Re: Höegh Esperanza Versus Höegh Giant?

Switched-on

Hi Kerry

 


@KerryRainer wrote:

I understand AGL has now selected the Höegh Esperanza for it's proposal. Does this mean the amount of discharge as per the Giant ( 450 million litres of toxic chlorinated water per day) will differ ? Or is the Esperanza the same type of vessel with the same operational figures as the Giant?




I noticed thatAGL’s recent press release about project’s delays states the Esperanza “better fits timing and operational requirements arising from the Environment Effects Statement (EES)”

I recently asked in this forum whether the new FSRU, Esperanza has “closed loop” capabilities that were NOT available on the previously contracted “HOEGH”?

Closed Loop FSRU’s use gas to heat up (regasify) the frozen LNG cargo for transfer. They do not need to use and pollute 450 million litres of seawater per day to thaw the gas, so it’s possible AGL will present this option to “mitigate” EES environmental concerns over the cumulative effects of dumping cold, chlorinated water into Westernport. 
The closed loop system is more expensive to operate and produces higher greenhouse emissions, which would already exceed accepted EPA levels in either model FSRU.
Changing to the closed loop system would do nothing to lessen the impacts of building the pipeline, or of ship-wash on sea grasses and mangroves resulting from the 40% increase in shipping in Westernport from the tankers supplying the FSRU, nor would it address the impacts on migratory birds from industrial noise, lighting and vibration. There are dangers from the FSRU as a bushfire ignition source, the ever present risk of leak, explosion, accident, whale strike, and degradation of the area’s reputation, tourism economy, ecosystem services, property values, intergenerational equity, and loss of amenity from an ill advised backward step to the use of dirty fossil fuels when we have other more sustainable options available.
AGL has failed to demonstrate that the project is necessary or that it would “put a downward pressure on prices” which they have repeatedly claimed. Industry analysts predict the opposite could be true since Australia would be locked into international LNG prices, subjecting us to the vagueries of foreign exchange rates and seasonal fluctuations. Australia is the world’s biggest EXPORTER of the commodity, to IMPORT it
would make us a laughing stock, and rightly so.