Cabrillo Port LNG Project
 |
| A rendering of an LNG Carrier from the project EIS/EIR. |
LNG Home
Cabrillo Port
Clearwater Port
In 2007, the EDC – on behalf of our client, California Coastal Protection Network - defeated a proposal to construct a massive LNG import terminal off the coast of California. By enforcing environmental protection laws and hiring experts to analyze the risks and impacts posed by the project, we were able to convince local, state and ultimately federal agencies that the project was too risky and inappropriate for the California coastline. We also pointed out the significant air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions that would be generated by the project, and the fact that cleaner alternatives exist to meet our predicted energy demand in the State.
Background
In 2003, BHP Billiton LNG International Inc. (“BHP Billiton,” the largest mining company in the world) submitted an application to the United States Coast Guard (“USCG”) and Maritime Administration (“MARAD”) to construct and operate the Cabrillo Port LNG Deepwater Port. The Cabrillo Port LNG proposal was one of several that focused on something that had not been done in the U.S. – constructing and operating an LNG import terminal in offshore waters. Until then, all LNG terminals had been located onshore or in ports or harbors. Concerns about safety and other impacts, however, caused LNG proponents to search for offshore waters in an attempt to avoid public opposition.
BHP Billiton proposed to import LNG from the Pacific Basin to a terminal located approximately 14 miles offshore California near Oxnard and Malibu. The Cabrillo Port LNG Project would have resulted in the construction of a new offshore LNG floating storage and regasification unit (“FSRU”) that would not only receive shipments of LNG from specially built supertankers, but would also “regasify” the LNG on the terminal using a controlled heating process, so that it could be reformulated as natural gas. The gas would then be transported by pipe to shore. The FSRU would have been as long as a football field and 16 stories high. The terminal would have been located near the north-south shipping lanes that are used by large cargo ships entering and exiting the Los Angeles/Long Beach ports, the busiest ports in the U.S. The project was expected to deliver an annual average of 800 million cubic feet per day of natural gas, which would be transported through 13 miles of new gas pipeline running between Oxnard and Camarillo, where it would hook up with existing natural gas infrastructure.
Concerns about the Cabrillo Port LNG Project
- Safety: The LNG terminal would be located near major shipping lanes, potentially impacting navigation by commercial and private vessels. An accident at the terminal or on a tanker could threaten ships, recreational boaters, and marine wildlife with explosion or fire.
- Air Pollution: The project would emit over 270 tons of smog-producing air pollution per year, and would be the largest such pollution source in Ventura County. Yet BHP claimed the project was exempt from requirements to reduce or mitigate such emissions.
- Climate Change: The project would result in 25,000,000 tons of greenhouse gas emissions per year (the equivalent of 3.5 million cars), aggravating global warming.
- Ecology: Cabrillo Port would be located in a unique and sensitive ecosystem, near the Channel Islands National Park and Marine Sanctuary. The proposed pipeline connection to shore would disrupt coastal wetlands and habitats.
- Ocean Impacts: Discharges from Cabrillo Port would degrade ocean water quality, while underwater noise from the tankers, the terminal and pipeline construction could impact whales and dolphins, or cause them to abandon traditional habitat.
- Environmental Justice: The project would disproportionately impact low income and culturally diverse communities; the gas pipeline is proposed to run close to several Oxnard-area public schools.
- Seismic Risk: According to the US Geological Survey, the terminal and pipeline are proposed for a seismically active area.
- Clean Energy: Experts believe that importing large quantities of LNG will interfere with California’s ability to reach its Renewable Portfolio Standards for clean energy supplies.
 |
So many people turned out at the hearing in opposition of the project that they had
to overflow outside to listen to the hearing. |
Project Denial
On April 9, 2011, the California State Lands Commission held a public hearing on the project. After hearing hours of public and expert testimony, led by EDC and CCPN, the Commission voted 2-1 to deny certification of the Environmental Impact Report and BHP’s lease application. The Commissioners cited concerns about air quality, public safety, marine biology, water quality, noise, aesthetics, recreation and agriculture.
On April 12, 2011, the California Coastal Commission raised concerns regarding the project’s consistency with the California Coastal Act and California Coastal Management Program and voted to deny the project. In particular, the Commission Coastal Commission found that the project was inconsistent with policies related to marine resources, air quality, climate change, water quality, spill prevention and response, geology, visual resources, hazardous development siting, terrestrial biology, commercial fishing, public access and recreation, and cultural resources.
Following denial by the State Lands Commission and Coastal Commission, Governor Schwarzenegger rejected the proposal. Although the Governor supported LNG in concept, he found that the Cabrillo Port LNG project would result in unacceptable impacts to air quality and marine life.
Based upon the State’s denial of the project, the USCG and MARAD issued their formal denial on June 5, 2007.
LEARN THE FACTS
EDC comment letters are available upon request. Please email edc@edcnet.org or call 805-963-1622 with your request.
