March 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: https://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: https://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

https://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   https://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 https://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

https://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: https://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

https://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

https://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

https://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 https://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.

November 10, 2004

Malibu Times

https://www.malibutimes.com/articles/2004/11/10/news/news6.txt

By Susan Reines/Special to The Malibu Times

A new environmental study says an explosion on a proposed floating natural gas port off the coast would not reach land, but residents question why the results are so different from an older study that concluded a 30-mile cloud of flame could reach the coast.

By Susan Reines/Special to The Malibu Times

A draft environmental impact study released Friday said an explosion on a proposed liquefied natural gas port off the coast would not affect Malibu, contrasting a 25-year-old study that said a gas explosion could cover the coast in a stretch of flames longer than Malibu's shoreline.

Representatives of the California State Lands Commission say the risk analyses are different because the 1977 study was conducted for an on-land gas plant, while the new environmental impact statement/report concerns a port, proposed by BHP Billiton of Australia, that would float 14 miles off the coast at the Los Angeles-Ventura County line, which is about 15 miles up the coast from Malibu.

"What we did was we evaluated an absolute worst case scenario, which would be the loss of all three LNG [liquefied natural gas] tanks on the port," Cy Oggins of the California State Lands Commission said. "We calculated 1.6 miles as the maximum radius for public safety impacts ... I think people who cite the 30-mile wall of fire claim that physics haven't changed, and of course we claim the same thing-physics haven't changed-we're just using a methodology specific to this project."

However, residents said the risk is unclear, and they are still uncomfortable with the proposed Cabrillo Port receiving chilled natural gas so close to home.

Mayor Pro Tem Andy Stern said the new study did not temper his resistance to the two proposed natural gas ports in nearby waters, the Cabrillo Port and the Crystal Energy Plant, for which an EIR has not yet been conducted. "That EIR does zero for me," Stern said of the new Cabrillo Port study. "I feel no better about it. What would do something for me would be not to build it."

Stern said the only real way to mitigate disaster would be to stop the project altogether. "I think it's outrageous that they're trying this new technology that, to my knowledge, has never been proven," he said. "And I understand this EIR comes out and says well, it's not a problem, but if it blows up, the people who wrote the EIR are going to be long gone. I don't understand why they would take that risk, except for profit."

The City Council approved a resolution strongly opposing both the Cabrillo Port and the Crystal Energy Plant in May 2004, and Stern said he didn't know why the city wouldn't consider joining with other cities to file a lawsuit or lobby the state government.

City Attorney Christi Hogin said the city has no authority as a government body to stop the project, though it could lobby against it like any concerned individual or group.

"I think the city's role is primarily like any interested party, giving its input," she said. "We don't have any authority."

Oggins said the draft report was written by independent third party consultants, but some in Malibu question whether business interests might have had influence.

"I think it appears to show an inclination to approve it," local activist Anne Hoffman said. "I mean, if developers got this kind of green flag to just say that there would be a very low chance of a major accident, that just conflicts with the expert and the public testimony."

Hoffman noted, though, that she had not had time to study the lengthy report in depth.

" I'm still processing it," she said. "It's a 1,200 page report, so I'm not giving you the final word."

The Cabrillo Port would receive natural gas from Australian tankers that carry the fuel in compressed liquid form. The gas would be vaporized and pumped through a network of pipes.

While the report does say new technology would be used to mitigate spills and explosions, it classifies the "potential release of LNG due to high energy marine collision or intentional attack" as Class I -the most severe -even after mitigation.

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has expressed support for LNG projects, saying natural gas could feed California's energy needs and help wean the state from oil and coal. Environmental groups have split, some emphasizing that natural gas is cleaner burning than coal and oil, but others saying the risks of spills and explosions are too severe.

Craig Shuman, staff scientist at local environmental nonprofit Heal the Bay, said the organization had not yet taken a stand on the new study because he had not finished reviewing it.

"If, when I review it, I see something that they need to be doing differently, we'll submit comments on the draft EIR," Shuman said, noting that project proponents have a legal obligation to respond to comments in the final EIR.

"When it comes to projects, that's where Heal the Bay is very effective, in that we'll write very strong comment letters and then the promoters of the project will have to go back and change their project," Shuman said.

Published On Line, November 24, 2004

Malibu Times

LETTER TO THE EDITOR, MALIBU TIMES

FROM: Lisa Palmer, Director of Communications, Crystal Energy

New energy approach

Crystal Energy is very encouraged by the level of public participation as we work together to create a safe, clean and environmentally sound solution to California's critical energy shortage. Yet it seems some confusion has arisen concerning two distinct proposals to import natural gas into California using offshore receiving terminals, and Crystal Energy would like to clarify some facts.

BHP Billiton has proposed a floating facility 14 miles off the Malibu coast called Cabrillo Port. That project is nearing the end of its environmental review process, with a hearing on the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) scheduled for December 1 in Malibu. Crystal Energy has proposed a different solution, called Clearwater Port, located 12.6 miles off the coast of Oxnard on Platform Grace, to be operated by a world-class offshore operator, Woodside Energy. Clearwater Port will not be visible from Malibu, and has not begun the public environmental review process.

Clearwater Port would be a stable, safe, and environmentally superior solution to California's energy crisis. Ships will transport cooled natural gas from Australia and Alaska to the platform, where it will be converted into vapor form and delivered to California residents, businesses, and power plants, putting the state at the beginning, rather than the end, of the natural gas supply line.

Using a proven, safe existing platform means Crystal Energy can avoid an onshore facility or developing a new offshore industrial site. In addition, the undersea natural gas pipeline will use existing pipeline corridors, eliminating the need for a new pipeline right-of-way on the sea floor.

Structurally, Crystal Energy is working with the U.S. Department of the Interior's Minerals Management Service to have the platform recertified "as new," meaning it will meet or exceed all technical, safety, environmental, and seismic standards prior to the commencement of gas operations.

In addition, Crystal Energy plans to exercise its option to purchase the platform from Venoco. Crystal Energy's plans call for the platform to be dedicated as a regasification facility only, which means there will be no concurrent oil and gas production, no "fish farm," or any other use.

Clearwater Port will also use the best available control technology in its design -leading the way for proposed offshore terminals in the world-by reducing Clearwater Port's air emissions by about 95 percent. And, rather than discharge the pure, desalinated water that is formed as condensation during operations, Crystal Energy is delivering more than 40 million gallons of fresh water annually to the City of Oxnard for municipal use at no cost. No seawater will be used as part of our operations.

Clearwater Port will only go forward after an extensive public comment process and if an exhaustive analysis of the facts by independent environmental and safety experts hired by local, state, and federal agencies confirms the project is safe, secure, and environmentally sound.

For more information about California's energy situation and our proposed Clearwater Port project, I encourage you to visit our Web site, www.clearwaterport.com. 

Lisa Palmer

Director of Communications

Crystal Energy

Published On Line, November 24, 2004

Malibu Times

Local group opposes LNG proposal

https://www.malibutimes.com/articles/2004/11/03/news/news_briefs/newsbriefs.txt

A new local political organization has formed to oppose a liquefied natural gas facility proposed to be built off the coast of California near Malibu. Called Citizens Against Crystal Energy, or CASE, the group says it is trying to inform people about Crystal Energy's recent signing of a long-term lease for a local oil platform and its plan to retrofit it into an LNG facility.

"I understand we need to find a way to meet the growing need for energy in our country, but the proposal is just dead wrong," said CASE member Anne Hoffman, who usually devotes her political activity to property rights.

CASE says that the facility is old, highly unstable and prone to possible terrorism.

Another company, BHP Billiton, early proposed building an LNG facility off the coast of Oxnard. That sparked outrage throughout the area, with many saying such a facility presented enormous health risks. The Malibu City Council issued a resolution against the proposal.

Hoffman said she did not decide to become active in that LNG fight because there was already so much opposition. But in this scenario, she said there is not as much opposition because there is not as much knowledge.

"This one is moving along at a much faster pace and we need to galvanize the people who might not be aware of it," Hoffman said.

Mayor Pro Tem Andy Stern has also vocally opposed Crystal Energy's proposed facility.

November 27, 2004

Ventura County Star

Convincing us they'd be great neighbors

Australian company gives us 25.5 million reasons to have LNG next door

Full Story: https://www.venturacountystar.com/vcs/opinion_columnists/article/0,1375,VCS_223_3357072,00.html   

By Chuck Thomas

ABSTRACT:

Just imagine some folks sending you glossy brochures in the mail and buying full-page ads in my favorite newspaper, all to convince you what great neighbors they're going to be. In my neighborhood, we don't have to imagine that, because it's actually happening.

The would-be neighbor is BHP Billiton, an Australian firm that wants to build a liquefied natural gas terminal off the Ventura County coast. Called Cabrillo Port, this huge floating platform would be 14 miles seaward of Point Mugu.

Since the gas would be piped ashore in the Ormond Beach-Port Hueneme area, those of us who live there are getting a public relations full-court press by BHP Billiton, trying to make the project seem downright neighborly.

We got this beautiful, glossy brochure in the mail, and if taken literally, it can make you feel just plain silly if you're not leading cheers for LNG.

Copyright 2004, Ventura County Star. All Rights Reserved.

November 27, 2004

Times-Review Newspapers, NY

How safe is LNG terminal?

Opponents of gas facilities sound an alert

https://www2.timesreview.com/NR/index/284982833932610.php

RIVERHEAD— We are not alone.

The liquid natural gas facility proposed off the coast of Riverhead Town is one of about 40 LNG projects proposed nationally and one of at least 10 under consideration in the Northeast, although the local proposal is one of only about four projects that would be located offshore.

And with the recent onslaught of liquid natural gas (LNG) proposals have come critics.

A group called Broadwater Energy, a joint venture of Shell and TransCanada, recently proposed located a 1,200-foot floating terminal moored in Long Island Sound nine miles off Wading River. The terminal would accept LNG from giant tankers, and the LNG would be degasified on the terminal and connected into the Iroquois company's natural gas pipeline, which stretches under the Sound from Connecticut to Northport. A new 25-mile pipeline would be built stretching from the floating terminal to the Iroquois line. The project isn't expected to be done until 2010 and must first undergo a federal regulatory process.

"There are no offshore facilities anywhere," said Tim Riley, a California attorney who's been leading the

charge against LNG plants in his state and nationally.

"Yours and ours are the guinea pigs," he said, referring to the Broadwater proposals and a proposal to put a floating LNG terminal 14 miles offshore in the Santa Barbara channel in California.

Mr. Riley has a website (www.timrileylaw.com) devoted to the fight against LNG plants and has even produced a documentary called "The Risks and Dangers of LNG."

Mr. Riley believes that part of the strategy of promoters of offshore LNG terminals is to avoid local government control "and take advantage of the federal rubberstamping."

Broadwater says safety is one of the reasons it proposes to locate the facility at sea.

But Mr. Riley said, "The hazards we foresee are the same as there would be if it were three or 30 miles out. We've got tankers carrying the equivalent of 55 Hiroshima bombs right off our beaches."

As an example of the potential perils at sea, he cited a Sept. 20, 2004, news report from Norway saying that a fully loaded LNG tanker was adrift on the west coast of Norway after the ship's ... ( the continuation page is currently not showing-up on the newspaper's server).

© 2004 Times-Review Newspapers

November 28, 2004

Ventura County Star

Plenty of reason to doubt EIR

https://www.venturacountystar.com/vcs/pulse_speak_out/article/0,1375,VCS_126_3359932,00.html

By Tim Riley

Some will recall that Oxnard was targeted for the siting of a liquefied natural gas facility in 1977 and that an environmental impact report was conducted at that time.

As a matter of public record, according to the California Energy Commission report of July 2003, "The Oxnard City Council, however, did its own study, which considered safety risks under worst-case scenarios. Oxnard's citizens opposed the project after the city's study showed up to 70,000 casualties from an LNG accident there. None of the risk assessments considered acts of sabotage."

The particular risk scenario just referenced was based upon an offshore LNG tanker collision approximately seven miles off our coast. Yet, the 1977 environmental impact report determined that a massive LNG spill on the water would create an ignitable vapor cloud that would drift onshore extending 30 miles, risking 70,000 lives.

Those who drafted the 2004 BHP environmental impact report apparently must believe that in 1977, the scientists, the U.S. Coast Guard and the federal Bureau of Mines were a bunch of idiots, because the 2004 theoretical calculators claim that a worst-case scenario spill would produce an ignitable vapor cloud that would extend only 1.6 miles.

The key word here is "theoretical" because no actual large LNG spill has ever been conducted.

Even though our skin is in the game, we, the public, are relegated to the bleachers. We are mere spectators watching the private-public energy industry players spin their way through revolving doors. We are asked to accept their "word" at face value.

In the current BHP draft environmental impact report, at Section 4.2 "Public safety: Hazards and risk analysis," Page 27, under the subheading, "Risk Evaluation -- LNG carriers," the document appears to allay our concerns about LNG being released by collisions with an LNG carrier. It states:

"In 2002, the LNG ship Norman Lady collided with a U.S. Navy submarine, the USS Oklahoma City, east of the Strait of Gibraltar. (No LNG was released in this event.) This provides a general understanding that while collisions with LNG carriers are possible, they have been relatively rare and have not resulted in the release of LNG."

This risk evaluation might cause an unknowing person to conclude, "Wow, LNG carriers can take a big hit, even from a submarine, and not release any LNG. LNG supertankers have Superman-like invulnerability."

The fact is the LNG cargo had already been unloaded before the event.

According to the CNN report on Nov. 15, 2002, "The company said the vessel, which had just unloaded a cargo of explosive natural gas in Barcelona, Spain, struck a submerged object."

Those who drafted the current environmental impact report should have known the LNG cargo had already been unloaded at the time of the incident, yet, they emphasized that no LNG was released in the event.

Well, of course no LNG was released. It had already been unloaded!

CNN reported the submarine "collision" was only a "rising to periscope depth" contact.

"In describing the known damage to the sub, officials in Washington said the radar mast on the sail section would not raise, one of the periscopes would not lower and some doors to the sail were jammed."

According to the Portland Press Herald, "Damage to both vessels was minor."

The draft EIR's report of the incident is flawed and misleading; thus, the report's "risk evaluation" is equally flawed and misleading.

The current study appears to be an attempt to minimize the scope of LNG carrier hazards and is a poor attempt to discredit the 1977 environmental impact report carrier collision risk scenario.

Was the mischaracterization of the incident intentional or incompetence? In either case, the credibility of this current draft environmental impact report is highly suspect. In either case, this is very troubling and should make everyone suspicious and gravely concerned.

Appear at the public hearings and send an SOS distress e-mail to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger at governor@governor.ca.gov. He can approve or disapprove the BHP and Crystal Energy offshore LNG guinea pig projects.

-- Tim Riley is a consumer protection attorney from Oxnard Shores who produced the LNG documentary film "The Risks and Danger of LNG," which was an "Official Selection" of the Malibu Film Festival, 2004. He also hosts https://www.LngDanger.com.

Copyright 2004, Ventura County Star. All Rights Reserved.

November 28, 2004

Ventura County Star

Marketing blitz touts LNG port proposal

BHP Billiton seeks support for facility off county's coast

https://www.venturacountystar.com/vcs/county_news/article/0,1375,VCS_226_3359914,00.html

By Sylvia Moore,

An Australian energy company is going on an all-out marketing blitz to shore up support for its proposed liquefied natural gas port off the Ventura County coast.

BHP Billiton has mailed thousands of glossy brochures to county residents that tout natural gas as a clean fuel and an answer to dwindling domestic gas supplies. The ocean-blue colored brochures list several local influential people praising the proposed facility, known as Cabrillo Port.

Copyright 2004, Ventura County Star. All Rights Reserved.

December 27, 2004

Ventura County Star

LNG project not good idea

Venoco Corp. is the corporation that owns Platform Grace, the proposed site for the Crystal Energy LNG project. Venoco is responsible for collecting its own data and providing emissions reports. Unfortunately, it does not have a very good history of being responsible about it. In October 2003, the company paid a $10,000 fine to settle air pollution violations in the Beverly Hills area. Venoco was also one of the corporations sued by Erin Brockovich and her boss, Ed Masry, on behalf of hundreds of residents who say they became ill from toxic fumes emitted by the same site. State and local authorities repeatedly cited Venoco for releases of deadly hydrogen sulfide gas at its Goleta platform in 1998-99.

Crystal Energy is leasing the platform from Venoco, although it has been publicly criticized for late payments due to a lack of financial backing. The company with ownership rights has a history of environmental violations and the leasing company may not have the funding for the project. Could it get any worse? It absolutely does!

The site itself has numerous recorded safety and environmental violations. In 1992, Platform Grace incurred more than $8 million in fines for 65 violations of the Clean Water Act. The facility also was cited for illegal discharges from the oil- and gas-production platform. In 1994, more than $1 million was paid for infractions involving a safety valve that did not meet Minerals Management Service requirements for at least a three-month period. In 1997, Grace was closed.

Venoco is not responsible enough to report hazards. Crystal Energy cannot afford them, yet, Grace is bound to have them. Is the Crystal Energy project really a good idea for our community?

-- Bob Hattoy, Santa Monica

(The writer is the former Sierra Club regional director, and served in the Clinton administration as the White House liaison to the Department of Interior. He is a member of the California Fish and Game Commission, and works as an environmental consultant. -- Editor)

December 29, 2004

Malibu Times

City opposes LNG proposal

Malibu Environmental and Community Development Director Vic Peterson sent a letter Dec. 17 to the California State Lands Commission in opposition to the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the liquefied natural gas deepwater port proposed to be constructed off the coast of Oxnard.

"The city of Malibu believes [the DEIR] is inadequate in its assessment of the potential environmental impacts and risks to public health and safety by failing to accurately assess catastrophic events that might result from accidental release of LNG or potential terrorist attacks on the proposed project."

Hearings took place on Nov. 30 and Dec. 1 to receive public comment on Australian-based BHP Billiton's proposal to build the facility 14 miles off the coast of the Ventura/Los Angeles County line, about 15 miles north of Malibu. Most of the speakers at the hearings, which took place in Oxnard and Malibu, were opposed to the proposal. Prior to the Oxnard hearing, more than 150 protesters chanted against the LNG port and held up signs with slogans of dissent. Officials from the U.S. Coast Guard, the Maritime Administration and the California State Lands Commission conducted the hearings. Comments from the hearings were collected for the drafting of the final EIR. Next year, that document will be released. Then another series of hearings will be conducted prior to a final decision by the federal government on whether to approve the project.

January 7, 2005

Ventura County Star

Coast Guard suspends LNG review process

By Sylvia Moore

After pressure from public officials and community groups, U.S. Coast Guard officials have decided to spend more time scrutinizing a proposal to build a liquefied natural gas port 21 miles off the Oxnard coast.

The Coast Guard this week temporarily suspended the environmental review process for Cabrillo Port, a floating gas-importing facility that Australian energy resources company BHP Billiton wants to build. The Coast Guard wants to "stop the clock" so BHP can provide more detail about the port's proposed construction and potential effects on public safety, air and water quality, and animal life, among other things.

"I think that's wonderful," Shirley Godwin, co-chairwoman of the Oxnard community group Saviers Road Design Team, said Thursday. "There are so many issues that need to be looked at."

The group has been leading community opposition to the proposed facility. Several hundred Oxnard residents attended public hearings in November, many expressing fears that it would be unsafe. Company representatives, however, say vessels have delivered liquefied natural gas shipments thousands of times worldwide without any major incidents.

BHP spokeswoman Kathi Hann said Thursday that it could take a few weeks to gather all the information the Coast Guard wants. "We think the request is reasonable. We're fully cooperating with the Coast Guard," said Hann. "We prefer to have a 'stop clock,' so a thorough analysis is made."

The Coast Guard and California State Lands Commission were originally supposed to make a final decision on the project by May, but federal law allows the timeline to be suspended if more information is needed.

It's unclear how long the suspension will last, or whether the public will get more time to comment on the project's draft environmental report. The comment period for that document was closed in December.

"I applaud the Coast Guard for 'stopping the clock' on the Cabrillo Port LNG project," Rep. Lois Capps, the Santa Barbara Democrat whose district includes Oxnard, said in a statement. "There is still so much that we don't know about the potential adverse impacts on our environment and community. It's time to investigate all of the possible problems and make that information available."

Copyright 2005, Ventura County Star. All Rights Reserved.

READ FORMAL USCG DOCUMENT of "SUSPENSION OF CABRILLO PORT DWP APPLICATION PROCESS"  https://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf91/311116_web.pdf

Saturday January 8, 2005

12:59 AM  International

 https://sg.biz.yahoo.com/050107/15/3ppxj.html

Coast Guard Suspends Review Of BHP's Offshore LNG Project

By Maya Jackson Randall of Dow Jones Newswires

WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)--The U.S. Coast Guard has suspended its review of BHP Billiton's (BHP) plans to build a liquefied natural gas importing terminal off the coast of California.

In a Jan. 5 letter to the Australian mining and oil company, the Coast Guard said it needs more details about the project before it can move forward.

The agency, for instance, wants information on what kind of impact the proposed terminal could have on local school systems' plans to build new buildings and how the company plans to minimize air emission impacts during construction.

The Coast Guard, which is part of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and the Maritime Administration, a division of the U.S. Department of Transportation, are required by law to complete their review of offshore LNG projects within 365 days from the time the company submits a complete application.

But the law also allows the Coast Guard to "stop the clock" or temporarily suspend the approval process in order to collect more data from the applicant.

Several environmental groups and officials who voiced environmental and safety concerns about BHP's Cabrillo Port LNG project had called on the Coast Guard to take advantage of its ability to spend more time on the project.

They argued that the agency needs to conduct a more thorough review of BHP's proposal.

On Wednesday, the agency agreed that more data is needed for its analysis.

"We looked at the comments and the shortcomings in the documents and made a decision to stop the clock in order to get more information from BHP," said Mark Prescott, chief of the Coast Guard's deepwater ports standards division. "We had to make a decision on whether the comments were legitimate and we agreed that there was an opportunity to make some improvements."

Too Little Time, Too Few People

Still, Prescott said its not uncommon for the agency to take extra time on a project.

"This doesn't necessarily indicate that the application is in jeopardy," he said, pointing out that the agency has suspended the timeline on three other projects as well.

He also pointed out that the agency, which has 8 people in-house working on LNG applications, is short-staffed - partly because of the increasing number of proposals.

While the agency anticipated a number of new offshore LNG proposals, it only expected to be reviewing 4 to 6 projects right now.

"We've already got 8," Prescott said. "And we're expecting another this month and another in June."

Still, the real reason for the suspension probably has more to do with how hard it is for the agency to meet the timelines outlined in the Deepwater Port Act, which was approved in the 1970's when there were fewer environmental regulations, said Prescott.

"There's so much more to take into account. Plus, we're dealing with numerous agencies," he said.

The Act outlines the rules the Coast Guard and the Maritime Administration need to follow when reviewing offshore LNG project, but until recently, there hadn't been an application submitted under the Deepwater Port Act in about 25 years.

The Project's Chances

The Cabrillo Port LNG terminal would be a floating port located about 20 miles offshore of Ventura County.

Liquefied gas, which has been touted as necessary to fill in gaps in U.S. energy supply, would be imported from other countries to the terminal where it could be turned back into a gaseous state.

Pipelines on the ocean floor would then carry the gas to shore, and eventually throughout the Southern California region.

A BHP spokesman said the company is still optimistic it will win approval for the project.

The requested additional information "will only lead to a fuller understanding of the environmental safety and genuine value of Cabrillo Port to California and Californians," he said.

Meanwhile, the California Congresswoman from that area said she welcomed the Coast Guard's decision to suspend its review of the controversial project. She noted that without the suspension, the Coast Guard would have had to reach a decision on the project by May 5.

"I applaud the Coast Guard for `stopping the clock' on the Cabrillo Port LNG project," Rep. Lois Capps, a Democrat, said in a statement. "There is still so much that we don't know about the potential adverse impacts on our environment and community. It's time to investigate all of the possible problems and make that information available."

-By Maya Jackson Randall, Dow Jones Newswires; 202-862-9263; Maya.Jackson-Randall@dowjones.com

Copyright © 2005Dow Jones & Company Inc. All rights reserved. Copyright © 2005 Yahoo! Pte Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

READ FORMAL USCG DOCUMENT of "SUSPENSION OF CABRILLO PORT DWP APPLICATION PROCESS"  https://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf91/311116_web.pdf

Does Gov. Schwarzenegger Want to Inflame Malibu With LNG?

January 25, 2005

Australian Broadcasting Corporation

TV PROGRAM TRANSCRIPT

LOCATION: https://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2005/s1289192.htm 

Broadcast: 25/01/2005

Schwarzenegger may hold key to BHP's US$600 million gas deal

Reporter: Jill Colgan

KERRY O'BRIEN: Whoever thought we'd see the day we might have to rely on Arnie Schwarzenegger to help deliver big dollars to Australia in exports? But that's what it may come to in southern California, where Australia's resource giant, BHP Billiton, has come up against the wealthy residents of Malibu in its drive to sell tens of billions of dollars of liquefied natural gas. Two years ago, Woodside Petroleum secured a $25 billion deal to ship liquefied natural gas from Western Australia to China - the biggest export deal in Australian history. Now, Woodside and BHP are pursuing contracts with California and Mexico that could be worth twice as much as the huge China deal. But Californian residents have vowed to block BHP's plan for a US$600 million floating gas platform off the coast of Malibu, and California Governor and celluloid hero Arnold Schwarzenegger could be the final arbiter. Washington correspondent Jill Colgan reports from the Californian coast.

JILL COLGAN: California has more than 35 million people, and only the wealthiest can afford to live here, on the coast. It's home to movie stars and billionaires, and if BHP Billiton is successful, these waters will also be home to a huge floating natural gas platform called Cabrillo Port.

KATHI HANN (PUBLIC AFFAIRS CONSULTANT, BHP BILLITON): I think that once people understand the facts about Cabrillo Port, they'll understand and realise that we are building it to the highest public safety and environmental standards and that it will provide a clean, safe, reliable source of energy for California.

JILL COLGAN: At its closest point, Cabrillo Port would sit 22 kilometres off the coast. But distance hasn't made the hearts of locals fonder.

ANDY STERN (MALIBU MAYOR ELECT): People are utterly and completely opposed to the project. They're horrified about it.

JILL COLGAN: The gas platform will be just a blip on the horizon; barely visible, if at all, from here on shore. But the residents of this stretch of coast want to keep it free of any threat of damage, no matter how small the risk, and they have the resources to back them up. Malibu's incoming mayor, Andy Stern, says BHP has done little to ease the concerns of locals, who fear accidents, natural disasters, even terrorism could turn the platform into a floating danger.

ANDY STERN: I'm concerned it's gonna blow up. I'm concerned there will be a tsunami. I'm concerned there will be an earthquake. We're in earthquake country. I have fallen out of my bed because of earthquakes. Why in the world would someone build something in the ocean like that - a highly dangerous thing?

JILL COLGAN: The council doesn't always see eye to eye with environmental groups, but on this, they're sitting on the same side of the fence.

MARK MASSARA (DIRECTOR, SIERRA CLUB CALIFORNIA): Well, the potential for accidents, spills and disasters is there with the operation, and that's a fact of life and it's a fact of natural gas terminals, and we're unwilling to put up with that risk, given the value of our coastal resources and the fact that conservation measures and existing pipelines can more than satisfy our natural gas needs.

SUSAN JORDAN (CALIFORNIAN COASTAL PROTECTION NETWORK): My impression of the project was that it's a technology that's never been done before. This is what we consider to be a guinea pig project, and frankly, we're unwilling to allow the first one to be built off the California coast.

VIDEO: In order to help alleviate the predicted energy shortfall in the US, BHP Billiton is proposing to build Cabrillo Port to supply clean natural gas to California.

JILL COLGAN: Cabrillo Port is an ambitious project that would cost BHP up to US$6 billion by the time it's finished. It involves building a permanently moored floating storage and regasification terminal to receive tankers carrying LNG - liquid natural gas - from Western Australia.

VIDEO: The tugs firmly press the LNG carrier against the fenders of the FSRU. The LNG carrier's manifold is now aligned with the FSRU's loading arms. During this process of securing and aligning the two vessels, the tugs keep the carrier firmly alongside the FSRU.

JILL COLGAN: The LNG would be regasified on the terminal and pumped via two pipelines along the seabed to shore. So far, BHP has played down the amount of opposition the plan faces.

KATHI HANN: The opposition is pretty much local, as far as we can tell.

VIDEO: The total loading operation takes about 16 to 20 hours.

JILL COLGAN: But opponents have delayed Cabrillo Port already. Earlier this month, the US Coastguard suspended its review process of the project, wanting answers from BHP to environmental and safety questions. For all the money it's spending on the project, BHP has not convinced locals of its safety, with assurances that have rung hollow.

KATHI HANN: Well, I suppose that's always a concern, but look, I live here in Ventura County. I've raised my family here; my kids went to school here. I live in Oxnard. Frankly, I'm not going to work for a company that's going to do some harm to the community.

JILL COLGAN: BHP is now fighting an environmental network with deep roots.

NEWS FILE: In 1969, a spill covered the beaches of Santa Barbara with crude oil.

JILL COLGAN: It was on this coast that the modern environmental movement was forged in America, after a devastating oil spill in 1969, sparking a militant resistance.

MARK MASSARA: Sierra Club and the public in California are unwilling to allow further industrialisation of our coastal resources, especially for the sole purpose of furthering our dependence upon natural gas, which is a finite polluting fossil fuel.

JILL COLGAN: But now they're fighting a surge of would-be developers who see California as rich pickings. The State's energy needs are growing. California can meet only 15 per cent of its LNG demands, with predictions of a shortage crisis by 2007. Importing more LNG appears inevitable, and the big energy companies are vying for a slice of the action.

SUSAN JORDAN: The companies are driving the process. It's like they're using the California coastline as a dartboard - you know, Chevron Texaco wants to put their project here; BHP Billiton wants to put their project there; Crystal Energy wants to put theirs on a platform. I mean, this is an incomprehensible process. It doesn't follow any logic. We want to be in the driver's seat. If we decide we need LNG, we in California should be making the decision about where on the coast it should be located.

JOHN OLSEN (CONSUL-GENERAL TO LOS ANGELES): You can respect those views, but at end of the day, one's got to have balance and objectivity in making a policy determination, and I see the process taking that step, that process forward, and I think at the end of the day, that will mean a green light for this project.

JILL COLGAN: Australia's Consul-General in LA is former South Australian Premier John Olsen. He's invested enormous time and energy into promoting the project, speaking at public meetings on behalf of BHP.

JOHN OLSEN: Australia can demonstrate 1,600 shipments throughout the world always delivered on time and never with incident. That is Australia's record, and that is what we're offering Californians in answer to a crisis that's about two or three years away from them.

JILL COLGAN: But he has not endeared himself to residents.

ANDY STERN: The Consul-General was astonishing to all of us. We found him to be arrogant. We found him to be totally and completely uncaring about us, and his attitude was clearly, "We want this. We want jobs for Australia, and we're just gonna go ahead and do it." He didn't say that, but that was the attitude we perceived from him.

JOHN OLSEN: Perhaps we should ask also the other 30 million-odd Californians who will need energy to power their industry, to preserve and increase jobs for Californians in the future, energy required to sustain the Californian economy, energy required to turn the lights on in your home.

JILL COLGAN: Australia has backed the project at the highest level, with the Prime Minister personally pitching it to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Joining in Australia's G'day LA celebrations this past week, Federal Resources Minister Ian MacFarlane followed up the Prime Minister's meeting with members of the Governor's office and met with opponents of the project.

IAN MacFARLANE (RESOURCES MINISTER): I met yesterday with Susan Jordan, who represents some of the environmentalist groups, and I certainly acknowledge her concerns, but the reality is there is now an acknowledgment by the administration that California needs more natural gas, and Australia will stand ready and willing to export that gas to whichever option the Californian people decide is their best option.

JILL COLGAN: BHP and the Federal Government are banking on getting through the review process and landing the project in the office of Governor Schwarzenegger, whom they hope will give it the green light. But that may not end the process, according to local reporter Jonathan Friedman, who attended a hostile public meeting on the project in Malibu.

JONATHAN FRIEDMAN (REPORTER, 'MALIBU TIMES'): Well, there are some developers in Malibu who have tried to build for 20 years, and there are a couple of projects in certain areas that have been going on endlessly. Because of the wealth in this city, they can bring together lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit. They've driven companies out of the city by suing them so much that the company either runs out of money or the company just gets fed up and leaves.

JILL COLGAN: What avenues of recourse do you now have open to you?

ANDY STERN: That's sort of like asking the coach of a football team on the other side. We're certainly studying our options and we're certainly speaking with various attorneys and other governmental jurisdictions concerning what our options are.

JILL COLGAN: Let me put it this way: in the past, has the council here chosen a litigious route?

ANDY STERN: If you asked that of Malibu citizens, they'd bust out laughing. I'd be happy to show you the list of our lawsuits. We're involved in 10 or 11 just against the California Coastal Commission, and probably two or three dozen more with other people.

JILL COLGAN: If the county sues, BHP could find itself in a long and costly legal war while other companies exploit the competitive advantage. Ultimately, it may be Californian courts that decide whose interests matter most and what is a fair price to pay for life-sustaining energy.

KERRY O'BRIEN: It seems not all Australian exports are as welcome in Malibu as Mel Gibson. Jill Colgan reporting.

April 6, 2005

BizNewOrleans.com

New LNG terminal begins operating

https://bizneworleans.com/109+M5b31a8271ec.html

Excelerate Energy announced that the world's first offshore liquefied natural gas receiving facility and the first new LNG regasification facility in North America in over 20 years has begun operations.

Gulf Gateway Energy Bridge Deepwater Port receiving terminal was constructed and operational in less than 15 months after project approval. The Energy Bridge system is based on specially designed Energy Bridge Regasification Vessels that are equipped with shipboard regasification and are capable of docking with a submerged offloading buoy anchored offshore.

With all safety checks and final commissioning activities completed, the Excelsior, the first in a fleet of Energy Bridge Regasification Vessels, was approved by the U.S. Coast Guard to start operations in U.S. waters.

Gulf Gateway, located 116 miles off the coast of Louisiana in 298 feet of water, will receive vessels that each have an LNG capacity of 138,000 cubic meters, equivalent to 3 billion cubic feet of natural gas.

Liquefied Natural Gas is a product used around the world to meet natural gas energy demands. The technology used to produce LNG allows abundant natural gas resources to be shipped between continents via specially designed ocean vessels where traditional pipeline transportation systems are not available.

    NOTE:  This is the world's first buoy docking offshore guinea-pig project now located 116 miles offshore. This particular guinea pig project is a different type than the offshore guinea-pig projects proposed much closer to the shoreline in Long Island Sound, and southern California near the populated Santa Monica, Malibu, Oxnard, Ventura, Carpenteria, Montecito and Santa Barbara area.

April 11, 2005

BHP and ExxonMobil in gas dispute

Gas Reserves Projected for California’s Cabrillo Port LNG Project Are NOT COMMERCIALLY VIABLE AT THIS STAGE

    SUMMARY: ExxonMobil, the 50% joint venture owner of Scarborough gas field along with BHP, has announced that BHP’s assessment of gas reserves intended for California’s Cabrillo Port LNG project, “is very high and we don't agree." ExxonMobil has stated the project is “not commercially viable at this stage.” ExxonMobil’s necessary approval to proceed with the project does not appear forthcoming.

"Our view is that BHP's assessment (of reserves) is very high and we don't agree."

“But Mr Nolan said development of Cabrillo Port affected BHP Billiton's share of the Scarborough gas and did not change ExxonMobil's view of the project, which would need joint venture approval to proceed.”

"When we see our side of the project, which is the development and sale of 50 per cent of the offshore gas, we don't see that as commercially viable at this stage," Mr Nolan said.

_____________________________________________________

Full Story:

April 11, 2005

The Age

BHP and ExxonMobil in gas dispute

https://www.theage.com.au/news/Business/BHP-and-ExxonMobil-in-gas-dispute/2005/04/11/1113071909344.html?oneclick=true# 

A dispute between the owners of the Scarborough gas field off the Western Australian coast escalated as BHP Billiton Ltd's joint venture partner disputed the size of the reserves.

BHP Billiton Petroleum chief executive Philip Aiken said three recent appraisal wells had increased certainty about the field, which it estimated to contain eight trillion cubic feet of gas.

"That's our view, but ExxonMobil has a lower expectation than we did," Mr Aiken said.

BHP Billiton and ExxonMobil equally own the Scarborough field, but ExxonMobil is the operator.

"ExxonMobil believes Scarborough is unlikely to be commercially viable in the near term," ExxonMobil Australia chairman Mark Nolan told journalists on the sidelines of the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association's annual conference in Perth.

"So we do have a difference of opinion.

"Our view is that BHP's assessment (of reserves) is very high and we don't agree."

Mr Nolan said ExxonMobil was aware that BHP Billiton has recently drilled some more wells but it did not have access to the data yet.

"But even so, we are of the view that their assessment is very much on the high side."

Mr Aiken said BHP Billiton hoped to be able to push the button on its planned Cabrillo Port liquefied natural gas terminal in California by the end of 2005.

That access to the energy hungry North American west coast would improve the commercial viability of Scarborough, he said.

"Our view at the moment is that if we could get Cabrillo Port up then we'd have a market and that would make Scarborough more feasible."

But Mr Nolan said development of Cabrillo Port affected BHP Billiton's share of the Scarborough gas and did not change ExxonMobil's view of the project, which would need joint venture approval to proceed.

"When we see our side of the project, which is the development and sale of 50 per cent of the offshore gas, we don't see that as commercially viable at this stage," Mr Nolan said.

© 2005 AAP

Coast Guard says 'data gaps' exist in LNG terminal application
Malibu Times - Malibu, CA, USA  The U.S. Coast guard has a list questions for a proposed liquefied natural gas terminal proposed for off the coast near Malibu. Some concerns listed deal with pollution, ship collisions and danger to wildlife.

Shell and Chevron boldly go into the abyss together
Australian - Australia
“The deep-water Exmouth Basin contains the Scarborough gas reservoir, which BHP Billiton hopes to develop to supply its proposed Cabrillo Port LNG receival terminal in California. BHP Billiton's Scarborough partner, ExxonMobil, remains sceptical that the reservoir contains sufficient gas to justify development. ”

July 18, 2005

July 20, 2005

September 28, 2005

"Tide Turns as LNG Protests Grow"

Those who believe the LNG proposals are absurd and will just go away must nevertheless appear at public hearings to voice their outrage and must write letters to local, state and federal representatives otherwise, your silence will be spun into approval.