WHAT IS LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS (LNG)?

• LNG is natural gas that has been “supercooled” to around -260°F and condensed
  into its liquid form, for trans-oceanic shipping.
• After transport, LNG must be warmed up and vaporized, or “regasified,” before it
  can be distributed via pipeline for use by consumers.
• LNG exporting nations are many of the same that export oil. Russia, Qatar and Iran
  hold almost 60% of global gas reserves.

WHAT ARE THE PROBLEMS WITH LNG?

• LNG is misleadingly described as a “clean fuel.” LNG, like oil, is a finite fossil fuel.
  Burning it emits CO2 and harmful air pollutants, aggravating global warming and
  causing human health problems.
• Importing LNG means increasing U.S. dependence on foreign countries for our
  electricity, heating and cooking fuels (like our dependence on foreign oil for
  transportation fuel).
• LNG causes air and water pollution, and harms wildlife and the environment,
  starting from the places where the gas is extracted and liquefied, to the coastal
  communities where it is delivered, processed and sold.
• If LNG is released by accident or deliberate terrorist attack, it may explode or burn
  at extremely high temperatures. LNG accidents have caused serious loss of life and
  property around the world, including in the U.S.

DOES CALIFORNIA HAVE BETTER ALTERNATIVES?

• Existing U.S. gas supplies can more than meet California’s needs; U.S. natural gas
  reserves just hit a 20-year high. Investigation by attorney generals from four Mid-
  Western states recently revealed that price spikes for natural gas resulted from
  Enron-style market manipulation and speculation by industry, and were not due to
  domestic shortages.
• Energy conservation and efficiency could provide California with more than twice the
  energy supplied by one LNG terminal, without increasing our dependence on
  another imported fossil fuel or aggravating global warming.
• Expanding our use of climate-safe renewable energy sources, such as wind, solar,
  bio-fuels to levels already mandated by California state law would provide more than
  enough energy to meet our State’s projected demand. This would also provide new
  jobs in energy research and development. Using renewables would increase our
  energy independence, instead of increasing our reliance on foreign suppliers.

WHAT IS THE CABRILLO PORT LNG TERMINAL?

• BHP Billiton, the world’s largest mining company, proposes to moor a massive three
  football field-long, 14 story-high, floating LNG storage facility and processing
  terminal, the Cabrillo Port, approximately 14 miles offshore the Ventura and LA
  County line near Leo Carrillo State Beach and the Malibu City limit.
• This “Floating Storage and Regasification Unit” (FSRU) is designed to store up to 73
  million gallons of LNG in three large spherical tanks rising more than 160 feet off the
  water and would be visible from Malibu to Oxnard.
• LNG supertankers would arrive at the terminal about 3 times per week to offload
  their cargo. Once transferred to Cabrillo Port, the LNG would be regasified before
  transport to shore via new sub-sea gas pipelines also proposed by BHP Billiton.
• The terminal design includes plans for a second berth so it is possible that the
  number of tankers trips per week could increase during the life of the project.
• BHP Billiton would be the sole owner of the Cabrillo LNG factory terminal and no
  other suppliers of LNG would be able to make deliveries to CA at this facility.
• Cabrillo Port would be moored off Malibu and Oxnard for at least 40 years.
  However, the license would have no firm expiration date and the floating factory
  terminal could remain moored offshore for decades longer.
• Once ashore, the natural gas would continue through nearly 15 miles of new high pressure
  gas pipelines, running between Oxnard and Camarillo, before entering the
  existing natural gas infrastructure.
  

SHOULD I BE CONCERNED ABOUT THE CABRILLO PORT?

• The California State Lands Commission released a revised Draft Environmental
  Impact Report that admits that the Cabrillo Port LNG factory terminal will cause
  numerous, Class One or “significant” impacts to public safety, air quality, marine
  wildlife and views, impacts that cannot be mitigated. New research reveals that the
  Revised DEIR fails to discuss many other environmental and safety impacts that
  Cabrillo Port will cause, casting grave doubts on BHP claims that Cabrillo Port will
  be “safe” or “clean.”
• The U.S. EPA has proposed permits under the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act
  that fail to protect air and water quality.
• Despite these impacts, there is no guarantee the imported gas will benefit Oxnard or
  Malibu residents or the state of California with lower prices or a more stable gas
  supply.

SAFETY

• The Revised DEIR now admits that a “vapor cloud” flash fire from an LNG release
  from just two of the three LNG storage tanks could result in a fire extending 7.3
  miles from the site, engulfing shipping lanes and any humans or vessels caught in
  range.
• The Revised DEIR fails to calculate the potential impacts and destruction that a true
  worst-case terrorist event involving all three storage tanks would cause.
  Independent experts believe that the fire zone for a 3-tank release would extend
  beyond the 7.3 mile fire zone predicted in the DEIR.
• The LNG terminal would be located near major shipping lanes, impacting navigation
  by commercial, recreational, and Naval vessels. An accident at the terminal or on a
  tanker could threaten ships, boats and mariners and marine wildlife with
  asphyxiation and burns from a natural gas fire or explosion.
• The onshore portions of the project would disproportionately impact low income and
  culturally diverse communities.
• According to the US Geological Survey, the LNG terminal and the proposed gas
  pipelines would overlay a number of seismic fault lines prone to major earthquakes.
  

AIR POLLUTION

• According to EPA’s proposed air permit, Cabrillo Port operations would produce
  over 200 tons of smog-producing air pollution per year into the Ventura and Los
  Angeles air basins, exacerbating existing air quality problems and aggravating
  human health problems such as asthma and lung disease.
• These emissions would give BHP Billiton the distinction of being the largest smog-
  producing air polluter in Ventura County.
• Independent air pollution experts believe emissions from the project are
  understated.
• The Clean Air Act requires such large sources of pollutants to “offset” or mitigate
  their emissions so that areas like Ventura and Los Angeles can achieve federal air
  quality standards, which they currently do not meet. BHP Billiton claims the project
  is exempt from Clean Air Act requirements to offset their emissions. The LNGfriendly
  Bush Administration has agreed. As a result, BHP Billiton does not have to
  follow the same rules that would apply to any other facility emitting similar levels of
  air pollution in these areas.
• According to the Revised DEIR, Cabrillo Port would exceed the CEQA “thresholds
  of significance” for smog producing pollutants. In LA County, this threshold is 55
  lbs. per day; BHP Billiton proposes to emit more than 1,268 lbs. per day – 23 times
  higher than the LA threshold!

GLOBAL WARMING

• The U.S. Coast Guard and CA State Lands Commission fail to disclose the actual
  global warming impacts of the BHP project. According to EDC's and CCPN's
  climate change expert, this project would emit approximately 25,000,000 U.S. tons
  per year of greenhouse gas emissions, a significant increase over emissions from
  domestic gas production which does not require liquefaction, shipment and
  regasification of supplies prior to consumption.

WATER POLLUTION AND MARINE WILDLIFE

• BHP Billiton plans to install its floating LNG factory terminal in one of the world’s
  richest and most productive ecosystems. The Channel Islands National Park and
  Marine Sanctuary were designated to protect the area’s ocean waters and rare
  wildlife; unfortunately, Cabrillo Port would be sited just beyond their borders,
  meaning the terminal’s industrial operations and pollution will still impact these
  natural treasures.
• Discharges from Cabrillo Port will degrade ocean water quality. According to the
  Revised DEIR and EPA’s proposed water discharge permit, Cabrillo Port would
  intake millions of gallons of seawater per day to cool its generators, and discharge
  water more than 28.3 degrees Fahrenheit hotter than ambient ocean temperatures.
  These 2.3 billion gallons per year of intake and thermal waste would cause
  serious harm to the surrounding ecosystem, killing zooplankton and small fish
  critical to the survival of marine mammals and fisheries. The discharges would
  violate California’s State water quality regulations designed to protect marine life, as
  well as U.S. EPA’s Ocean Discharge Criteria.
• The LNG terminal will discharge sewage and ballast water, and heated wastewater
  from LNG regasification operations. Construction of gas pipelines could cause
  harmful spills of drilling fluids and even contaminated sediments into the near shore
  marine environment. Daily vessel traffic from Cabrillo Port also increases the
  likelihood of hazardous diesel, oil or sewage spills.
• According to marine mammal experts, endangered blue and humpback whales and
  federally protected gray whales migrating north from the calving lagoons of Baja,
  commonly feed and travel through the proposed project site, even though BHP
  Billiton claims that their occurrence there would be “very unlikely.” Consequently,
  these endangered marine mammals will be threatened with asphyxiation and burns
  from surface fires in the event of a significant LNG release at Cabrillo Port,
  increased chance of injury or death from collisions with Cabrillo Port ship traffic, and
  habitat degradation from water pollution.
• Noise from the tankers, the terminal and pipeline construction will be audible above
  and underwater for miles around these activities. The underwater noise could harm
  these marine mammal species and many others, reduce their ability to communicate
  and find food, or cause them to abandon these traditional habitats and migration
  routes.

Please consider making a donation to help us defeat this dangerous, massive project.