Palisades Democratic Club Opposes Proposed Pipelines in SM Bay
An Australian company’s proposal to import as much as 15 percent of the state’s future liquefied natural gas (LNG) supply using sea-to-land pipelines beginning 28 miles off L.A.’s coastline in Santa Monica Bay has incited opposition from Westside politicians and residents. They fear an increased risk of terrorist threats to Los Angeles International Airport and a dramatic potential for environmental degradation. Last month, Congresswoman Jane Harman and L.A. City Councilman Bill Rosendahl blasted Woodside Natural Gas’ OceanWay Secure Energy plan; and last week, the Santa Monica City Council voted to oppose it as well, citing fears of damage to Santa Monica Bay marine life. ‘Unlike the other proposed [LNG] projects, this is the only one that would place a new natural-gas supply adjacent to a major terrorist target,’ wrote Harman, who represents the South Bay area, where the pipelines would come ashore from regasification ships 28 miles off Dockweiler State Beach. Pacific Palisades residents have begun taking notice–and sides. Motivated by fears that LNG importation will be a security liability and a contributor to global warming, the Palisades Democratic Club voted to oppose OceanWay last month. ‘I think we need to look at other alternatives,’ said Marcy Winograd, one of many local Democratic Club members planning to campaign actively against the project. ‘LNG is problematic for global warming. It’s only going to exacerbate it. [This project] is not the answer for L.A., and it’s not the answer for the world.’ The Palisades Community Council unsuccessfully requested that the U.S. Coast Guard, which shares veto power over the project with the City of Los Angeles, extend the public comment period from October 31 until November 20. That deadline passed without comments from the council, but Chairman Steve Boyers anticipates that his board will take an ‘informed’ position on OceanWay. During an OceanWay presentation on October 25, which was cut short by a packed Community Council agenda, representatives of Woodside’s Santa Monica-based subsidiary presented major features of the project, emphasizing its safety, its ‘light environmental footprint’ and its potential benefits to California consumers. ‘It’s 28 miles offshore,’ said Laura Doll, vice president of Public and Government Affairs at Woodside. ‘You shouldn’t even see it. It’s a project that meets the requirements of the South Coast Air Quality Management District and California’s strict renewable-fuel guidelines. We’re Californians, and we’ve tried to design a project that is clean and reliable.’ Woodside’s representatives say the increased supply of natural gas could help reduce energy costs and guard against another state energy crisis. And they reject accusations that it will raise the threat of terrorism. ‘There’s something like 90,000 miles of gas pipelines in L.A.,’ Doll told the Palisadian-Post on Tuesday. ‘[Our] pipes will be just like every other natural-gas pipeline. There’s not going to be a sign saying ‘LNG pipes here!” The high cost of oil and the political unpopularity of coal have made natural gas a popular U.S. energy substitute. Imports of natural gas, mostly through pipelines from Canada, have risen more than 40 percent in the past decade. In California, the largest consumers of LNG are power plants, but LNG use in residences–mainly for heating homes and water–accounts for more than 20 percent of its consumption, according to the state Energy Department. Efforts to import it from overseas in a highly condensed, liquefied state have risen dramatically. Last spring, BHP Billiton lost a battle to install an LNG terminal 14 miles off Oxnard. Since then, other companies have sought to feed California’s lucrative energy market using sea-to-land pipelines. Beyond Woodside, NorthernStar Natural Gas hopes to convert an oil rig 10 miles off the Ventura County coast into an LNG terminal; the Mitsubishi Corporation is still fighting to build an LNG terminal off Long Beach after that city voted against it; and Sempra Energy will avoid more stringent U.S. pollution standards with its planned terminal near Ensenada in Baja California. Although public comments are no longer being considered for the Scoping Period of Woodside’s application for OceanWay, the project has a long way to go before getting the green light. A Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has yet to be written, and the final EIR would have to address all public concerns raised by the draft report. After that, the Coast Guard and three city commissions would have veto power over the project. Councilman Rosendahl, whose district encompasses the Palisades, West L.A. and parts of South Bay, has strong objections to the project. The councilman is expected to exercise important sway over the proposal because he chairs the Southern California Regional Airport Authority. If Woodside’s plans were approved today, the company would alternate between two identical regasification ships in Santa Monica Bay. At a buoy 28 miles off Dockweiler Beach, one ship would regasify that load from a near-frozen, liquefied state and deliver the gas through two 24-inch-wide pipelines that would travel along the ocean bottom. Running underground its entire length, the pipe would first hit dry land at Dockweiler. From there, it would travel four miles, traversing the beach’s dunes and a small piece of the west end of LAX and then paralleling Westchester Parkway before connecting to Southern California’s existing gas network at Aviation Boulevard at Arbor Vitae. The other regasification ship would travel to a still-undetermined point beyond the Channel Islands. There, it would accept a transfer of LNG from ships carrying the gas from Woodside’s reserves off northwest Australia as well as other suppliers worldwide. Woodside emphasizes how OceanWay differs from BHP Billiton’s unpopular plan. Among other differences, company officials point to a more ‘ecologically friendly’ regasification process that uses the heat of ambient air, rather than sea water, to convert LNG from a liquid to a gas. ‘Other systems use ocean water, which can have a detrimental impact on plankton and other marine life,’ Doll told the Post. ‘This has a much lower environmental impact. It’s more expensive [for Woodside], but it’s better for the environment.’ Another key difference, say company officials, is that no permanent structure or terminal will be built. ‘When the ships not there, you won’t see anything,’ Doll told the council. But critics point to the company’s plans, which describe 125 deliveries per year, each taking between 2.5 and 10 days’virtually assuring the constant presence of a regasification ship moored in Santa Monica Bay. But Doll said the demand for gas would determine the amount of deliveries and even the use of a second ship. She said the company’s application reflects the maximum use of its facilities, but not necessarily the average use. ‘There’s still a long way to go,’ Doll said. ‘This process is not nearly complete.’ — To contact Staff Writer Max Taves, e-mail reporter@palipost.com or call ext. 28.
This page is available to subscribers. Click here to sign in or get access.
