LNG the easy way
Australian company's plan could finesse the fight over Long Beach site

LNG the easy way
Australian company's plan could finesse the fight over Long Beach site.




Australia's biggest oil company has a simple answer to Long Beach's anguish over the merits of a controversial proposal to build a terminal to receive liquefied natural gas (LNG). Unload it offshore.
No, don't put the terminal offshore, which would be almost as controversial as putting it in a populated area. Just unload the LNG offshore.

The company, Woodside Energy Ltd., says it wants to join the competition to help satisfy California's huge and growing appetite for natural gas, but it has a different approach. Instead of unloading the cargo in its superchilled liquid form, it would use specially equipped tankers to convert it to natural gas 15 miles offshore and deliver it to shore in a partially submerged pipeline.

Where would the offloading happen? The company isn't saying yet. Jane Cutler, president of its U.S. subsidiary, Woodside Natural Gas, said there will be an announcement in February. She also said Woodside could provide 10 percent to 15 percent of the state's needs for natural gas.

That puts Woodside up against several other company's projects, including one planned by Sound Energy Solutions, a subsidiary of Mitsubishi Corp. and ConocoPhillips, at Pier T in the Port of Long Beach. Most local politicians are stepping lightly around this issue, because opponents, worried about safety issues, are highly energized whereas proponents, concerned about shortages and high prices, are far less vocal.

In its liquid form, LNG, at 260 degrees below zero Fahrenheit, is safe to the point of being hard to ignite. But in gaseous form it is explosive. A draft


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advertisement


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



version of an environmental impact report recently made little of the hazards, to the outrage of opponents. (One clause put the probability of a terrorist attack at seven in a million, a conclusion that baffled at least some security specialists.) Both the city of Long Beach and the state Public Utilities Commission have been sharply critical of the draft EIR.

What are the chances the finished EIR will answer all those criticisms? About seven in a million. Answer or not, the idea of building an LNG terminal within a couple of miles of downtown Long Beach causes some people zero anxiety, while others experience something close to terror. Politicians who might have been inclined to support the project are listening to the sounds of terror.

California will need bounteous supplies of natural gas for years to come, and LNG is an efficient way to transport it from across the sea. Ordinarily, the best place for an LNG terminal is far removed from population centers, although at least one, in Boston, is relatively close to downtown condos and office buildings. In addition to those issues, in Long Beach's case, City Hall is influenced by not only a ready supply, but a slice of the revenue.

The Australian company now wants to make all of those arguments moot. Some politicians would be glad of that. And they have a point.