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.?
Think not.
But , thanks for living up to your screen name.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.