Facility would have 'significant adverse impacts' on the Gulf, says Fisheries Service

A key federal agency has come out against a proposed liquefied natural gas import terminal 62 miles south of Dauphin Island, arguing that the facility could cause "significant adverse impacts" in the Gulf and result in an "inappropriate" use of public resources to benefit a private corporation.

Houston-based TORP Terminal LP has proposed using 46 billion gallons of seawater from the Gulf of Mexico each year to warm the super-chilled liquid into a gaseous product that can be injected into the nation's natural gas pipeline network.

Living things in the water -- primarily the eggs and larvae of creatures that swim in the Gulf, including swordfish, red snapper, grouper, jacks, crabs and shrimp -- would be killed, with a toll that could be measured in the billions per year, according to federal documents.

There is another method for treating the imported LNG that doesn't use seawater, but it would require several million dollars per year in additional costs.

In formal comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the TORP facility, the National Marine Fisheries Service wrote that the seawater method causes a portion of TORP's "operational costs to be borne by the public" because, in essence, the company has not offered sufficient compensation for damage caused to public fisheries.

Vocal opposition

The fisheries service is the federal agency charged with protecting the nation's fisheries and analyzing the impact of LNG terminals on those fisheries. It has become more vocal in its opposition to LNG terminals as the number of terminals proposed for the Gulf has grown.

"The comments are not really a surprise to us. They've been critical of all of the (seawater) systems," said Joseph Berno, chief executive officer for TORP.

Berno said that from his perspective, TORP was trying to create a solar-powered LNG plant, utilizing the Gulf water as a method of capturing the sun's energy to heat the LNG.

While TORP officials dispute that the terminal would have a measurable impact on the Gulf ecosystem, scientists at the state and federal level oppose the project.

Those scientists have argued that no one knows how severe the terminal's impact on Gulf fish populations might be. The scientists were especially worried about the cumulative impact of the dozen LNG terminals proposed for the Gulf.

"Although the science is not definitive in terms of what the impact will be, can we afford to make a mistake and realize 10 or 15 years later what we've done?" asked Vern Minton, director of the Alabama Department of Marine Resources. "You kill a million red snapper larvae, there's no mess, you don't see the loss. But over time, once you get to the point where you can see a loss in the fishery, you may have lost so much that the resource can't recover."

Derailed plan

An LNG terminal proposed near Alabama's coast by ConocoPhillips was derailed after federal scientists determined that its potential impact wouldn't be apparent until Alabama's redfish harvest fell by more than 36 percent a year. Gov. Bob Riley announced he would veto the project, and ConocoPhillips withdrew its permit application.

TORP Terminal LP proposed building an offshore terminal in May 2005.

Federal fisheries officials wrote in their comment letter that the available data "support the possibility that impacts could be substantial."

Crux of controversy

The controversy centers on TORP's method of preparing 1 billion cubic feet of gas a day for possible consumer use. The method advocated by TORP would run the warm waters of the Gulf through a radiator-like network of pipes, warming super-chilled natural gas moving through an adjacent pipeline network.

An alternative technology uses natural gas to warm the LNG, and does not require seawater.

None of the LNG terminals slated for the Atlantic and Pacific coasts will use the seawater method, due primarily to resistance from the coastal states.