February 2009

Crist voices opposition to Calypso LNG EnergyCurrent - Houston,TX,USA  Florida Gov. Charlie is opposed to the proposed Calypso pipeline, which would bring gas from Calypso liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal offshore Florida. Though the project has been proposed for construction by GDF Suez North America in U.S. federal waters, Crist's formal opposition to the project can stop the terminal and pipeline from being built, according to media reports. The applicant was unable to alleviate the reasonable health and safety concerns of coastal residents that may arise from a catastrophic accident or terrorist.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2008/1344/of2008-1344.pdf

Geologic and Seismic Hazards Affecting Proposed Liquefied Natural Gas Site in Santa Monica Bay, California. The LNG facility is proposed to lie in a region of known geologic hazards that include: "Strong shaking from earthquakes: the estimated probability of a magnitude 6.5 or larger earthquake occurring in the next 30 years..."

January 2009

LNG facility off L.A. coast is scrapped Los Angeles Times, CA  “It marks the second LNG project off the Los Angeles coast to be killed. In 2007, another project died because of opposition from residents.”

Woodside suspends gas project due to tough market  Reuters “Larger rivals have so far failed to convince Californians to accept construction of terminals on or near the mainland, with a similar plan proposed by BHP Billiton Ltd rejected in 2007 after strong public opposition.”

July 2008

Samsung to Deliver World's Biggest LNG Tanker for Exxon Project Bloomberg Samsung was contracted to make 11 tankers, each of 266,000 cubic-meter capacity...

NOTE: “The energy content of a single standard LNG tanker (one hundred twenty-five thousand cubic meters) is equivalent to seven-tenths of a megaton of TNT, or about fifty-five Hiroshima bombs." according to Brittle Power Energy Strategy for National Security, Part 2  Disasters Waiting to Happen / Chapter 8: Liquefied Natural Gas (First Prepared as a US Pentagon Study) By Lovins & Lovins at page 88 

December 2007

Council votes to oppose LNG project Malibu Times - Malibu, CA

Staten Islanders up in arms over proposed floating liquefied ... Staten Island Advance - SILive.com - Staten Island, NY  

November 2007

LA Daily News - Two area liquefied natural gas plants in pipeline Tim Riley, an Oxnard attorney who has made a film about the dangers of liquefied natural gas - or LNG - said the Oxnard LNG terminal could be at risk from earthquakes, accidents and terrorist attacks that would pose a risk to marine life as well as nearby residents. "I can't imagine this getting beyond the Coast Guard (review) because this Clearwater Port is too dangerous, and it's unneeded," Riley said.

September 2007

Third Blue Whale Found Dead Off California Coast Environment News Service - USA carcass was floating south of Platform Grace, Santa Barbara Channel.

August 2007

Paperwork for First of Two Area LNG Projects Accepted by Feds  Malibu Surfside News  Neither project sits well with some environmentalists, like Oxnard attorney Tim Riley, who is gearing up to battle an LNG terminal 13 miles west of his Oxnard Shores home. "This is a guinea pig project that is going to be twice as close to Oxnard as the BHP Billiton one," he said. "It will have two LNG tankers at it so it will be at least twice as dangerous, so we all need to team together as with BHP Billiton and work twice as hard." Riley noted that the old oil platform has reached the end of its design life, and was supposed to be removed from its prominent position on the sunset horizon in Ventura County.

The Platform Grace oil platform 10.5 miles offshore California Coastline is the site of the next West Coast LNG battleground. This new guinea-pig LNG fossil-fuel sea-factory proposal will directly impact Malibu, Oxnard, Ventura, and Santa Barbara. The Deep Water Port Act review (same process as for the BHP project), will commence soon - probably within 60 days. This LNG regassification sea-factory proposal has been dubbed 'Clearwater' by its proponents as if it were simply a desalination plant as opposed to a dirty and dangerous LNG fossil-fuel sea-factory. From the get-go, this euphemistic project name is probably a tell-tale sign of just how profoundly our intelligence will be insulted by the predictably superficial spin.

The California Coastal Commission profoundly & unanimously voted 12-0 to sink BHP Billiton's LNG floating platform proposal. Three days earlier the California State Lands Commission,  before a packed house untied against LNG (800 inside & over 1000 outside), denied Billiton's LNG Deep Water Port pipeline license. April 12, 2007  Governor rejects offshore gas project Sacramento Bee, CA - "Any LNG import facility must meet the strict environmental standards California demands to continue to improve our air quality, protect our coast, and preserve our marine environment," the governor said in a statement. But Schwarzenegger said the proposed project by BHP Billiton LNG International Inc. "fails to meet that test."

Click Arrow for Tim Riley's appearance before California Coastal Commission

LNG advocates spin revolving door again San Francisco Chronicle

Governor likes LNG despite panel vote San Francisco Chronicle

State's stance unclear after rejection of LNG terminal Sacramento Bee

LNG too perilous for offshore site Los Angeles Daily News

February 2007

Yemen steps up security after Qaida threat United Press International - USA    A Yemeni official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told United Press International Friday that all security precautions have been taken at ports, airports and oil installations, especially at the site of a project for liquefied natural gas (LNG).... A private U.S. institution for financing foreign investments, OPIC, expressed in a recent report fears that the LNG project it is funding in Yemen could be a target for a terrorist attack on the model of the October 2000 attack on the USS Cole, which was hit by a booby-trapped boat in the port of Aden killing 17 American sailors... 

Coast Guard assesses risk for natural gas terminal in Sound Newsday The Coast Guard has concluded that the giant liquid natural gas terminal proposed for Long Island Sound poses safety and security risks that would require added law enforcement and firefighting capability as well as escort boats to help prevent terrorist attacks, shipping accidents or environmental damage.

FYI: Mr. Markey is also the Senior Member of House Homeland Security Committee

 Liquefied Natural Gas The “Off Shore” Strategy

Attempts to exploit the concept - Out of Sight Out of Mind - What you Don’t See Won’t Hurt You

             Proposing LNG facilities offshore is a transparent attempt to avoid the highly anticipated NIMBY [Not In My Back Yard] backlash while also evading Local Government control by placing facilities in Federal Waters.

The current proposals to be situated off Santa Monica, Malibu, Oxnard, Ventura, and Santa Barbara Coastline Have been described as "Innovative" by the energy industry. What they really mean is - we will be guinea pigs! 

The "proven technology" they will rely upon for the two current proposals has never actually been applied to these types of LNG facilities anywhere on Earth.

The Two Offshore Proposals By BHP Billiton: Cabrillo Port & Crystal Energy at Platform Grace are Untried - Untested - Unproven

Herald News

January 25, 2004

Is tank good or bad?

Full Story: http://www.heraldnews.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=10863498&BRD=1710&PAG=461&dept_id=99784&rfi=6

 JAMES FINLAW , Herald News Staff Reporter

 ABSTRACTS:

     FALL RIVER -- Since public debate began raging in July regarding Weaver’s Cove Energy’s proposal to construct a $250 million liquefied natural gas import terminal…

            … Weaver’s Cove Energy CEO Gordon Shearer...

 “Shearer said an off-shore site was impossible because the technology to construct one does not yet exist.”

          “'I’ve never heard of an off-shore LNG terminal. It’s a technology that is being developed ... but it is untested, unproven and non-existent,’ said Shearer.”

For Real-time Forecast of Earthquake Hazard in the Next 24 Hours Click: http://pasadena.wr.usgs.gov/step/

January 23, 2006

BHP Billiton embroiled in Iraq oil-for-food scandal Guardian Unlimited, UK ""BHP Billiton, the world's biggest miner, has been dragged into an Iraqi corruption scandal amid revelations that United Nations contracts were inflated by $8m ..."

The Providence Journal

April 20, 2004

Weaver's Cove officials get an earful from 100 residents

http://www.projo.com/massachusetts/content/projo_20040420_so20lng.94634.html

At a public meeting, Somerset groups and individuals press Weaver's Cove's CEO on why the location was chosen and how an LNG facility would affect the area.

By JESSICA RESNICK-AULT

“The alternative -- an off-shore terminal -- is too risky, according to Shearer. The technology has not yet been implemented in the United States.”

The Guinea-Pig Off Shore "Terminals" Are to be Licensed as Deep Water Ports

The Deep Water Port Act Limits the Owner's Liability To Just $350 Million

Even where they incinerate an entire community and everyone in it.

33 CFR Ch. 1,  Sec. 148.703   http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/04nov20031500/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2003/julqtr/pdf/33cfr148.701.pdf 

May 5, 2004

Upstream.com

Liability law 'stacked in favour of owners'

www.upstreamonline.com  Subscription Only

By Dann Rogers

Full Story:

Opponents of two proposed import terminals off the coast of California claim existing US maritime laws protect the owners of LNG carriers and the deep-water ports at the expense of local residents in the event of a disaster.

According to the Limitation of Vessel Owners Liability Act, the liability of the owner of an LNG carrier is limited to the value of the vessel and its cargo contents remaining after a serious incident occurs.

"Ironically, the more damage that occurs to the vessel and its cargo, the lower the liability for the vessel owner," said Tim Riley, a consumer protection advocate in California who hosts a Website for groups opposed to LNG projects.

Australia's BHP Billiton and a separate group of private investors have each applied to the US Coast Guard to operate receiving terminals offshore the communities of Malibu and Santa Barbara.

The Deepwater Ports Act, which was originally created to deal with clean-up costs resulting from oil spills, limits liability of operators to $350 million.

That limit is outdated and would be a mere pittance of the actual damages that could result from a potential LNG disaster caused by either accident, natural occurrence or act of terrorism, said Riley.

"The cost of massive wrongful death claims, serious burn victim claims, medical costs, loss of earnings, destruction of expensive coastal homes, cars, stores full of inventory, along with ruined community infrastructure would run into billions of dollars," he said.

"These LNG proponents boast that it is a safe technology and not a likely terrorist target. They should put their money where their mouth is and waive the current limit on financial liability."

He is also advocating that a civil cause of action for any and all damages resulting from whatever cause, originating or emanating from an LNG deep-water port or vessel, should be one of strict liability.

The strict liability standard would make port and carrier operators or owners financially responsible regardless of fault.

Under such a system, a person injured would only need to show that the storage, processing or transport of LNG at sea was a causal factor in the injury, irrespective of who is to blame.

"Claimants need only prove causation of injury rather than proof of fault," said Riley. "It is time for America to look in the mirror and recognise that the current laws protect foreign interests and importers of LNG while at the same time exposing US citizens to devastation without adequate recourse for recovery."

HOW  ENORMOUS

Would The BHP Billiton "Cabrillo Port" Actually Be ?       

FSRU & Tanker Total area is 7.7 acres   -   More than 1.5 Chicago City Blocks

        According to the BHP Billiton Deep Water Port application for "Cabrillo Port," the facility is described as follows: "The FSRU, which would be designed for loading LNG from a side-by-side, moored LNG tanker, would be shaped like another vessel, double-sided, double-bottomed, and 938 feet (286 meters) long and 213 feet (65 meters) wide, with a displacement of approximately 190,000 deadweight tons." The top of the FSRU holding tanks will be approximately 170 feet (17 Stories) above the water line. The side-by-side moored LNG tanker is 12 stories high.

        To Envision the Actual Monstrous Size Of the BHP Billiton Cabrillo Port LNG Facility And the side-by-side moored LNG tanker Picture an average Chicago City Block. According to the Chicago Public Library  1999/2000 Facts About Chicago http://www.chipublib.org/004chicago/chifacts01.html Average Chicago City block is 330'x660' or 5 acres BHP Billiton Cabrillo Port ( FSRU) would be 938'x213' or 4.5 acres.  The typical LNG Tanker is 1000'x140' or 3.2 acres.

The EIR draft drawing of the prototype FSRU looks like a cute little bath-tub toy-boat

But Imagine Buildings 17 stories high (4.5 acres) - side-by-side -  Buildings 12 stories high (3.2 acres)

Combined Capability of Holding 100 MILLION Gals. of LNG

33 Million Gals. of LNG has the Energy Equivalent of 55 Hiroshima Bombs

100 Million Gals. is approx. 60 X's the amount of spilled LNG that incinerated one square mile of Cleveland, Ohio 

And We Would Be Offshore LNG Guinea-Pigs

BELOW IS A PORTION OF THE PUBLIC COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY TimRileyLaw.com

RE: Cabrillo Port Liquefied Natural Gas Deepwater Port Application

Docket #: USCG 2004–16877

State Clearing House #: 2004021107

Submitted By:

Tim Riley and Hayden Riley

Co-Hosts of TimRileyLaw.com

The Risks & Danger of LNG

805-984-2350

Submitted Today, March 31, @ 9:29 am PST

To: Cy Oggins, CSLC

Commentators’ Request and Recommendation:

DENY THE LICENSE

            We respectfully urge the no-action / no project alternative, and that MARAD denies the application for the DWP, and CSLC denies the application for the lease of the subsea pipelines right-of-way.

DISCUSSION:

NATIONAL POLICY CONSIDERATIONS

The construction and operation of a Deepwater Port must be in the national interest and consistent with national security and other national policy goals and objectives including energy sufficiency and environmental quality.

A sound, safe American energy plan requires solutions that make America stronger not weaker, more self-sufficient not more dependent, safer not more vulnerable, and fossil free not more polluted.

The subject DWP application woefully fails to satisfy said criteria.

The subject DWP application, as would other LNG importation schemes, would require exclusion security zones to protect them from anticipated terrorist attack.  The security zone that would travel around each LNG tanker as they proceed off our beaches and along our populated coastline, and the security zone around the docking DWP facility would unreasonably interfere with navigation and reasonable uses of the sea. These required security zones would create a heightened state of anxiety, confusion and risk to all. The exclusion zones would be burdensome upon the U.S. Coast Guard, would be costly for the taxpayer, and would diminish our coastal California resort industry and quality of life. The exclusion security zones would interfere with the shipping industry, Port Hueneme, recreational sailing, whale watching, tourism, Channel Islands National Park, marine sanctuaries, and our fishing industry.

The California coastline is a precious natural resource coveted the world over, and provides a valuable asset and produces multibillions for California's tourism industry. California’s coastline is a legacy that we must cherish and protect for future generations of America. Industrializing our coastline would contribute to destruction of our environmental and socioeconomic quality of life.

This particular BHP LNG importation scheme, as would the Crystal Energy scheme, as would the many other current proposals now imposing upon America's coastline, will contribute to America's dependence and reliance upon more imported fossil fuel. Becoming further reliant on imported fossil fuel is clearly not in our nation's best interest.

Foreign fuel dependency is a weakness not strength. Foreign fuel dependency makes America less self-sufficient. LNG facilities have already been determined to be desirable soft targets for terrorism. Their proliferation will make America more vulnerable to terrorist attacks and create opportunity for manipulation of our nation's economy and create community unrest. A credible terrorist announcement of targeting some American LNG facility would bring LNG shipments to a halt, interrupting the flow of energy to those communities that have become reliant and dependent upon the source.

The four existing LNG importation facilities in the continental US provided only 1% of our nation’s energy in 2001 and 2002; therefore, LNG is not a realistic immediate or long-term energy solution.  The current project would contribute no more than approximately one-quarter of one percent to our nation's energy needs - a mere drop in the bucket.

The travesty in investing billions of dollars into these LNG importation schemes is that the necessary research, development and creation of sustainable renewable resources of energy will continue to be delayed for decades.

 Importing more foreign fossil fuel is shortsighted and reckless; profiting only the Pacific Rim, the Middle East, and those LNG investors who value profit over the cost that LNG will impose upon America.

PROJECT SPECIFIC CONSIDERATIONS

The FSRU LNG facility, side-by-side with a moored typical LNG tanker has the storage capability of approximately 100 million gallons of LNG, which is equal to approximately 60 billion gallons of natural gas.

Such a tremendous mind-boggling volume of gas stored on a moored facility floating in unprotected seas on a FSRU that is untried, untested and unproven invites unprecedented disaster.

The environmental review must determine that the applicant can demonstrate that they will construct and operate the Deep Water Port using the best available technology, so as to prevent and minimize adverse impact upon the marine environment. The applicant will be unable to demonstrate this because the application of the technology they will be relying upon is unavailable and nonexistent.

The applicant will rely upon speculation that the technology once applied to the applicant's new concept will actually work faultlessly and perfectly the first time out of the box. 

The guinea-pig project, euphemistically called "innovative," relies upon technology that has never been applied to the proposed application.

The FERC, has already discouraged offshore facilities and warned of their obvious hazards.

Below are relevant comments from the FERC Report / Study / Environmental Assessment (EA) and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). See Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Freeport LNG Development, LP's Project under CP03-75 at:

3.2.2.3 Offshore Review 3-6

Offshore Storage and Vaporization Structures

“An LNG import terminal that is located in an offshore setting would be exposed to the effects of meteorological and oceanographic forces such as high winds, waves, and currents. A key technical issue for the successful operation of an LNG terminal in this environment includes designing the LNG transfer system (i.e., unloading arms) to compensate for the relative motion between the terminal and LNG ship during unloading operations. Although storage and unloading technologies similar to those that would be used with an offshore LNG terminal have been applied for many years at onshore LNG terminals and at offshore petroleum product facilities (LNG Express, 2002a), the technologies needed to transfer a cryogenic liquid under the harsher conditions in an offshore setting have not been demonstrated. This may be particularly problematic for offloading to a floating unit where the stresses on a transfer system could be even greater than what would be experienced at a stationary GBS.”

“Although offshore storage and vaporization structures may eventually find a role for importing LNG into the United States, the current level of information and limited operational experience is not sufficient to justify consideration of this emerging application of offshore technology as a reasonable alternative to the Proposed Freeport LNG terminal.”

 THE MOST CRITICAL ASPECT IS SAFETY AND INTEGRITY OF THE OPERATION

Obviously, the most critical aspect of Cabrillo Port is the safety and integrity of the operation.

Even Steve Meheen, the project manager of the Applicant Cabrillo Port facility has stated in his published commentary for the Ventura Star newspaper on March 28, 2004,  “The most critical aspect of Cabrillo Port is the safety and integrity of the operation.”

Yet, the Applicant nevertheless seeks approval for an ultra hazardous project that admittedly, according to the same source, “is an innovative application.”

The word innovative might fool the naïve, and insult the intelligent, but it will not change the fact that the proposed project is untried, untested and unproven. For example, “the technologies needed to transfer a cryogenic liquid under the harsher conditions in an offshore setting have not been demonstrated.” Required technology necessary for safety and integrity of the operation has never actually been applied to the proposed project.

APPLICANT'S OPERATING HISTORY

Not only is the project untried, untested and unproven, but so is the Applicant.

This particular Applicant, BHP Billiton LNG International Inc., has not and can not comply with

 TITLE 33 > CHAPTER 29 > Sec. 1504(2)(l)  which mandates as follows:

            (2) Each application shall include such financial, technical, and other information as the Secretary deems necessary or appropriate. Such information shall include, but need not be limited to -

(I) the financial and technical capabilities of the applicant to construct or operate the deepwater port;

The Applicant never existed before March 12, 2003, and has actually admitted that they have “no operating history.” Accordingly, as a new entity they obviously cannot demonstrate a history of technical capabilities to construct or operate a deep-water port.

Evidence: Applicant’s Own Admission

“BHP Billiton LNG International Inc. is a new entity with no operating history” 

[See Final Application @ 3.1]

CONCLUSION:

The applicant is untried, untested and unproven, and it would be imprudent for MARAD to permit a DWP license, or for CSLC to permit a lease of the subsea pipelines right-of-way to an Applicant who admittedly has “no operating history.”

The proposed project is untried, untested and unproven, and it would also be imprudent for MARAD to permit a DWP license, or for CSLC to permit a lease of the subsea pipelines right-of-way for a project that will rely upon the application of technologies that have not been proven or demonstrated.

It would be a dereliction of duty for MARAD to permit a DWP license, or for CSLC to permit a lease of the subsea pipelines right-of-way where both the Applicant and Project demonstrate no experience.

The DWP application involves enormous volumes of ultra hazardous materials, and both the Applicant and the Project are untried, untested and unproven, therefore, a devastating synergistic effect could result in an unprecedented disaster. Accordingly, the license should be DENIED.

Additionally, please consider and address each of the following concerns ...

TO READ THE ENTIRE SUBMISSION GO TO THE U.S. D.O.T.  click here Document Management System

February 8, 2004

Ventura County Star

http://www.venturacountystar.com/vcs/opinion/article/0,1375,VCS_125_2638457,00.html

LNG: Who wants to be a guinea pig?

By Tim Riley

Currently, there are no offshore liquefied natural gas facilities anywhere on Earth!

But, if two energy companies have their way, there will not only be one -- but two -- right off Ventura County beaches, impacting Malibu, Oxnard, Ventura and Santa Barbara.

According to the Herald News, chief executive officer of Weaver Cove Energy, Gordon Shearer, said, "I've never heard of an offshore LNG terminal. It's a technology that is being developed ... but it is untested, unproven and nonexistent."

So, I ask you, do you want to be a guinea pig?

Before you answer, remember, the first onshore LNG facility in America had a major accident, incinerating one square mile of Cleveland, killing 128 and leaving 680 people homeless. The disaster looked like Hiroshima after the bomb.

Subsequent LNG industry spin claimed they had learned from the accident, and said we needn't worry -- such a major accident like that will never happen again.

Yet, on Jan. 19, 2004, another devastating LNG accident occurred. This time in a remote Algerian industrial zone, killing 27 workers, seriously injuring 72, and causing approximately $1 billion in damage. It has been reported that the "explosion" was so powerful that it blew out windows and caused fires six miles away.

The Algerian explosion destroyed more than an LNG facility -- it destroyed the industry myth that LNG is safe. We have listened to the LNG "safety spin" and have now heard the explosive truth, galvanizing LNG opposition.

LNG proponents throughout America, scrambling to salvage their current proposals, as if caught in headlights or the cookie-jar, have advanced an over simplistic rationalization of the recent LNG disaster, claiming it was merely a boiler malfunction.

With very little wiggle room to work, the latest industry spin claims they have learned from that accident, too, and that we needn't worry because the malfunctioning boiler won't be used anymore.

Well, LNG accidents can be caused by a multitude of industrial malfunctions. The major problem with LNG is that when one of the many things that can go wrong does go wrong, the results are devastating. As if we needed any more tragic proof.

LNG is too dangerous to learn as you go. We can't afford trial and error. LNG risks are far too deadly and costly.

So, I ask you, again, do you really want to be a guinea pig?

Before you answer, remember, the energy content of a typical LNG tanker is equivalent to 55 Hiroshima bombs. LNG tankers are enormous, take five miles to halt, have been called "floating bombs," "terrorist targets," and will come too dangerously close to our beaches.

Also remember that in 1977, the city of Oxnard had a formal LNG environmental impact report that determined an offshore LNG tanker accident releasing its full cargo would disperse into an ignitable gaseous vapor cloud and be carried by the onshore wind for 30 miles before reaching its ignitable dispersion level, exposing 70,000 people to instant death.

What can you do to help stop LNG?

Send thanks to Oxnard Mayor Manuel Lopez, Supervisor John Flynn and Oxnard Councilman John Zaragoza for publicly voicing strong opposition to the LNG proposals. More importantly, write letters demanding the other local, state and federal officials do the same!

Those who believe the LNG proposals are absurd and will just go away must nevertheless appear at public hearings to voice their outrage. Otherwise, your absence will be spun into approval.

Please, don't bury your head in the sand. Do you want to be an ostrich as well as a guinea pig?

Help keep our community safe.

Help stop LNG.

     Tim Riley is a consumer protection attorney from Oxnard Shores.

           Copyright 2004, Ventura County Star. All Rights Reserved.

But Why Worry If The Energy Industry Says It's Safe ?

According to the National Nine News - NineMSN of Australia on May 25, 2005,

"Resources giant BHP Billiton is facing four charges over a fatal gas explosion at its Boodarie iron plant in Western Australia's north."

The applicant's application should remain suspended until the entire court matter, including all appeals in Australia is concluded. After which time, if it is determined that the applicant violated Australian law thus causing death and multiple burn victims from a gas explosion, then it would be a gross dereliction of duty to approve the applicant's license here in the United States to operate an LNG facility that is untried and unproven, particularly where the applicant has been tried and proven responsible for a gas explosion resulting in death and serious burn victims.

 14:32 AEST Wed May 25 2005

Resources giant BHP Billiton is facing four charges over a fatal gas explosion at its Boodarie iron plant in Western Australia's north.

March 12, 2004

www.platts.com

Inside FERC’s Gas Market Report

McMoRan proposes offshore LNG plant as

Opposition mounts against offshore plants

 By Geetha Narayanasamy

Full Story: http://www.platts.com/Natural%20Gas/Resources/ 

Abstracts:

“According to Tim Riley, an Oxnard-based attorney who has concerns regarding the dangers posed by LNG terminals, the bottom line is that “the danger is in the massive quantity of this dangerous gas in one place.”

Riley believes that offshore LNG terminals are potentially more dangerous than onshore terminals. “In terms of offshore, LNG is far more dangerous in water than on land,” he asserted.

Riley explained there is no way to confine an offshore spill and prevailing winds, which is typical in the vicinity of an ocean, will exacerbate the situation, he said. “As I read old [U.S.] Bureau of Mines reports and Coast Guard reports, they are mindful that vapor fumes will drift with the wind. The water source is going to act as a huge boiling space until it reaches an ignition source” that would most likely be on land, Riley noted.”

“Riley argued that Platform Grace would be a safety hazard as it was situated “in unprotected seas where there could be gale force winds and tremendous current.” He also pointed out that with a floating platform, both the platform and ship would be moving with the water as LNG is being unloaded, thus increasing the chances of a potential accident. “These offshore LNG terminal projects are untried and unproven. LNG is far too dangerous for trial and error,” Riley said. Renewable energy is the way to go, he added.”

April 25, 2004

Ventura County Star

http://www.venturacountystar.com/vcs/opinion/article/0,1375,VCS_125_2835820,00.html

Liability for LNG vessels is limited

By Tim Riley

 Two liquefied natural gas deepwater port facilities are being proposed off our Malibu, Oxnard, Ventura and Santa Barbara shores, and many people are concerned about the financial liability for an LNG disaster to our communities.

 Unfortunately, the existing laws protect the foreign LNG vessel owners and the corporate LNG deepwater port operators, rather than the living and breathing American citizens who could potentially be incinerated.

 All LNG vessel owners are protected by the Limitation of Vessel Owner's Liability Act, 46 U.S.C. 181, et seq.; and the owner's liability is limited to the value of the vessel and value of its cargo contents remaining after a calamity occurs.

 The U.S. Supreme Court has long held that where a ship sinks after a calamity, the sinking is the termination of the voyage and the value of the vessel -- thus the limitation of the ship owner's liability.

 Ironically, the more damage that occurs to the vessel and its cargo, the lower the liability for the vessel owner. This means that an LNG tanker disaster resulting in the total loss of the vessel and total loss of its cargo would result in minimal financial liability for the LNG vessel owner -- even where the disaster incinerates an entire coastal community -- killing 100,000 people, injuring 50,000 others and destroying billions of dollars of property and infrastructure.

 Shockingly, the vessel owner's financial liability in such a scenario for all property damage would be absolutely zero, and for loss of life and bodily injuries would be limited to just $420 per vessel ton.

 Protecting vessel owners was established by the act in 1851, and our Supreme Court has long held that the owner's duty is essentially satisfied when he properly equips the vessel and selects competent crew to operate it, and neither the vessel, nor her owners are responsible for damage or loss resulting from faults or errors in navigation or in the management of the vessel.

 All LNG deepwater port facility operators are protected by the Deepwater Port Act's financial liability limitation of $350 million, and the U.S. Coast Guard may even lower this amount.

 Originally, this limitation was created for offshore oil ports contemplating sufficient liability for an oil spill and cleanup costs. Now, protecting operators processing and storing millions of gallons of the ultrahazardous LNG, that upon release, could incinerate entire communities -- the $350 million limitation is totally inadequate.

 Losses from mounting wrongful death claims, serious burn victim claims, medical costs, loss of earnings, destruction of homes, cars, businesses, stores full of inventory, and community infrastructure could run into the billions.

 Destruction of Point Mugu or Port Hueneme and their contents could run into the billions.

 LNG proponents throughout America constantly hype LNG's alleged safety record; and they proclaim their LNG facilities and LNG tankers will operate and deliver safely -- without accident, human error, or defect and will be impervious to natural calamity and terrorism.

 They should pay the price for such claims, and be held strictly liable for their ultrahazardous activities -- without any financial limitations.

 The current laws protect foreign interests and the very few importers of LNG, while at the same time they expose American citizens and local government facilities and infrastructure to devastation without adequate recourse for recovery.

 Next time you have breakfast with an LNG deepwater port applicant -- there are approximately a half-dozen in America -- ask them to stipulate to strict liability and waive the financial liability limitations. Also, ask them to indemnify LNG vessel owners for all damages caused by LNG vessels coming to or from their deepwater ports.

 Or, you can simply suggest they put their money where their mouth is, and get out of town.

 -- Tim Riley, of Oxnard Shores, is a consumer protection advocate and personal injury attorney. He hosts TimRileyLaw.com, a Web site on the risks and danger of liquefied natural gas.

 Copyright 2004, Ventura County Star. All Rights Reserved.

Wednesday, October 20, 2004

The Daily Item, Weekend Edition

Offshore LNG docking proposal has some on edge

Congress seeks regional plan for LNG terminals

http://www.thedailyitemoflynn.com/news/view.bg?articleid=7430

By David Liscio 

Before the federal government endorses construction of liquefied natural gas (LNG) import facilities, such at those proposed for North Shore waters, a regional strategy must take into consideration public safety, environmental impact and overall energy needs, according to congressional leaders from New England.

At least one energy company wants to build an offshore facility about five miles off the Salem coast that would dock LNG tankers. The liquefied fuel would be converted to gas and delivered to the mainland via a system of pipes on the sea bottom.

U.S. Rep. John F. Tierney, a Salem Democrat, joined other members of Congress from New England on Tuesday in notifying federal agencies with jurisdiction over such projects to create a regional strategy before approving new terminals.

Legislators from Massachusetts and Rhode Island sent a letter to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), the U.S. Coast Guard, the U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S. Department of Transportation.The letter, addressed to FERC Chairman Patrick Wood and the other agencies, requests the federal government conduct an analysis of how its policies can be improved to create a regional approach to permitting, provide recommendations for improvement, and ultimately result in cooperation.

Currently, many federal agencies act independently, despite overlapping jurisdictions on a similar project or proposal.

Tierney said natural gas is an important source of energy for many homes and businesses, noting that the Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration projects LNG will make up almost all of the expected increase in natural gas imports, with imports rising from 15 percent of U.S. natural gas consumption to 23 percent by 2025.

Energy companies are proposing LNG facilities in New England. As projects are proposed, the federal government looks at each individually and makes a determination.According to Tierney, a more comprehensive and strategic approach is needed.

The involvement of multiple agencies complicates the situation.For example, FERC grants approval for siting, construction or expansion of onshore LNG facilities and interstate gas pipelines, based on the Natural Gas Act of 1938.The Coast Guard and the Department of Transportation's Maritime Administration are responsible for offshore LNG facilities, under the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002.

Meanwhile, the Department of Energy has authority to disapprove the siting, construction or operation of these facilities.

The bureaucratic soup thickens as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the federal Fish and Wildlife Service, the Minerals Management Service, and the Army Corps of Engineers play roles in the permitting processes for LNG facilities.

"Coordination is critical," said Tierney.Unfortunately, that is not happening.

Instead, FERC and the Coast Guard, the lead agencies, each pursue their own permitting processes independently without any coordination, the congressman said.

The New England legislators assert is makes little sense to have onshore LNG proposals assessed by one agency, and offshore LNG projects by another, especially when the two agencies don't coordinate their permitting activities.

Government regulatory agencies operating in isolation are not in the country's best interest, Tierney said, adding that a regional approach to LNG should be undertaken, perhaps shadowing the region's approach to electricity.

New LNG facilities should only be built if they meet a defined regional need, rather than be permitted as part of a response to increased natural demand for the fuel, Tierney said.

Besides, New England is expected to receive natural gas via a pipeline from Canada, which could reduce the need for an offshore LNG docking facility.

The New England legislators note that increased demand should not be accepted as a forgone conclusion.After all, recent increases in gasoline and natural gas prices underscore the importance of reducing national dependence on fossil fuels and particularly foreign fossil fuel imports. The legislators agree that weaning the nation from a dependence on fossil fuels would likely spur increased investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy, such a wind power, hybrid cars and building construction technology that maximizes use of solar and other passive energy sources.

In addition to Tierney, the letter to FERC and the other agencies was signed by U.S. Reps. Barney Frank, John Olver, Patrick J. Kennedy, James McGovern, James Langevin, Edward Markey, Richard Neal, Martin Meehan, William Delahunt, Michael E. Capuano, and Stephen Lynch.

VENTURA, Calif. (AP) - U.S. Rep. Lois Capps, D-Santa Barbara, wants federal officials to examine the possible earthquake hazards near proposed liquefied natural gas facilities off the Ventura County coast.

Capps sent letters Monday to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Coast Guard, the Department of Energy and the Department of Transportation asking for an evaluation of seismic activity in the Santa Barbara Channel before approving LNG facilities.

BHP Billiton and Crystal Energy want to build offshore terminals to convert the liquid back into a gas and send it to onshore Southern California Gas Co. buildings through pipes on the ocean floor.

BHP Billiton's site, called Cabrillo Port, would be 14 miles offshore, while Crystal Energy hopes to use Platform Grace, an unused oil platform 12 miles off Oxnard.

At Capps' request, the U.S. Geological Survey determined earthquake faults in the area could produce earthquakes up to magnitude-7.5.

"Earthquakes of this magnitude are capable of producing strong shaking, liquefaction, landslides, turbidity currents and tsunamis," Capps wrote. "In fact, the report reveals that in parts of the project area, the estimated shaking hazard is as high as along the San Andreas Fault."

A large earthquake in the area of the proposed projects "could create a 'pool fire' or ignitable 'vapor cloud' that is extremely dangerous, threatening life and property in all directions from the facility," Capps wrote.

October 27, 2004

Business Wire, Crystal Energy Press Release

OXNARD, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Oct. 27, 2004--Crystal Energy, LLC announced today that it has entered into an in-principle agreement with Woodside (USA) Energy Inc. to develop the proposed Clearwater Port liquefied natural gas import terminal offshore California.

Woodside (USA) is a wholly owned subsidiary of Woodside Energy Ltd., Australia's largest publicly traded independent oil and gas exploration and production company and operator of Australia's largest resource project, the US$10 billion North West Shelf Venture in Western Australia.

Under a heads of agreement, Woodside will provide its technical expertise to the project's facility design, and has agreed in principle to operate Clearwater Port. It will also provide funding to Crystal to obtain required project approvals through federal, state and local agencies. In exchange, Woodside will have preferential access rights to Clearwater Port's terminal capacity for its supply."

November 5, 2004

Ventura County Star

By Sylvia Moore

Abstracts:

The chances of a major accident at a proposed liquefied natural gas port off Oxnard's coast are very low, according to an environmental report released this week by three state and federal agencies.

The energy companies say their facilities would provide California and the United States with a much-needed supply of natural gas in the face of higher energy prices. Critics, including many Oxnard community activists, fear the facilities pose too many potential safety hazards and should not be built near populated areas.

Oxnard Mayor Manuel Lopez, who has publicly opposed the projects, said he and other city officials will soon examine the environmental report. Oxnard does not have veto power over the project but can let the state know what the city thinks.

"We'll have our staff go over it," Lopez said. "It is very critical to us in the coastal area. We're really going to have to scrutinize it."

Oxnard lawyer Tim Riley, an outspoken critic of the proposals, said Thursday that the BHP project should be shelved.

The report "provides no surprises on its way to fast-track approval of the ultra-hazardous, guinea-pig LNG project," Riley said in a statement. "We all must impress upon Gov. Schwarzenegger to timely veto both the BHP and Crystal LNG projects, which he has the legal authority to do.

"He can protect us and our multibillion dollar tourism industry, or he can permit the industrialization of our precious coastline and beaches as billions of American dollars get exported to Australia. The governor must decide what he wants his legacy to be."

Copyright 2004, Ventura County Star. All Rights Reserved.

By Steve Chawkins Times Staff Writer

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lng6nov06,1,4383990.story?coll=la-headlines-california

Despite fears in coastal communities, a liquefied natural gas terminal proposed in the Santa Barbara Channel would do no harm on shore if it were destroyed in an accident or an act of terrorism, according to an environmental report released Friday.

The 1,200-page draft environmental impact report should reassure local residents, said a spokeswoman for BHP Billiton, the Australian minerals company proposing the massive project.

However, a number of environmental activists suggested the report was tailored to ensure the project's ultimate approval by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. While reserving judgment on safety issues, an attorney for the Environmental Defense Center criticized the $1.5-million effort for failing to thoroughly investigate whether imported LNG is needed in the first place.

The proposed terminal would be at sea 14 miles from the border of Ventura and Los Angeles counties. Tankers from Australia would unload the super-chilled liquid fuel at the terminal, where it would be reconverted into a vapor and pumped through an undersea pipeline into a web of natural-gas lines that already crisscross the state.

Known as Cabrillo Port, the BHP project is one of two liquefied natural gas projects in the Santa Barbara Channel vying for state and federal approval. The other, developed by Crystal Energy of Houston, would turn a dormant oil platform 11 miles offshore into an LNG terminal.

Supporters argue that the projects are safe, technologically advanced methods of bringing a much-needed resource to California. The environmental report only confirms that point of view, said BHP spokeswoman Kathi Hann.

The report concluded that even in the worst circumstances, an ignited vapor cloud would span an area of 1.6 miles around the terminal, less than company scientists had assumed, Hann said. The chance of that occurring would be less than one in 1 million, the report said.

The project's critics, however, point to a 1977 Oxnard study that forecast an LNG accident producing a 30-mile-wide blanket of flame.

"I don't know what's happened in the interim to change that," said Oxnard Mayor Manuel Lopez. "The laws of physics haven't changed."

Skeptical about the environmental report, Lopez described it as "a whitewash." The city councils in Oxnard and Malibu have voted to oppose both offshore projects. The agencies with direct authority over them are the Coast Guard and the State Lands Commission, which hired the San Francisco consulting firm Ecology and Environment Inc. to prepare the report.

The proposals are to reach Schwarzenegger's desk next spring.

Spokesmen for environmental groups said the report failed to address some crucial issues.

"We're very disappointed," said Linda Krop, chief counsel for the Santa Barbara-based Environmental Defense Center, arguing that the report did not consider the possibilities of increased conservation and additional reliance on renewable energy sources.

She recalled the urgency expressed by developers who wanted to build a California LNG facility in the wake of the gas shortages of the 1970s.

"By the time the studies were done, it was determined we didn't need one," Krop said. "This feels like déjà vu."

In addition to weighing the risks of an accident, the report evaluated the project's potential effects on fishing, recreation and shipping. It said BHP's collaboration with the Navy reduced the risk of errant missiles from the testing range at nearby Point Mugu.

While seismic faults lace the region, sophisticated engineering techniques should keep the terminal and its pipelines safe, the report concluded.

Noise from the terminal would be "noticeable" more than three miles away, but it could be muted with advanced equipment, the report said. It also recommended that construction be timed to not disturb migrating whales.

Several public meetings have been set to allow public comment on the draft environmental report, which can be read at http://www.cabrilloport.ene.com . 

They are at Santa Clarita City Hall on Nov. 29 at 7 p.m.; at the Oxnard Performing Arts Center on Nov. 30 at 1 and 6:30 p.m.; and at Malibu's Webster Elementary School on Dec. 1 at 7 p.m.

Copyright 2004 Los Angeles Times

    § 1508. Adjacent coastal States Release date: 2003-05-29 (a) Designation; direct pipeline connections; mileage; risk of damage to coastal environment, time for designation (1) The Secretary, in issuing notice of application pursuant to section 1504 (c) of this title, shall designate as an “adjacent coastal State” any coastal State which (A) would be directly connected by pipeline to a deepwater port as proposed in an application, or (B) would be located within 15 miles of any such proposed deepwater port. (2) The Secretary shall, upon request of a State, and after having received the recommendations of the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, designate such State as an “adjacent coastal State” if he determines that there is a risk of damage to the coastal environment of such State equal to or greater than the risk posed to a State directly connected by pipeline to the proposed deepwater port. This paragraph shall apply only with respect to requests made by a State not later than the 14th day after the date of publication of notice of an application for a proposed deepwater port in the Federal Register in accordance with section 1504 (c) of this title. The Secretary shall make the designation required by this paragraph not later than the 45th day after the date he receives such a request from a State.

(b) Applications; submittal to Governors for approval or disapproval; consistency of Federal licenses and State programs; views of other interested States (1) Not later than 10 days after the designation of adjacent coastal States pursuant to this chapter, the Secretary shall transmit a complete copy of the application to the Governor of each adjacent coastal State. The Secretary shall not issue a license without the approval of the Governor of each adjacent coastal State. If the Governor fails to transmit his approval or disapproval to the Secretary not later than 45 days after the last public hearing on applications for a particular application area, such approval shall be conclusively presumed. If the Governor notifies the Secretary that an application, which would otherwise be approved pursuant to this paragraph, is inconsistent with State programs relating to environmental protection, land and water use, and coastal zone management, the Secretary shall condition the license granted so as to make it consistent with such State programs. (2) Any other interested State shall have the opportunity to make its views known to, and shall be given full consideration by, the Secretary regarding the location, construction, and operation of a deepwater port.

Governor Schwarzenegger Must Decide What He Wants His Legacy to Be

    The report "provides no surprises on its way to fast-track approval of the ultra-hazardous, guinea-pig LNG project," Riley said in a statement.

    "We all must impress upon Gov. Schwarzenegger to timely veto both the BHP and Crystal LNG projects, which he has the legal authority to do.

    "He can protect us and our multibillion dollar tourism industry, or he can permit the industrialization of our precious coastline and beaches as billions of American dollars get exported to Australia. The governor must decide what he wants his legacy to be."

Email Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger: governor@governor.ca.gov 

Email the Governor's Resources and EPA Chiefs:

Mike Chrisman: mike.chrisman@resources.gov

Terry Tamminen: tt@CalEPA.ca.gov

Blanco sent a letter on May 17 to federal officials in charge of offshore LNG terminals, saying she’ll oppose terminals that use an open-loop system to regasify the minus-260-degree LNG that arrives in huge tankers.

Veto power: Blanco has some muscle besides a bully pulpit. Under federal law, governors can veto facilities in federal waters off the coast of their states.