Some Freeport Folks Don't Want to Live by Proposed LNG Plant

Categories: Whatever

nimby072710.jpg
"Yeah, we're the third house on the left, by the gigantic glowing sphere of hazardous material."
Residents of a quiet community near the Brazoria National Wildlife Refuge are worried that their hood won't be peaceful if a new neighbor moves in -- a liquefied natural gas plant, complete with new pipelines delivering billions of cubic feet of fuel daily.

You can pretty much guess the story: The company that wants to build the thing, Freeport LNG, has issued reports assuring everyone it will follow all state and federal environmental impact mitigation criteria, and some of the residents say bullshit.

Or, as resident Roy Marsh told Hair Balls, no one in the neighborhood will ever be able to sell their homes -- real estate described as "liquefaction plant adjacent" probably doesn't go for a premium. The proposed facility is located within seven miles of Freeport and just under a mile from the city of Oyster Creek.

Marsh and his wife fell in love with the area and bought a home there about 18 months ago.

"It's a quiet residential community, and that'll change dramatically," he said. He and others have called on district representatives to help them out -- he's hoping Ron Paul's office might look at it from a property-rights standpoint.

"You've got certain expectations in a residential neighborhood, and one of them is, you're not going to have a huge industrial plant built right next door," he said.

The proposed plant is actually a series of above- and underground structures for liquefaction and pre-treatment, and new pipelines, that would connect to Freeport LNG's existing facility at Quintana.

The project is waiting for state and federal approval, which Marsh says is basically a sure thing.

Marsh isn't the only one upset. In his written comments to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, resident Larry Bontekoe alleged that Freeport LNG could have chosen among tens of thousands of industrial acreage to the north of the proposed site. Instead, he wrote, "the location is on a dead end road and in case of an emergency, the residents will be held hostage without an escape route."

He added that "the money Freeport LNG saved" by purchasing the existing site "will cost the local residents their dreams, their safety, their quality of life, their home investment and in some cases their life's savings. Why should we the people have to suffer so corporate greed can prevail?"

Ah -- but not so fast, Larry! Freeport LNG claims that the new plant would mean 163 new permanent full-time employees, 1,500 construction jobs over 3-6 years, and "more than 20,000 new jobs in the natural gas sector" that translates into $3.6 billion of "indirect economic benefit."

Furthermore, the company has a wetland restoration and monitoring plan, as well as contingency plans in case of an accidental spill or other calamity. So there.


Follow Hair Balls News on Facebook and on Twitter @HairBallsNews.

Sponsor Content

My Voice Nation Help
18 comments
Rphatteras
Rphatteras

Their plans are for PR purposes only.  Ask about their detailed evacuation for 250 homes in the evident of an industrial accident with only one road in or out.   

Maybe you should ask about the amount of profit that this company with make over the term of this project versus what these home owners will lose in property values.  Estimated values to be approximate $37,000,000. 

Or you might ask Conoco Phillips and Dow Chemical, the players behind Freeport LNG, about their civic responsibility to the communities that they serve. 

The project can proceed with minimum impact by moving the pretreatment plant out of the residual areas.  Multiple sites are available.     

Ron
Ron

My wife and I live next door to Roy and Ami Marsh and have lived in this house for over 8 years.  If FLNG builds the plant it will totally ruin the property values and during a plant emergency, block us in on this "one road" in and out.  How would you like construction trucks on your entry/exit to the house for more than 3 years.  My wife would have died last May if the EMS could not have gotten here within 10-15 minutes from Freeport. Keith Little lied about the number of employees they would have - said 3 -4 during operation.  Now he says 163 full time jobe.  They are all liers and we don't want them in our community.

Ron

Jjdalton2167
Jjdalton2167

Mr. Malisow,Would you like this plant to be built in your backyard?  at the end of your street?  when there are other viable sites on which it could be located?  Would you want to risk the safety of your family and home if (God-forbid) an accident, no matter how minimal, should occur?  Answer honestly.So there.

Rking8
Rking8

OysterCreek is down wind from a bunch of big plants already If you walk outside it is al  you can hear in the back ground. I can't see the harm to real estate values. they suck pretty bad and this will get big money into city coffers.

keystonelonestar
keystonelonestar

The manufacture of crystal meth adds to the economy.  I still don't want a meth lab moving next door.

Floyd
Floyd

Most people probably feel that a small community fighting Freeport LNG is not their problem if it doesn't affect them. Aside from destroying property values, people's health and the surrounding wildlife refuge, exporting natural gas WILL affect them. More and more plants like Freeport LNG are wanting to export natural gas. Why, money. Exporting natural gas will eventually raise the price of domestic natural gas. Many homes, restaurants, business and electric plants use natural gas. Everyone in the country will pay for the price increase. Companys like Freeport LNG make a profit at both ends and they really do not care who they hurt in the process. Corporate greed at its finest.

Larry Bontekoe
Larry Bontekoe

The site selection by Freeport LNG could not be worse. We have miles upon miles of open land all around us and they want to build a plant within 200 ft of residential neighborhoods.

Andrew Ballard
Andrew Ballard

I make my living in the local plants.  I chose my residence outside those plants.  I don't want to limit the plants being there or the jobs.  However, there is no reason to put this plant anywhere near all these homes.  That pipeline continues on through completely uninhabited cattle land for miles, so build it there.  You won't ruin our neighborhoods or anybody else's and you still get the investment and jobs.  This isn't corporate greed, this is engineering stupidity and probably is continuing on this path because someone's job is at stake for buying this property in such an unsuitable place.  Andrew Ballard  Hide Away on the Gulf

Roy Marsh
Roy Marsh

Freeport LNG made a Dog and Pony show presentation to the Oyster Creek City Council tonight. They were not expecting the crowd that filled the room and part of the parking lot. The night can best be summed up when one resident asked the Company Mouthpiece. "Would you want this at the end of your block?" The reply " I am not going to answer that. The community is banding together for the fight and will take it to the company on numerous fronts.

James
James

Quintana screwed up in the beginning when they decided to let LNG to build on the island. It's already to the point where you can't find decent beach front down in that area without a plant in your back yard... no pun intended.

Mdnaturalist
Mdnaturalist

Is it understood that the LNG facility already exists there?  This is a modification to an existing plant; this is not a new facility. 

Jjdalton2167
Jjdalton2167

True, we already get enough of the noise and odor...why do we need more?  The amount of money and jobs it may or may not generate is NOTHING compared to the risk of those of us who will have to live within sight of the monstrosity.  So, I ask YOU, Rking8, would YOU want this built in YOUR backyard when YOU personally will gain NOTHING??

Andrew Ballard
Andrew Ballard

Damage to the wildlife refuge and health effects are debatable and FLNG will have extensive documentation, probably valid, to show minimal effect.  I work in the plants, the traffic, noise and smells are not debatable, they will ruin the livability of our homes.  It is a residential area, it is not compatible with a facility of this nature, period.  As far as corporate greed, the prosperity of living here (Brazosport area) is based on these companies, the taxes they pay fund armies of government employees, their budgets pay salaries for many people.  Also, as for "corporate greed", I don't want to mention anything that might align me with the "Occupy" crowd.  We want to stay on track here, I'm not a scientist or doctor, I can't argue health effects or biological hazards etc. etc because I don't know enough about the LNG processes involved.  Bottom line, this plant at this location will ruin property values and quality of life for hundreds of people, and it doesn't have to be built there!

CCSkySail
CCSkySail

No,this is a brand new facility that will be located a couple miles away from thelatest FLNG cavern facility that was commissioned last year (located on the other sideof the nearest highway). 

This plant will not only have the pretreatment portion of the plant whichincludes CO2 removal (amine system I am guessing), a desulphurization unit (multiple ZnO filled reactors would be likely) it will also have a 25 acreretention pond, a flare, a cooling tower, and a gas turbine to produceelectricity...and quite a bit of noise from the high pressure steam.  Notto mention the possibility of additional compression that may be needed. 

Also, I don't know the size of the Cogen being put in but the pretreatmentplant must be large enough that the current grid wouldn't be able to supplyenough energy to sufficiently power the facility. 

Moreover, the thousands of pounds per hour of demineralized water that willfeed the steam drum for the gas turbine will have to brought in from anotherpipeline along with additional branches for the other utilities (potable water,nitrogen for purging?, cooling tower water makeup, etc).  This means even more construction crews thatwill be digging up the area that is not necessarily in a right of way withother pipelines.

So, to answer your question again...this is not an existing facility and it will be built within mere yards of 3 subdivisions with only 1 road leading in and out.

As was stated earlier, there are other viable areas that FLNG can build this plant on that would still be close enough to the already laid 42" natural gas pipeline that FLNG owns and operates in the area.

Jjdalton2167
Jjdalton2167

No, this is a NEW facility (a pre-treatment plant) that is to be built as a part of LNG's Liquefaction Process.  The pre-treatment facility takes natural gas and removes the impurities (such as CO2, sulfur compounds, mercury & water) from it before it can be turned into liquid natural gas at the Quintana (Regas Terminal) facility.  The Quintana facility, already in place, is where the natural gas is either turned from liquid to gas or vice-versa and where the gas is loaded and unloaded from freighters.

Larry Bontekoe
Larry Bontekoe

This build site was chosen to fatten the bottom line.  The fact that Freeport LNG is more concerned about  profits than people is classic corporate greed. So don't worry about the occupying crowd. Call it what it is. Corporate greed is still ugly when it hurts other people and we are going to be hurt badly.

Jb91105
Jb91105

Mr.mGreedy Larry, u are really one to talk HA HA!

Andrew Ballard
Andrew Ballard

I was not privy to the decision making process, I doubt that land expense constitutes a great deal of the cost of a project this size, it might though.  From personal experience with large corporations, the site was probably chosen because the chooser was basically incompetent at his job, then the mistake was exacerbated because said person's ego was at stake if the mistake was admitted.  Regardless, the land has been purchased and I would like to stop the plant construction.  The best route is to push the issue of zoning since the facility is way too close to a residential area and those in the residential area have a reasonable right to expect the zoning to not be changed to heavy industrial.  I work on the machinery in those plants, our biggest problem will be sound/noise pollution, secondary will be the beautiful view.  But make no mistake, the compressors and engines that drive them at this plant will be NOISY.

If we stand on the idea there is only one road, they can build another one for less than they will spend on welding rods and our argument goes out the window.  If we argue air quality or damage to the wildlife refuge they will be able to supply supportable documentation that this isn't so, also this avenue of permitting is well established and we would be up against precedent.

It might be helpful to develop an alternate path for FLNG to choose another site, has anybody tracked the path of the pipeline through the cattle fields and identified property owners.  From documents provided by FLNG, the present site was chosen in part because of "expected" unsuccessful purchasing negotiations.  Would be interesting to find out who these property owners are and if they have ever been contacted and/or be interested in selling the specific site space.

Lastly, if this is corporate greed so be it, but I would rather shut up and let them build the plant than be branded with the "Occupy" scumbags.  I have always and still do work for a living and I don't agree with being forced on pain of incarceration to pay tax to support some lazy whining twit squatting in a public park.  The business structure and environment in Texas is why we can afford houses on the water and have fishing boats with money to buy bait, beer and ammo.

Now Trending

Houston Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

Loading...