR (47)**

**St. Helens, OR (44)**

**July 1, 2005**