Downloads
Contact Us
LNG Projects

Commonwealth LNG: A Detailed Look At Calcasieu’s Noisy Neighbors

March 2020
Get this report
$2,000
You can pay by card or invoice
Add to Cart
Contact us about this report
Order FAQ Terms & Conditions About Subscriptions

Total Pages: 22

Table Of Contents

  • Key Takeaways
  • Project Overview
  • Marine Facility Design and Layout
  • EPC Cost & Schedule Analysis
  • Additional Due Diligence Questions
  • Concluding Thoughts

Commonwealth LNG: A Detailed Look At Calcasieu’s Noisy Neighbors

Note 1: As expected (and highlighted in our Commonwealth LNG Report below), Venture Global has filed motion to intervene in Commonwealth’s project development due to its planned activity and dredging in the Calcasieu Ship Channel. We’ll continue to monitor.

Commonwealth LNG (CWLNG) is a proposed 8.4 MTPA LNG export facility located on a 393-acre site in Cameron Parish, Louisiana. The Project is on the west side of the Calcasieu Ship Channel (“the Channel”) near the entrance of where the Channel spills into the US Gulf of Mexico. The Project is also located directly across the river from Venture Global LNG’s (“VGLNG”) 10.0 MTPA Calcasieu Pass LNG (CPLNG) export facility (Figure 1).

In the 20-pages that follow, we’ve analyzed the CWLNG project and how the Project’s boundaries and shipping operations may be an issue for CPLNG, the State of Louisiana, and the U.S. Coast Guard. (Webber note: again - VG filed a motion to intervene after this piece originally went to clients in late February) 

CWLNG’s execution plan is based upon modularizing the LNG process and pre-treatment units as well as the LNG storage tanks. Typically, a full containment 160,000 m3 LNG storage tank takes 36 to 42 months to construct and commission. CWLNG has proposed modularizing six (6) 40,000 m3 single containment LNG tanks…(continued pages 2-22)

$2,000 – Purchase

Browse by Category

Briefs & UpdatesLNG ProjectsProject DatabaseRenewable EnergyUtilities & EnergyVenture Global LNG

Recommended Reports

Recently viewed reports

,

W|EPC: Future Of Transportation – Ranking & Evaluating Alternative Fuels – H2 ∙ BEV ∙ Methanol ∙ CNG Hybrid ∙ Ethanol ∙ Ammonia ∙ Diesel ∙ Biofuels

W|EPC: Future Of Transportation – Ranking & Evaluating Alternative Fuels – H2 ∙ BEV ∙ Methanol ∙ CNG Hybrid ∙ Ethanol ∙ Ammonia ∙ Diesel ∙ Biofuels 1) Alternative Fuel Analysis…Will History Repeat Itself?   In 1992 & 2005, the Department of Energy (DOE) created & amended the Energy Policy Act (EPA) that addressed fuel research and tax benefits for vehicle manufacturing. Battery Electric Vehicles (BEV), Hydrogen (H2), Hybrids, Biofuels, Ethanol and Methanol were analyzed in 2005, but vehicle manufacturers supported gasoline hybrid vehicles due to technology and production constraints. Since then, fuel cell technology and global, federal, & state emission guidelines have accelerated innovation and the market is now actively deciding transportation alternatives. 2) Small Vehicle Applications:    BEV have taken a leading role in the small vehicle category with minimal competition from Hydrogen. Hydrogen’s price, lack of infrastructure, and safety concerns highlight the risk associated with new fuel applications; however, Methanol may have an opportunity to fill this role.

December 2020
$850
,

W|EPC: Southern Company (SO) – Q420 Vogtle Project Monitor – Key Decisions That Could Haunt Cost Prudency

W|EPC: Southern Company (SO) – Vogtle Nuclear Expansion – Q420 Project Monitor – Key Questions That Could Haunt Cost Prudency
Key Takeaways: Vogtle Q420 Monitor – Key Decisions That Could Haunt Cost Prudency

• Who Will Be Getting Stuck With +$2.1B In Cost Overruns? Once Vogtle Unit 4 reaches “fuel load”, Georgia Power/Southern Company (GP/SO) can request a cost prudency determination to push their portion of cost overruns (~$2.1B) into recoverable utility rates. (Page 4)
Regulators will determine cost prudency based on project data, testimony, and a simple question: What should a reasonable manager have done at the time of the decision? (Page 5)
• We expect that process to be heavily scrutinized considering the scale of the overruns, and, in our opinion, some questionable GP/SO decisions. (Pages 4-5)

• Decisions That Could Haunt GP/SO’s Prudency. We believe there’s a case to be made that multiple GP/SO management decisions ran contrary to industry standards, potentially contributing to ($) billions in cost overruns, including
o A failure to either include or implement multiple EPC contract……(Page 7)
o For the first 4-years of the project, GP/SO used only…..(Page 23)
o In 2017, it appears GP/SO did not validate critical underlying EPC…..(Pages 9- 10)

October 2020
$1,900