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

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

FERC

2

Who is FERC?

• Independent Regulatory Commission

• Five members– Appointed by the President– Confirmed by the Senate

FERC

3

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

• Vital to the US Economy• ¼ 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……..

FERC

4

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

natural gasnatural gas

Source: Derived from Platts POWERmap

FERC

5

Safety?– How Important?

• Essential• Prevention is Possible• Compliance

– Design Standards & Review– No Dig Rules– Testing and Repair Rules

• Inspection

28

CONSTRUCTEDA. 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 FERC1. 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 GUARD12. Port Pelican: 1.6 Bcfd, (Chevron Texaco)13. Louisiana Offshore : 1.0 Bcfd (Gulf Landing - Shell)CANADIAN APPROVED TERMINALS14. St. John, NB : 1.0 Bcfd, (Canaport - Irving Oil)15. Point Tupper, NS 1.0 Bcf/d (Bear Head LNG - Anadarko)MEXICAN APPROVED TERMINALS16. 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 FERC19. 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 GUARD33. 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


A

3 421

3219

34

33

13

23

B

1

24

3522

US Jurisdiction

FERC US Coast Guard* US pipeline approved; LNG terminal pending in Bahamas

26

102520

29

7C

2D1123

36

3712

5,31

9

6

3827

E

14

16

15

1718

30

39

8

POTENTIAL U.S. SITES IDENTIFIED BY PROJECT SPONSORS40. 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 SPONSORS48. 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 SPONSORS53. 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 AmericanLNG Terminals

As of June 30, 2005

FERC


43

42

40

US Jurisdiction

FERC US Coast Guard

41

46

45

4447

55

4849

5150

52

53

54

56

57

FERC

8

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)

FERC

9

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”

FERC

10

Timelines: Traditional vs.

Pre-Filing ProcessAnnounce

OpenSeason

AnnounceOpen

Season

Develop

StudyCorrido

r

DevelopStudy

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 DraftResource Reports& Prepare DEIS

IssueDraftEIS

IssueDraftEIS

FileAt

FERC

IssueOrder

IssueOrder

FileAt

FERC

Prepare ResourceReports

Prepare ResourceReports

IssueFinalEIS

IssueFinalEIS

Traditional - Applicant

Traditional - FERC

NEPA Pre-Filing - Applicant

NEPA Pre-Filing - FERC

ApplicationComplete

(months)

FERC

11

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

FERC

12

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

FERC

13

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

FERC

14

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

FERC

15

FERC


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

FERC

16

Thermal Exclusion

Zones

FERC


FERC

17

Flammable Vapor

Exclusion Zone

FERC


FERC

18

FERC


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

FERC

19

FERC


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

FERC

20

FERC


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 CalculatingSite-Specific Hazards

FERC

21

FERC


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

FERC

22

FERC


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

FERC

23

FERC


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

FERC

24

FERC


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



Site-Specific HazardCalculations

FERC

25

FERC


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

FERC

26

Company files monthly progress reports during 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

FERC

27

Reporting Requirements: 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

FERC

28

Opportunities For Fire Officials

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

FERC

29

28

CONSTRUCTEDA. 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 FERC1. 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 GUARD12. Port Pelican: 1.6 Bcfd, (Chevron Texaco)13. Louisiana Offshore : 1.0 Bcfd (Gulf Landing - Shell)CANADIAN APPROVED TERMINALS14. St. John, NB : 1.0 Bcfd, (Canaport - Irving Oil)15. Point Tupper, NS 1.0 Bcf/d (Bear Head LNG - Anadarko)MEXICAN APPROVED TERMINALS16. 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 FERC19. 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 GUARD32. 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


A

3 421

3219

34

33

13

23

B

1

24

35

US Jurisdiction

FERC US Coast Guard* US pipeline approved; LNG terminal pending in Bahamas

26

102520

29

7C

2D1123

36

3712

5,31

9

6

3827

E

14

16

15

1718

39

822

30

FERC

30

POTENTIAL U.S. SITES IDENTIFIED BY PROJECT SPONSORS40. 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 SPONSORS48. 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 SPONSORS53. 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 AmericanLNG Terminals

FERC


43

42

40

US Jurisdiction

FERC US Coast Guard

41

46

45

4447

55

4849

5150

52

53

54

56

57

As of July 1, 2005

FERC

31

LNG Onshore Project Status -

Approved Projects*

* Status as of July 1, 2005

FERC


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

FERC

32

Applications Approved: Status of 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



FERC

33

FERC


As of July 1, 2005

Rejected LNG Onshore Projects

Applications Rejected:

• Keyspan, Providence (CP04-223)

FERC

34

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



FERC

35

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


FERC



FERC

36

Applications Filed:

• Working on FEIS

– BP, Crown Landing (PF04-2, CP04-411) #20

– Ingleside/Occidental, Corpus Christi (CP05-11)

#22


FERC



FERC

37

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

LNG Project Status -Associated Pipelines*

FERC




38

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


39

Legend:

Existing Terminal

Approved Terminal



Working on DEIS

Working on FEIS

Potential TerminalCove Point, MD (B/24)

Logan Township, NJ (20)

Mid-Atlantic LNG Terminals

Long Island Sound, NY (25)

Philadelphia, PA (46)

July 1, 2005


40

South East LNG Terminals

Elba Island, GA (C/7)

Bahamas (3/4/21)

Legend:

Existing Terminal

Approved Terminal



Working on DEIS

Working on FEIS

Potential Terminal

(Pipelines only)

July 1, 2005


41

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



Working on DEIS

Working on FEIS

Potential Terminal

Galveston, TX (45)

Pascagoula, MS (26/28)

Cameron (29)

BeaconPort (37)

Gulf Gateway (E)Vista Del Sol (9) Ingleside LNG (22)

July 1, 2005


42

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



Working on DEIS

Working on FEIS

Potential Terminal

July 1, 2005

FERC

43 Office of Energy Projects

43

North West LNG Terminals

Coos Bay, OR (40)

Bradwood, OR (27)Legend:

Existing Terminal

Approved Terminal



Working on DEIS

Working on FEIS

Potential Terminal

Astoria, OR (47)

St. Helens, OR (44)

July 1, 2005

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

Documents

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