From the editor: This section is dedicated to the Public Forum, where we publish opinions on
public and social issues that affect the Malibu community and our readers at large.
A ‘no’ vote on gas line proposal
I applaud Planning Commissioner John Sibert for his effort to focus on the facts regarding LNG and BHP Billiton’s proposal. As one who has done policy analysis both for and against energy industry interests, I share his view that natural gas will be an important part of California’s energy portfolio for some time. I, too, believe that the BHP proposal deserves “less heat, more light.” (The few who’ve called me a “critic” would be correct in the limited sense that I did a great deal of research and critical, objective analysis before concluding that this particular project would be a bad idea.)
Sure, I’ve heard a few folks grumble about “terrorists” and such, but most of the hyperbole has come from BHP, its lobbyists and supporters, and through the million-dollar publicity campaign they bought from Mike Murphy, a top strategist of Governor Schwarzenegger. The testimony of dozens of “proponents” turned out to be faked. Paid representatives of BHP have testified without revealing their affiliation. BHP has made suspect payments to environmental and community organizations in Ventura County. An Australian cabinet minister pronounced the project earthquake-safe, though the USGS indicates otherwise. And the documentation itself contains many craw-stickers (e.g., BHP promises “jobs creation,” but the fine print reveals that only about four permanent jobs would go to locals; most workers would be imported). One must ask why, if the project were of such clear benefit to Californians, BHP has had to sell it so hard.
Meanwhile, the most public act of the most organized “opponent,” an ad hoc coalition of stakeholder organizations, has been to ask the state legislature to establish a process by which the state itself determines whether and where LNG import facilities might be appropriate. A bill with this aim is currently on-hold. In other words, “More light, less heat, please.”
Now, on to Dr. Sibert’s mostly spot-on “LNG facts and fiction.” Demand for new sources of natural gas is not as high as portrayed by the industry, which he evidently accepts as accurate. California differs from most of the country in that demand here is currently being met; and the California Energy Commission predicts that it will increase only 1% over the next decade, and that’s if there were zero increase in renewable energy development, less than is already planned. Yes, 87% of our gas does come from out of state. That sounds high, but gas usage relative to renewable energy sources is dropping. And, rather than increasing the percentage of imports even further, it would seem more appropriate to invest in further development of renewables while avoiding the inevitable public costs of Coast Guard enforcement, accident cleanup, etc. Amazingly, insurance is not required for many shipping-related incidents.
The most catastrophic scenarios may be unlikely, but they have “predictably unpredictable” consequences that would suddenly become likely. As the floating factory would be about a mile from one of the world’s busiest shipping lanes, an unlikely fireball of five-mile diameter (as BHP has conceded possible) would likely engulf one or more tanker ships. Or, in the unlikely event that the facility drifted with the prevailing currents onto Malibu’s shoreline, it would then likely explode.
A variety of accidents of lesser scope are more likely. With hundreds of additional support vessels crossing the shipping lanes each year, tanker accidents are foreseeable. The industry likes to say they’ve never lost LNG at sea, but that ignores the loss of several LNG tankers that happened to be empty, that tankers in general have accidents irrespective of their cargo, and that there have been numerous explosions of land-based LNG facilities worldwide.
Yes, gas pipelines are ubiquitous on land; but at a water depth of nearly 2,900 feet, they would be subjected to over 180 tons of pressure per foot of length, and would cross multiple active quake faults that the USGS states are more likely than not to generate a hazardous quake over the facility’s lifetime. BHP hasn’t indicated how readily the pipelines might rupture, except to say that valves at each end of the 21-mile pipeline could be closed leaving 700,000 cubic feet of gas free to escape.
The project’s chronic impacts may represent the most practical concerns, insofar as many would be definite. Malibu is downstream of the prevailing wind and current, so air and water pollution (emitted by diesel support vessels) would be inevitable. And BHP still has not provided adequate analyses of the effects of noise on marine life, impacts on gray whale migration, environmental impacts on the Channel Islands, light pollution, and views from Malibu and nearby state parks, to name a few.
I agree with Dr. Sibert that we should be asking the right questions. Just as important is who will be answering them. I am sanguine in this regard. The Coast Guard has twice extended BHP’s application deadline, with the stated rationale that its goal is to help BHP develop a project “that will withstand public and agency scrutiny and potential challenge.” But shouldn’t a public servant present at least the appearance of neutrality? Also, the governor will have a huge say in whether the project goes ahead, yet so far he has uncritically accepted LNG industry representations.
Dr. Sibert is correct that “this is new technology and nothing quite like it has been done before.” The big question is whether BHP should get to use Malibu’s unique surroundings as its proving ground. So far, they have not demonstrated that they would do so with discipline and integrity.
I believe that I have asked a lot of the right questions. I just haven’t heard enough of the right answers.
Kraig Hill