Canada Needs Gas - Port Of Ashtabula - Wondering

Just wondering out loud if the City of Ashtabula / the City of Ashtabula Port Authority has been chasing any LNG Sales Leads (to Canada specifically).

Talk about a depressed economic situation - it looks to me like Ashtabula needs business in a big way.

I hear Canada needs processed Natural Gas.

They send it to us raw (via pipeline) and then someday after infrastructure is completed) we're supposed to be sending it back to them processed via pipeline.

Would we be buying it from them and then selling it back to them processed ?

I like the idea of working with Canada as they are certainly neighbors and allies of ours (as opposed to selling it to potentially hostile states). 

Wondering how feasible it would be to put a LNG Plant at the Port of Ashtabula which would process Ashtabula County and surrounding Northeast Ohio Counties raw natural gas from wells, liquify it and and ferry it to Canada ?

Sounds like a good idea to me - wondering how practical it would be ?

If it were practical it should certainly spur drilling / development don't you think ?

Anyone in Ashtabula chasing that bone ?

Just thinking out loud a little.

Views: 1402

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on December 8, 2012 at 1:36am

Thank you Craig.

Permalink Reply by Craig Stull on December 9, 2012 at 4:26am

Joseph, There is a article about this pipeline on OHIO.COM (SATURDAY). When you get to this sight do a search on UTICA SHALE and it will come up with alot of other articles also. 

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on December 9, 2012 at 4:49am

Found it Craig Stull,

Here's a link for everyone:

http://www.ohio.com/news/local/proposed-pipeline-would-carry-ohio-n...

 

Thanks.

Permalink Reply by Jim Litwinowicz on December 7, 2012 at 11:43am

I admire your desire to Ashtabula grow but I don't think a LNG port is the answer. There are several ports in the permitting stage, including one for Dominion Gas in Virginia and a couple on the Gulf. These facilities are usually built a mile or so of shore because LNG tankers are very dangerous. If a LNG tanker would ever explode it could be comparable to a small nuke.  Because of this they would not be allowed to traverse the St Lawrence Seaway. A LNG tanker anywhere along the seaway would be a prime target for terrorists. And they are not usually allowed into ports.  I think Boston allows them in but shuts down all other traffic while the tanker is under way, with heavy security.


Ashtabula's shipping facilities would be good for moving frac sand, chemicals, pipeline, steel for pipelines, and other supplies but I don't see a LNG port there. I could be wrong, maybe other people ave a different understanding f the issue than I  Looking forward to hearing other people's thoughts on this.

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on December 7, 2012 at 2:20pm

Me too Jim.

But a LNG facility a mile or so out in the Lake then sounds as if might work with your concerns.

Terrorists - don't know what to say about that - they've become a fact of life I guess (unfortunately) - I guess we just have to find them and take them out of the equation.

St. Lawrence locks could be provided with heavy security like in Boston.

Small nuke blast equivalent is pretty scary - however - we're dealing with a lethal service no matter how you cut it - remembering some well publicized house explosions in the recent past. All I can say is handle with exceptional care - not to be taken lightly - Louisiana is going to be dealing with it - it's a dangerous world out there these days - good luck to us all we need it.

Permalink Reply by Jack Straw on December 9, 2012 at 5:07am

No need to send LNG to Canada.

Converting Natural Gas to LNG is very expensive and requires extensive infrastructure.

Re-gassification to get LNG back to requires infrastructure.

 

LNG makes sense where pipelines do not make sense (like shipping from Texas to Korea).

 

With our long land border with Canada, it is easy (and much cheaper) to use traditional pipelines to transport. In fact. it is cheaper to ship Natural Gas from the Marcellus and Utica to Ontario and Quebec than it is to ship Natural Gas from Alberta and B.C. to Eastern Canada.

Natural Gas is currently moving from the Marcellus and Utica to Eastern Canada -  and will increasingly head North - but it will primarily do so as a gas (and via pipelines). There is no financial justification for liquification and tankering of LNG from OH, WV, PA to Eastern Canada.

 

All IMHO,

                 JS 

 

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on December 9, 2012 at 6:02am

How about up the St. Lawrence (LNG) to Eastern Canada and then from Eastern Canada or direct on to European Markets (talking about raw Utica coming initially originating from Ohio / Pennsylvania / West Virginia / New York) ? Mentioning New York as a supplier after all the enviromentalist hub-bub quenches.

Just trying to figure a way to sell to the European Allies' Market instead of having them buy it from the Middle East.

Also, it's difficult for me to visualize how it could make more economic sense to send Northeastern U.S. raw shale gas to Mid-Canadian processing plants or shuttle pipe it to Virginia / Louisiana processing plants from roughly the middle of Canada.

But then again who would have thought (before the Bush and Walmart era) that so many goods would be manufactured in Asia then shipped and sold to U.S. consumers ?

I guess economic sense is defined by the eyes of the beholder.

Permalink Reply by Jack Straw on December 9, 2012 at 7:48am

RE: "How about up the St. Lawrence (LNG) to Eastern Canada and then from Eastern Canada or direct on to European Markets (talking about raw Utica coming initially originating from Ohio / Pennsylvania / West Virginia / New York) ?"

Huge oceangoing LNG tankers are viewed by many as giant floating bombs. I would expect great opposition from those along both sides of the St. Lawrence Seaway.

Also, for safety reasons, an LNG terminal (either import re-gasification or export liquefaction ) is best situated far from other commercial facilities; certainly far from any residential areas.

But, the biggest problem is that most modern LNG ships are too large to navigate the locks on the St. Lawrence Seaway, let alone the other Great Lakes locks between Ohio and the St. Lawrence. Panamax ships cannot make it to Ohio. LNG carriers are large ships, a Q-Max LNG Ship has a length of approximately 1100 feet and a draft of approximately 40 feet. The maximum size of a vessel that can fit through the locks of the St. Lawrence seaway is 740 feet long, and a draft of 26.5 feet.

Dominion are planning to construct an export terminal adjacent to their existing Cove Point LNG facility (located on the shores of Chesapeake Bay): http://www.lngworldnews.com/usa-sumitomo-tokyo-gas-in-cove-point-ln...

A future means of shipping liquefied Marcellus and Utica gas to Europe is to pipeline the gas to Cove Point for liquefaction and export from their facility (located on a bay off the Atlantic Ocean).

Re: “Also, it's difficult for me to visualize how it could make more economic sense to send Northeastern U.S. raw shale gas to Mid-Canadian processing plants”

Less than ¼ of the population of Canada live in western Canada (Alberta, British Columbia and N.W. Territories). Western Canada are the resource Provinces (Oil, Gas, Lumber, Mining).

Less than 6% of the population of Canada live in central Canada (Saskatchewan and Manitoba). Central Canada is the Breadbasket. There are no Mid-Canadian processing plants, Saskatchewan and Manitoba are low population density wheat fields.

More than 2/3rds of the population of Canada live in eastern Canada (Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia). 62% of all Canadians live in the Provinces of Ontario and Quebec. Of those who live in Ontario and Quebec, the majority live within 100 miles of the U.S. border (in fact 90% of all Canadians live within 100 miles of the U.S. border). That portion of eastern Canada along the U.S. border is the industrial (and population) heart of Canada.

Ohio shares a (Lake Erie) border with the Province of Ontario; Pennsylvania shares a (Lake Erie) border with the Province of Ontario; the State of New York shares a border with the Provinces of Ontario and Quebec.

The Niagara pipeline used to bring Canadian Natural Gas into the U.S.; this pipeline was recently “reversed” and is now sending Marcellus and Utica Shale Gas into eastern Canada.

It is significantly cheaper to send (cheaper) Marcellus and Utica Shale Gas the short distance to the population/industry centers of Eastern Canada than to pay the higher pipeline tariffs charged to send the (more expensive) natural gas thousands of miles east from western Canada.

Currently eastern Canada imports most of its Natural Gas (via pipeline) from western Canada; increasingly, they will become more dependant upon imports from the U.S..

Western Canada increasingly are using their Natural Gas in western Canada (much is going to power the exploitation of the Athabasca Tar Sands).

 

It's easy for me to visualize how it could make economic sense to send Northeastern U.S. raw shale gas to eastern Canada; they need it, they want it, it is cheaper, and they have the money to pay for it.

 

All IMHO,

                  JS

 

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on December 9, 2012 at 8:40am

JS:

You're privy to much more info. than I.

Do you know where the raw Northeastern U.S. Utica natural gas is headed for in Canada ?  I don't. Are we sure it's not going to be shunted to the Oil Sands Pipe which I think is going to be carrying raw natural gas 1st to Louisiana and then perhaps Virginia when that plant comes on line.

If eastern Canada is the destination of Northeastern U.S. raw shale gas then I also can understand the econmomics and benefits - Canada being as loyal of an ally that we can hope to find.

Not knowing where the Northeastern U.S. shale gas was destined to be used caused me to think that it might have been going back down the same pipe carrying raw Canadian Oil Sands natural gas which I'm thinking is earmarked to be headed to Louisiana (and perhaps in the future to Virginia) with the Louisiana plant processing and converting the raw natural gas to LNG and then sold primarily to Asian Markets.

That not being the case makes it a little easier to swallow - although I will never be able to wholeheartedly buy into selling our natural resources to the Asian Markets as I sense someday it could be used against us.  

Permalink Reply by Jack Straw on December 9, 2012 at 9:21am

RE: "Do you know where the raw Northeastern U.S. Utica natural gas is headed for in Canada ?"

With the recent pipeline reversal, the Niagara Pipeline now moves Natural Gas from West Virginia into southern Ontario, crossing into Canada near Niagara Falls to the Kirkwall Interconnect; from there it can connect to the Dawn Hub in southwest Ontario or to Parkway in southern Ontario. It will supply gas Ontario and Quebec.

 

RE: "Are we sure it's not going to be shunted to the Oil Sands Pipe which I think is going to be carrying raw natural gas 1st to Louisiana and then perhaps Virginia when that plant comes on line."

There is no Canadian Oil Sands natural gas pipeline to Louisiana. The Canadian Oil Sands consume Natural Gas, they do not produce Natural Gas.

There is no way any sane person would ship Natural Gas 3000 miles from Ohio to Northern Alberta, only to turn around and ship the Natural Gas 3000 miles south to Louisiana to then ship the natural Gas 1500 miles north to Virginia. If someone wanted to ship Natural Gas from Ohio to Virginia there are many shorter and simpler ways of doing it!

 

JS

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on December 9, 2012 at 9:30am

"There is no way any sane person would ship Natural Gas 3000 miles from Ohio to Northern Alberta, only to turn around and ship the Natural Gas 3000 miles south to Louisiana to then ship the natural Gas 1500 miles north to Virginia. If someone wanted to ship Natural Gas from Ohio to Virginia there are many shorter and simpler ways of doing it!"

Since the thread is pertaining to natural gas and being a sane person (but, not in the know about which natural resource is contained in every pipe running across our geography) lies the reasoning behind my questions.  And obviously I thought the Oil Sands Pipe was carrying natural gas - and of course (thanks to this forum) I've learned otherwise.

There's also my desire for my geography to appreciate as much growth and return from the 'shale gas and oil boom' as possible.

Would hate to see our geography left behind for the sake of not asking enough questions / showing an appropriate amount of interest.

Thanks again JS.

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on December 9, 2012 at 1:33pm

BTW:

I didn't (necessarily) suggest sending natural gas to Louisiana and from there sending it to Virginia - although I didn't rule it out either - because I didn't know in the 1st place.  I also found no sense sending natural gas north to Canada and then sending it back south to Louisiana and Virginia either.

However, if natural gas were being sent south from Canada and it were being sent both to Louisiana and Virginia - I would have thought there would have been a split in flow somewhere on the north south main with a branch to the east to Virginia. 

But since there is no natural gas coming south from Canada anyway, the point is moot / academic.

RSS

© 2024   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service