County supervisor blasts LNG proposal

Malibu Times ^ | September 06, 2006 | Jonathan Friedman

[thackney]

Yaroslavsky says the Cabrillo Port project proposed for Malibu's coast is unsafe, and would damage and pollute the environment. BHP Billiton declines to respond to the supervisor's criticisms.

Calling BHP Billiton's plan to build a liquefied natural gas terminal off the coast of Malibu an "ill-sited and ill-planned proposal," Los Angeles County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky urged Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to oppose the project in a letter written to the state leader last week. This marks the first time the influential politician, whose district includes Malibu, has taken a firm stance on the Australian company's proposal.

"After thorough review of the environmental documents and additional facts surrounding the proposed Cabrillo Liquefied Natural Gas Deepwater Port, I am writing to express my firm opposition to this project," Yaroslavsky wrote.

In his letter, Yaroslavsky said the proposal "poses significant public safety impacts," "would severely damage the scenic beauty of the Malibu coast" and threatened the environment. He also challenged BHP Billiton's argument that LNG was a clean alternative fuel.

"This claim fails to hold true when the entire supply chain of LNG is considered in the equation," Yaroslavsky wrote. "...the LNG will have to be shipped several thousand miles, potentially on diesel-powered tankers, which will add greenhouse gasses to the Earth's atmosphere. Then the liquefied gas will have to be heated using a process that will use up a sizable amount of its available energy thereby reducing LNG's overall efficiency and further adding to the greenhouse gasses and other air pollutants produced by the LNG process. Finally, the supply ships, tug boats and other support vessels will also contribute to the air quality impacts of the port."

BHP Billiton officials declined to comment specifically on Yaroslavsky's criticisms about the Cabrillo Port project in his letter.

"We appreciate Mr. Yaroslavsky's interest in the Cabrillo Port natural gas transfer facility," BHP Billiton Director of Public Affairs Patrick Cassidy wrote in an e-mail to The Malibu Times. "We've not yet had the opportunity to meet with Mr. Yaroslavsky but look forward to do doing that soon so we can address his questions and provide him with additional information on Cabrillo Port. Cabrillo Port can provide California with a much needed safe, new reliable supply of natural gas."

BHP Billiton has proposed building its facility 14 miles off the Malibu coast. Before it could be built, Cabrillo Port must be approved by the State Lands Commission and the U.S. Coast Guard, with the California Coastal Commission, the Maritime Administration and the governor having a say in the matter.

The federal Environmental Protection Agency is in charge of granting air quality and water discharge permits for the project. One of the controversial issues involved with the air quality permit is that the facility will be subject to air quality standards as if it were on an island rather than on the mainland, a decision made by the federal government earlier this year. Documents obtained by environmental opponents to the project revealed last month that the White House influenced the EPA's change of position after lobbying by BHP Billiton.

The SLC will conduct hearings on the draft environmental impact report for the project later this year.

The EPA will not make a decision on the permits it oversees until the project as a whole has been considered by the necessary state and federal entities.

There are three other proposals by other companies to build LNG facilities off the Los Angeles County coast, but the Cabrillo Port project is the one furthest along in the permitting process.

[rellimpank]

--gee whiz-fantasize about an energy-free California--for one thing, they couldn't broadcast their rot to the rest of us--

[Wristpin]

Perhaps what's needed is a national system of computing energy consumption vs production credits. States that produce energy would be paid royalties(NIMBY tax) and net consumption states pay the tax. Block a NG Terminal, Nuke plant and ban offshore drilling? Pay up suckah! Producer states pay less at the pump and on utility Bills. 'Tick' staters would pay higher energy bills for living in an environmental utopia. Kind of a reverse Kyoto deal.

There would be a consequence for allowing the Nimby's to control politics at the state level.

[rellimpank]

--I agree wholeheartedly and would like to see a hefty tax on every watt of energy crossing the California border for example, rebated to producing states.

[rahbert]

Malibu would make a great site for an LNG port.
Berkeley would also make a great site for a nuclear
power plant. A big neutron belching reactor on
U Av...

[ASOC]

Help me here

14 miles off the coast is "over the horizon" at sea level - and much of Malibu looks pretty close to sea level.

Does Malibu have mountians I don't see on google earth?

[thackney]

It would depend on the height of the structure, would it not?

[ASOC]

Yup, did not see a lot of high rise on the google earth stuff. Looked like mostly one and two story homes.

Lets see if I remember my FCC RADAR test equations...a person viewing the horison at 6 ft about sea level, looking toward a structure I have assumed to be 25 ft above sea level - would not view the structure. The horizon at 6 ft is 9 miles, more or less.

If the viewer was at 18 ft (say, looking out 2nd story window) they should not see anything either, the horizon is at 11 mi.

In the second example, the LNG plant would have to have structures taller than 53 ft above sea level to be visible.

Of course, everything I know about LNG terminal would fit into a gnats navel with enough extra room room for a peach pit....

[thackney]

I would expect an offshore LNG terminal to easily have structures close to 75~100 feet above the water's surface, similar to a large oil platform.

How Far is the Horizon?
http://www.boatsafe.com/kids/distance.htm