Feds Stop the Clock on Woodside’s OceanWay LNG Project

• Coast Guard Imposes Fewer Questions than Ventura Proposal Was Hit with Last Month

BY HANS LAETZ

The U.S. Coast Guard has temporarily stopped the clock on the fast-track evaluation and approval schedule for the Woodside liquefied natural gas terminal proposed for 21.8 miles off Malibu’s Point Dume.

The list of 61 questions that the federal and state government wants answered by Woodside is much shorter than the comprehensive set of 396 questions that earlier this month sidetracked the competing NorthernStar proposal up the coast at Ventura.

Nevertheless, Woodside officials are faced with answering major technical questions raised by the state about the project’s total worldwide impact on greenhouse gases, an issue that proved to be a fatal problem for the BHP Billiton Malibu LNG project when it was rejected by the state in April.

The Woodside proposal, being marketed as “OceanWay,” would station a pair of large LNG regasification ships at a set of buoys about midway between Malibu and Santa Catalina Island. At any given time, one ship would be steaming further off the coast, accepting a new load of LNG from trans-Pacific tankers, while the other would sit at the buoy to regasify its cargo and send it ashore via pipelines at Playa Del Rey.

The plant is proposed by a local wholly-owned subsidiary of Woodside, an Australian-based company that is 34 percent owned by Royal Dutch Shell, and has rights to one of the world’s largest natural gas fields in the Indian Ocean off Australia. It views this proposed Malibu-area terminal as a key gateway that could supply the West Coast with one tenth of its needs for natural gas as a cleaner-burning alternative to coal.

Opponents cite likely local ecological damage and question the need for connecting the U.S. natural gas market to volatile overseas supplies, with the attendant strategic, political and military implications.

A spokesperson for the company said the list of 61 items that need further study or explanation includes no surprises, as the company has worked hard to anticipate issues that came up during the BHP Billiton hearings.

“Woodside is committed to providing the information needed for OceanWay to be in line with California’s monumental environmental and safety policies.” said Michael Hinrichs in an e-mailed statement. “We are especially proud of how different OceanWay is in design and how different Woodside is in its commitments to the public and regulatory agencies.”

One of the major questions from the state is how much carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases the LNG project would release as the natural gas is extracted, compressed and shipped across the ocean. California has pioneered the so-called “life-cycle emissions footprint” measurement to determine if an energy project is as clean on a worldwide basis as its backers tout.

Hinrichs said Woodside is already conducting an extensive analysis of that issue. “We are pleased that the Coast Guard has now given us time to conduct a thorough evaluation.”

Other questions raised by the state and Coast Guard include a request for better information about whale and other marine mammal populations in the ocean where the ships will travel, and a request for better information on how marine life will be screened out of equipment that takes on water on LNG ships.

Questions about whether the state really needs the imported fossil fuel are also raised, as well as questions about how LNG imports will fit in with AB 32, the landmark California greenhouse gas reduction law.

The government also wants better smog emissions data on LNG ships that will steam across the Pacific to transfer their loads to the pair of Woodside ships off California. The Coast Guard said most of that data has already been presented by Woodside, and merely needs to be digested by federal and state regulatory agencies, however.

One issue not yet resolved is exactly how much fog will be generated by the LNG regasification ships, which will use humid coastal air to warm up LNG from its minus-260 degree state. The use of so-called ambient air regasification has never been done on a massive scale such as what would be used offshore, and critics such as Malibu Mayor Pro Tem Pamela Conley Ulich say it is an unproven technology.

The state also wants to know how Woodside will offset pollutants generated by LNG cargo ships and regasification ships within coastal waters, an issue that helped torpedo the BHP Billiton ship off Malibu.

As agencies consider the Woodside proposal, backers of the similar NorthernStar LNG terminal proposed to sit atop an oil rig off Ventura are also answering questions about that application. That proposal, which would be 35 miles up the coast and not visible from Malibu, appears to have a significantly longer list of scientific studies to undertake before its clock can be restarted.

CLARIFICATION

Two weeks ago, the Malibu Surfside News reported that neither Woodside nor NorthernStar have plans to treat imported LNG to bring its pollution levels down to the conservative California standards that existed prior to a change instigated by the LNG industry recently.

Although that is correct, the article should also have noted that Woodside includes plans for a nitrogen plant at its proposed Los Angeles facility that could be used to reduce the pollution level of its LNG imports, should courts order the state return to the lower pollution threshold.

Also, Los Angeles City Councilmember Bill Rosendahl, who opposes the Woodside proposal as a threat to Los Angeles International Airport, chairs the Southern California Airport Authority, not the L.A. World Airports Board.