Home › Environment
NorthernStar LNG plan suspended
Coast Guard seeks answers to 400 questions
STORY TOOLS 
More from EnvironmentStopping the clock in what was to be an accelerated environmental review process for a proposed offshore liquefied natural gas terminal, the Coast Guard has asked the company behind the Clearwater Port plan to address more than 400 safety and environmental issues before restarting the review.
In a letter to Houston-based NorthernStar Natural Gas, Coast Guard and U.S. Maritime Administration officials who oversee deepwater port reviews said the company needed to provide more information on such things as why an offshore natural gas facility is needed and to what extent it would affect the environment.
NorthernStar wants to convert Platform Grace, an oil rig about 10 miles off the Ventura coast, into a liquefied natural gas receiving station.
The facility, dubbed Clearwater Port, would convert super-chilled natural gas to vapor and send it ashore to the Reliant Energy plant at Mandalay Beach via an undersea pipeline.
A joint state and federal environmental review and risk assessment for the proposal is currently under way. The public weighed in during meetings on issues the environmental review should explore, and the public will have a handful of other opportunities to comment on the proposal.
Kira Schmidt, executive director of the Santa Barbara ChannelKeeper environmental group, said the decision to stop the clock was welcome news, giving her organization and others time for a more complete review.
Under the accelerated review process, a final decision on the project could have been made by next summer, Schmidt said. That seems highly unlikely now.
"Given the number of questions and the depth and difficulty of what was brought up, I don't see how those issues could be addressed in a short time," she said.
Although several opponents of the project said the decision was reassuring and showed the federal agencies were paying attention to concerns they and others have raised, it also was not much of a surprise.
Two years ago, federal regulators did much the same with Cabrillo Port, an offshore floating liquefied natural gas facility proposed by BHP Billiton. Earlier this year, two state commissions and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger rejected that project.
Officials from NorthernStar are optimistic about their proposal and have consistently drawn contrasts between it and BHP's project.
As for the Coast Guard's decision to suspend the 260-day clock on environmental review, Billy Owens, vice president for Clearwater Port and NorthernStar, said he did not think it would mean a long holdup.
"We don't feel that this is a sign of delay in the schedule," Owens said.
Many of the questions raised by the Coast Guard have been dealt with in plans already submitted by the company, he said.
In some cases, according to Owens, it's just a matter of expanding on the material or pointing out or clarifying that information.
But he conceded the company probably would have to provide some new information, including a biological survey of species that live along the route of the proposed pipeline on the sea floor.
Download this story as a podcast!
Posted by hensleyjim on November 3, 2007 at 8:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
NORTHERNSTAR LNG PLAN SUSPENDED:
Good news for the Santa Barbara Channel, albeit a temporary slow down of the Federal Government and NorthnStar Energy’s march to force imported Liquid Natural Gas “LNG” on Californians and America. Thanks to all who showed and sent their questions and comments to the LNG Scoping Hearings, and the Santa Barbara ChannelKeeper group led by Ms. Kira Schmidt deserve special praise.
Something is seriously wrong with these repeated attempts to increase our reliance on foreign fossil fuels. Huge multinational energy companies are spending millions of dollars to make us accept what is opposite of our national goals to be energy independent. The oil companies have reigned over America for the last one hundred years. When we attempt to breakaway from going deeper in debt to foreign countries, they increase their lies and campaigning.
The new LNG terminal going into Baja California is estimated to provide an abundant supply of natural gas to both Mexico and California, so why expand the pollution of our coastlines? There seems to be some hidden agenda by our federal government in collusion with multinational conglomerates.
Of course our own American energy companies can’t be trusted either. Remember the electrical power scandals here in the western states back in 2001 and 2002? Enron spent millions of dollars in lobbying our state leaders, to write a blank check under the guise of “Electrical Deregulation” for the good of competition at the market place to lower our energy costs. Well it turned out to be a big lie and millions of dollars were scammed from those of us who lived in California, Oregon and Washington.
NorthernStar and the proposed Woodside LNG project proposed in Santa Monica/Malibu claim to be concerned benevolent companies who want to make sure we Californians’ have ample energy supplies into the future. They fail to broadcast in reality their plan to lease the natural gas lines coming into California and reverse the flow to the east.
We must continue to protect our coastline, our environment and to reduce global warming. To survive, we have to breakaway from the 0LD sunlight energy of oil and natural gas and forge ahead to expand our present day renewable/sustainable energy resources, such as wind, solar, geothermal and wave.
Please get involved, help create a better lifestyle for our children and grandchildren. Resist the multinational energy companies and our federal government’s efforts to keep us fossil fuel dependant. They are like drug dealers who want increase our addiction on their dirty products.
JIM HENSLEY,
President, Greater Oxnard Organization of Democrats "GOOD CLUB"
Deputy District Director, League of United Latin American Citizens [LULAC]
Activist, Sierra Club/NO LNG Alliance
PO BOX 128
VENTURA, CA 93002-0128
[h] 805-382-7659
[c] 805-794-0517
hensleyjim@roadrunner.com
Posted by MotelREbkr on November 3, 2007 at 11:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Your personal attack shows a lack of "class" and ignorance.
Could it be that you have a personal grudge?
Since you refrain from commenting to substantiate your ability to judge Hensley's knowledge of energy, it shows everyone your lack of familarity with the subject.
I disagree with Hensley, so I am "on your side" there.
Hensley ignores or overlooks the fact that the Coast Guard is also a part of the U.S. Government.
Get ready for LNG at Platform Grace, sooner, or later !
Posted by jgorell on November 3, 2007 at 4:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Two weeks ago, the California Energy Commission released a draft Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR) 2007 based upon 2 years of vast analysis and projections for energy use and demand. The report is the State's energy blueprint and requirements for the future. It recommends that California develop an LNG facility for CA naural gas importation, and that our state should do so even if the Baja / Costa Azul facility and pipeline bring natural gas to CA and other southwestern states through Mexico. This is the analysis of the California Energy Commission and can be found here http://www.fypower.org/pdf/CEC_2007IE...
California needs to diversify its porfolio of energy. LNG is a component of that diversification. Mexico will not provide all the natural gas we need to sustain our economic growth or population growth.
Lastly, Clearwater Port has no plans to lease pipelines anywhere in or outside California. Any sugestion otherwise is wrong.
Jeff Gorell
Posted by shaver_one on November 5, 2007 at 10:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Turn Platform Grace into a Wind-Farm above the water's surface, and a Desalination Plant below the water's surface.
The government tells us we must divest ourselves of foreign fossil fiels, then goes along with the import of fossil fuels. But, what do you expect from a government with an 'Oil and Gas Man' at the helm...not to mention, but I will, Halliburton at his side.
Posted by JumpinJack on November 5, 2007 at 11:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey Jeff! You forgot the second half of your signature line.
Let me help! I believe it is:
Director of Governmental and Community Affairs, Clearwater Port.
Don't you think that is rather relevant? I do.
A couple of other things you gloss over:
That big report you refer to - wasn't that partly written by the executive director of the Energy Commission, some guy named Joe Desmond?
I understand he left the government a few months before this two-year effort ended with the report's publication.
Where does Joe Desmond work now?
How much is he paid?
Are we to consider that report to be worth the paper it's printed on when it's chief author now earns big bucks working for ... spoiler alert ... NorthernStar?
JJ
(Requires free registration.)
Comments on this site are to be used for the discussion and/or debate of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Comments should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We don't allow the following:
We reserve the right to delete comments and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.