A look behind the Australian energy company that is proposing a liquefied natural gas terminal off the coast of Malibu/Oxnard.
By Hans Laetz / Special to The Malibu Times
Within the next few weeks, officials with the Australian oil and mining conglomerate BHP Billiton are expected to file hundreds of documents with federal and state regulators answering questions about the company’s proposal to anchor its “Cabrillo Port” liquefied natural gas terminal near Malibu.
The project is nearing a crucial deadline to get its environmental and safety evaluations complete so officials can resume the approval process, which has been delayed nearly a year. Billiton is in a tight race with other energy companies to construct an expensive, but potentially lucrative LNG terminal operating on the West Coast.
Federal officials have a list of more than 120 questions that Billiton needs to answer about key operating aspects for the proposed energy terminal proposed for an anchorage 13.8 miles off Malibu’s northern end.
BHP Billiton is one of the world’s largest mining conglomerates.
The company was formed by the merger of London-based Billiton Mining into what used to be called the Broken Hill Proprietary Co., a mining company with such deep and extensive Australian mining roots that its nickname is “The Big Australian.”
And what is good for BHP Billiton is good for Australia, notes politicians down under. Government officials up to and including the Australian prime minister have lobbied in Sacramento and at the White House on behalf of Billiton’s plans for the Malibu coast.
The company, worth an estimated $94 billion, operates around the world, from copper mines near Phoenix to oil wells in Iraq to nickel mines in Papua New Guinea. And, as it is a huge company, with operations on every continent, it has its share of problems.
Emblematic of that has been a gold mine called Ok Tedi in Papua New Guinea, which has been an environmental disaster and public relations nightmare for BHPB.
After allegedly destroying 2,400 acres of rain forest and poisoning an entire rivershed, Billiton sold the lucrative mine to the cash-strapped Papua New Guinea government and declared that the project was not compatible with Billiton’s environmental policies. But that came after the company had strenuously denied for more than a decade that the serious environmental problems existed.
The company has adopted a sustainable development policy it calls Zero Harm, and pledges publicly to respect human rights, strive for environmental protection, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other responsibilities that company Chief Executive Officer Chip Goodyear has emphasized.
“We aspire to Zero Harm to people, our host communities and the environment and strive to achieve leading industry practice,” Goodyear said in a September statement. “Sound principles to govern safety, business conduct, social, environmental and economic activities are integral to the way we do business.”
BHP Billiton was named “Company Of The Year 2005” by a British stock investment association for its social and environmental commitments around the world, and for such programs as funding an AIDS awareness campaign among its miners in South Africa.
But critics, like Malibu resident Kraig Hill, note that this comes from a company that has not changed its behavior. Hill notes the company lost a floating natural gas rig during Hurricane Rita, and reacted as if that has nothing to do with the similar anchoring system planned for the LNG terminal at Malibu.
“BHP’s unmoored rig in the Gulf (and their reaction) also contributes to the impression that the company has an internal culture of sugarcoating the truth,” he said. “They represent themselves as being ‘world class’ in terms of safety, despite having had 17 worker deaths in 2004.”
In Australia, industry watchers say BHP Billiton is no better or worse than any other gigantic international firm with 25 or 30 major operations. Glyn Lawcock, who tracks Billiton for the investment firm UBS in Melbourne, told The Malibu Times that the company’s environmental policies are tempered by the fact that it aggressively protects shareholder return – which is exactly what a good company is supposed to do.
Another Aussie who watches Billiton is Sharon Beder, who said she thinks “BHPB is like any other transnational corporation when it comes to environmental commitments and claims about future performance.”
Beder is a professor of communications at the University of Wollongong who has written extensively about corporate environmentalism and public relations.
“They usually promise more than they can deliver and do their best to avoid implementing expensive environmental safeguards through lobbying government and manipulating public perceptions,” she said in an e-mail to The Malibu Times.
Beder cautioned Californians to pay close attention to Billiton’s claims in the coming months, when the company files its lengthy answers to the U.S. government’s questions about Cabrillo Port.
“For example, the statement ‘we are building the cleanest LNG terminal possible’ is not necessarily dishonest but hinges on interpretation of the word ‘possible’,” she said. “It could be interpreted by BHPB as ‘economically feasible for BHPB to make a profit out of.’
“Something that might be cleaner but more expensive might not be considered a realistic possibility for BHPB management,” Beder said.