Page 8 - NorthAmOil Week 02

NorthAmOil
PIPELINES & TRANSPORT
NorthAmOil
Trump administration’s LNG-by- rail plans run into opposition
US
A proposal by the government of US Presi- dent Donald Trump to allow transportation of LNG by rail is encountering opposition at the state level. Attorneys general from 16 US states including Maryland, New York and California opposed the federal government’s LNG-by-rail plan.
In comments filed with the US Department of Transportation’s (DoT) Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) on January 13 – the deadline for public comments on the LNG-by-rail proposal – the officials argued that potential leaks from the shipments posed an explosion risk. The attorneys general urged the PHMSA to withdraw the proposal pending the completion of safety studies and the development of an environmental impact state- ment (EIS).
Trump’s government is looking at LNG-by- rail in an effort to circumvent some of the hur- dles encountered by developers of new natural gas pipelines, particularly in certain regions of the US such as the Northeast. Supporters of ship- ping LNG by rail argue that it can be a more ver- satile way of transporting the super-chilled fuel to multiple destinations. Indeed, LNG has been shipped by rail in Japan for almost 20 years.
However, this method of transport is less effi- cient than pipelines, and opponents are raising concerns over the risk of potential spills of highly flammable material.
The PHMSA’s proposal involves a specially built rail car, known as DOT-113, designed to handle super-cooled liquids. But the attor- neys general opposed to the plan have claimed that the PHMSA and another agency have not
completed safety testing on these rail cars and their safety when it comes to transporting LNG. A PHMSA spokesman was cited by Reuters as saying safety was the agency’s top priority and that it would evaluate all of the public comments and concerns raised in the rulemaking process. However, it seems unlikely that the attorney gen-
erals’ comments would derail the plans.
US regulators can already approve individ- ual plans to ship LNG by rail, granting special licences on a case-by-case basis. Indeed, in December the PHMSA issued the first such per- mit, to Energy Transport Solutions, a logistics subsidiary of New Fortress Energy, for trans- porting LNG from Pennsylvania’s Marcellus shale to a yet-to-be-built terminal in New Jersey. From there, the LNG would be loaded onto ves- sels bound for destinations including gas-fired
power plants in the Caribbean region.
The federal proposal, however, would allow a nationwide roll-out of LNG-by-rail. It follows an Executive Order signed by Trump in April 2019 calling for new regulations that would allow the transportation of LNG by rail for the first time, bringing it in line with other flammable super- cooled liquids such as ethylene. The PHMSA has said the rule change would boost the availability and competitiveness of US natural gas supplies
on the global market.
The attorneys general opposed to LNG-
by-rail have also criticised the special permit granted to Energy Transport, saying it did not meet minimum controls set out by the National Transportation Safety Board, an independent federal agency, including restrictions on routing through populated areas.™
US regulators can already approve individual plans to ship LNG by rail, granting special licences on a case-by-case basis.
The PHMSA’s proposal involves a specially built rail car, known as DOT-113, designed to handle super- cooled liquids.
P8
w w w. N E W S B A S E . c o m Week 02
15•January•2020