Initial Draft Resource Report 10 Alternatives

Transcription

1 ELBA LIQUEFACTION PROJECT Initial Draft Resource Report 10 Alternatives Docket No. PF Public Elba Liquefaction Company, L.L.C. and Southern LNG Company, L.L.C. 569 Brookwood Center, Suite 749 Birmingham, AL April 2013

2 ELBA LIQUEFACTION PROJECT RESOURCE REPORT 10 ALTERNATIVES Summary of Filing Information Minimum Requirements Found in Section 1. Address the "No Action" Alternative. ( (l)(1)) Section For large Projects, address the effect of energy conservation or energy alternatives to the Project. ( (l)(1)) 3. Identify system alternatives considered during the identification of the Project and provide the rationale for rejecting each alternative. ( (l)(1)) 4. Identify major and minor route alternatives considered to avoid impact on sensitive environmental areas (e.g., wetlands, parks, or residences) and provide sufficient comparative data to justify the selection of the proposed route. ( (l)(3)) 5. Identify alternative sites considered for the location of major new aboveground facilities and provide sufficient comparative data to justify the selection of the proposed site. ( (l)(3)) Section 10.4 Section 10.3 Not applicable - no pipeline routes proposed Section 10.5 April 2013 i Elba Liquefaction Company, L.L.C.and Southern LNG Company, L.L.C.

3 Table of Contents 10 ALTERNATIVES PROPOSED ACTION NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES Existing LNG Export Terminals Operating LNG Terminals Along the Atlantic Coast Non-Terminal Facilities Alternatives Export of Natural Gas via Pipeline Other Natural Gas Transport Methods Other Pipeline Systems ENERGY SOURCE ALTERNATIVE Environmental Benefits of Natural Gas LIQUEFACTION FACILITY SITE ALTERNATIVES Offsite Area Alternatives PROCESS ALTERNATIVES REFERENCES LIST OF FIGURES 10-1 Project Location Terminal Facilities April 2013 ii Elba Liquefaction Company, L.L.C.and Southern LNG Company, L.L.C.

4 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS Bcf Bcf/d CNG CO 2 Companies billion cubic feet billion cubic feet per day compressed natural gas carbon dioxide Elba Liquefaction Company, L.L.C and Southern LNG Company, L.L.C. Dominion EIA ELC EPB FEIS FERC ft GTL LNG LNGC MMLS MTPA NGA NGH Project psi Sabine Pass SLNG Terminal Twin 30s Pipeline WSA WSR USCG Dominion Cove Point LNG, LP U.S. Energy Information Administration Elba Liquefaction Company, L.L.C. El Paso Pipeline Partners, L.P. Final Environmental Impact Statement Federal Energy Regulatory Commission foot/feet gas-to-liquids liquefied natural gas LNG carrier Movable Modular Liquefaction System million tonnes per annum Natural Gas Act natural gas hydrates Elba Liquefaction Project pounds per square inch Sabine Pass Liquefaction, LLC and Sabine Pass LNG, L.P. Southern LNG Company, L.L.C. Elba Island LNG Terminal Two mile-long, 30-inch-diameter pipelinesthat extend from the Terminal to an interconnection with the rest of Southern Natural Gas Company, L.L.C. s pipeline system near Port Wentworth, Georgia. Southern Natural Gas Company, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company, Elba Express Company L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company, and Carolina Gas Transmission Corporation collectively own an undivided interest in the Twin 30s Pipelines Waterway Suitability Assessment Waterway Suitability Report United States Coast Guard April 2013 iii Elba Liquefaction Company, L.L.C.and Southern LNG Company, L.L.C.

5 10 ALTERNATIVES Elba Liquefaction Company, L.L.C. 1 ( ELC ) and Southern LNG Company, L.L.C. 2 ( SLNG ) (together Companies ) are proposing to add natural gas liquefaction and exporting capabilities ( Elba Liquefaction Project or Project ) to SLNG s existing Elba Island liquefied natural gas ( LNG ) terminal in Chatham County, Georgia ( Terminal ) under Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act ( NGA ). Additionally, SLNG is proposing in this application to abandon its LNG truck loading facilities at the Terminal under Section 7(b) of the NGA. The Terminal, located on an 840-acre private island near Savannah, Georgia (Figure 10-1), currently imports LNG for storage and revaporization using two LNG carrier ( LNGC ) berths, five LNG storage tanks, and associated regasification and send out infrastructure. The Terminal s current storage capacity is 11.5 billion cubic feet ( Bcf ), with 1,755 million cubic feet per day of peak vaporization and send out capacity. The Terminal is directly connected to three major pipelines, and indirectly is connected to two others, and thus is readily accessible from southeast and mid-atlantic supply areas. The Terminal was placed in service in 1978, taken out of service in 1980, and reactivated in The Elba Liquefaction Project site is located within the existing Southern LNG Terminal facilities. Work will be performed within the existing Terminal boundaries to the extent practicable; however, Companies will seek off-site areas for Elba Liquefaction Project staging, warehouse yards, contractor offices, and parking. Companies will use newly constructed and existing roads on the island for access during construction and operation. As is evident from the documentation and analysis provided in Resource Reports 2 through 9 and 11, the environmental effects from the proposed Elba Liquefaction Project will be minimal, and primarily limited to temporary impacts occurring during construction. The original Terminal proposal and subsequent expansions were subjected to a thorough and rigorous environmental impact analysis which culminated in the issuance of a Final Environmental Impact Statement ( FEIS ). The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ( FERC ) issued a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity, which authorized the recommissioning and expansion of the Terminal on March 16, 2000, in Docket No. CP ; and on July 16, 2001, in Docket No. CP In 2003, in Docket Nos. CP and CP , and in 2007, in Docket No. CP , FERC authorized SLNG to further expand the Terminal. In 2010, in Docket No. CP10-477, SLNG applied to FERC to re-activate the Terminal s truck loading facilities, and in 2012, in Docket No. CP12-31, FERC authorized SLNG to add boiloff gas compression at the Terminal. Thus, there is considerable background information to assist with the evaluation of the Elba Liquefaction Project impacts. Additionally, in response to an inquiry by SLNG, the United States Coast Guard (USCG) stated that Based on the details that you provided to our office the proposed modifications to the facility would not alter the MTA [Marine Transfer Area] in a way that would result in an increased capacity beyond the existing Waterway Suitability Assessment (WSA) Therefore you are not required to submit a new Letter of Intent, or Waterway Suitability Report (WSR) (USCG 2012). 1 2 Elba Liquefaction Company, L.L.C. is a Delaware limited liability company formed by Southern Liquefaction Company, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and unit of El Paso Pipeline Partners, L.P., and Shell US Gas & Power LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and subsidiary of Royal Dutch Shell plc. Southern LNG Company, L.L.C. is a Delaware limited liability company and unit of El Paso Pipeline Partners, L.P. ( EPB ). Kinder Morgan, Inc. owns the general partner interest in EPB. April Elba Liquefaction Company, L.L.C. and

6 April Elba Liquefaction Company, L.L.C. and

7 This Resource Report 10 analyzes potential alternatives for the proposed Elba Liquefaction Project and considers the most appropriate methods for achieving Project objectives. Due to the permanent location of the Elba Liquefaction Project being limited to areas that have been previously evaluated and assessed with the previously authorized and operational Terminal, the environmental impact is relatively minor and this Resource Report 10 reflects that in its scope. No additional alternative analyses for siting alternatives are considered feasible and, therefore, are not analyzed in this Resource Report 10. Any alternative considered would result in additional energy for infrastructure siting and development, resulting in associated environmental impacts and costs PROPOSED ACTION The Elba Liquefaction Project will be located within areas that have been evaluated and assessed in conjunction with the FERC review and approval of the Terminal. The Elba Liquefaction Project facilities would permit gas to be received by pipeline from the Twin 30s Pipeline, treated, liquefied, sent to the Terminal s storage tanks, and then loaded from the Terminal s storage tanks onto LNGCs berthed at the existing marine facility. Liquefaction capacity is proposed to be installed in two phases. Phase I will include installation of six MMLS units that will add liquefaction capacity of approximately 1.5 MTPA. Phase II will include up to an additional four MMLS units. When completed, the Elba Liquefaction Project will be capable of liquefying approximately 2.5 MTPA. The LNG will be exported using the Terminal s existing marine facilities. The Elba Liquefaction Project will be designed to allow the Terminal to be capable of providing bidirectional service. The bidirectional capability of the Terminal is not expected to result in an increase in the number of ship transits that were previously permitted for the Terminal. Companies will modify certain of its operational procedures to accommodate the proposed liquefaction and export operations. The alternatives analysis for the Elba Liquefaction Project is less extensive in scope given that placement options for the new facilities, as reflected in Figure 10-2, were essentially pre-defined by the Terminal s geographic location and the operational design and configuration of the existing facilities. The Elba Liquefaction Project would necessarily add to the existing Terminal to achieve the stated purpose and need, rather than electing to build a greenfield liquefaction and export facility elsewhere NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE This section addressed the consequences of not constructing the proposed Project. Potential adverse impacts associated with the Project (i.e.,impacts to surface and groundwater quality, fisheries, wildlife, vegetation, geologic resources, soils, air and noise quality, etc.) would be avoided under the no-action alternative. However, selection of the no-action alternative also would mean that the objectives of the Project would not be accomplished. Southern LNG Company, L.L.C. currently operates an LNG import terminal at Elba Island. The Companies propose to add liquefaction services to the Southern LNG terminal, transforming it into a bidirectional facility capable of liquefying domestic natural gas for export in addition to regasifying imported foreign-sourced LNG. The Companies expect to take advantage of the existing infrastructure at the Terminal to offer customers bidirectional services at attractive pricing. This added service would provide customers with an attractive option to source natural gas supply from the U.S. pipeline grid. April Elba Liquefaction Company, L.L.C. and

8 The liquefaction facilities at Elba Island have been proposed due to the improved outlook for domestic natural gas production, owing to drilling productivity gains that have enabled rapid growth in supplies from unconventional, and particularly shale, gas-bearing formations in the United States ( U.S. ). Improvements in drilling and extraction technologies have coincided with rapid diffusion in the natural gas industry s understanding of the unconventional resource base and best practices in drilling and resource development. These changes have rendered obsolete once prominent fears of declining future domestic natural gas production. As the NERA Economic Consulting ( NERA ) study commissioned by the U.S. Department of Energy ( DOE ) noted, the export of natural gas as LNG would provide net economic benefits to the U.S. economy. Further benefits provided by this project would include: Stimulated job creation, increased economic activity and tax revenues by increasing gas exploration and production, increasing pipeline construction and operations, constructing and operating the liquefaction and terminal facilities at Elba Island, and by an increase in associated support industries; Increased exports from the U.S., which would promote liberalization of global natural gas trade through fostering of a global, liquid, natural gas market; Raised domestic natural gas production capacity; An advance in national security and the security of U.S. allies through diversification of global natural gas supplies; and Increased economic trade and ties with foreign nations, including neighboring countries in the Americas; and the displacement of environmentally damaging fuels in those countries. If a no action alternative is selected. These benefits will not be realized. April Elba Liquefaction Company, L.L.C. and

9 April Elba Liquefaction Company, L.L.C. and

10 10.3. SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES The purpose of identifying and evaluating system alternatives is to determine whether the environmental impacts associated with the construction and operation of the proposed Project could be avoided or reduced by using existing, modified, or proposed export facilities rather than constructing new facilities. System alternatives are alternatives that are able to meet the objectives of the Project, but use a different facility (existing or proposed), or are able to otherwise use existing infrastructure to eliminate the need for the proposed facility. A system alternative could make it unnecessary to construct all or part of the Project, although modifications or additions to the alternative systems may be required to increase their capacity or provide the requisite receipt and delivery capability. These modifications or additions could result in environmental impacts that may be less than, comparable to, or greater than those associated with construction of the Project. A viable system alternative must be technically and economically feasible and practicable, and must satisfy interconnect requirements and the anticipated in-service date to fulfill commitments made to the Project customers. For the proposed Project, system alternatives would require constructing a new LNG terminal to export LNG or exporting LNG from a different, existing LNG terminal. The Terminal is ideally located to access a wide range of domestic supply sources; the Twin 30s Pipeline that services the Terminal interconnects with other major pipelines, and these pipelines are, in turn, interconnected with the interstate grid, allowing gas to be sourced from Gulf coast and northeast United States supply regions. Therefore, geographic proximity was a primary basis used to identify and evaluate alternatives Existing LNG Export Terminals Existing Facilities There is only one existing LNG export terminal operating in North America, the Kenai LNG Plant located in Alaska. Because of its remote location, it cannot economically access natural gas supplies from the eastern U.S regions that would be exported by the Project. Additionally, this terminal does not have sufficient capacity to serve the specific markets to be served by the Project. In sum, the Kenai LNG Plant is not situated to meet the stated objectives of the Project and cannot be considered a true system alternative Approved Facilities Sabine Pass Liquefaction Project Sabine Pass Liquefaction, LLC and Sabine Pass LNG, L.P. (collectively referred to as Sabine Pass) plans to add natural gas liquefaction and exportation capabilities to the existing 853-acre Sabine Pass LNG Import Terminal in Cameron Parish, Louisiana. The Sabine Pass Liquefaction Project has been authorized by the FERC under Docket No. CP11-72, and is currently under construction. The facility will have capacity to process 2.6 Bcf/d of natural gas and export approximately 16 MTPA of LNG via LNGCs (FERC 2013a, FERC 2013b). The planned export capacity for the Sabine Pass Liquefaction Project is fully contracted by other companies. Therefore, the Sabine Pass Liquefaction Project is not a reasonable system alternative Operating LNG Terminals Along the Atlantic Coast There are no other existing LNG facilities along the southern Atlantic Coast. Along the northern Atlantic Coast, there are currently four operating LNG import terminals in the U.S.: Cove Point LNG Terminal in Cove Point, Maryland; Everett Marine Terminal in Everett, Massachusetts; Neptune LNG Deepwater Port offshore Boston, Massachusetts; and Northeast Gateway Deepwater Port offshore Boston, Massachusetts. None of these existing facilities has been authorized to export LNG and only one facility other than SLNG has been identified to FERC as a potential export terminal: Cove Point LNG Terminal. April Elba Liquefaction Company, L.L.C. and

11 Cove Point LNG Terminal The Cove Point LNG Terminal, an approximately 130-acre facility located on the Chesapeake Bay in Lusby, Maryland, is owned and operated by Dominion Cove Point LNG, LP (Dominion). It commenced operation as an LNG import terminal in In August 2006, Dominion received FERC approval to increase the plant's daily output capacity by nearly 80 percent; from 1 Bcf per day ( Bcf/d ) to 1.8 Bcf/d, and expand its storage capacity from 7.8 Bcf to about 14.6 Bcf. The terminal connects, via its own pipeline, to the major Mid- Atlantic gas transmission systems of Transcontinental Gas Pipeline, Columbia Gas Transmission and Dominion Transmission. On June 1, 2012, Dominion filed, pursuant to Section 3 of the NGA, an application with the FERC to enter the pre-filing review process to add liquefaction capabilities to the Cove Point LNG Terminal facilities. On June 26, 2012, Dominion received approval to enter the pre-filing process for this project, known as the Cove Point Liquefaction Facility project. Dominion plans to file a formal application for the project with FERC in April of The Cove Point Liquefaction Facility will be constructed on 40 to 60 acres within the 130-acre fenced area. Dominion proposes to construct the liquefaction project in a single stage comprised of one LNG process train with a total capacity of 5 MTPA. In March of 2012, Dominion reached a preliminary agreement with with two companies, Tokyo Gas and Sumitomo Corporation, for 100 percent of the project s exportation capacity. All 5 MTPA is fully committed to customers, leaving no capacity available for other customers. Hence, the Cove Point Liquefaction Facility at the Cove Point LNG Terminal is not a viable system alternative to the Project Non-Terminal Facilities Alternatives Export of Natural Gas via Pipeline This export method is only feasible for export within North America and does not allow for exportation of natural gas to other continents or the Caribbean Islands. Primarily, the amount of pipeline required would be cost-prohibitive and secondarily, the technology and installation methodology for a trans-ocean pipeline does not currently exist. Because the export of natural gas would be limited geographically, this alternative would not meet the needs of SLNG s customers and is therefore not a reasonable alternative Other Natural Gas Transport Methods Other than LNG, there are three technologies for transporting natural gas or products from natural gas: gas-toliquids ( GTL ), compressed natural gas ( CNG ), and natural gas hydrates ( NGH ). As discussed below, these technologies are not considered to be feasible alternatives to LNG. GTL technology takes natural gas and converts it into a heavier liquid hydrocarbon such as jet fuel and diesel. Due to the existing Terminal already having the LNG terminal and LNG storage tanks, the facility is very well situated to become an LNG export terminal. The Elba island facilities would require much more modifications at the tanks and terminal if it was a GTL facility as compared to an LNG export facility. CNG technology takes natural gas at standard atmospheric pressure and compresses it at high pressure (2,900 3,600 pounds per square inch (psi)). The natural gas then takes up less than one percent (1%) of its initial volume. After compression, the gas can then be transported in pressurized containers that are typically spherical or cylindrical in shape. There are currently no ships available to transport bulk CNG and such vessels would need to be custom designed and built for this purpose. In addition, bulk receiving facilities for April Elba Liquefaction Company, L.L.C. and

12 CNG also do not currently exist. Because the infrastructure to support CNG does not exist, and because LNG transport vessels and infrastructure are available, this option is not considered a feasible alternative to the Project. NGH are compounds in which methane is trapped within water, forming a solid similar to ice. Unit for unit, NGH contains approximately one-quarter the amount of natural gas as LNG. Deposits of NGH are found under sediments on the floor of the ocean, but there is no method available to economically mine this resource and a market does not yet exist to use this gas. No technology is currently available to store, load and unload, transport, and process large quantities of NGH. This option is not considered to be a feasible alternative to the Project Other Pipeline Systems See EEC s RR10 relating to the EEC Modification Project for more details regarding the transportation of natural gas to the Terminal for liquefaction. The EEC Modification Project RR 10 is being filed concurrently with this RR ENERGY SOURCE ALTERNATIVE Environmental Benefits of Natural Gas The environmental benefits of natural gas stem largely from its distinct advantages as an energy source alternative compared with other fossil fuels. Assuming LNG exported by the Elba Liquefaction Project replaces the equivalent use of other fossil fuels in recipient countries, a number of advantages can be realized as discussed below. Because it is the cleanest burning fossil fuel, natural gas offers a number of environmental benefits compared to oil and coal, and its abundance creates opportunities for new, more efficient technologies. The combustion of natural gas results in less pollution than the combustion of other fossil fuels. Compared to the average air emissions from coal-fired generation, power plants that burn natural gas produce half as much carbon dioxide ( CO 2 ), less than a third of the nitrogen oxides, and 1 percent of the sulfur oxides. Combustion of natural gas produces about 25 percent to 30 percent less CO 2 than combustion of gasoline or diesel. Accordingly, natural gas is not as significant a contributor to acid rain or smog formation when compared to other petroleum products and coal. It is estimated that using natural gas to fuel 50 percent of the world s vehicles would reduce annual global CO 2 emissions by about 2.0 billion metric tonnes, decreasing global CO 2 emissions by approximately 6 percent (Hefner 2009). Not only is natural gas a cleaner fuel, but as the U.S. Energy Information Administration ( EIA ) has noted, new natural-gas-fired plants are much cheaper to build than new renewable or nuclear plants (EIA 2011). As more nations look for alternative sources of power generation beyond coal or oil, and move to regulate or tax greenhouse gas emissions, demand for LNG will continue to grow worldwide. Opening new overseas markets for natural gas will require plants that are equipped to cool and liquefy large amounts of the gas in a safe and environmentally friendly manner, as well as safely load and transport LNG. In liquid form, natural gas is convenient to store and to ship. LNG is colorless, odorless, non-corrosive, and non-toxic. Although natural gas vapor is flammable, natural gas in liquid form cannot explode or burn. The LNG industry has a proven safety record during 40 years of shipping LNG over the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian oceans with no major incidents involving LNG ships or their cargo. Moreover, it is recognized that April Elba Liquefaction Company, L.L.C. and

13 LNG tankers are generally less polluting than other shipping vessels because they burn natural gas, in addition to fuel oil, for propulsion. If LNG exports replace other less environmentally friendly energy sources that are either currently utilized or earmarked to sustain future development, the Elba Liquefaction Project will offer significant environmental benefits by contributing to a cleaner energy supply on a macroscopic level Energy Source Alternative The chosen liquefaction technology is the MMLS. For any liquefaction facility, the main source of energy consumption is the refrigeration compressors. For the MMLS units, the refrigeration compressors are driven by electrical power. Earlier development of the Elba Liquefaction Project looked at alternatives for the power supply. One alternative would be to self-power with both open cycle (heat not recovered from the flue gas) and closed cycle (heat is recovered from the flue gas) gas turbine systems. The fuel source for the gas turbines would have been the existing sites boil off gas, and supplemented by pipeline natural gas. Even though the selfpower options would provide improvements on the emissions versus those from import power, the self-power option did not meet the Elba Liquefaction Project premises, namely the following: Limited plot area at the Terminal for the large gas turbines, and especially for the equipment associated for a closed cycle system (heat recovery). Typical heat recovery is via water generation to steam. Water treatment and steam generation facilties are large in plot area. Limited identified streams for heat recovery without major changes in the Project scope. Typical recovery via steam generation is not viable becaue the Terminal does not currently use steam and there is no steam usage planned for the Project. Equipment needing energy for the Project such as heating oil heaters and acid gas thermal oxidizers are only a fraction of the self-power heat recovery. Likewise, conversion of heating oil exchangers in the MMLS units to steam would require major redesign. Also, there were no identified steam or heat recovery users identified in the immediate area surrounding the Terminal LIQUEFACTION FACILITY SITE ALTERNATIVES Due to logistical constraints of utilizing the existing Twin 30s Pipeline, existing Terminal, and the necessity of having liquefaction facilities in close proximity to the existing Terminal, the Companies did not consider sites off of SLNG property at Elba Island for the Project. The existing LNG Terminal is on an island with very little undeveloped area. Companies have designed the Project entirely within the Terminal facility to avoid undeveloped areas of Elba Island (Figure 10-2). The Terminal contains the operating industrial area at Elba Island. The Terminal also contains the LNG truck loading facilities to be abandoned. Companies plan to reuse the land at the truck loading facilities as well as other previously disturbed areas to construct the Project. The areas outside the Terminal facility include the dredge spoil area, streams, wetlands, and forested land with high habitat value. Because of the limited space available, there are limited configurations available for use. However, because Companies have opted not to construct the Project outside the certificated area, most environmental effects that would have occurred with a larger footprint will be avoided. This makes siting the Elba Liquefaction Project only within the existing Terminal the environmentally preferred alternative. April Elba Liquefaction Company, L.L.C. and

14 The Terminal has limitations on the Project s layout alternatives due to a number of reasons. These include: Maintaining the vast majority of the DMCA area. The large impoundment areas near the LNG storage tanks are required by tank design standards; therefore, the diked impoundment areas will contain 110% of the tanks full volume. The Project s location within this diked impoundment area is not allowed. Proper layout design must meet the layout spacing requirements between equipment, as defined by layout spacing requirements from ELC and industry standards. Proper layout design must meet the spacing requirements from the Project s equipment and the Terminal equipment, as defined by energy industry standards Offsite Area Alternatives Existing and previously disturbed areas of sufficient size for staging, warehouse yards, contractor offices, and parking ( wareyards ) do not exist immediately adjacent to the Project area. The locations of the wareyards has yet to be finalized, but Companies will seek to use areas that have been used for similar activities in the recent past. The equipment and supplies will be transported from the wareyards directly to the Project site. These wareyards will be located within the vicinity of the Terminal, will be available for purchase or lease, and will be able to accommodate the temporary construction activities for the Project. The impacts to the wareyards will be limited and temporary PROCESS ALTERNATIVES The process alternative chosen for the gas treating and liquefaction is the MMLS. The MMLS units offer several advantages over a conventional LNG train, such as the following: Scheduling improvements from project design, construction, and up through production of LNG. Because of the modular design, construction of the MMLS is allowed to start at the vendor s fabrication site well in advance of installation at Elba Island. Reduced process safety risks with smaller equipment and smaller hydrocarbon inventories. The MMLS system proposed for the Project has been designed for a capacity of about 0.25 MTPA, thus resulting in a much smaller equipment set compared to a full size liquefaction train of about 2-5 MTPA. Increased flexibility in layout design due to the modular nature of individual MMLS units, particularly at sites with land constraints, such as Elba Island. Multiple MMLS units can be configured to fit unusually shaped spaces to avoid constraints such as existing facilties and infrastructure, sensitive environmental areas, or other obstacles. Flexibility in the ability to handle a wide variety of feed gas compositions and ambient conditions. Reduced engineering costs due to the designing-one-build-many concept. Reduced fabrication costs, as MMLS modules are pre-fabricated in a controlled environment at the vendor s shop. Higher reliability, as the MMLS have two parallel refrigeration trains per MMLS. For the process alternatives chosen for the balance of plant for the liquefaction facilities, which consists of the common supporting units to all of the MMLS, the criteria used was the following: April Elba Liquefaction Company, L.L.C. and

15 Improved operability of the facility with having balance of plant equipment servicing all of the MMLS units. Having the stabilized condensate storage, mixed refrigerant storage, waste water storage, and amine storage all as their own common equipment, thus piping to each of the MMLS. This prevents the need for each of these systems in each MMLS, thus reducing traffic near sources of ignition. Minimize layout space requirements with common storage and truck loading facilities for each stabilized condensate, mixed refrigerant component storage, waste water storage, and amine storage. Reduced ignition points and plot space requirements by having a common flare, common heat medium heaters, and common acid gas thermal oxidizers, instead of a each of these at each MMLS unit. Utilization of the existing site s equipment to be upgraded with the Project, including firewater, storm water runoff, well water for the water demineralization unit, and nitrogen REFERENCES Hefner, R.A The Grand Energy Transition The Rise of Energy Gases, Sustainable Life and Growth, and the Next Great Economic Expansion. John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey. ISBN pps. FERC. 2013a. North American LNG Import /Export Terminals Approved. Online. Accessed 13 March FERC. 2013b. North American LNG Import /Export Terminals Existing. Online. Accessed 13 March FERC. 2013c. North American LNG Import /Export Terminals Proposed/Potential. Online. Accessed 13 March U.S. Energy Information Administration. April Annual Energy Outlook 2011 with Projections to Reference Case AEO2011. Online. Accessed 13 March April Elba Liquefaction Company, L.L.C. and