Posted on 10/17/2006 8:52:27 PM PDT by Flavius
Environmental concerns expressed over project
By Brandon Mackey, Correspondent October 15, 2006
Richard Quinn / Special to The Star
Alessandra DeClario holds up a sign at Plaza Park on Saturday to protest the proposed LNG plant.
Heikki Ketola looks over information about the proposed liquefied natural gas plant. Ketola was part of a contingent from Malibu who came to Plaza Park Saturday to protest the plant.
With hopes of stemming what they see as a possible environmental and human catastrophe, hundreds gathered in downtown Oxnard Saturday to protest the proposed liquefied natural gas project just miles off the coast.
About 300 people, including several local elected officials, took to Plaza Park Saturday afternoon at the Clean Energy Day of Action voicing their concerns over Australia-based BHP Billton's proposed LNG floating port in the waters 13.8 miles off Oxnard.
"California would lose what makes us the great state that we are: our beaches," said Shirley Godwin of the Saviers Road Design Team.
The environmental impact of the port topped the list of concerns for most at the rally.
Oxnard Councilman John Zaragoza repeated the neon sign displayed above the rally: "We breathe here. Don't pollute our air. No LNG," Zaragoza said.
The protesters believe air pollution created from the port would travel via on-shore winds and make its way over the county, affecting residents in the Oxnard Plain the most.
BHP Billton spokesperson Kathi Hann said all requirements of the Clean Air Act will be met, and the detailed efforts going into the project will improve air quality.
"That's ridiculous. We know where we live, and we know how the wind blows," said Gloria Roman of the Greater Oxnard Organization of Democrats.
But more than concern over the effects on the environment was the lack of a local voice in the project's decision making.
"There is a lack of communication between those making decisions and our communities, the ones in danger," Oxnard Mayor Pro Tem Andres Herrera said.
Oxnard Mayor Tom Holden encouraged everyone to get Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's attention on the issue, as he has the power to veto the plan.
The public has until Oct. 23 to comment on BHP Billiton's request for a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency water-discharge permit for the facility, known as Cabrillo Port. The firm also needs an air permit from the EPA and approval from the State Lands Commission and Coast Guard.
BHP's plan for Cabrillo Port involves gas being piped from the port to the Reliant Energy plant near Ormand Beach. Another pipeline would then take the gas to a Southern California Gas Co. facility in Somis.
Since BHP's proposal in 2002, two more companies have made plans for LNG facilities in the area.
Woodside Natural Gas Inc., also based in Australia, has proposed a facility 21 miles off Point Dume. Houston-based NorthernStar Natural Gas has plans to renovate Platform Grace located 12.6 miles off Oxnard.
A caravan of concerned Malibu residents came to downtown Oxnard in support of the protesters.
Malibu City Councilman Andy Stern, a former mayor of the city, said the survival of coastal communities rests on its residents supporting each other and getting their voices heard.
Protests were also held in Oregon, Washington and in Tijuana, Mexico.
The LNG plant will probably be built in Mexico.
This one?
El Paso to Build New Pipeline {Nat Gas, Savannah GA, LNG}
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1718777/posts
Or would that be resource utilization?
as in digging up minerals to be processed and sold type. I think my geology Professor calls that Mineral Exploration Geology. Evidently the bay that the port is plan to be built in is chalked full of valuable minerals.
"California would lose what makes us the great state we are: our beaches."
Leave behind the idea that the surfbums of the world power California's economy, how exactly does natural gas, cryogenically liquified or not pollute a beach?
The Santa Barbara blowout has apparantly been genetically imprimted on California's amateur ecologists. I worked 20 years with propane, chemical cousin to natural gas. Primary difference is a couple of carbon bonds and a WAY lower boiling point for natural, plus, NG is lighter than air, propane is heavier.
In practical terms, ths means LNG would almost immediately vaporize and rise, dispersing as it rose. Propane, at only 44 below boiling point (yeah, Fahrehight, I'm old school) vaporizes a tuch more slowly, and the vapor can puddle up in low spots. Some tunnels don't allow propane powered vehicles passage for that difference.
I have heard of scenarios of sabotage of an LNG storage facility. If done just right and resulting in a BLEVE, boiling liquid, explosive vapor explosion, one could see a ka-boom bigger than the North Koreans just did. Still, a few miles offshore, more fireworks than damage unless one was unluckey enough to be fishing the artificial reef the facility will form.
Seriously, atmospheric pollution would be minimal, even worst case would still be rising as it passes the California coast. Number of seabirds and otters affected: unless they can fly; none.
Do you have a link to any info? I would like to read more. Thanks
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.