Mountaineer NGLs Storage, LLC Ethane Storage Monroe County Ohio: Project to Proceed; 3 Times Capacity in Non Binding Commitments

Blue star in first photo indicates ethane storage site.   This would be perhaps within 15 miles of proposed cracker.  Second photo is artist's depiction of what the ethane storage site would look like.   It is superimposed over a google map. That is Ohio St Rt 7 running between the property and the location is perhaps under two miles from Clarington, Ohio

Here is link to Mountaineer's website  http://www.eboxsupport.com/mngls/?page_id=8

Views: 2568

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

0ym9x5ag7ury2Permalink Reply by 0ym9x5ag7ury2 on May 23, 2016 at 3:28am

colt,

     The Hope Christian Fellowship vs Chesapeake Energy is a ONE TIME Law Suit. There's a clause that prevents the company from continuing their activities, otherwise they have to report back to the Court.

The Judge determines the payment for the lawyers.

Find another lawsuit that promises a One Time trip to court. The other lawsuits require Landowners to repeat the lawsuit at some frequency to recover a portion of their losses.

colt, thanks for allowing me to highlight this point about Our Law Suit.

Permalink Reply by searcherone on May 25, 2016 at 12:27pm

Mountaineer NGL Storage to proceed with Ohio facility

By Bob Downing Published: May 25, 2016


From a Tuesday press release:

DENVER, May 24, 2016 /PRNewswire/ -- Mountaineer NGL Storage, LLC, announced the conclusion of a successful non-binding open season for its natural gas storage project near Clarington, Ohio. The open season resulted in requests for more than three times the amount of initial planned capacity.

David Hooker, managing director of Mountaineer NGL Storage, said that scaled development begins in late May. "We'll begin the permitting process for LPG storage, initiating a 3-D seismic shoot over the property, drilling a test well, and coring the salt to confirm its suitability for LPG storage," he said. The Mountaineer NGL Storage Project should break ground in early 2017 with a planned in-service date of early 2018.



The Mountaineer NGL Storage Project plans to offer up to 2 million barrels of initial storage capacity with more than 40,000 bbls per day of load-in and load-out. The project will store ethane, propane, butane and y-grade products for a growing number of gas processors, producers, markets and commodity traders that are interested in exploiting the wet gas production from the Marcellus/Utica shales.

"We're pleased to see that the support of this project in the heart of the Marcellus/Utica wet gas shale play is as strong as it is," said Mr. Hooker. "The Mountaineer NGL Storage Project is strategically placed to provide service to the expanding network of pipelines, rail, truck, and barge infrastructure that is currently being built to transport Marcellus and Utica natural gas liquids throughout the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic. We're very excited to get started and look forward to offering the most flexible and reliable storage services to a host of future customers."

For more information about the Mountaineer NGL Storage Project, contact Tim Hanley at tehanley@mngls.com or David Hooker at dhooker@mngls.com.

About Mountaineer NGL Storage, LLC

Mountaineer NGL Storage, LLC, is a Denver, Colorado-based privately held energy company that develops, owns and operates the Mountaineer NGL Storage Project.  Mountaineer is owned by its management team and has a project development agreement with private equity sponsor West Street Energy Partners, LP, an investment fund managed by Goldman, Sachs & Co. Learn more at www.mngls.com.


Permalink Reply by James Cutler on May 26, 2016 at 9:32pm

OHIO POSITIONING TO BE MAJOR NGL/PETROCHEMICAL HUB

There have been recent press releases indicating that Mountaineer NGL Storage, LLC is developing an underground NGL salt cavern storage facility in Monroe County, Ohio. The proposed facility will be near Clarington, Ohio, along the Ohio River. The project will be designed to store ethane, propane, butane and y-grade products. According to press releases, Mountaineer has just concluded a successful open season and will be moving forward with geological testing and permitting. Permits will probably be required for both the underground storage caverns and above ground supporting brine ponds. Mountaineer is reportedly being financed by West Street Energy Partners (Goldman, Sachs and Co.).

 

Mountaineer's proposed underground storage facility would essentially resemble underground cavern storage facilities located in Mont Belvieu, TX, Conway, Kansas and Ontario, Canada. The Monroe County underground cavern storage facility will have the ability to move product out by rail and truck. At some time in the future, it could have the ability to move product out via barge.

 

According to an article in the Monroe County Beacon, Mountaineer has met with the Monroe County Board of Commissioners. The article indicates that “economic incentives” were discussed at a closed executive session.

 

Storing gas liquids in underground salt caverns is common. Salt storage caverns are created from underground salt deposits by solution mining. Solution mining is accomplished by first drilling a hole into an underground salt formation. Fresh water is then injected. The fresh water dissolves the salt. All the dissolved salt is removed as "brine." This leaves a leeched out storage cavern. The brine (very salty water) is stored in settling ponds. When a stored NGL has to be extracted, some stored brine is re-injected into the well. This forces out the desired stored material.

 

Surprisingly, with all of the known salt deposits in the Marcellus fairway, and for the need for inexpensive NGL storage, major new salt cavern storage development activities haven't materialized. As I understand the reasoning, a combination of development costs and environmental hurdles has prevented this type of development from evolving.

 

While the Mountaineer press releases indicates that their proposed underground salt cavern storage facility will be designed to handle all NGL’s, it could technically also handle ethylene. The proposed Monroe County underground cavern storage facility is within pipeline distance of the proposed 2.2 billion pound per year ethylene plant (PTT Global) in Belmont County, Ohio. This proposed facility, besides ethylene, would produce polyethylene, ethylene oxide and ethylene oxide. At this time, there is no indication that the PTT Global facility will be directly connected via pipeline to the Mountaineer storage facility.

 

According to a press release, “the Mountaineer NGL Storage Project would break ground in early 2017, with a planned in-service date of early 2018”. Development work could be moving forward within the same time frame as the proposed PTT Global petrochemical project. That project reportedly will have its detailed engineering completed sometime in 2016.

 

 

 

 

0ym9x5ag7ury2Permalink Reply by 0ym9x5ag7ury2 on May 27, 2016 at 2:35am

"Storing gas liquids in underground salt caverns is common."

Yes, but not in highly populated areas or on a river that supplies water to cities all the way to the Gulf Of Mexico.

"Permits will probably be required for both the underground storage caverns and above ground supporting brine ponds."

Permits and a Safety Evaluation showing the Citizens living in the Ohio valley will be safe aren't optional, this isn't Texas. 

Take a look at where the current Salt Dome storage areas are located.  

Permalink Reply by James Cutler on May 27, 2016 at 3:20am

Good comments and observations. I'm not defending the Mountaineer Project. Permitting is required in Texas as well as any location that has underground cavern storage. As I indicated, the reason that cavern storage has not moved forward earlier in Ohio and West VA is because of environmental concerns. I would expect a rigorous permitting period. Underground storage technology is solid. What is critical is the location. Besides density of population, the geology is important. Also, there is always a concern relating to the safety of the above ground brine holding ponds. Possible leakage of salt can be a concern. Another area of concern by the developers could be the volume of rail cars moving out the stored NGL's.

Again, you have good observations that should be  directed to the County Board of Commissioners and then to the State and the Feds. 

0ym9x5ag7ury2Permalink Reply by 0ym9x5ag7ury2 on May 29, 2016 at 3:49am

James'

Again, you have good observations that should be  directed to the County Board of Commissioners and then to the State and the Feds. 

How about some help on this from the locals where the Salt Domes are being prepared.

I have Chesapeake Energy to deal with since our state officials have the evidence on line in the Hope Christian Fellowship vs Chesapeake and still haven't taken action by filing Criminal Charges.

I can always file the violation of the Ohio Revised Code for storing stolen NGLs after the NGLs are taken by Magnum. That will be too late for those living in the valley.

Goldman Sachs and the Oil and Gas Industry, both out of control of the People and our Government,  doing what they want regardless of who they injure.

Could it be?:   If it's a money maker, who cares what might happen if an Ethane Salt Dome collapses. We can throw some money their way and their lawyers will call it a settlement.

Permalink Reply by searcherone on June 2, 2016 at 4:45pm
salt map

U.S. Salt Deposits: Location of bedded salt deposits and salt dome basins in the United States. The large continuous deposit along the Gulf Coast that contains the three salt dome basins is underlain by the Louann Salt. Map by Geology.com with locational data from Argonne National Laboratory [2].

Adding this map of US salt deposits.   I have been reading that there are two kinds of salt deposits. . .domed and bedded.    Appears that the salt deposit located in the Utica/Marcellus area is a bedded salt deposit and look how it is present in most of the Utica/Marcellus region.

Permalink Reply by James Cutler on June 3, 2016 at 9:50am

You are correct.

Salt deposits can take the form of salt domes or salt beds. Salt domes are created from thick blocks of underground salt. Salt beds are thinner formations. Because salt beds are wide, thin formations they can be more susceptible to deterioration over time. They also can be more expensive to develop than salt domes. The salt deposits in Monroe County (and Ohio and West Virginia in general) are of the salt bed variety. While both salt domes and salt bed structures can potentially be used for storing hydrocarbons, rigorous geological testing is required to insure that a specific location can actually be safely used for commercial storage.

Permalink Reply by searcherone on June 3, 2016 at 12:05pm

James, in one of the article I read about Mountaineer it said they would do seismic testing, is this the type of rigorous testing you are referring to?

Permalink Reply by James Cutler on June 3, 2016 at 8:16pm

I’m not a geologist, or an expert in underground salt cavern development. There are a number of engineering companies that specialize in developing underground storage sites. However, over the years I have observed that seismic testing is only a first step in defining a potential underground cavern storage site. Because Monroe County will most likely have salt beds, which are relatively flat and long salt deposits, core sampling and related testing probably will also be required. This determines what the material between salt layers looks like. Data obtained from this type of physical testing is used to conduct computer simulations of a proposed site.

Before the proposed storage project is ready to move forward, Mountaineer will also look at how its brine can be safely handled and the availability of water. Water is needed for leeching and replacement due to evaporation from brine holding ponds. The bottom line, while seismic testing is an important first step, other testing and analyses will be required.

Permalink Reply by searcherone on July 2, 2016 at 3:29pm

This site that is under consideration as an NGL storage site may not be the only one.   A good grape on the vine told me that several months ago  a PA company was looking for sites in the Northern Panhandle of WV.

Also yesterday I took the opportunity to measure the road mileage between the proposed ethane storage area and the proposed cracker site at Dilles Bottom. . .just thirteen miles.   And as one drives across the bridge to Moundsville one sees the power plant being torn down, scrap loaded onto barges and towed away.   Progress here seems to be much like that at Shell site before the official announcement was made.

RSS

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service