Netherlands opens first LNG terminal; US$1.1B GATE terminal has 12BCM annual throughput capacity
25 September 2011
Her Majesty Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands officially opened the GATE (Gas Access To Europe) LNG terminal last week. The €800-million (US$1.1-billion) terminal, located on the Maasvlakte in Rotterdam, is the first import terminal for liquefied natural gas (LNG) in the Netherlands.
|
|
| Important areas of construction for the terminal. Click to enlarge. |
Developed by N.V. Nederlandse Gasunie and Royal Vopak, the terminal will serve as an independent distribution point for European energy companies to address the rising demand for and declining production of natural gas in northwestern Europe.
GATE terminal has already began to receive LNG by ship, which is subsequently regasified and prepared for distribution to the Dutch gas transport network and further transport to northwestern European markets. With an initial throughput capacity of 12 billion cubic meters (424 billion cubic feet) per annum—equal to 25% of annual Dutch gas consumption—the terminal consists of three storage tanks with a total storage capacity of 540,000 cubic meters (19 million cubic feet), two jetties and a process area where the LNG is being regasified.
In the future, the terminal’s throughput capacity can be increased to 16 billion cubic meters (565 billion cubic feet) per annum by building a fourth tank. GATE terminal dovetails with Dutch and European energy policies, built on the pillars of strategic diversification of gas supplies, sustainability, safety and environmental awareness.
Gate terminal marks a crucial next step in the development of the Netherlands as the gas hub of Northwest Europe. Over the last decade, gas has changed from a local energy source into a global commodity. More and more countries are linking into a worldwide gas web—a web in which the Netherlands as home to Gate terminal, the Gas Access To Europe, can play a pivotal role.
—Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Economic Affairs, Agriculture and Innovation, Maxime Verhagen
Not mentioned but no doubt a player in getting this built is Shell...a.k.a. Royal Dutch Shell.
Posted by: ejj | 25 September 2011 at 06:12 AM
I'd rather see my country invest in renewable energy. We are the laggards of Europe on that front. Once a nation that thrived on wind energy, we were spoilt by our abundant natural gas supplies. Fossil fuels are a dead end, but the political establishment is blind and/or under the command of the ff companies.
Posted by: Arne | 25 September 2011 at 10:36 AM
Hi Anne,
You are making a good point but for the people of Western Europe this is a positive development. Correlate this news with the news that Vladimir Putin wants to return to power in Russia. Russia has the power to strangle Western Europe by cutting off its natural gas supply, and Putin has used this lever for power and money in the past.
We all need to work on a post carbon future, but for the next 20 years we still need to have reliable fossil fuel supplies. Remember that an economic depression caused by an energy supply crisis will cause a shortage of money needed to invest in green infrastructure, and will dry up political support for positive change.
Posted by: Dollared | 25 September 2011 at 11:21 AM
If the rest of Europe had followed the lead of France and gone nuclear, the issues of Russian dependency and LNG terminals would be moot.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 25 September 2011 at 01:03 PM
@Anne
The most affordable renewable energy today is wind power build on land and hydropower. However, hydropower cannot be expanded much more in Europe and as you know wind power only produces energy when the weather permits it so some sort of backup power is needed if we base our grid on power from wind power. That backup power is going to be natural gas as it is better than coal power in terms of emissions and also less costly when used only for backup power. The clean alternatives to fossil fuels for backup power are too expensive today and therefore they are politically impossible. A clean alternative backup power system would require far more affordable batteries and long-distance transmission systems. We need decades of development in batteries and transmissions systems before that will happen so the best we can hope for in Europe is that we build out wind power and gas power for backup. Natural gas can also be used to replace gasoline and diesel and this will also be a gain in terms of emissions and costs. Ultimately battery electric vehicles will take over but they are still too expensive to work for everybody.
@D
Russia or former USSR has never ever cut gas supplies for Western Europe but they have cut gas on several occasions to Eastern Europe when they did not pay their bills. Some Eastern European countries then retaliated by blocking the flow of Russian gas through their countries to Western Europe. However, these uncertainties are going to be history in a few years as Russia has just opened the Northern link that bypasses Eastern Europe. In due time that link will have the capacity to supply all of Western Europe with gas from Russia. The argument for building LNG terminals in Western Europe is to get some bargaining power over the Russians when negotiating the price for their gas. I know Denmark (DONG) also invested a 5% stake in this terminal and one of the reasons is that Denmark will soon switch its entire gas supply from the Danish part of the North Sea to be supplied by the Northern link. The Danish North Sea gas will then be shipped to the UK instead. That saves money but we also need to be able to take in natural gas from the global market for LNG because the price may be better there at some times than it is from Russia. Most of Western Europe is linked by large natural gas pipes so pumping gas from Rotterdam to Denmark is not a problem.
Posted by: Account Deleted | 25 September 2011 at 01:53 PM