Skip to comments.Australian firm proposes LNG terminal in ocean off Malibu coast (22 miles offshore)
Posted on 03/16/2006 9:45:10 AM PST by NormsRevenge
In the latest proposal to import liquefied natural gas to California, an Australian company has unveiled plans to place a terminal about 22 miles off the coast of Malibu.
The plan announced Wednesday by Woodside Energy attempts to sidestep fears from environmentalists and some residents that importing natural gas is too dangerous because it is volatile and potentially explosive in its gaseous state.
Woodside wants to ship supercooled LNG from Australian fields to the California coast in specially designed tankers.
But unlike other proposed terminals off the West Coast, the plan doesn't require any large, permanent structures.
Instead of feeding vaporized natural gas into a pipeline at a terminal, the delivery tanker would take in an underwater buoy attached to a flexible pipe leading to a larger pipe along the ocean floor.
The larger pipe would come ashore in an industrial area near Los Angeles International Airport, said Jane Cutter, president of Woodside Natural Gas, a subsidiary of Woodside Energy.
The location of the buoy would not interfere with coastal views, shipping lines, or natural habitat, Cutter said.
Another company using different technology has developed a similar delivery method in the Gulf of Mexico, according to Woodside.
Woodside hopes to begin shipping between 2010 and 2014 and to meet up to 15 percent of the state's natural gas needs.
Environmentalists who have challenged other proposed LNG terminals said Woodside's proposal sounds safer than the others. But they stressed that the state may not need to import LNG at all.
Linda Krop, an attorney representing the Santa Barbara-based California Coastal Protection Network, said the state could gain more energy through conservation, improved efficiency, and focusing on renewable resources like wind, solar, and geothermal energy.
"We can achieve at least three times as much energy through a cleaner, safer approach," said Krop, who is representing the group as chief counsel of the Environmental Defense Center in Santa Barbara.
Environmentalists are pushing for state legislation that would require a review of proposed LNG projects.
Energy companies say shipping LNG from other countries could keep U.S. natural gas prices low as domestic supplies dwindle.
U.S. regulators have approved several coastal LNG terminals in Texas, Louisiana and Massachusetts, but companies have had trouble finding a home on the U.S. Pacific coast.
Mexico has approved two LNG terminals on its Pacific coast, one under construction by Sempra Energy and another by Chevron Corp., though Chevron hasn't begun construction.
Other proposed terminals in California include BHP Billiton's Cabrillo Port project off Malibu; Crystal Energy's proposal off Oxnard; and a Long Beach plan by Mitsubishi Corp. and ConocoPhillips.
In Oregon, there are proposals by Calpine at the Port of Astoria, Northern Star Natural Gas at Bradwood Landing, the Jordan Cove Energy Project at Coos Bay, and Port Westward LNG at Clatskanie.
Here in CT a proposed LNG terminal 11 miles offshore is meeting fierce and futile resistance. Futile because the terminal is in NY state waters... Doesn't stop people from complaining though. Yes, it's 11 miles offshore and they are concerned about terrorism, supposedly. Like the blast radius would be 11 miles.
Yes, but if they put it 13.1 miles out, it's international waters, IIRC.
No way. It's Intntl. waters and also, still very visible.
Would ruin Babra Striesand's view.
Move it north to offshore Ventura County...out past the Naval Station at Port Huenme.
Rule of Thumb: Suspect all Australian proposals. It's still a penal colony.
Not a fair comparison to todays technical advancements in storage and safety. Like comparing pictures of the old San Francisco earthquake and subsequent fires that destroyed the city, to today's rebuild of the city with new fire, safety, and construction codes.
I am confident that if you'd analyze the codes such a facility would have to be built with safety concerns would not be as much of an issue.
But just scaring people will stop anything new from taking place.....airplanes, high speed rail, cruise ships with huge numbers of passengers.....and on and on.
I say the Government should take back all the property from closed coastal bases and use that for LNG terminals, especially in California. Quit giving cities like SF huge bases, then having to clean them up.....instead save them for "the greater good".
May the Lord save us from whatever people from SF think might be "The Greater Good"!
But we understand how you folks can't help yourselves from playing God.
It's truly amazing how so many folks who know absolutely nothing seem to have all the answers.
"It's truly amazing how so many folks who know absolutely nothing seem to have all the answers."
Now that's true. Why do we look to the people who have the problems for the answers?
The Democrats send their best into politics. Republicans send those who have the time.
I wonder what "industrial area" they are talking about.
Would ruin Babra Striesand's view.
lol .. first thing I thought of too was Babwa&FRiends view going to be effected.
She's probably against a proposed wind mills farms off Cape Cod as well... she could power a couple wind turbines all by her self.
I don't think the potential blast area in a LNG scenario is more than a few miles , I could be wrong.
The special effects in movies probably tends to be a bit misleading and probably not a good basis to calculate why 22 miles and not 6 or 3 ..
My hometown has accepted the certainty that an earthquake will happen here.
Our Class "A" Baseball team is called the Quakes, they play in the Epicenter and the mascots are "Tremor" and "Aftershock".
Dead-panned plagarism is my middle name.
I resemble your remarks and will claim to the death that you made them first.
Actually, according to the South Bay Daily Breeze today, the location is purported to be 27.xx mi. north of Santa Catalina Island in the great deep coastal channel where the supertankers ply their trade.
That way, Babra could see it and so could most everyone along the So. Cal coast. (charming!)
The coastal landfall will probably be El Seguendo at the Chevron refinery there.( hard by the south side of LAX.)
Or put it on the backside of Catalina Island...
Yeah. The loudest and most 'authoritative' child rearing Nazis are always people who have no children of their own...
What and ruin the only pristine left in So. Calif.?
But , thanks for living up to your screen name.
The US's exclusive economic zone extends out 200 nautical miles. This is based on the Truman and Reagan proclamations and conforms to the Law of the Sea Treaty.
Oh, I know that and understand where you're coming from. I'm just a keen student of history. If its one thing past events teach us, its that unbridled faith in technology inevitably leads to disaster.....with or without hubris.
The list in just the last 100 years is a long one. The "Titanic", the "Hindenburg", the Lockheed Electra, the "Challenger", Chernobyl, The "earthquake-proof" buildings in Kobe, etc.
But I'm also one who believes that AS LONG as we learn from our mistakes, the risks are well worth it because in the long run the benefits far outweigh any potential disasters.
Not in Long Island Sound, because that body of water is between NY and CT, and I don't think any part of the entrance to the sound is more than a few miles from some US territory.
And your answer to the problem is????? Nuclear! I like that, solves a lot of problems. Or become a third world nation like Zimbabwe...no smog. Healthy, eat lots of greens.
Seriously, we need energy to help us help other countries through our HUGE donations and technology to help them raise their standard of living.
This "ain't" an easy problem to fix.
You still harping on this subject from 6-mos ago?
(Had to go back to see what we were yakin about back then.)
Your imputing some nuclear solution to that storm in a teacup to me is cagey and too obvious.
Are you really the nuclear advocate and did you and your clients "float" that LNG bait story back then to drive your "Nuclear Saviour" story?
It's interesting to see how others in that tete a tete have become bellicose and quite nasty over the recent past.
(Some of these types are hired propagandists and others are simply inmates in this "cyber open-air asylum".)
I was nosing around for cyber spots to acquire "crocs", the fad-sandal/shoe, and happened on your "crock" right here. Fancy that!
Sorry you interpreted my comment that way. I am a retired engineer and believe sincerely that the nuclear option potential far outweighs all of the windmills and solar. Here in Northern California the enviros have sued windmills for killing birds. Just think what will happen with thousands of acres of solar reflectors to heat water and generate electricity in the deserts...enviros will attack that also. We as a nation must make tough decisions to keep our economy strong.....and our huge donations to third world countries and the UN to help others.
If I might add, we need to balance the energy it takes to make an alternative to what its value is.
Thanks for listening.
Retired or not,sincere or whatever, an engineering degree is no indemnification from self delusion and obsessive compulsive pre-occupation in matters you have no hope of affecting.
Oh,it possibly confers some sort of "mission involvement" that implies that you are otherwise gainfully engaged in "worthy work" but lots of old retired guys use that dodge and most everyone accepts that sort of posturing as face saving "razzel dazzel".
Pontificating on the grand mission and the assorted players, including sinister "enviros", may add to your cachet as some dashing "James Bond" hero, but most adults see through all this folklore and relegate you to "old coot" status...you're really not kidding anyone.
I hear and sense an odd sincerety about you and hope you might reconsider your scam and try opening your heart and your wonderful mind to a calling in service to your fellow man. There is a little book entitled The Purpose Driven Life that might be worth your time.
I hope you will give it a read.
Just found your reply Bart. Your prejudice against anyone who is retired is not too pleasant. Unfortunately you know nothing about me except I'm and engineer and retired. What you don't know is if I may bey young, successful early in life via IPO, retired very early to enjoy life, and of considerable wealth. You prejudged me as an "old coot".
Obviously your mind is closed to nuclear. You ever wonder why Ted Kennedy and his neighbors don't want to look at windmills off their coast but its ok for "the common man"? Why the famous environmentalists like Al Gore tell us what we should drive and save energy while they fly in private jets, suvs, and live with the other high and mighty who live the same way?
Life is about choices, options, alternatives, return on assets / ideas applying technical fixes. Nuclear would give us the energy to make plenty of Hydrogen which would be a major fix to our fixation on mideast oil. Suggest you look at how much energy it takes to make hydrogen....using oil versus nuclear. No windmills or solar can provide that amount of energy needed 24/7...only nuclear.
God Bless America
PS. My family and I have all read Purpose Driven Life.
Really? Having read are any of you pursuing possible paths suggested there?
Frankly,I'm a little fuzzy on why you seek to share that "factoid" with me. Did any of your family have some kind of prior purpose before reading this book?
It seems a very long while since we have spoken. Have you been in a coma or something that kept you from contacting me?
There is something oddly sad about your quiet mania on display here...on one hand you seem to be so dedicated toward "saving the planet" with grandiose zany plans for nuclear salvation and on the other you have this odd need to perform some sort of "credentials sharing ritual" aimed apparently at discounting anyone who might disagree with your cock-eyed ideas on managing your notions about eminent disasters from current energy schemes now in place.
At the same time you are apparently oblivious to the cabal of multi-national countries, governments, and terror-bent Islamic murderers who are engaged in a global program to anhillate over half the worlds population through brutal slaughter.
Are you committed to some type of mental institution? If not please seriously consider turning yourself in. To borrow a quaint saying of Martha Stewart, it would be " A Good Thing" if you did.
You notice that I never attack you personally versus your approach towards my comments. Obviously we should cease this discussion since it can't just be approached as intellectual ideas sharing.
My last post to you...sorry.