Home › News › County News
Process for new LNG terminal starts
Conversion of oil platform off Oxnard sought
Download this story as a podcast!
Public input
Oxnard hearing
When: Wednesday.
Where: Oxnard Performing Arts Center, 800 Hobson Way.
Time: Open house from 12:30 to 1:30, and 5:30 to 6:30 p.m.; and public meeting from 1:30 to 3:30 p.m., and 6:30 to 8:30 p.m.
Santa Clarita hearing
When: Thursday.
Where: Santa Clarita Activities Center, Santa Clarita Room, 20880 Centre Pointe Parkway.
Time: Open house from 4 to 6 p.m.; and public meeting from 6 to 8 p.m.
Other ways to comment
People can also make submissions by mail, e-mail or on the Internet, but they must be sent by 2 p.m. PDT Oct. 18 to the following agencies:
U.S. Department of Transportation
Docket Management Facility
West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140
1200 New Jersey Ave., SE
Washington, D.C. 20590
Fax: 202-493-2251
California State Lands Commission
Attention: Crystal Spurr
100 Howe Ave., Suite 100 South
Sacramento, CA 95825-8202
spurrc@slc.ca.gov
Fax: 916-574-1885
All submissions must include:
Docket No. USCG-2007-28676.
Name and address.
Reason for comment or bringing information to the agency's attention.
STORY TOOLS 
More from County NewsState and federal regulators this week will kick off a long process to consider another proposal for a liquefied natural gas terminal off the Ventura County coast.
Officials will take suggestions from the public on what to include in an environmental study for the Clearwater Port project during a hearing Wednesday at the Oxnard Performing Arts Center.
Houston-based NorthernStar Natural Gas wants to convert an oil platform 12.6 miles off the coast of Oxnard to accept liquid natural gas from various companies, convert it to vapor and send it ashore via an undersea, 36-inch-diameter pipeline.
It is the second such project that has been proposed.
Earlier this year, two state commissions and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger rejected a natural gas terminal proposed by Australian mining firm BHP Billiton, citing problems with air pollution and effects on global warming.
The fierce public opposition to the BHP concept is likely to be repeated with Clearwater Port.
Opponents already are saying the terminal would threaten marine life and pose safety and security problems. Company officials say they will address every issue that comes up, while arguing that Clearwater Port can meet California's need for a stable natural gas supply.
To secure an operating permit, NorthernStar must run the same regulatory gauntlet as BHP.
It involves approvals by the California State Lands Commission, California Coastal Commission, U.S. Coast Guard and Federal Maritime Commission. Schwarzenegger has final veto authority.
Comments from Wednesday's hearing will shape a study on the project's potential environmental impacts, said Marina Brand, assistant chief of the Lands Commission's Environmental Planning and Management Division.
"We welcome maximum participation early in the process," Brand said.
"That will help our ability to facilitate a document that meets everyone's needs."
Regulators will later release a draft environmental impact report, which the public will have an opportunity to comment on. Those statements will be included in the final report.
The California Coastal Commission also will prepare a separate report.
Just how long the process will take and when the documents will be released is unclear "because we don't know all the issues that will come up (at Wednesday's hearing)," Brand said.
Shirley Godwin, chair of the Saviers Road Design Team, said opponents will make suggestions at the hearing.
"We've got an extensive list," Godwin said Monday, rattling off concerns about seismic safety, collisions with endangered whales in shipping lanes and whether there's a need for more natural gas in California.
NorthernStar officials have vowed to follow local air quality standards, and tout the facility as environmentally friendly because it reuses the existing oil platform.
Company officials will answer questions from the public before the hearings start, Joe Desmond, NorthernStar's senior vice president for external affairs, said Monday.
"And we're going to be listening very carefully during the comments," Desmond said.
Posted by chair on October 2, 2007 at 12:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Our favorite newspaper continues to suck up to folks with bucks or, perhaps, simply continues not telling the whole story. Clearwater Port would be 10.5 miles from VENTURA and 12.6 miles from Oxnard. Methinks the Buenaventura crowd should get very interested in this proposal as our prevailing winds blow precisely in their direction from Platform Grace. LNG is inert. Clever terrorists could pick the best time of year and the best time of day to prick large holes in the works creating a low-lying vapor cloud (due to our inversion) which would regasify the LNG enroute and ignite at any convenient sparking power line. High-voltage ones line our entire coastline.
Posted by jimhensley on October 2, 2007 at 7:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
STOP the LNG TERMINAL!
Reduce America’s dependence on Foreign Fossil Fuels: Say NO to imported, dangerous
Liquefied Natural Gas (“LNG”)
Think Globally, Act Locally
Foreign Energy Companies want to lock up the American market with their natural gas imports, They are like drug dealers, demanding that we buy their product. We must tell them, We don’t need it! We don’t want it!
Our government keeps telling us we are addicted to oil [fossil fuels] and that we need to become energy independent- yet some of our state and national elected leaders are selling out to these foreign energy companies.
Natural gas is very abundant in the US and Alaska (The Destin Dome in Florida is one of the largest natural gas reserves in the world.) Yet our local and federal governments are facilitating deals that would import foreign sources of a product we have in abundance. Millions of dollars are being passed around to eager politicians and organizations, for their personal benefit.
Huge tankers, up to three football fields, in length, will be shipping LNG fuel all the way from Australia, Malaysia and South America. Such large tankers and freighters are ruining our coastal marine life and killing whales in collisions. Remember also that the ships’ toxic bunker fuel, wasted to transport this LNG fuel, is another enormous Source of pollution that enters earth’s atmosphere and adds to global warming. The corporations know this- and don’t care.
Natural gas facilities are also a tempting target for terrorists who would wish to strike America. On September 9, 2007 a terrorist organization in Mexico simultaneously sabotaged six locations of Pemex natural gas lines, forcing the evacuation of 15,000 people from surrounding homes. [source: LA Times September 10, 2007]
Why are we letting greedy foreign companies force their fossil fuels on America? These energy companies are like the tobacco companies. They don’t care about our health and well-being; they want us to be addicted to their product so they can make massive profits.
For all these reasons:
Save our planet, save America!
Say NO to imported Fossil Fuels
Say NO to LNG ”Liquefied Natural Gas”
Recommended documentaries to see:
1. Inconvenient Truth
2. The 11th Hour
3. No End in Sight
PLEASE ATTEND THE LNG HEARING 5:30 PM WEDNESDAY NIGHT [10/3/07] AT THE OXNARD PERFORMING ARTS CENTER. JOIN US IN STANDING UP AND SAYING NO TO IMPORTED LNG.
contact info:
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 93035
[h] 805-382-7659
[c] 805-794-0517
hensleyjim@roadrunner.com
Posted by Tom_Johnston on October 2, 2007 at 11:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
jeeze here we go again. Folks who have made their minds up about LNG will throw out the usual stuff. Maybe some will stick to the wall, maybe not.
I don't honestly know how I feel about it, but for sure knee-jerk responses don't motivate me.
And that "what if terrorists blow it up" thing...oh for cryin' out loud there is plenty of stuff they could blow up right now in this country that could cause us grief! A LOT of grief.
Claiming this or that could become a "terrorist threat" is a cheap shot....not worthy of the debate.
I don't want the threat (and it is real BTW) of Islamic orginated terrorism to paralyze my nation or its endeavors.
Natural gas may very well be abundant in this nation but the same people won't let us get it there either....to save moose, or titwillows or something....you can't be against EVERYTHING!
Yes we are "hooked" on fossil fuels. No, we won't suddenly go "green" because we not not developed the technology far enough and that is a fair criticism of our leadership and corporations. The reality is, we are stuck with fossil fuels for quite a long time.
I'd rather we used their's than ours right now...let them sort it out later. Meanwhile serious and signifigant investment in alternatives (which include nuclear/fusion along with solar/wind/geothermal/and walnut husks needs a higher priority.
Posted by irarubinson on October 4, 2007 at 5:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I have to agree with Tom Johnston. Lots of knee jerk activity here. Lots of issues being overlooked. For example: Once on land, what is the proposed route of the pipeline? Where is the distribution center? How will construction impact traffic?
Posted by 2cusmile on October 8, 2007 at 11:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I would say this. If we are concerned, we need to fight it in every way we can. Regardless of any of their promises, they can not guarrantee complete safety for the environment or the population. The almighty buck will always remain supreme.
My friend was in Alaska when the pipeline issue came about. On the bad side, they promised no spills. They spoke with a forked tongue, there were spills. On the good side no Alaskian paid State Tax - the State pays them to the tune of $1000 + per family member each year. But what about the environment?????
Trust … haven’t we learned any thing from Halaco and the Ormond Beach????
We need to ask if it passes and we accept it, what are the incentives it provides for the locals.
My thoughts!
It is an important and alternate fuel source.
Everybody wants to free us from Middle Eastern oil, but nobody wants an LNG terminal in their backyard.
Anytime new materials are introduced into the environment you run the risk of contaminating nature and all. But before construction can commence, the area must be studied and an environmental impact report must be prepared. But by who? and how many?
I don’t want to say not in my back yard...but why not on Malibu or Santa Barbara coast line? That is one of my is my questions.
I also worry about maintaining it from a security standpoint it could be a terminal which could be accessed from several different directions.
A friend said there is one in the Chesapeake Bay, Guarded 24/7 by a Coast Guard Station which is its only mission and the only way you would know about it would be if you happened into the security zone.
What about the impact to the National Park and such a diverse wildlife area? Can we find something that will benefit our area and will the LNG damage my backyard. I hope not I like it to much.
(Requires free registration.)
Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We do not allow the following:
We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Opinions 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.