Several are flat-out against the proposed port that would be located off the coast near Malibu.
By Mark Bassett/Special to The Malibu Times
Now that the flurry of the City Council election has subsided, several Malibu city officials weigh in on a proposed deepwater liquid natural gas port off the coast near Malibu, while others wait for the results of the state’s June draft of an environmental impact review before making public comment.
The City of Oxnard has already submitted several letters of opposition against the proposed deepwater port by BHP Billiton, Inc.
“I am philosophically opposed to having any structure, including but not limited to the regasification terminal, off the coast of Malibu,” said Councilmember Pamela Conley Ulich.
This sentiment was echoed by Mayor Sharon Barovsky, who said city staff has been staying on top of the issue. And while she is waiting for all the facts, if she had an opportunity to vote on the project she would vote against the LNG terminal.
Australian mining giant BHP Billiton has spent $350,000 to sponsor a proposal for a LNG receiving terminal that would be moored approximately 14 miles northwest off the coast of Point Dume. The project would consist of a storage tanker three football fields long by three football fields wide that would receive three LNG tanker shipments per week from the Pacific Rim, and distribute 1.5 billion cubic feet of LNG via an ocean floor pipeline to a processing plant in Oxnard.
City Councilmember Ken Kearsley stressed that it was difficult to comment on the project without the results of the joint environment impact study and EIR being conducted by state and federal agencies.
A draft EIR/EIS will be published in June, followed by a second public comment period, and the final draft of the EIR/EIS will be delivered in September. At that time a decision will be made by the California State Lands Commission whether the proposed deepwater port would be approved, denied or approved with provisions.
The Oxnard City Council recently submitted letters opposing the BHP Billiton project to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Transportation Maritime Administration and California State Lands Commission. Oxnard maintains that the proposed deepwater port and receiving terminal and the large pipeline, which would have land fall in Oxnard, will present significant danger to the city’s environment, safety and economy. The city rejected a similar proposal in the ’70s after it was determined that an accidental leak of LNG could be ignited and would cause a firestorm, possibly killing thousands of people.
One letter states, “Oxnard residents have questioned the wisdom of building terminals in an area prone to earthquakes and expressed fear that a plume of gas could escape from the terminal, reach land and ignite.”
In January, an LNG explosion in Algeria killed 27 people and injured many more. The explosion occurred days after Australian LNG leaders offered U.S. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham reassurances and the services of safety experts to consult on pending California projects-including BHP’s Cabrillo Port and a Mitsubishi receiving terminal in Long Beach.
Representatives from BHP contend that its proposed floating re-gasification terminal is far less complex than the Algerian plant because it does not include gas purification facilities.
“We hope to have our project completed by 2008,” said Kathi Hann, BHP public affairs consultant. “[And] to supply 18 percent of Southern California’s LNG needs at a moderate cost.”
LNG is dispersed throughout California from diminishing gas fields in the Rocky Mountains. At a recent Malibu scoping meeting, Sydney Daly, of the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce, said that LNG demand is increasing while domestic supplies are diminishing, and that new sources of LNG will be needed for California to move into the future.
Over the past 18 months, two LNG projects, in Maine and Northern California, were withdrawn because of overwhelming opposing community sentiment.
In Malibu, Kathryn Yarnell, the 2002 president of the Malibu Association of Realtors, weighed in on the BHP Billiton project by submitting a letter of opposition to Cy Oggins of the California State Lands Commission.
“It would pollute the views, the waters, harm the sea life, reduce property values on the land,” Yarnell wrote. “Most importantly it would make us a target for terrorists.”
Recently, the Marine Affairs and Navigation Conference rejected the Department of Water and Power’s application for an undersea LNG pipeline. Its reasoning was that LNG importation requires security zones to protect against the threat of terrorist attack. These security zones would need to include the area around tankers delivering LNG, and around the DWP docking facility. The implementation of such security zones would create a heightened state of anxiety, put undue burden on the U.S. Coast Guard, and interfere with the shipping industry, recreational sailing, whale watching, and tourism in the Channel Islands National Park marine sanctuaries. In addition, these security zones would be costly for taxpayers, and would diminish the coastal resort industry and quality of life.