View
2
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Michael J. McGeheeDirector, Division of Pipeline Certificates
Office of Energy ProjectsFederal Energy Regulatory Commission
Williamsport, PA May 11, 2010
Federal Process for SitingNatural Gas Infrastructure
May 11, 2010 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 1
FERC Organizational Structure
May 11, 2010 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 2
How the Commission is Appointed
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) is composed of up to five Commissioners who are appointed by the President of the United States with the advice and consent of the Senate. Commissioners serve five-year terms, and have an equal vote on regulatory matters.
To avoid any undue political influence or pressure, no more than three Commissioners may belong to the same political party. There is no review of FERC decisions by the President or Congress, maintaining FERC's independence as a regulatory agency, and providing for fair and unbiased decisions. The Commission is funded through costs recovered by the fees and annual charges from the industries it regulates.
One member of the Commission is designated by the President to serve as Chair and FERC's administrative head.
May 11, 2010 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 3
Office of Energy Projects
May 11, 2010 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 4
Office of EnergyProjects - Functions
OEP has the engineering and environmental expertise to:
certificate new gas pipeline projects,
Authorize LNG import / export projects
authorize and monitor hydroelectric projects, provide “backstop authority” to site electric transmission facilities, and
analyze energy infrastructure needs and policies. OEP focuses on:
project siting and development,
balancing environmental and other concerns,
ensuring compliance,
safeguarding the public, and
providing infrastructure capacity information. Other FERC Offices
OGC has corresponding hydro and pipeline legal responsibilities
Other offices also have input to our products
May 11, 2010 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 5
Gas Pipeline Program
Evaluate applications for facilities to import, export, transport, store or exchange natural gas
Authorize the construction and operation of facilities for such services
Approve abandonment of such facilities
Conduct environmental reviews of proposals involving construction, modification, or abandonment
Implement the “Pre-Filing Process”
Conduct inspections of LNG facilities and pipeline construction
May 11, 2010 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 6
Natural Gas Act
The Natural Gas Act is the law that sets out FERC’s areas of responsibilities:
Section 1 – Identifies projects exempt from FERC jurisdiction
Section 3 – Allows FERC to authorize import / export projects
Section 7 – Allows FERC to authorize interstate pipeline projects (including storage) and grant eminent domain
May 11, 2010 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 7
Projects Exempt fromFERC Jurisdiction
Local Distribution Company facilities (e.g., Baltimore Gas and Electric, Washington Gas Light, etc.)
Intrastate pipelines (where gas is produced, transported and consumed within a single state)
Hinshaw pipelines (gas is produced in one state, but is transported and consumed within another)
Gathering facilities
May 11, 2010 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 8
Natural Gas Act
Case Specific Section 7(c) Certificate
Conduct a full review of proposal including engineering, rate, accounting, and market analysis
Conduct an environmental review by preparing an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement
May 11, 2010 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 9
How Does FERC Evaluate All Of These Major Projects?
What Are The Criteria Used inThis Evaluation?
Project Evaluation
May 11, 2010 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 10
Balancing Interests
People Like... But They Also Want...
Due Process Expedited Process
Smaller Government Effective Government
Less Regulation Assurance of Fair Markets
Market-dictated OutcomesProtection from Market
Dysfunctions, Unexpected Risk,and Unjust Rates
Protection for the Environment andProperty Interests
Ample Supplies ofLow-cost Energy
May 11, 2010 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 11
Dual Paths of Review
Application Filed
Non-Environmental Review
Environmental Review
Draft Order Prepared Commission Action
May 11, 2010 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 12
Certificate Process Overview
Application Filed
Order Issued
Non-Environmental Review and Analysis• Engineering – GQI, storage, hydraulic flow• Tariff – rates, terms & conditions of service• Policy – precedents, rules, regulations• Accounting
Environmental Review and Analysis• Biological – fish, wildlife, vegetation• Cultural – historic preservation• Land use – recreation, aesthetics• Soils and geologic• Air and noise – quality, loudness• Socioeconomic impacts• System alternatives
Parallel Processing Paths
May 11, 2010 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 13
Public Interest Review(aka “Need”)
New Certificate Policy Statement issued on September 15, 1999.
Clarification of Certificate Policy Statement issued on February 9, 2000.
Further clarification issued on July 26, 2000.
May 11, 2010 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 14
• Goals─ Foster Competition─ Consider Captive Customers─ Avoid Unnecessary Physical Impacts─ Achieve Optimal Amount of Facilities─ Encourage Complete Record─ Expedite Review Time
Certificate Policy Statement
May 11, 2010 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 15
Certificate Policy Statement
Develop Record
Adverse Impacts on• Existing Customers and Pipelines
• Landowners
• Communities
Specific Benefits (meet new demand, eliminate bottlenecks, access new supplies, lower
cost to consumers, new interconnects to improve grid, provide competitive alternatives, increase electric reliability, clean air objectives, etc)
Need and Market (precedent agreements, demand projections, etc)
Condemnation Impact
May 11, 2010 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 16
FERC Process
FERC’s process is a model of efficiency
Pre-filing
Application Analysis
Post-authorization
This process works for all stakeholders
Project sponsors
Federal, state, and local agencies
NGOs
Landowners
Other concerned entities
May 11, 2010 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 17
PGC Resource Assessments, 1990-2008Total Potential Gas Resources (mean values)
Source: Report of the Potential Gas Committee (December 31, 2008) “Potential Supply of Natural Gas in the United States” June 18, 2009
The growing importance of shale gas is substantiated by the fact that, of the 1,836 Tcf of total potential resources, shale gas accounts for 616 Tcf (33%).
17
May 11, 2010 Federal Energy Regulatory CommissionFebruary 22, 2010 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
18
Shale Gas PlayBasins
Marcellus ShaleShale Gas Play
Basins
Marcellus ShaleShale Gas Play
Basins
Marcellus Shale
Gas Shales Plays in the United States
Source: EIA’s Exploring Pipeline Dynamics to Connect New Markets – Slide Entitled: Gas Shales in the United States
May 11, 2010 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 19
United States Shale Basins Maximum Reported Gas-in-Place (in Tcf)
Source: Energy Velocity and Navigant Consulting’s North American Natural Gas Supply Assessment – July 4, 2008
WoodfordShale (101)
Lewis Shale(61)
Cane CreekShale
NiobraraShale (13)
Baxter/Lewis/MowryShale (265)
Palo DuroShale(42)Monterrey/McClure
Shale
Marcellus Shale
(1,500)
Bakken Shale(15)
BarnettShale(168)
HaynesvilleShale(717)
FayettevilleShale (52)
Antrim Shale(76)New Albany Shale(160)
Floyd/Chattanooga Shale (22)
Barnett and Woodford Shale (265)
CaneyShale
Pearsall Shale
Huron Shale
Devonian Shale (244)
Total Shale Gas3,700 Tcf
Note: While some shale basins have been identified with reserve estimates, others have no reserve data available.
19
May 11, 2010 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 20
The Marcellus Shale spans six states in the northeastern U.S.
Covers an area of 95,000 square miles at an average thickness of 50 ft to 200 ft
Estimated depth of production is between 4,000 ft and 8,500 ft
As of September 2008, there were a total of 518 wells permitted in Pennsylvania and 277 of the approved wells have been drilled
The average well spacing is 40 to 160 acres per well
The technically recoverable resources is estimated to be 262 Tcf
The amount of gas in place is estimated to be up to 1,500 Tcf
Source: Exhibit 19 and text - Marcellus Shale in the Appalachian Basin, DOE’s Modern Shale Gas Development in the United States; A Primer, dated April 2009
Marcellus Shale in the Appalachian Basin
May 11, 2010 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 21
Marcellus Shale Projects
Source: FERC
Clarington
AppalachianBasin
Oakford
Tennessee’sStation 219
Corning
Leidy
Linden
Rivervale
Transco’sComp Sta 195
Princeton
Lambertville
Source: FERC
Northern Bridge, TIME 3, TEMAX (TETCO)NiSource/MarkWest & NiSource
Appalachain Expansion (NiSource)Line 300 Exp (Tennessee) Northeast Supply (Williams)*
West to East Connector (NFG)Keystone (Dominion/Williams)
Appalachia to MarketExpansion (TEAM 2012-13) (TETCO)Projects 2010 -12 (Equitrans)
Approved or Pending Projects Potential Projects
* Combined Transco’s Rockaway Lateral and Northeast Connector Projects
Appalachian Gateway (Dominion)Line N, R & I Project (NFG) NYMarc (Iroquois)Tioga County Extension (Empire)
New Penn (NiSource)
Potential Projects
Marcellus Shale Projects
Marcellus to Manhattan (Millennium)Low Pressure East-West (Equitrans)
Northeast Upgrade (Tennessee)
Northern Access (NFG)
Northeast Supply Link (Transco)
East-West – Overbeck to Leidy (NFG)NJ-NY Project (TETCO & Algonquin)
May 11, 2010 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 22
Summary of Natural Gas Facilities Impacting the Marcellus Shale Basin
Source: FERC
May 11, 2010 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 23
In the United States, there are approximately 217,300 miles of interstate natural gas transmission pipeline.
Source: Based on data from Ventyx Global Energy Decisions, Inc., Velocity Suite, January 2010, and EIA’s Natural Gas Pipelines.
May 11, 2010 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 24
Transco (204,236,323,309)
Southern (336,330, 375)
Kern River(135,886,145)
6
NorthBaja
(500, 81 2,700)
Tuscarora (96)
Northwest (162,113)
Kern River (282)
TETCO(250)
Northwest (224)
NFS/DTI (150)
1
23
4
Northwest(191)
East Tenn. (225)
Tennessee (320)
El Paso (230,320,620,150)
WBI(80)
25
Ocean Express(842)
22 CheyennePlains (560,170)
24
8
Calypso (832)
Discovery (200)
Transwestern (150,375,500)
5
Trunkline(1,500)
Trunkline (200)
Questar (272,102,175)
6
GTN(207)
Florida Gas (239,270,100, 820)
East Tenn. (170)
7
9
Millenium (525)
10
11
Southern Trails (120)
Gulfstream(1,130, 345, 155)
12Trailblazer(324)
2123
El Paso (502)
Center Point (113,132)
Vista del Sol (1,100)
Golden Pass (2,500)
13
26 27
San Patricio (1,000)Dominion South (200)
Columbia(172, 100)
East Tenn. (86)
Tennessee (400,200,100)
Cheniere Corpus Christi (2,600)
East Tenn. (276)
Midwestern(120)
8
14Dominion (700)
Cameron(1,500,850)
Cheniere Creole Trail (2,000)
Port Arthur (3,000)
15
28
Questar Overthrust (550, 750, 300)
Center Point (1,237, 280, 274)
Equitrans(130)
16Empire(250)
Gulf LNG (1,500)
17
Transco (165)
29
Trunkline (510)
TETCO (150, 150, 455)
Kinder Morgan (3,395)
Natural (200,300)
Sonora (1,000)
Point Comfort (1,000)
18
Rockies Express East (1,800)
Midcontinent (1500, 300)Southern/Magolia (82)
30
NorthernStar (1,300)
MarkWest (638)
19
20
21. CIG (282,92)22. CIG (85,133,118,105,899,130)23. TransColorado (125,300,250)24. WIC (120,116,675,350,556,330,230)25. El Paso (140) 26. Rendezvous (300) 27. Entrega (1,500) 28. Northwest (450) 29. Rockies Express West (1,800)30. White River Hub (2,565)31. Northwest (582)32. Rockies Express (200)33. Sundance Trail (Northwest) (150)34. Diamond Mountain (WIC) (180)
1. Algonquin (285, 131)2. Islander East (285)3. Iroquois (230,85, 100, 200)4. Columbia (135,270) 5. Algonquin (140) 6. Transcontinental (105)7. Transcontinental (130)8. Transcontinental (100,142, 250)9. Columbia (94) 10. Maritimes (80,360,418)11. Algonquin (301)12. Tennessee (500)13. Mill River (800)14. Tennessee (136)15. Texas Eastern (900)16. Algonquin (325)17. Algonquin (800)18. Broadwater (1,000)19. Mid-Atlantic (1,500)20. Algonquin (140, 281)
31
Oasis Pipeline(600)
3233
Port Dolphin(1,200)
Pacific Connector (1,000)
34
Ruby Pipeline (1,456)
Tiger (2,000)
Major Pipeline Projects Certificated (MMcf/d)January 2000 to April 2010
110.37 BCF/D Total15,866 Miles
May 11, 2010 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 25
Pipeline ApprovalsJanuary 2000 – April 2010
Source:FERC
Capacity(Bcf/day)
Miles of Pipe
Compression(HP)
Cost(Billions)
2000 2.3 1,102.8 151,096 0.82001 8.6 2,688.4 870,767 4.42002 5.5 1,555.6 543,765 3.12003 1.7 352.4 221,545 1.02004 5.5 619.3 83,538 1.22005 14.2 784.5 123,036 1.82006 14.0 1,340.5 327,257 3.92007 23.0 2,727.0 849,110 8.02008 16.1 2,142.4 648,838 7.72009 14.1 1,276.1 748,749 7.62010 5.4 1,276.8 351,616 5.2TOTAL 110.4 15,865.8 4,919,317 44.7
May 11, 2010 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 26
Pipeline Facilities In-Service January 2000 – April 2010
Source: FERC
Capacity(MMcf/day)
Miles of Pipeline
Compression(HP)
2000 2,639 1,224 400,1702001 3,051 654 229,4472002 6,951 2,713 622,3402003 5,202 1,775 559,0102004 3,029 656 351,7632005 3,312 247 74,6952006 3,716 388 61,8412007 8,748 1,224 310,9502008 18,556 2,461 833,7722009 14,984 2,382 811,2862010 4,600 209 123,005TOTAL 74,787 13,933 4,378,279
May 11, 2010 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 27
All Storage Projects(Capacity in Bcf)
Falcon MoBay (50.0)
County Line (6.0)
Bluewater(29.2)
Columbia (12.4)Natural (10.0)
Dominion (9.4)
Texas Gas (8.2)
Freebird (6.1)CenterPoint (3.0)
Starks (19.2)
Falcon Hill-Lake (3.0)
Liberty (17.6, 18.9) Petal (4.0)
SemGas (5.5)
Certificated Since 1/1/05
On The Horizon
Currently Pending
Falcon Worsham-Steed (12.0)
Unocal Windy Hill(6.0)
Natural (10.0) Bobcat (12.0,1.5, 24.0)
Dominion (18.0)
Caledonia (11.7, 5.2)
Arizona Natural Gas(3.5)
ANR Pipeline(14.7)
Mississippi Hub(12.0, 15.0)
Leaf River Energy (32.0)
Central NY (13.0)Dominion (4.4)
Floridian Natural (8.0)
Pre-Filing
SG Resources (12.0)
Northern Natural(8.5)
Petal (2.8)
ANR Pipeline(17.0)
Texas Gas (11.3)
Texas Eastern (3.0)
Egan Hub (8.0)
Enstor-Waha Storage (7.2)
Four Mile Creek (8.0)
ANR Pipeline (70.0)
Tres Palacios (36.0)
Black Bayou (15.0)
CIG (7.0)
Copiah (12.2)Enterprise (10.0)
PetroLogistics (6.0, 5.3)
AGL (16.0)Enstor (30.0)
Steckman Ridge (12.0)
Columbia (6.7)Tenasda (17.5)Northern
Natural (6.0) Texas Gas (8.25)
Northern Natural(2.1)
Monroe Gas (12.0)
Columbia (5.7)
Pine Prairie (24.0)
Natural (10.0)Chestnut Ridge (25.0)
Orbit (5.0)Tarpon Whitetail (8.6)
Bobcat (2.1, 9.3)
EnergySouth (12.0)Petal (10.0)
Atmos (15.0)
SourceGas(10.4)
Spectra Energy (6.5)
Southeast Gas Storage (24.7)
SG Resources (16.0)
Arlington Storage (7.0,1.4)
Henry Gas (46.0)
NFG (8.5)
Mississippi Hub (3.0)
Sempra Energy (2.5)
Cadeville (16.4)
Perryville(15.0)
East Cheyenne(18.9)
Blue Sky (4.4)
Magnum Gas(11.2)
Tricor Ten(22.4)
UGI LNG (0.2, 1.0)Magnum Gas
(42.0)
KM (1.0)
Dominion (0.1)
ANGS/El Paso (20.0)
Turtle Bayou (12.0)
Southern Star (4.0)
UGI (14.7)
BCR (15.0)
Falcon MoBay (3.2)
Petal (5.0)
Multifuels (8.0)
Leader One (7.5)
Ryckman Creek (25.0)
May 11, 2010 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 28
Storage ApprovalsJanuary 2000 through April 2010
Source:FERC
Deliverability(MMcf/day)
Capacity(Bcf)
Compression(HP)
2000 700 3.6 20,0002001 500 17.6 44,1302002 2,647 36.6 60,8202003 1,631 33.3 68,4832004 2,675 31.1 53,2502005 2,914 97.6 119,9172006 4,749 157.6 168,8982007 5,590 133.9 163,6462008 7,821 216.0 231,5992009 6,460 128.1 206,1552010 600 29.6 9,500TOTAL 36,287 885.0 1,146,398
May 11, 2010 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 29
Storage Facilities In-Service 2002 – April 2010
Source: FERC
Deliverability(MMcf/day)
Capacity(Bcf)
Compression(HP)
2002 1,200 24.4 64,1302003 1,247 21.3 16,6212004 331 11.6 52,8622005 82 8.2 13,6222006 1,336 70.9 43,8802007 1,846 84.2 71,3232008 4,412 81.9 123,5212009 3,806 59.7 39,0282010 800 20.0 0TOTAL 15,059 382.2 424,987
May 11, 2010 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 30
US JurisdictionFERCMARAD/USCG
U.S.A. Everett, MA : 1.035 Bcfd (SUEZ LNG - DOMAC)B. Cove Point, MD : 1.0 Bcfd (Dominion - Cove Point
LNG)C. Elba Island, GA : 1.2 Bcfd (El Paso - Southern
LNG)D. Lake Charles, LA : 2.1 Bcfd (Southern Union -
Trunkline LNG)E. Gulf of Mexico: 0.5 Bcfd, (Gulf Gateway Energy
Bridge - Excelerate Energy)F. Offshore Boston: 0.8 Bcfd, (Northeast Gateway-
Excelerate Energy)G. Freeport, TX: 1.5 Bcfd, (Cheniere/Freeport LNG
Dev.)H. Sabine, LA: 2.6 Bcfd (Sabine Pass Cheniere LNG)I. Cove Point, MD : 0.8 Bcfd (Dominion –
Expansion)*J. Hackberry, LA: 1.8 Bcfd (Cameron LNG - Sempra
Energy)K. Sabine, LA: 1.4 Bcfd (Sabine Pass Cheniere LNG –
Expansion)*
CanadaL. St Johns, NB: 1.0 Bcfd, (Canaport- Irvin Oil)
MexicoM. Altamira, Tamulipas: 0.7 Bcfd,
(Shell/Total/Mitsui)N. Baja California, MX: 1.0 Bcfd, (Sempra)
North American LNG Import TerminalsExisting
A
B, I
C
D
E
M
As of April 12, 2010
F
GH,K
N
* Expansion of an existing facility
L
J
30
May 11, 2010 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 31
North American LNGImport TerminalsApproved
* Expansion of an existing facility
127
9
2186
11
101 13 14
19
163
22
4
24
15
2
As of April 12, 2010
5
25
17
26
18
23
20
31March 24, 2010 31
APPROVED - UNDER CONSTRUCTIONU.S.1. Sabine, TX: 2.0 Bcfd (Golden Pass - ExxonMobil)2. Elba Island, GA: 0.9 Bcfd (El Paso - Southern LNG Expansion)*3. Pascagoula, MS: 1.5 Bcfd (Gulf LNG Energy LLC)4. Offshore Boston, MA: 0.4 Bcfd (Neptune LNG - Tractebel)
APPROVED - UNDER CONSTRUCTIONMexico5. Manzanillo, MX: 0.5 Bcfd (KMS GNL de Manzanillo)
APPROVED - NOT UNDER CONSTRUCTIONU.S. - FERC6. Corpus Christi, TX: 1.0 Bcfd (Ingleside Energy - Occidental
Energy Ventures)7. Corpus Christi, TX: 2.6 Bcfd, (Cheniere LNG)8. Corpus Christi, TX : 1.1 Bcfd (Vista Del Sol - 4Gas)9. Fall River, MA : 0.8 Bcfd, (Weaver's Cove Energy/Hess LNG)10. Port Arthur, TX: 3.0 Bcfd (Sempra)11. Logan Township, NJ : 1.2 Bcfd (Crown Landing LNG – BP)12. Cameron, LA: 3.3 Bcfd (Creole Trail LNG - Cheniere LNG)13. Freeport, TX: 2.5 Bcfd (Cheniere/Freeport LNG Dev. -
Expansion)14. Hackberry, LA: 0.85 Bcfd (Cameron LNG - Sempra Energy -
Expansion)15. Pascagoula, MS: 1.3 Bcfd (Casotte Landing - ChevronTexaco)16. Port Lavaca, TX: 1.0 Bcfd (Calhoun LNG - Gulf Coast LNG
Partners)17. LI Sound, NY: 1.0 Bcfd (Broadwater Energy-TransCanada/Shell)18. Bradwood, OR: 1.0 Bcfd (Northern Star LNG - Northern Star
Natural Gas LLC)19. Baltimore, MD: 1.5 Bcfd (AES Sparrows Point - AES
Corporation)20. Coos Bay, OR: 1.0 Bcfd (Jordan Cove Energy Project)U.S. - MARAD/Coast Guard21. Port Pelican: 1.6 Bcfd, (Chevron Texaco)22. Gulf of Mexico: 1.0 Bcfd (Main Pass McMoRan Exp.23. Offshore Florida: 1.2 Bcfd (Hoëgh LNG - Port Dolphin Energy)
Canada24. Rivière-du- Loup, QC: 0.5 Bcfd (Cacouna Energy -
TransCanada/PetroCanada)25. Quebec City, QC : 0.5 Bcfd (Project Rabaska - Enbridge/Gaz
Met/Gaz de France)Mexico26. Baja California, MX : 1.5 Bcfd (Energy Costa Azul - Sempra -
Expansion)
US JurisdictionFERCMARAD/USCG
May 11, 2010 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 32
PROPOSED TO FERC1. Robbinston, ME: 0.5 Bcfd (Downeast LNG - Kestrel Energy)2. Astoria, OR: 1.5 Bcfd (Oregon LNG)3. Calais, ME: 1.2 Bcfd (BP Consulting LLC)
PROPOSED TO MARAD/COAST GUARD4. California Offshore : 1.4 Bcfd, (Clearwater Port LLC)5. Gulf of Mexico: 1.4 Bcfd (Bienville LNG - TORP Technology)6. Offshore Florida: 1.9 Bcfd (SUEZ Calypso - SUEZ LNG)7. Offshore New York: 2.0 Bcfd (Safe Harbor Energy - ASIC, LLC)4
1
6
North American LNG Import TerminalsProposed
2
5
7
As of April 12, 2010
3
32
US JurisdictionFERCMARAD/USCG
May 11, 2010 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 33
LNG Imports by Terminal
Source: Data from EIA and Fossil Energy
4078 85
163226 238 229
507
652 631584
771
352
452
33
May 11, 2010 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 34
Monthly Prices & Volumes: United Kingdom, LNG, and Henry Hub Prices With U.S. LNG Volumes
Source: Henry Hub prices from Platts Gas Daily; LNG prices and volumes from Fossil Energy; and United Kingdom price from Bloomburg.
March 24, 2010 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 34
May 11, 2010 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 35
Existing and Projected LNG Imports
35
May 11, 2010 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 36
Net Canadian Imports andNet Mexican Exports
Source: Based on EIA Spreadsheets.
36
May 11, 2010 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 37
Future Net Canadian Importsand Net Mexican Exports
Source: Based on EIA Spreadsheets.
0.00
500.00
1,000.00
1,500.00
2,000.00
2,500.00
3,000.00
3,500.00
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
2026
2028
2030
2032
2034
Bcf
/Yr
Total Net Imports from Canada Total Net Exports to Mexico
37
May 11, 2010 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 38
Market Knows Best
FERC is not the market
FERC will present a “menu” of infrastructure solutions that are:
In the public interest
Will cause the least environmental impact
Will be safe
The market is in the best position to select the infrastructure projects that get built
May 11, 2010 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 39
Conclusions
The Commission process has benefited all stakeholders in natural gas projects
More needs to be done Turn opposition into understanding
Continue to refine the siting process
More infrastructure is coming Alaska
Pipes from non-traditional sources
Hydrokinetics
Electric transmission
May 11, 2010 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 40
Contact Info:
Michael J. McGehee
Director, Division of Pipeline Certificates
Office of Energy Projects
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
michael.mcgehee@ferc.gov
202-502-8962
Recommended