A critique of offshore liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal policy

Whitmore, William D.; Baxter, Vern; Laska, Shirley

doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2008.10.002

Cited by 4 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…According to extensive literature (Abdussamie et al, 2018;Antao & Soares, 2012;Balmat et al, 2009;Bubbico et al, 2009;Hightower et al, 2004;Huang, 2012;Khan et al, 2018;Lu & Wang, 2015;Nwaoha et al, 2013;Østvik et al, 2005;Paltrinieri et al, 2015;Perkovic et al, 2012;Vanem et al, 2008;Whitmore et al, 2009;Wu et al, 2021;Xu & Wu, 2019;Zhao et al, 2015;Zhu et al, 2021), the authors develop a risk evaluation indices, including four first-level indices and nine second-level indices (Table 1) .…”

Section: Construction Of Evaluation Index Systemmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Political risks policy decisions of government (Huang, 2012) intervention of foreign forces (Lu & Wang, 2015;Nwaoha et al, 2013;Xu, 2019) Economic Risks fuel price (Xu, 2019) vessel age (Balmat et al, 2009;Wu et al, 2021;Xu, 2019) Transportation Risks natural environment (Antao & Soares, 2012;Balmat et al, 2009;Hightower et al, 2004;Khan et al, 2018;Nwaoha et al, 2013;Østvik et al, 2005;Vanem et al, 2008;Xu, 2019;Zhao et al, 2015) shipping route distance (Lu & Wang, 2015;Zhao et al, 2015) security of transit areas (Bubbico et al, 2009;Hightower et al, 2004;Lu & Wang, 2015;Nwaoha et al, 2013;Østvik et al, 2005;Paltrinieri et al, 2015;Whitmore et al, 2009;Wu et al, 2021;Zhu et al, 2021) Operation & Management Risks incorrect operations (Abdussamie et al, 2018;Antao & Soares, 2012;Østvik et al, 2005;Wu et al, 2021;Zhao et al, 2015) shortage of crew (Østvik et al, 2005)…”

Section: First-level Indices Second-level Indices Citationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Security of transit areas represents the frequency of piracy and terrorist attacks. In some studies (Bubbico et al, 2009;Lu & Wang, 2015;Østvik et al, 2005;Paltrinieri et al, 2015;Whitmore et al, 2009;Wu et al, 2021;Zhu et al, 2021), terrorist attacks were selected as a risk factor. Besides, Nwaoha et al (Nwaoha et al, 2013) mentioned sabotage.…”

Section: Transportation Risksmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

LNG Transportation Routes Risk Assessment Based on Group Decision Making

Dong

Gao

2022

International Journal of Fuzzy System Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The risk assessment of liquefied natural gas (LNG) transportation routes has raised researchers' concerns in recent years, which is a group multi-criteria decision-making (GMCDM) problems that involves experts' opinions from different fields. To improve the effectiveness in evaluating process, this paper proposes a risk assessment method to recognize the potential risks and selects the best LNG transportation route. Firstly, the authors construct the systematic risk evaluation indices, including four first-level indices (political, economic, transportation, and operation and management risks) and nine second-level indices. Then a novel risk assessment method of the LNG transportation route is developed, including opinion representation, consensus measurement and detection, personalized feedback, and selection process. Finally, a scenario analysis is provided to model the risk evaluation process and demonstrate the soundness and applicability of the presented model.

show abstract

Section: Construction Of Evaluation Index Systemmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: First-level Indices Second-level Indices Citationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Transportation Risksmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

LNG Transportation Routes Risk Assessment Based on Group Decision Making

Dong

Gao

2022

International Journal of Fuzzy System Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The conversion of Global Warming CO 2 -eq to human health equivalence is achieved following Equation (5), where the GWP100 is calculated first for GHG emissions. Then, the human health impact is calculated based on the characterization factor:…”

Section: Midpoint and Endpoint Human Health Impact With Recipementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The entire supply of NG is dependent on the distribution of pipeline networks between the fields of demand and supply. LNG manufacturers are currently specializing in an enhanced process of liquefaction and regasification to achieve an environmentally friendly work climate [4,5]. The transformation of NG through the various processes of the LNG industry chain necessitates the use of a considerable quantity of fuel, which is mainly obtained from the NG feed.…”

Section: Introduction 1lng Industry and Supply Chainmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Novel Hybrid Life Cycle Assessment Approach to Air Emissions and Human Health Impacts of Liquefied Natural Gas Supply Chain

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Global interest in LNG products and supply chains is growing, and demand continues to rise. As a clean energy source, LNG can nevertheless emit air pollutants, albeit at a lower level than transitional energy sources. An LNG plant capable of producing up to 126 MMTA was successfully developed and simulated in this study. A hybrid life cycle assessment model was developed to examine the social and human health impacts of the LNG supply chain’s environmental air emission formation. The Multiregional Input–Output (MRIO) database, the Aspen HYSYS model, and the LNG Maritime Transportation Emission Quantification Tool are the key sources of information for this extensive novel study. We began our research by grouping environmental emissions sources according to the participation of each stage in the supply chain. The MDEA Sweetening plant, LNG loading (export terminal), and LNG transportation stages were discovered to have the maximum air emissions. The midpoint air emissions data estimated each stage’s CO2-eq, NOx-eq, and PM2.5-eq emissions per unit LNG generated. According to the midpoint analysis results, the LNG loading terminal has the most considerable normalized CO2-eq and NOx-eq emission contribution across all LNG supply chain stages. Furthermore, the most incredible intensity value for normalized PM2.5-eq was recorded in the SRU and TGTU units. Following the midpoint results, the social human health impact findings were calculated using ReCiPe 2016 characterization factors to quantify the daily loss of life associated with the LNG process chain. SRU and TGTU units have the most significant social human health impact, followed by LNG loading (export terminal) with about 7409.0 and 1203.9 (DALY/million Ton LNG produced annually), respectively. Natural gas extraction and NGL recovery and fractionation units are the lowest for social human health consequences.

show abstract