Help DU this Poll No to LNG off the Coast

[sce56]

http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_7445900
Two area liquefied natural gas plants in pipeline
By Harrison Sheppard, Staff Writer
Article Last Updated: 11/12/2007 09:12:02 PM PST

SACRAMENTO - Just months after environmental concerns killed a proposal to locate a liquefied natural gas terminal off the coast of Malibu, a proposal for an even larger plant off Oxnard and one off the coast of Los Angeles are under review. Houston-based NorthernStar Natural Gas Inc. is seeking to convert an oil platform 12.6miles off the coast of Oxnard into a liquefied natural gas terminal that could produce up to 1.4billion cubic feet of gas per day. Meanwhile, Woodside Natural Gas is hoping to establish a plant 27miles off the coast near Los Angeles International Airport using an offshore buoy system. Experts said the proposals are among nearly a dozen along the coast intended to meet growing demand for natural gas - seen as a more environmentally friendly fuel source than oil or coal - as domestic supplies run dry and more states vie for California's supply of natural gas.
<Snip>
But opponents worry about the environmental consequences as well as safety concerns.

Tim Riley, an Oxnard attorney who has made a film about the dangers of liquefied natural gas - or LNG
Advertisement
- said the Oxnard LNG terminal could be at risk from earthquakes, accidents and terrorist attacks that would pose a risk to marine life as well as nearby residents.

"I can't imagine this getting beyond the Coast Guard (review) because this Clearwater Port is too dangerous, and it's unneeded," Riley said.
The Clearwater Port project is estimated to cost $600million and could be completed by 2011.

But Riley also argued that natural gas is not as environmentally friendly as proponents suggest, in part because of the energy required to extract it from abroad, transport it by tanker and process it back into gaseous form.
The Sierra Club and other environmental groups also oppose the project, which must get approvals from nearly two dozen federal, state and local government agencies.

Jim Metropulos, legislative representative for the Sierra Club in California, said the state needs to focus on increasing renewable energy from domestic sources, rather than using fossil fuels such as natural gas imported from abroad.

"We think if you made those investments elsewhere in promoting renewables and conservation, it's a better thing and it makes us meet the goal that the Legislature and Gov. (Arnold) Schwarzenegger have said we need to meet," Metropulos said.

Desmond, however, said the company is studying how to pursue the project in the most environmentally friendly and safest way, minimizing impacts on marine life and installing appropriate security measures.

"If you look at the safety record of the industry, it's an excellent safety record," Desmond said. "And if you look at the modeling of the risks associated with these events, it's extremely low."

A report prepared for Congress in 2003 by the Congressional Research Service said LNG facilities are vulnerable to terrorist attacks and natural disaster, but "the LNG industry has had an impressive safety record over the last 40 years."

One of the most well-known LNG accidents occurred at one of the nation's first commercial facilities in Cleveland in 1944. There, an LNG spill from an improperly designed storage tank ignited a fire that killed 128 people.

But the report said that while risks remain, LNG facilities have been designed with many safety improvements since that fire.

Since international commercial shipping of LNG began in 1959, tankers have carried more than 33,000 shipments without a serious accident, the report said.

There have been about 30 minor incidents involving spills or small fires. On land-based facilities, there have been 10 serious incidents involving LNG worldwide, with two fatalities.

The Clearwater Port project must go through extensive reviews by federal, state and local agencies, including the U.S. Coast Guard, the State Lands Commission, the California Coastal Commission, the city of Oxnard and Ventura County.

better understanding among policymakers of how energy markets work when we make decisions like this.

"This will neither ensure a natural gas supply nor will not doing it cause a natural gas shortage."

[Ian David]

1. Let's put the Liquified Natural Gas terminal where Ted Stevens was going to build his bridge. n/t

[sce56]

2. I thought that would end with something like "where the sun don't shine"

Please vote the poll! Thanks

[kestrel91316]

3. I'd prefer the LNG terminal offshore to onshore.

It was never even gonna be within sight of Malibu, BTW. But it's used as a buzzword to get people riled up at THE OUTRAGE!!!111!1!!! We can't have it "off the coast of Malibu"!! That will ruin rich folks' view!!!!

The fact is, we need natural gas. We don't have enough of our own, so it has to be imported. This is far preferable to importing OIL, IMHO.

[sce56]

4. Before you agree to that look into it some more and watch the video

Ok but off shore or on shore it is a big risk if it would have an accident the cloud would float onshore as the winds normally come from off shore then explode on shore! The other thing is they locate these terminals more than 12 miles off shore exempting them from the pollution controls but that smog created from the diesel engines running the plants will blow on shore! Look more into it also note the whales have been getting in the way of those enormous ships in the channels we lost three Bl;ue whales last month apparently they were run over by a large ship.

http://www.lngwatch.com/index.htm
http://www.lngwatch.com/race/news6_29.htm
http://www.fnnc.org/lng.html

[kestrel91316]

11. I live in Los Angeles, and know how our winds blow. We get gentle

air movements in from the sea at times. Our strong winds are virtually always the OTHER direction. The whales are gonna get hit by large ships there no matter what - the ports are VERY busy and will stay that way.

Where do you propose our needed LNG terminal be placed, BTW? It is NECESSARY, so it is gonna go someplace. Where?

[XemaSab]

5. My real question is

if an oil tanker runs into that thing will you be able to see the explosion from Santa Barbara? :popcorn:

[sce56]

6. I got a better one the tanker ( Imagine a ship the size of three football fields )

Fully loaded with gas has a pilot error in bad seas it runs aground near Santa Barbara leaks a cloud of gas that gets ignited by a power line next to your house? Their are plenty of scenarios that could happen like that!

[One_Life_To_Give]

8. No need to imagine

During the winter one enters the port of Boston a couple times a week. Even more often in the port of Portland, ME. Have you asked Det Norske Veritas, the leading Maritime Class Society in NG Carriers, about what might happen? Or for that matter the Coast Guard?

[One_Life_To_Give]

7. How to provide electricity?

The question becomes. Canada's production of NG is falling. California's Electricity demand is rising. The only significant power plants being put online are now fueled by Nat Gas.

So either somebody builds a way to get the gas to Californias power plants or the lights go dim.

[sce56]

9. Their are other ways to get electricity

I spent a year working at a Geothermal Plant they can generate a lot but don't get the subsidy's the Oil Co. get. Think if we would have spent all the money thrown at Iraq on alternative energy we would be independent of oil and the terrorist would lose their main source of funding Saudi Oil Profits.

[OKIsItJustMe]

10. I think you're fooling yourself

We're building wind and solar generating capacity almost as fast as we can. However, even the most optimistic figures don't suggest that we could possibly be independent of oil (or natural gas) any time in the near future.

Some suggest that nuclear power is the way to go. Okay... how fast can we build nuclear plants? (Not that fast.)

Geothermal is great. I'm all for it; but in much of the country it is not relevant.

http://geoheat.oit.edu/dusys.htm

[sce56]

12. Yes for the east coast but the west coast has the capability I have been to plants here

And here is where they want to bring these monster ship loads of LNG.
Global warming is going to be fixed by thinking out of the box and burning more fossil fuels will not help but make it worse. And of course you don't mind them running over the whales with these behemouth tankers!

[XemaSab]

14. You're right... we don't care about whales or global climate change.

You've really got us all pegged.

I'm going back to FReepers now. :(

[hunter]

13. Will the dollar be strong enough to import LNG?

I think that's the real question. Our reliance on natural gas for electricity generation, especially for peak demand, creates some truly horrendous instabilities in the economic equations. If it's "LNG at any price" with a devalued dollar then the economy will suffer, and if the electric power system goes unstable because of gas shortages the economy suffers too.

One nightmare scenario would be the development of a gas from coal industry. That awful possibility makes LNG imports look benign.

In any case, the problem of LNG imports is temporary. As they say in the Emergency Room, the bleeding always stops.