Fewer Object to Gas Project

Despite opposition from state officials, the prospects have improved for a proposed $700-million liquefied natural gas terminal that would be built at the Port of Long Beach.

The Long Beach City Council has no immediate plans to take a stand on the project. And local opposition has dwindled in recent months.

Even so, state Public Utilities Commission officials oppose siting a terminal in the densely populated harbor area, warning that a terrorist attack, earthquake or accident could cause catastrophic damage. A nationally known expert hired by the commission recently concluded a fire could kill or burn people within three miles, an area that includes downtown Long Beach and 130,000 residents.

Project developers dispute that, citing their own studies and a draft environmental report that conclude a terminal fire would not harm people outside the port.

With the last two public hearings on that environmental report scheduled for today and Thursday, the proposal could become a test case that pits the safety concerns of state officials against the Bush administration’s desire to fast-track approvals for such terminals.

Liquefied natural gas, or LNG, is natural gas that has been chilled to 260 degrees below zero, which shrinks it to 1/600th of its volume. That allows large quantities to be shipped from Asia, Africa, the Middle East and Australia.

Such shipments have occurred for decades with few safety problems. But after Sept. 11, 2001, concerns grew that ships and facilities delivering the gas could become terrorist targets. And a January 2004 accident at an LNG facility in Skikda, Algeria, in which 27 people died and 80 were injured, drew more attention to the potential for disaster.

Only five liquefied natural gas terminals operate in the United States today, but rising prices and dwindling supplies have prompted a flurry of proposals in coastal cities nationwide. Many have stirred fierce opposition from residents.

In California, local opposition forced the cancellation of projects in Eureka and in Vallejo in the Bay Area.

The relative quiet in Long Beach, which would play host to the first West Coast terminal, has surprised some project supporters and critics, especially in view of the fight being waged 67 miles north against the only other major project in the state, a proposed terminal 14 miles off the Ventura County coast.

That project is considered safer than the Long Beach proposal, but the city councils of Malibu and Oxnard have opposed it, and critics forced the reworking of the environmental report.

By contrast, the Long Beach City Council has no plans to comment on the environmental report.

Attendance was sparse at the first two of four public hearings on the report, and the last two meetings -- at 6 tonight at Millikan High School and 6 p.m. Thursday at Cabrillo High School, both in Long Beach -- are not expected to draw large crowds.

State and regional environmental groups have not weighed in. And local critics acknowledge that unlike better-funded Ventura County groups, they have no money to pay experts to review the environmental report and submit comments.

“Just to get started on the experts is hundreds of thousands of dollars. And when you start talking attorneys, considering there are multiple venues here, it would be millions. Literally,” said project critic Bry Myown. The Long Beach site is flanked by largely lower-income Latino neighborhoods.

Officials with the Mitsubishi-ConocoPhillips partnership, which plans to build the project, credit the recent positive response in part to their extensive outreach. They estimate they have held 300 meetings in the last 2 1/2 years to explain the project to residents and businesses. Some supporters are attracted by the prospect that the terminal could supply large amounts of cleaner-burning LNG vehicle fuel.

Most vehicles and equipment at the Los Angeles-Long Beach port complex run on diesel fuel, helping to make the ports the largest air polluter in the Los Angeles region.

But debate over the Long Beach project has focused largely on safety issues, owing to its proposed location inside a port complex considered a major terrorist target because it handles more than 40% of the nation’s seaborne trade.

The central issue that has divided state and federal officials -- and their experts -- is how far from a liquefied natural gas fire people must be to be safe.

Mitsubishi-ConocoPhillips officials cite the conclusions of the 700-page draft environmental report, prepared by the port and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The report offers a more reassuring review of safety issues than that offered by the state’s consultant, concluding that a terminal fire would not pose a danger outside the port.

“It’s been our position for several years that any action that occurs at the facility -- that the public will not be at risk,” said Tom Giles, chief executive of the Mitsubishi-ConocoPhillips partnership.

But Jerry Havens, the consultant for the state PUC, believes that a much wider area around the terminal would be at risk -- three miles or farther -- if liquefied natural gas from the terminal or a tanker were to spill on water and catch fire. That would mean that all of downtown Long Beach, the city’s booming seaport and tens of thousands of homes in Long Beach and Wilmington could be at risk.

Based on that report, state officials are requesting a formal hearing on safety issues before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

Harvey Y. Morris, assistant general counsel at the state PUC, said that would allow Mitsubishi-ConocoPhillips experts to be examined under oath about their safety analysis.

One of the most respected LNG safety experts in the nation, Havens is a professor of chemical engineering at the University of Arkansas and heads the Chemical Hazards Research Center. He developed the mathematical models for liquefied natural gas vapor clouds used in federal regulations.

A Mitsubishi affiliate in Japan tried to hire Havens last spring to analyze the danger of a gas leak from a tanker serving the Long Beach project, according to a company e-mail that the state PUC has filed with the federal regulatory commission.

Havens said he declined the offer because he already was analyzing such spills for the state commission.

The federal commission and the port will receive the final environmental report next spring or early summer, and their approvals could follow soon after.

Construction could start in early 2007, and the terminal could start operating in 2010, Giles said.

Project developers have hired a Halliburton Co. subsidiary, Kellogg, Brown & Root, to draw up preliminary engineering plans.

At least three state agencies plan to provide formal comments on the report before the Dec. 8 deadline: the Public Utilities Commission, the Coastal Commission and the Energy Commission.

Los Angeles City Councilwoman Janice Hahn, who represents Wilmington and San Pedro, said she does not plan to comment, although she still has questions.

“We’ll all kind of clamoring for clean fuel,” Hahn said. “The adequate supply of that is important, but I think there are still a lot of concerns about a terminal like that being located so close to downtown Long Beach.”

The city staff in Long Beach is preparing a critique.

The Long Beach City Council became embroiled in a divisive debate over liquefied natural gas safety in June and split, 5 to 4, with the majority voting to wait for the environmental report before drawing conclusions and the minority opposing the project.

Despite that vote, the council has not reviewed the draft report.

Councilwoman Tonia Reyes Uranga led the fight in June to keep studying the LNG project rather than rejecting it outright.

Reyes Uranga said Monday that the council will still be able to take a stand on the environmental report if the Port of Long Beach approves it and critics appeal to the City Council, which is allowed under city law.

“It’s not like this is our last chance,” she said. She said that she has reviewed Havens’ comments and found them to be thought provoking.

“Quite frankly, that has been the most moving, in terms of his comments and his opinion,” she said. “He’s supposedly very respected.”

*

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX)

Liquefied natural gas: the Long Beach connection

The proposed project would bring natural gas to Southern California through Long Beach Harbor. Pipelines would transfer the gas to distribution points nearby.

*

Manuevering the superships in Long Beach Harbor

The western berth of Pier 7 would include a new dock, two storage tanks and a processing plant where liquefied gas would be converted to its natural gaseous state for

distribution.

1. LNG carrier enters the Long Beach Middle Harbor West Basin. Only one ship would be in the harbor at a time.

2. Two tug boats meet the carrier and begin to take over navigational control.

3. Tugs push and pull the ship around so it can back into its terminal berth.

4. Tugs push the ship against the dock where it is connected to pipelines for offloading the gas to storage tanks for eventual re-gasification.

*

LNG in Long Beach

LNG tanker dimensions Length: 950 to 1,000 feet

Height above water: 140 to 150 feet

Onshore tank height: 176 feet

Tankers would take 45 minutes to dock, from the breakwater to the terminal, and another 45 minutes to depart.

An average of 700 million cubic feet of natural gas will be produced at the terminal daily, or 20% of Southern California’s total supply.

Two pipelines are expected to run from the terminal to the ConocoPhillips refinery in Carson, one carrying ethane and the other, propane with traces of other gases.

Two large storage tanks at the terminal would each hold 160,000 cubic meters of liquefied natural gas.

Developers say the terminal would be built to withstand a 9.0 earthquake, with tanks and a barrier wall held by pilings 190 feet deep.

The liquefied natural gas would be imported from Australia, coastal Asian countries and other areas.

The cost of the project has grown from $450 million earlier this year to $700 million today.

The project is being developed by a partnership of Mitsubishi and ConocoPhillips, which plans to lease part of Pier T from the Port of Long Beach.

A 700-page draft environmental report is being reviewed, with a final report expected in spring or early summer. The report is available for viewing online at the Port of Long Beach website at www.polb.com/news

*

Public hearings

Public hearings will be held in Long Beach at 6 tonight at Millikan High School and at 6 p.m. Thursday at Cabrillo High School.

*

Sources: Sound Energy Solutions; Port of Long Beach; Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; U.S. Coast Guard; Google Earth; Sanborn