Need your help to DU this poll No to LNG

[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."

[regnaD kciN]

1. Done...

[sce56]

2. Thanks

[wtmusic]

3. Yes to LNG

Tim Riley is a lawyer whose Malibu clients would prefer American power plants burning coal to having a distant view of an LNG terminal:

"Oxnard Lawyer Tim Riley's jihad on LNG Challenged
One of the obvious benefits for Sempra and ChevronTexaco seeking to locate their LNG terminals in Mexico are the less-stringent environmental regulations and less litigious society. Along the Ventura County Coast, Oxnard lawyer Tim Riley has made a name for himself opposing LNG...but it isn't necessarily a good one as Bill Saracino explains:

If you get past the crude graphic and pursue the link, you will find as exhibit A in the case against LNG an explosion that struck Cleveland, Ohio. I thought the pictures looked a bit dated so I read further into the story and eventually discovered that this explosion occurred in 1944. Seems like just yesterday, I guess, when you’re busy holding back the tide of progress.

To be fair, exhibit B is an LNG accident that occurred this year ... in Algeria. Algiers being a well-known high-tech center, I am confident they have all the modern equipment and safety devices that California has — just as confident as I am that Madonna is a virgin. Oh, and the accident in question was, in fact, the explosion of a boiler, not of LNG.

As they do for other disengenuous filmmakers, those pesky facts can get in the way!"

http://calenergy.blogspot.com/2004_09_01_archive.html

[sce56]

4. All Coal power is going to be banned in California including from out of state!

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/12/14/BUGQOMUV3B1.DTL&type=business
California utilities would be prohibited from buying electricity from most coal-burning power plants in neighboring states under far-reaching regulations proposed by state energy regulators Wednesday.

The rules, which would impose one of California's landmark laws to curb global warming, also would limit the amount of carbon dioxide new power plants in the state could emit. Most climate scientists blame the gas for raising temperatures around the globe.

The rules proposed by the California Public Utilities Commission could have profound long-term implications.

Coal is cheap and abundant. But it produces significantly more carbon dioxide when burned than does natural gas, which fuels most California power plants.

Almost no power plants in California burn coal. But the state imports energy from coal plants located elsewhere. That power accounts for about 20 percent of California's electricity supply. And more coal plants have been proposed throughout the West, some of them designed to ship their electricity to California.

The new rules are intended as a stop-gap measure to prevent a rash of coal plant development before California adopts specific limits on statewide greenhouse gas emissions, possibly by 2010.

Under the rules, the state's investor-owned utilities would not be allowed to buy power from any source that spews more carbon dioxide than does a modern natural gas power plant. Specifically, the source could not emit more than 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide for every megawatt hour of electricity produced. That's enough energy to light 750 homes for one hour.

"This is really aimed at encouraging new investment, new generation and new power contracts to be clean," said Julie Fitch, director of strategic planning for the utilities commission.

[EFerrari]

5. Kick