Posted on 04/07/2007 9:56:29 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
SACRAMENTO - Despite continuing opposition from environmentalists, a $1 billion liquefied natural gas facility proposed for off the Malibu coast could win key state approvals as early as next week.
To be built by Australian energy giant BHP Billiton and anchored about 14 miles offshore, the floating facility would become California's first such plant. The 214-foot-high terminal would accept liquefied natural gas from tankers, convert it into natural gas and pipe it to a facility in Oxnard.
"The facility we're proposing is absolutely the most environmental facility out there," said Renee Klimczak, president of BHP's liquefied natural gas division. "That's why we're proposing it for California. It's been specifically designed to meet all of the standards."
Despite BHP's assurances, the proposal has drawn adamant objections from activists who fear that the facility and the tankers that supply it would pollute the water and endanger marine life.
"I don't like this project because I think they've chosen a design that is not suitable for installation along the California coast," said Susan Jordan, director of the California Coastal Protection Network.
"If the government is committed to importing LNG into California, there are other alternatives, technologies, designs and locations that could be more appropriate, that could carry fewer public safety risks and a smaller environmental footprint."
Votes next week
The California Coastal Commission and the California State Lands Commission are scheduled to hold final hearings and vote on the project next week.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger would have until mid-May to make a final decision. While Schwarzenegger has previously supported more LNG supplies in the state, spokesman Bill Maile said he has not yet taken a position on the Malibu project.
BHP and energy industry officials note natural gas is a cleaner-burning source of energy than traditional fossil fuels such as coal.
And Klimczak said the facility will produce roughly 800 million cubic feet of natural gas every day - enough to supply at least 10 percent of California's overall demand.
The company has received letters from 18 utilities and natural-gas consumers - including Los Angeles' Department of Water and Power - interested in purchasing the gas, she said.
BHP has already agreed to a number of mitigation measures in response to concerns by environmentalists and state officials, Klimczak said.
All LNG tankers would use natural-gas fuel when in California coastal waters, and support vessels such as tugboats will be fitted with catalytic reduction systems.
State Controller John Chiang, one of three members of the State Lands Commission, said he has not yet reached a decision on the LNG project but has questions and concerns.
"I'm concerned about emissions mitigation," Chiang said. "The appearance, at least from the land, doesn't appear all that great. I'm trying to get a better sense of water travel and water usage and public safety. There are strong disagreements."
The Lands Commission staff issued a report raising some concerns about the project but ultimately recommending its approval. A report from the Coastal Commission's staff, however, recommended rejection on environmental grounds.
BHP Billiton has used its political leverage to push the project, spending nearly $3 million on lobbying. The company and its lobbyists also are closely connected to a number of former members of the Schwarzenegger administration.
The governor's former communications director, Rob Stutzman, now works for a political consulting firm that has worked for the LNG industry. And the governor's former legislative secretary, Richard Costigan, now works for the firm that lobbies for BHP Billiton.
Maile said politics will play no role in the governor's decision.
"As with any major decision, the governor will look at all sides of the issue and make a decision based on the merits and what's in the best interest of California," Maile said.
But environmental opponents have been joined by officials from Oxnard and Malibu, state lawmakers representing the coast and celebrities including actor Pierce Brosnan and anthropologist Jane Goodall.
Los Angeles County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky also opposes the project.
"I don't believe it's appropriate in an environmentally sensitive area," Yaroslavsky said. "Of all the places I would site an LNG terminal, it wouldn't be next to a national park. It's like putting a coal-fired power plant in Yosemite Valley."
The plant would be near Channel Islands National Park.
On Capitol Hill, federal lawmakers are starting to question the EPA, which ruled three years ago that the LNG facility must meet the strictest smog regulations. A year later, it reversed that decision.
Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, has sent letters to the agency demanding proof of the further analysis EPA officials said they relied upon for the reversal.
Waxman aides said they have not received any new studies or analyses from the EPA. Aides said they did, however, find contacts between a Bush administration political appointee and BHP Billiton.
Reversal investigated
In a letter to EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson in March, Waxman said he is concerned about possible "intervention" by Jeffrey Holmstead, former assistant administrator of the EPA for air and radiation.
Aides said documents show Holmstead met with BHP Billiton in March 2005 and contacted the EPA unit responsible for California shortly after that. An EPA conference call was scheduled for April 27. The agency's reversal came June 29.
Holmstead, who now is a partner with the firm Bracewell & Giuliani, did not return a call seeking comment.
Waxman aides said they have asked the EPA to submit to interviews and expect to conduct those in the coming weeks.
In the meantime, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and Rep. Lois Capps, D-Santa Barbara, are objecting to the Cabrillo Port project and requesting a long list of documents.
"With Democratic control (in Congress), there's more of an opportunity for us to put pressure on the administration to explain their decisions," said Capps spokeswoman Emily Kryder.
Staff Writer Kerry Cavanaugh contributed to this report.
15%
The only major oil spills in memory were caused by tankers registered in such places like Liberia and Ivory Coast.
Not even hurricanes Katrina & Rita that put 100s of production platforms out of service and capsized numerous drilling rigs didn't produce environmental disasters that liberal alarmist predicted.
Build it in Texas. We’ll only tack on a nominal fee for delivery.
We are a major home for moonbats...
Well, what design is suitable Susie?
You can see structures 15 miles out at sea... I think that is the point.
I’m for it though. But I have to wonder, with side way drilling and such, why is there a need for near shore facilities? Why not just put it up in the canyons and drill at an angle into the sea bed?
I know, was just picking on California’s reluctance to supply their own energy needs.
But I agree re; the new technoligies available to go after the abundant supplies of oil offshore do exist and should be used,, Now..
Californians for Clean Affordable Safe Energy Support the Need for LNG
Friday April 6, 7:15 pm ET
Coalition of More Than 75 Groups Representing a Wide Array of Interests Including Taxpayers, Education, Local Governments, Major Electricity Providers, Agriculture, Chambers of Commerce, and Consumer Groups
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/070406/laf028.html?.v=88
OXNARD, Calif., April 6 /PRNewswire/ — Californians for Clean Affordable Safe Energy (Cal-CASE) strongly supports the development of new natural gas supply sources, including LNG. The coalition comprises more than 75 groups representing a wide array of interests who believe California’s demand for natural gas will grow significantly within the next decade and to help meet that demand, LNG can play a larger role in California’s energy supply.
In a letter dated April 5, 2007 addressed to the California State Lands Commission, Cal-CASE states, “While we support energy conservation and efficiency and the development of renewable energy sources, California still needs additional supplies of clean-burning natural gas. We believe the cleanest, safest and most economical way to increase this supply is through the importation of liquefied natural gas.”
The letter further concludes, “[b]y taking advantage of a large global supply of LNG, California can avoid gyrating prices and give businesses and consumers a more stable energy market. Both the California Energy Commission and California Public Utilities Commission support the importation of LNG into the state to meet current and future demand.”
For California, now is the right time for the right natural gas project in the right place. BHP Billiton’s Cabrillo Port project will supply California with a reliable source of clean energy to replace polluting coal and oil, helping to reduce carbon emissions while serving a growing population. Cabrillo Port will protect the marine and air environments through California-driven environmental programs, and it will be located safely 14 miles offshore, where it will not be visible on most days, and on those few clear days when it could be seen, it will have the visual impact of a grain of rice on the edge of the earth.
The coalition members of Cal-CASE include:
Agricultural Council of California
Agricultural Energy Consumers Association
Alameda County Taxpayers Association
American Electronics Association
Apple Valley Chamber of Commerce
Associated General Contractors of California
The Bay Area Council
BP
California Alliance for Consumer Protection
California Building Industry Association
California Business Properties Association
California Business Roundtable
California Chamber of Commerce
California Citrus Mutual
California Cogeneration Council
California Cotton Ginners & Growers Associations
California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance
California Farm Bureau Federation
California Grape and Tree Fruit League
California Grocers Association
California Independent Grocers & Convenience Stores
California Independent Oil Marketers Association
California Independent Petroleum Association
California Large Energy Consumers Association
California League of Food Processors
California Lodging Industry Association
California Manufacturers & Technology Association
California Municipal Utilities Association
California Poultry Federation
California Restaurant Association
California Retailers Association
California Small Business Association
California Space Authority, Inc.
California State Association of Counties
California Women for Agriculture
Carpinteria Valley Chamber of Commerce
Chemical Industry Council of California
Clovis Chamber of Commerce
Consumers First
Contra Costa County Farm Bureau
Contra Costa Taxpayers Association
Crystal Energy LLC
Goleta Valley Chamber of Commerce
Greater Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce
Greater Redding Chamber of Commerce
Independent Oil Producers Agency
Industrial Environmental Association
Kern County Taxpayers Association
Knolle Magnetrans
Lake Elsinore Valley Chamber of Commerce
Lassen County Farm Bureau
Lomita Chamber of Commerce
Los Angeles Economic Development Corporation
Newport Beach Chamber of Commerce
Olive Growers Council of California
Orange County Taxpayers Association
Oxnard Chamber of Commerce
Pacific Gas and Electric
Redondo Beach Chamber of Commerce
Regional Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Long Beach
Regional Legislative Alliance of Ventura and Santa Barbara Counties
San Diego County Taxpayers Association
San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce
School Project for Utility Rate Reduction
The Seniors Coalition
Silicon Valley Leadership Group
Simi Valley Chamber of Commerce
Southern California Generation Coalition
South Bay Association of Chambers of Commerce (18 chamber member coalition)
Southwest California Legislative Council (a chamber coalition in SW
Riverside Co.)
Tuolumne County Chamber of Commerce
Valley Industry and Commerce Association
Ventura County Economic Development Association
Western Growers Association
Western States Petroleum Association
Williams Energy Services
More information about Cabrillo Port and BHP Billiton LNG International can be accessed at www.cabrilloport.com.
There's the real objection: aesthetics. Liberals in Malibu will have to look at it. ;)
Kind of like offshore of Cape Cod where windturbines at sea are being fought over.
There is no drilling involved. It is essentially just a port facility that will take liquified gas from tankers, then return it to gaseous form and pump it via a pipeline to the shore.
Maybe they should just build it in Malibu proper and tear down all those ugly shacks that line the shore.
The alternative is that we will build them in Canada and Mexico, and pipeline the gas across. The jobs will go there, and a lot of the money that inevitably spills over from a project like that will go to our neighbors.
And just think, as the US becomes more and more hostile to industry, one day most of the need for energy will be elsewhere, and the problem solves itself. America’s day will be done, but hey.
Why would anyone even think about building a plant in California, things being as they are? You’d have to be crazy. There are other countries that want our industry and investment money. Most people will want to invest where they are wanted.
Hell, build it outside of Oxnard.... Ventura County could use more revenue.
[mig]http://timrileylaw.com/Vice%20President%20Gore%20with%20LNG%20Filmmakers.jpg[/IMG]
MANBEARPIG is against it.
Seen here with Tim Reily.
( Attorney Timothy Clifford Riley is among the first 500 Certified Members of the Million Dollar Advocates Forum, “The Top Trial Lawyers in the Country.” )
TimRileyLaw.com
15% of the State's Natural Gas usage is significantly less than 15% of the state's energy usage.
Under typical marine layer conditions, which prevail 325 to 340 days a year, the FSRU is not perceptible to the naked eye. Under clear conditions, which prevail 25 to 40 days a year, Cabrillo Port will be barely visible from Point Mugu (its closest point to shore at approximately 14 miles). Independent modeling experts have advised the state of California that under clear conditions the FSRU will have the visual impact of a "grain of rice" held between the thumb and forefinger with your arm fully extended from your body.
Cut off the gas to every complainer and then we won’t need it!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
