Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Bureau of Economic Geology, The University of Texas at Austin Defining Community and Economic Benefits Associated with Energy Infrastructure Projects:

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Bureau of Economic Geology, The University of Texas at Austin Defining Community and Economic Benefits Associated with Energy Infrastructure Projects:"— Presentation transcript:

1 Bureau of Economic Geology, The University of Texas at Austin Defining Community and Economic Benefits Associated with Energy Infrastructure Projects: LNG Case Study

2 ©CEE-UT, 2 Overview and Major Themes, I Perception is reality with regard to public acceptance of or rejection of major projects –Variations across different stakeholder groups on different issue dimensions Certain issues dimensions are emotive –Wetlands, fisheries as irreplaceable natural endowments imbued with tradition

3 ©CEE-UT, 3 Overview and Major Themes, II Perceptions of safety and security are complex –Tend to follow other concerns or come into play if net benefits are not perceived Larger jurisdictions can clearly perceive energy supply benefits –Relationships to other stakeholder groups can be complex

4 ©CEE-UT, 4 Overview and Major Themes, III Psychology of energy security –Complexity of commodity markets and basis differentials –Diffuse benefits (concentrated costs) Benefits discerned relative to emissions –Both local/regional air quality and broader, GHG strategies

5 ©CEE-UT, 5 Overview and Major Themes, IV Implications for cost-benefit analysis –Valuing intangible goods, heuristic valuations, subjective scorings, future generations Implications for other critical infrastructure projects –Regulatory process, public intervention, public acceptance, issue domains Considerations not discerned –Broader energy security themes

6 ©CEE-UT, 6 Natural Gas Industry Performance

7 ©CEE-UT, 7 Natural Gas Industry Performance

8 ©CEE-UT, 8 Natural Gas Industry Performance

9 ©CEE-UT, 9 Natural Gas Industry Performance

10 ©CEE-UT, 10 Natural Gas Industry Performance

11 ©CEE-UT, 11 LNG Case Study Outline Objectives Outcomes Conclusions Approach Findings and implications for new projects Path forward

12 ©CEE-UT, 12 Study Objectives Increase clarity on local benefits for host communities, investors as well as larger market areas and national needs Identify host community costs Incorporate practical considerations stemming from LNG safety and perceptions of risk Improve the knowledge base for presenting long term net benefits associated with international LNG trade well beyond the development project and for both new and existing facilities

13 ©CEE-UT, 13 Study Outcomes A tool for identifying net benefits from LNG and other facilities –Specific goal: develop an approach flexible enough for use on other large energy infrastructure projects, US and abroad –Tool kit includes: check list for assessment of net benefits for use by stakeholders for both external and internal analysis and communication

14 ©CEE-UT, 14 Key Conclusions Infrastructure siting process is dominated by actions to address stakeholder concerns and tradeoffs Local and waterway community benefits are key for project success as these stakeholder groups face unique tradeoffs Clear, early identification of benefits that target specific needs, concerns of stakeholders facilitate progress and dialogue Successful infrastructure siting requires dialogue and consideration of multiple dimensions among multiple groups No one dimension dominates stakeholder perceptions Sharing in the benefits of an infrastructure project is paramount to project progress A stakeholder group cannot perceive itself as a loser in the process

15 ©CEE-UT, 15 Tool Kit – Check List Sources of and types of information Issues of interest (issue dimensions) Stakeholder group identification based on common interests and participation Methods to capture, measure intensity of stakeholder postures towards proposed infrastructure project

16 ©CEE-UT, 16 Sources of Information Data collection from sample of projects using the federal regulatory process as framework –US Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for onshore licenses and US Maritime Administration/US Coast Guard (MARAD/USCG) for offshore licenses Approach allows for data collection from observable and active stakeholders –Bias –Measuring, scoring intensities

17 ©CEE-UT, 17 Issue Dimensions Information was collected for key issue dimensions identified from the regulatory process and based on pre-study surveys and analysis, including input from direct observation and outside sources

18 ©CEE-UT, 18 Stakeholders Stakeholders groups: –Are affected by LNG import facilities and activities in different ways –Have prescribed roles in the infrastructure siting/regulatory process Stakeholders were disaggregated into distinct groupings based on combination of the two factors above

19 ©CEE-UT, 19 Immediate Site Community Immediate Site-Host Community Usually adjacent to the site and a sub group of the local or greater communities Key concerns: emissions, safety, displacement

20 ©CEE-UT, 20 Waterway Community Usually adjacent to or near the waterway or have interests in the waterway designated for LNG tanker traffic and related marine operations Includes offshore facilities for marine projects and coastal crossings for pipelines Distinguished from immediate site-host community to capture waterway related issues such as: waterway traffic and security, endangered species protection and fisheries and wetlands CZMA considerations

21 ©CEE-UT, 21 Local Community Local Community (City/County) Can be influenced by perceptions of safety and security risk associated with potential consequences from large scale incidents More prominent issues include: surface traffic, tax revenues (related to the project or potential changes in real property values), local emergency response preparedness, access to natural gas (or perceptions that intention is to export) Political jurisdictions may have decision making power on site leases and local permits

22 ©CEE-UT, 22 Greater Community Encompasses other local stakeholders but distinct influence associated with political jurisdiction Receives some direct and indirect revenues (tax base, industrial activity – jobs, local purchases, tax revenues) Can be affected by changes in energy prices Has regulatory or permit authority such as governor veto power on offshore terminal licenses and CZMA

23 ©CEE-UT, 23 Immediate Site Community Waterway Community Local Community Greater Community

24 ©CEE-UT, 24 Immediate Site Community Local Community Waterway Community Greater Community

25 ©CEE-UT, 25 Other Stakeholders National Community (Federal) Remote; receives diffuse benefits from natural gas supply, energy diversity, energy security/reliability Project Developers No disaggregation Differences exist with respect to size, commercial focus, strategies, competitive position, stakeholder management External Stakeholders Sometimes independent Usually focused interest groups that may influence perceptions within and among other stakeholder groups on specific issues

26 ©CEE-UT, 26 Key Results and Findings Findings, conclusions derived from comparative analysis for sample of 20 projects Summary hypotheses tested once data collection was complete Project groupings –Licensed/Non-licensed –Onshore/offshore –By region: Pacific Northwest, California, Gulf Coast, Florida Northeast

27 ©CEE-UT, 27 Local Community Considerable positive impact on job creation and tax revenue Minor perceived benefit on energy costs Concerns about increased congestion during construction Waterway Community Concern about the impacts on fisheries and related jobs; property value; safety and security Minor perceived benefit on energy costs and tax revenue Immediate Site Community Concern about the loss of property value and safety and security No detectable perceived benefit. External Interest Group Active with regard to coastal environmental issues, safety and security. National Community Contributor to energy security Source of fuel of choice Greater Community Considerable positive impact on energy costs and employment Concerns on impacts on fisheries Licensed Projects 1 2 3 4 5 Safety/Security Wetlands Fisheries Energy Costs Roads Taxes Employment Air Emissions Property Value Other/Intangibles

28 ©CEE-UT, 28 All Projects Main Concerns: Fisheries, Safety/Security, Property Value, Air Emissions Main Benefits: Energy Costs, Taxes, Air Emissions Maximum over all Projects Minimum over all Projects 1 2 3 4 5 Safety/Security Wetlands Fisheries Energy Costs Roads Taxes Employment Air Emissions Property Value Other/Intangibles 1 2 3 4 5 Safety/Security Wetlands Fisheries Energy Costs Roads Taxes Employment Air Emissions Property Value Other/Intangibles 1 2 3 4 5 Safety/Security Wetlands Fisheries Energy Costs Roads Taxes Employment Air Emissions Property Value Other/Intangibles

29 ©CEE-UT, 29 Immediate Site Community Concern about the loss of jobs, property value and safety and security No detectable perceived benefit. External Interest Group More active with regard to coastal environmental issues, safety and security. National Community Contributor to energy security Source of fuel of choice Rising environmental impact concerns on coastal areas and marine habitat Greater Community Considerable positive impact on energy costs and minor on employment Rising concerns on impacts on fisheries, wetlands and loss of property value. Safety and security concerns are present. Local Community Positive impact on job creation, tax revenue and air emissions Minor perceived benefit on energy costs Concerns about safety and security and property value Waterway Community Rising concern about the impacts on fisheries and related jobs; property value; safety and security during transit; Diminishing perceived benefits Non-Licensed Projects 1 2 3 4 5 Safety/Security Wetlands Fisheries Energy Costs Roads Taxes Employment Air Emissions Property Value Other/Intangibles

30 ©CEE-UT, 30 Onshore vs Offshore 1 2 3 4 5 Safety/Security Wetlands Fisheries Energy Costs Roads Taxes Employment Air Emissions Property Value Other/Intangibles 1 2 3 4 5 Safety/Security Wetlands Fisheries Energy Costs Roads Taxes Employment Air Emissions Property Value Other/Intangibles

31 ©CEE-UT, 31 Local Community Positive impact on job creation and tax revenue. Clear recognition of benefit on energy costs and fuel choice. Concerns about coastal environment and safety and security and road congestion Waterway Community Concern about the impacts on fisheries and related jobs; property value; tanker traffic and safety and security No perceived benefits. Immediate Site Community Concern about safety and security and impact on fisheries. No detectable perceived benefit. External Interest Group Active with regard to coastal environmental issues, but highly mobilized on safety and security. National Community Contributor to energy security Source of fuel of choice. Concerns about impacts on marine habitat. Greater Community Recognition of impact on energy costs and need for natural gas. Rising concerns on impacts on fisheries, related jobs and property value. Concerns at the regional and state level about safety and security issues. Northeast Projects 1 2 3 4 5 Safety/Security Wetlands Fisheries Energy Costs Roads Taxes Employment Air Emissions Property Value Other/Intangibles

32 ©CEE-UT, 32 Northeast Projects Offshore projects that use considerable already existing local distributed storage A permanent FSRU could face opposition unless remote but a seasonal FSRU for continuous supply during peak seasons will likely not Use of inland waterways can become problematic

33 ©CEE-UT, 33 Immediate Site Community Concern about property value and safety and security. No detectable perceived benefit. External Interest Group Supportive due to decommissioning of dams, active on safety and security National Community Contributor to energy security. Greater Community Positive impact on energy costs and concerns on the impact on fisheries. Local Community Positive impact on job creation, and tax revenue. Transit community concerns. Waterway Community Rising concern about the impacts on fisheries and related jobs; property value; safety and security during transit. Pacific Northwest Projects 1 2 3 4 5 Safety/Security Wetlands Fisheries Energy Costs Roads Taxes Employment Air Emissions Property Value Other/Intangibles

34 ©CEE-UT, 34 Pacific Northwest Projects Small storage and regasification facilities Serve local markets in areas where electricity will need to be generated thermally due to dam decommissioning Excess volumes could eventually target other markets (via pipeline or wire)

35 ©CEE-UT, 35 Gulf Coast Projects 1 2 3 4 5 Safety/Security Wetlands Fisheries Energy Costs Roads Taxes Employment Air Emissions Property Value Other/Intangibles

36 ©CEE-UT, 36 Central/Western Gulf Coast Projects Large regasification facilities with associated storage (LNG or underground natural gas) near existing pipeline takeaway infrastructure Preference for onshore projects to achieve economies of scale; potential overbuilding in the region Possible constraint associated with limits to tolerance for further, intense coastal industrial development

37 ©CEE-UT, 37 Florida Projects 1 2 3 4 5 Safety/Security Wetlands Fisheries Energy Costs Roads Taxes Employment Air Emissions Property Value Other/Intangibles

38 ©CEE-UT, 38 Florida Projects Offshore projects face environmental challenges due to pipeline construction Novel construction techniques, if economically viable, may help with mitigation Onshore projects near busy and congested ports could be supported as State shifts toward natural gas Extension to greater Southeast as mid-term coal projects are displaced by natural gas

39 ©CEE-UT, 39 California Projects 1 2 3 4 5 Safety/Security Wetlands Fisheries Energy Costs Roads Taxes Employment Air Emissions Property Value Other/Intangibles

40 ©CEE-UT, 40 Hypothesis Tests Refer to separate handout

41 ©CEE-UT, 41 Targeted Benefits Offered Offer to receive option to purchase natural gas at market rates Regional promotion of energy hub and basic industries associated with LNG project Commitment to invest in social development plan with local stakeholder groups Financial aid and sponsorship (restoration and maintenance) to local lighthouse listed on National Register of Historic Places Closing bonus to local government at groundbreaking Direct discount to local community Reductions in energy costs to local/state/regional economies

42 ©CEE-UT, 42 Cost-to-Benefit Conversion Commitment to use US crews on LNG ships Grants to offset fisheries impacts and for regional marine studies Availability of natural gas to displace other fossil fuels and associated air emissions Natural gas combustion to revaporize LNG avoiding ORV Use air vaporizers to reduce both air emissions and avoid seawater associated impacts Build LNG terminals at existing industrial facilities where waste heat can be used for revaporization Use tunnels or other conduits for offtake natural gas pipelines to avoid impacts Natural gas for power generation to displace dams Net wetlands additions including donations for preserves Residential property compensation and replacement

43 ©CEE-UT, 43 Going Forward: Discussion Application to other large energy infrastructure projects NEPA and the regulatory process –Canada project comparisons Perceptions of risk and risk communication Public/constituent views on energy, energy supply, energy infrastructure

44 ©CEE-UT, 44 US LNG Cargo Receipts Sources: U.S. EIA, World Gas Intelligence

45 ©CEE-UT, 45

46 ©CEE-UT, 46 For More Information: www.beg.utexas.edu/energyecon/lng Houston forum: March 27, 2008


Download ppt "Bureau of Economic Geology, The University of Texas at Austin Defining Community and Economic Benefits Associated with Energy Infrastructure Projects:"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google