Procedural: Wash. Natural Gas Industrialize

A great article that presents events chronology

In Tacoma my and other people have a narrow focus about Community issues that potentially affect us with proposed new Port of Tacoma Natural Gas (methane gas) industries: 1) Natural Gas supply piping distribution system; 2) LNG Facility; and 3) the Methanol Facility. All three under consideration for necessary permits to construct and operate within the Tacoma Community.

I think this: every once-in-awhile we must all step back and look at the larger natural gas industrial development beyond our local Community and view what is going on in the rest of Washington State as our Washington State Government is promoting. See, dePlace, Eric, and Adjorlolo, Maoulay., What Methanol Means for the Northwest, (Sightline Institute), (2015) online at http://www.sightline.org/2015/08/17/what-methanol-means-for-the-northwest/ [accessed 6 February 2016].

This article will give more-insight into the natural gas industrial facility(s) planned for Washington State and Oregon. Great overview article that connects all the “dots” to who is doing just what where (that we know about).

////

Tacoma Methanol Facility: Methane to Burn

To: Tacoma.methanol.sepa@cityoftacoma.org

Saturday, February 6, 2016

EIS Scoping Comments: Tacoma Manufacturing and Marine Export Facility (TMMEF): “Proposed Methanol Plant”: SEPA Lead Agency: City of Tacoma (File No. SEPA2015-40000260025).

My comment applies to methane-to-methanol conversion process and combustion airborne inventory added—Methanol facility: “The applicant has stated 70% of natural gas will be converted to methanol, while the remainder will be combusted to produce energy for the chemical processes. Emissions associated with this combustion process will need to be disclosed.” See, Methanol EIS Draft Scope of Work 02052016.pdf (p. 5:n.8), http://cms.cityoftacoma.org/planning/Methanol%20Plant/Methanol%20EIS%20Draft%20Scope%20of%20Work%2002052016.pdf (last visited Feb 6, 2016).

In this case, we see “According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration ( EIA ) , . . . With about 100 cubic feet of natural gas needed to produce one gallon of methanol, . . .” See accord, Methanol: The Clear Alternative for Transportation – Methanol-Flexible-Fuel-Vehicles.aspx Methanol Institute, http://www.methanol.org/Energy/Resources/Alternative-Fuel/Methanol-Flexible-Fuel-Vehicles.aspx (last visited Feb 6, 2016).

Therefore, “One metric ton of methanol (2,204.62 lbs) = Approximately 333 U.S. gallons.” See, SCC – Southern Chemical Corporation » Methanol FAQ’s Southern Chemical Corporation, http://www.southernchemical.com/wp/safety-environment/frequently-asked-questions (last visited Feb 6, 2016).

As a result, My factoring, I find: (7.3-million metric tons / 333gallons) * 100-cubic feet natural gas = 2.2-million cubic feet of natural gas required with 70% conversion process; as a result, 0.9-million cubic feet of natural gas is burned or combusted and added to the airborne combustion byproducts inventory. (See, Tacoma “Draft”, Supra, P 2:n. 4).

My comment is this: With 1-million cubic feet natural gas (methane) combusted (burned) and added to Tacoma Community airborne chemical inventory; as a result, how does that compare with the average Tacoma homeowner using natural gas for heating and cooking with their airborne chemical inventory contribution? We have yet to be informed: will the Methanol facility consume “sweet- or sour-natural gas (methane)” because the amount of chemicals entrained within the natural gas stream is more with “sour-natural gas (methane)” and must be cleaned and the residue from cleaning sour-natural gas (methane)’ must go somewhere?

This “Draft” (Feb. 5, 2016) presents “[T]he EIS will not be designed to disclose every molecule of impact or capture every emission. That is an inefficient use of resources. . . .” (Supra, “Draft” p. 4). I disagree because if you are a person that is harmed by a fugitive Methanol Facility chemical molecule then a harm is a actual harm. See also, Soot Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Soot&oldid=702882659 (last visited Feb 6, 2016). Therefore I would suggest you don’t list the human health harm details but list every chemical molecule that will be fugitive from the Tacoma Methanol Facility processes. Just list all chemicals that will become introduced into the Tacoma Community airborne inventory caused by Methanol Facility!

 

Tacoma: Methanol Facility: Actual Injury

Actual injury, the question is: who pays who and how much?

That has caused me to make a comment

My Methanol Facility comment submitted to Tacoma EIS is this:

To: Tacoma.methanol.sepa@cityoftacoma.org

Friday, February 5, 2016

EIS Scoping Comments: Tacoma Manufacturing and Marine Export Facility (TMMEF): “Proposed Methanol Plant”: SEPA Lead Agency: City of Tacoma (File No. SEPA2015-40000260025).

My comment applies to environment after actual harm caused by—Methanol facility: “Exploration of financial liability beyond the amounts typically held by the plant operators” See, METHANOL EIS DRAFT SCOPING REPORT 02052016.PDF 14, http://cms.cityoftacoma.org/planning/Methanol%20Plant/Methanol%20EIS%20Draft%20Scoping%20Report%2002052016.pdf (last visited Feb 6, 2016). Missing is the liability to each person within the Tacoma Community related to making them whole again as a result of harm caused by this Tacoma Methanol Facility?

I find absent from Tacoma Community impact analysis is: Owners and operators of the Tacoma natural gas (methane)-to-methanol facility fail to explain their actual limits-of-financial liability to Community, people, and persons harmed or injured caused by operation of methanol facility?

My comment: Included within the Draft EIS(s) and all Final FEIS should be a statement describing actual Methanol Facility liability limitation(s) or coverage benefit(s); as a result, for any actual harm or injury caused to Tacoma Community—people, real property, property, lives, and health. Also a statement that, liability coverage is guaranteed to Community persons for all current and all future years as Methanol Facility continues processing natural gas (methane).

John E Sherman
4601 N 26th St
Tacoma WA 98407-4605 USA
Email: jmjsherman@gmail.com
http://johnesherman.com
////

It’s funny, just how: thinking one thought; as a result, causes one to think of another thought: Just like this liability of actual injury and who is compensated how much to make the damaged person or property whole again. Didn’t see that explained in the Draft Tacoma EIS related to the Methanol Facility just yet. It’s important when there exists potential hazards operating within the Tacoma Community.

////

Tacoma: Methanol Facility: Draft EIS Available Now

Tacoma Methanol Facility Environmental Impact Review Draft is available

These “Draft” EIS documents are great reading for Tacoma Community knowledge about the proposed Methane-to-methanol facility under Tacoma review process

My advise, please read, and if necessary submit your own comments into this Methanol Facility EIS review process.

////

Tacoma: LNG: Loopholes: Questions?

My blog post (this post) is just a refer to another article. See,

Tarika Powell, ‘Tacoma Steering into Uncertain Waters | Sightline Institute’ (Jan. 13, 2016), online at < http://www.sightline.org/2016/01/13/tacoma-steering-into-uncertain-waters/ > [accessed 4 February 2016]
See also, Doriss, Oliver, ‘Even If I Didn’t Live Here I Wouldn’t Want This’, (feb. 1,2016), online at http://www.oliverdoriss.com/2016/02/01/even-if-i-didnt-live-here-i-wouldnt-want-this/ [accessed 4 February 2016]

Just a thought, methane when does U.S. run out?

Methane (natural gas) extraction within U.S. must have a limit able to be mined. Extracted and gone forever. So, where are we at with our proven methane U.S. reserves? See generally, ‘List of Countries by Natural Gas Proven Reserves’, (Wikipedia) (2016) online at <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_countries_by_natural_gas_proven_reserves&oldid=701367891> [accessed 4 February 2016]

What’s going to happen when our U.S. methane reserve is low and gone?

  1. Our U.S. gas utility prices increase;
  2. no more gas for U.S. customers unless import; and
  3. gas prices will be negotiated on a world gas commodity markplace.

Therefore, we don’t need to be exporting our methane (natural gas) anywhere outside the U.S. now and tomorrow.

////

Tacoma: Flares: LNG: Methanol: Birds: Not good

Birds fly into and out of Port of Tacoma Area

But, now comes the proposed LNG and Methanol facility(s) to be constructed and operated with flame flare systems for gasses and vapors; it follows, this is just not a good mix with birds flying around or near facility flare burning environmental hazards,

I had to submit my comment to Tacoma EIS Methanol facility

 

My Comments: “Proposed Methanol Plant”: SEPA File No. SEPA2015-40000260025: Environment: Killing of Birds, (file:ms20160130a.pdf), (Jan. 30, 2016), (Submitted to Tacoma SEPA EIA 1/30/2016), online at http://bit.ly/20dCgKg (visited Jan. 30, 2016)

So, the birds of Tacoma Community need environmental consideration also, even if they are just flying-through and stopping only for a short visit nearby in Port of Tacoma areas, but it should not become their death.

I was not aware of a book until today at the Pt Defiance Boathouse shop: on the shelf, was ‘Seattle Audubon Nature Shop – Birding Destinations – Birds of Vashon 2nd Ed.’ [accessed 30 January 2016]; as a result, I am wondering if the birds might fly (the bird flight-path) between Vashon and Port of Tacoma bird natural habitat? This bird path might cross the Methanol and LNG lands plot areas? Just something else to consider when doing a for-real with fact environmental study: community and all hazards considered.

////

What I don’t know about natural gas?

Natural Gas is proposed to feed industry in Tacoma Washington

Therefore, It’s time I start learning, it’s an education thing for older people, about natural gas (methane gas) and its good- and not-so-good-benefits.

My research, I discovered there exists sweet- and sour-natural gas

So, which type of natural gas is intended to supply the Tacoma Washington LNG and Methanol processing plants? I don’t know.

See, John Sherman, Sour Gas Like Sour Grapes Isn’t Great (Jan. 28, 2016) (pdf document) (available online http://bit.ly/1JJElGt ).

Note: This linked document is under revision as I discover new stuff about natural gas supply and use and hazards; as a result, I will revised document content.

////

Published: Jan. 28, 2016 :: 1540 PST (Rev. Jan. 29, 2016 :: 0640 PST)

 

 

Focus again: Tacoma PSE Proposed Tideflats LNG Facility

We must remember the LNG projects is still proceeding

Let’s remind ourselves that the Tacoma PSE proposed Tideflats (Port of Tacoma) LNG Facility is still proceeding; for example, see:

Let’s really see just what went into the “final” SEPA EIS document for Tacoma Community (people) and environmental understanding about the Tacoma LNG Facility? We must look at the final analysis presented within the Tacoma EIS document.

While, our attention has been directed towards the current SEPA EIS for methane-to-methanol plant; thus, I don’t remember that my Tacoma Community people have been informed yet about the LNG plant operating in Tacoma and its current status? Especially relevant, Haven’t seen any LNG article published in local Tacoma newspaper or Tacoma City Government making the Community public announcement: this LNG plant is completely environmentally safe for the Tacoma Community as a new LNG industry plant? Maybe, I just missed the good news about this LNG plant?

////

Revised Jan. 27, 2016::1220 PST

Tacoma Methanol SEPA EIS: My Review

I must understand the process first

The Washington State Environmental Policy Act (“SEPA”) and the Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) are just a little difficult to grasp for Tacoma Community People’s resulting benefits received back from these review process(s)–SEPA and EIS?

We will never know what difference any public comments made to influence the Tacoma Methanol Plant SEPA EIS process; unless we–the public–are allowed to read all of them.

I’m still not sure I understand the benefit of these public comments submitted. Seems-to-me the SEPA EIS decision makers have the final say as just what is necessary for our Tacoma Community SEPA EIS study finding. See, John Sherman, How It Works: Tacoma Methanol Plant Environmental Impact Stuff (Jan. 26, 2016) (revised, footnote ed., added content), (WordPress pdf file t20160126a) online at https://johnesherman.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/t20160126a2.pdf (visited Jan. 26, 2016).

////

Published Jan. 26, 2016 : Revised ed. :: 0705 PST