LNG depot proposed near central wetlands

| 25/11/2020 | 48 Comments
Proposed site of the LNG depot

(CNS): Plans to build a liquid natural gas terminal in a former quarry in Breakers that will pose a threat to both the Central Wetlands and the marine coastline have been put to government. Breakers LNG (Cayman) Ltd, the developers behind the project, which is said to be in the very early stages, said they want to import the fuel via a floating mooring in the Pease Bay area of Bodden Town.

The developers released a short statement Tuesday evening following concerns on social media that a long-rumoured proposal by the same group for a cargo port and possible cruise terminal was in the works. However, they said that the project did not require a port.

Under the proposal, Breakers LNG would work in partnership with Eagle LNG Partners LLC from Jacksonville, Florida, who would bring the liquid gas. This would then be delivered from ship to shore through a marine mooring and land connection, similar to the fuel transshipment process at Jackson Point in George Town.

“The plan also entails a holding tank to be built in an existing quarry,” the developers stated. “The team has presented preliminary plans to the Cayman Islands Department of Environment and initial feedback received is being considered as part of the project design. All environmental impact assessments and appropriate mitigations will be addressed per the department’s requirements.”

The owners of Breakers LNG said they had plans to meet with the government to present the project over the next month, which would be followed by a public consultation process.

CUC has noted the need to replace the diesel it uses with liquid natural gas and at a recent public forum Richard Hew, the president and CEO of the power provider on Grand Cayman, spoke about converting the company’s existing tanks, but he made no mention of this proposed project with Breakers LNG.

It has not yet been revealed who is behind this new company but it is understood that members of the now stalled Ironwood golf development in Frank Sound are involved in the proposal.

A spokesperson from the Dart Group, which owns land adjacent to where the gas tanks would be located under the proposal, told CNS that Dart was not involved in this proposal yet. “As a landowner in the vicinity, Dart is aware of the proposal for a liquid natural gas distribution facility in the Breakers area. We are not involved in the project at this stage,” said Cameron Graham, Dart’s President of Development Delivery and Infrastructure.

The site where this new development is proposed has been long rumoured as a proposed alternative to a cargo and cruise dock, which would see a canal cut through the wetlands to the oceanfront at Breakers. Plans for that project, which emerged on social media this week, were said to have been put to government during the summer lockdown and involved the same people now behind the proposal for a LNG depot.

How realistic either of these projects are remains to be seen but the proposals have been greeted with horror by environmental activists and residents in the area. The property in question surrounds and includes land that has been used for quarrying and is owned by the Scotts family, but it is also adjacent to the Central Wetlands and Meagre Bay Pond, a protected animal sanctuary.

CNS has contacted CUC, the Ministry of Infrastructure and the Department of Environment about this proposal.


Share your vote!


How do you feel after reading this?
  • Fascinated
  • Happy
  • Sad
  • Angry
  • Bored
  • Afraid

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Tags: , , ,

Category: Local News

Comments (48)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Anonymous says:

    Oh, do go away moffitt !

  2. New Wave says:

    All those quarry lakes look like ideal locations for floating solar farms.

  3. Anonymous says:

    It sure seems like we are doing everything in our power to irreversibly destroy or pollute the environment around us.

  4. Anonymous says:

    No worries. Aproved!

  5. Anonymous says:

    Cns should make a map of cayman showing all the land that Dart owns. All hail King Dart

    CNS: It’s actually quite difficult to find all that out. If I had all that info, I could do that.

  6. Anonymous says:

    It would be dicey to approve a cross-border LNG depot right now, just days before the inauguration of a new USA political administration. Even as we read about hastily-renamed Venezuelan and Iranian LNG ghost tankers running transponder-less to Cuba and plying Caribbean waters looking for unscrupulous ship-to-ship bunkering transactions. Clearly, the Cayman Islands isn’t widen seen to have any moral hangups, nor domestic LNG fields/production that could easily justify proximity storage of LNG beyond the 146.75Mw appetites of our local electrical utility, that transparently runs on diesel. Anything larger than our (minuscule) plausible household LNG appetite, dares to easily be confused for a red flag intermediary reseller role – drawing the ire of USA/UN/NGOs for suspected political corruption, money laundering, and embargo-skirting. Once again, Cayman’s usual get-rich-quick set critically underestimate the eyeballs and BTUs of this game.

    • Anonymous says:

      Indeed.

      Plus the US party involved in this proposal had better tread extremely carefully and have an attorney very well versed in FCPA matters. We see you, boy. We see you.

  7. Anonymous says:

    In a highly competitive field of stupid ideas, this one is a real contender for top spot. Rivaled only by the more extensive plan circulating on social media, which looks like it was drawn by a 5 year old and dreamt up by a 3 year old.

    Both are solely intended to get CIG to build the road so the golf course can get built.

    Completely unsuitable location, both onshore and marine, which would put the entire island at risk of catastrophic pollution.

    Stick the the golf course Moffitt, your track record elsewhere is woeful. And Dart would do well to stay away, given their previous involvement in this area which I am sure details of which they would not want raked up and over (yeah, we know).

  8. Res Ipsa Loquitur says:

    Which politicians stand to benefit or are the silent partners in these proposals? Someone in power is always getting paid with these sort of deals just look at the players involved.

    • Anonymous says:

      Which politician…?
      Do you really have to ask.?

    • Anonymous says:

      CNS really should not allow these types of comments to be made without proof. These are our own Caymanian politicians you all are slandering without any proof of wrongdoing. People who WE voted for to represent us. Stop with the baseless accusations.

  9. Anonymous says:

    Either way LNG will not insulate us from future skyrocketing oil prices. This switch to LNG is on the books because one of the developers has family ties and so has the magic key that lays the red carpet right through OfReg’s approval process. Other renewable proposals are firmly lodged in OfReg’s “to do piles” never to see the light of day.
    So a message to all would be renewable energy proposers; if you are a profane outsider, team up with one here who knows the light and has the grip or your dreams will be speculative.

  10. Anonymous says:

    Diesel is dirt cheap right now and will be for the foreseeable future. There’s no way you can build all that infrastructure, make a profit and still offer a cost savings to consumers.

    This project will take a massive amount of infrastructure for a fossil fuel. For something that can only be a stepping stone. CUC can use containerized gas from our existing terminals, they said so at one of the conferences.

    Why devote all that money and wreck all that environment for an interim solution?

    ALL NEW INFRASTRUCTURE should be for renewables only.
    EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE should be retrofitted for natural gas where possible.

    • Hubert says:

      LNG prices have been going down this year and will be lower for the next few years. The reason is that too many new LNG plants have come on stream this year and more to come next year resulting in very low prices. Good for consumers but not good for LNG companies. Particularly, those that have invested in them.

    • Anonymous says:

      “Diesel is dirt cheap right now and will be for the foreseeable future” HAHAHAHAHA! Not here in the Cayman Islands and NEVER will be.
      Thanks for all of your efforts OFFREG

  11. Anonymous says:

    Why go and dig up the roads again, laying more underground services?

    Just run an underwater pipe in the north sound direct to CUC.

  12. Hubert says:

    Great proposal. Only way we will ever be able to shut down the Jackson Point facility which is a major safety / health threat to a large part of George Town.

    • Anonymous says:

      Except this doesn’t do that. It doesn’t pretend to try to do that. It won’t even come close to doing it.

      • Anonymous says:

        What you talking about Bobo? The fire at Jackson Point in 2017 was in a big diesel tank. The LNG will displace the diesel fuel.

        • Anonymous says:

          It will displace some diesel. As much as CUC is willing to switch over its generators to. That will still leave diesel and petrol for vehicles, etc., coming in to Jackson Point. Hence this proposal will not enable the country to “shut down the Jackson Point facility”. (Unless we mandate that all internal combustion engines be switched to LNG, or propane (which is less polluting and more effective for ‘small’ engines like vehicles). Even then there would still be the aviation fuel imports at Jackson Point.)

      • Anonymous says:

        So no diesel will be brought in for any other reason? Cars don’t use it?

        • Miami Dave says:

          Ban all diesel vehicles. Hybrid, electric and gas vehicles are all more environmentally friendly. Just common sense if one really is concerned about the environment.

    • Anonymous says:

      Perhaps the 28 thumbs downers could explain how they think Jackson Point will be phased out in the future? A ticking time bomb just like The Dump.

  13. Anonymous says:

    How do I feel about this? I feel that Mr. Dart is very much involved in the operation. He has a history of using stand-ins so that his presence in the ownership in different businesses is unknown. He”s pretty slick!!!

    • Anonymous says:

      No he’s not. Try checking people with family ties to CUC. If you attended CTEC in the past you know well who is behind this.

      • Anonymous says:

        People with family ties to CUC includes half of West Bay, George Town, Bodden Town, East End, North Side, Cayman Brac, and possibly Little Cayman. Maybe it is a community funded project!

    • Anonymous says:

      Follow the money.

  14. Anonymous says:

    ‘CUC has noted the need to replace the diesel it uses with liquid natural gas.’ That’s taken long enough hasn’t it? As far back as 2007 they were saying that all their new generators were multi-fuel but they never took up the option of switching from diesel to LPG when they were installed.

    LPG also works well in motor vehicles. I’ve driven an LPG converted petrol-engined van in the UK. It was a completely trouble-free process with the initial cost of the conversion being covered in about 18 months.

    • Anonymous says:

      You do know the difference between LPG and LNG? This is an LNG storage facility not LPG like Clean Gas and Home Gas currently supply.

      • Anonymous says:

        Yeah but LNG works in motor vehicles too.

      • Anonymous says:

        11:55 Who rattled your cage? I was simply making the point that you can run the CUC generators on LPG or LNG and you can run vehicles on LPG, which is not only much cleaner but freely available. In 2007 CUC didn’t have the option of LNG. If you’re going make a point don’t get picky about it.

        FYI, the difference between LPG and LNG is that the former (mostly propane) becomes liquid at relatively low pressures, it’s easy to handle and can be stored without refrigeration whereas the latter (mostly methane) has to be stored at high pressure and low temperatures. That means that LNG needs complex storage facilities and has to be supplied on a point-to-point (tanker or pipeline) basis to the user while LPG can simply be delivered in bottles or through the equivlent of a gas pump.

        Is this project viable? I have my doubts because of the logistics of handling LNG at the temperatures and pressures it needs to remain liquid.

    • Anonymous says:

      A ‘petrol’ or gasoline engine has a totally different combustion cycle from that of a large diesel engine. LPG or propane can be used in modifies petrol engines but not large diesels.

      • Anonymous says:

        Not according to CUC, they told me at the launch of two new generators in 2007 that both units (and most of the ones they already had) could run on LPG. LNG and a variety of other fuels.

        • Gullible says:

          I guess they can use dried turtle excrement then? And maybe our Turtle Farm can be our renewable energy saviour.

      • Anonymous says:

        CUC engines are supposedly dual fuel.

  15. Anonymous says:

    Calm down, this is David Moffitt, it’ll get started right after Ironwood is finished.

    • Anonymous says:

      Sole purpose of this is to “entice” CIG to build the road to the golf course.

    • Eric Ebanks says:

      I don’t think Moffit has ever completed a project…like Ryan ..more law suits than projects!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.