• Natural Gas News

    FERC Approves Eagle LNG; Glick Dissents

Summary

Small-scale facility will export LNG to Caribbean power markets and provide land and marine bunkering services

by: Dale Lunan

Posted in:

Natural Gas & LNG News, Americas, Liquified Natural Gas (LNG), Premium, Editorial, Gas to Power, Corporate, Investments, Political, Environment, Regulation, News By Country, United States

FERC Approves Eagle LNG; Glick Dissents

Houston-based Eagle LNG Partners said September 23 it had received authorisation from the US Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Ferc) to site and construct its $500mn Jacksonville LNG export facility in Florida.

Ferc issued the order authorising the project on September 19, and in keeping with other past Ferc orders approving natural gas facilities, commissioner Richard Glick dissented on the grounds that the commission had shirked its duties under the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

The Jacksonville LNG export facility will have a production capacity of about 1.65mn gallons/day of LNG, 12mn gallons of LNG storage capacity and on-site marine- and truck-loading capabilities. Three liquefaction trains will have a nominal production capacity of just under 1mn mt/yr of LNG. Start-up and commissioning are expected in 2021.

“As one of only a handful of greenfield LNG project proponents to obtain their Ferc order, and the only project devoted to provisioning small-scale LNG projects in the Caribbean basin, Eagle LNG is one large step closer to delivering clean-burning, affordable, domestically-produced US natural gas,” Eagle LNG president Sean Lalani said. “Numerous independent studies have shown that sourcing LNG for power generation allows Caribbean island nations the ability to substantially reduce power costs and simultaneously reduce CO2 emissions by 30-40% compared to fuel oil and coal.”

In his dissent, Ferc’s Glick again pointed to the commission’s refusal to consider the climate change impacts of the Jacksonville LNG project, even though it does include expected greenhouse gas emissions in its decision.

“The commission is again refusing to consider the consequences its actions have for climate change,” he wrote in his dissent. “Neither the NGA nor NEPA permit the commission to assume away the climate change implications of constructing and operating this liquefied natural gas (LNG) facility. Yet that is the unmistakable result of today’s order.”