As someone with family connections to energy companies, I have nothing against LNG. But neither government nor industry has demonstrated that California needs to import it. Even if LNG were needed, no study has been done to determine which proposal might be best. BHP Billiton, in its draft EIS/R, doesn’t make the required showings of its project’s need and purpose; it just assumes that Californians need to import even more fossil fuel than we already do. Yet data from the state Energy Commission indicates that conservation and further development of renewable energy would be both cleaner and more cost effective.
I keep expecting BHPB to get its act together, but its recent “clarifications” are refutable.
Many supporters cite jobs as the key benefit, yet most workers would be imported.
The project would likely be impacted by seismic activity. Pipelines would cross at least six faults known to be hazardous. The USGS states that a quake here could produce lateral offsets of 15 feet or more. As pipelines would be married to the seabed by water depth pressures of 187 tons per foot of pipe, any significant offset could rupture the pipes, releasing as much as 700,000 cubic feet of gas, quite possibly close to shore.
The project would not be “well outside local shipping lanes.” BHPB’s map shows the distance to be 1.2 miles, yet tankers take about 5 miles to “put on the brakes.” And BHPB has admitted that the radius of an explosion could be 4 to 5 miles. In addition, service vessels crossing the lanes would increase local maritime traffic tenfold or more.
The FSRU would be visible from shore, and sea life would be affected by light and other project elements.
The project is within the boundaries of the Channel Islands Marine Sanctuary expansion, as proposed before BHPB ever came on the scene.
It’s astounding that a project of this novelty, complexity and potential risk is not being handled with greater precision. (See http://fnnc.org/lng.html)
Meanwhile, Governor Schwarzenegger just came out in favor of the BHPB project, calling it “the safest one of four proposals for California.” That’s like saying “pick your poison,” before checking to see if there’s anything other than poison on the menu. But don’t just say, “No LNG.” Instead, remind your representatives that there are cleaner, cheaper energy sources, which don’t increase dependence on foreign imports.
Kraig Hill