USGS Says Seismic Safety Is Major Issue for Offshore LNG Project
• Interior Department Agency Reports High Quake and Movement Probabilities for OceanWay Pipelines
BY ANNE SOBLE
BY ANNE SOBLE
Pipelines for the proposed OceanWay deepwater liquefied natural gas terminal to be located about 22 miles southwest of Point Dume face a 16-48 percent probability of potentially damaging earthquake impact, according to a recently released report by the U.S. Geological Survey.
The November report by a team of 27 researchers from USGS and California Geologic Survey assesses the seismic stability of the proposed project site and determines the probability of an earthquake measuring 6.5 or above on the Richter scale along OceanWay’s planned pipeline route in Santa Monica Bay to range from 16 percent at the deepwater port itself to 48 percent where the pipelines come ashore at Los Angeles International Airport.
The OceanWay Secure Energy Project—its full name—would be located in 3000 feet of water, and includes submersible buoys, manifolds, and risers. It would connect to Southern California Gas onshore operations by 24-inch-diameter pipelines about 35 miles long, ending at the LAX terminus.
OceanWay is proposed by Woodside Natural Gas, based in Santa Monica, which is a subsidiary of the Australian Woodside energy conglomerate.
The USGS team said the proposed pipelines face hazards from potential sea floor offsets because they cross at least two major and several minor earthquake faults, and also could be impacted by tsunamis, erosion, shallow gas deposit venting and pipeline settling.
The team also reviewed geologic hazards identified in a study prepared by Fugro West Inc. for OceanWay’s 2007 deepwater port application. Part of the license application process, the applicant submits a geologic hazard study that is then subject to public agency review.
The 60+-page USGS report reiterates that the federal agency does not recommend for or against energy projects, “It is the USGS’s goal to provide accurate and up-to-date geologic information for use by public policy officials involved in the approval process and for use by engineers in the design process, if such a project does go forward.”
The known hazards in the OceanWay project zone as detailed by USGS are:
• Strong shaking from earthquakes: the estimated probability of a magnitude 6.5 or larger earthquake occurring in the next 30 years within about 30 miles of the proposed pipeline ranges from 16 percent at the pipeline’s offshore end to 48 percent where it nears land. Earthquakes of this size can cause damage over a large region, such as occurred as a result of the 1994 M[agnitude] 6.7 Northridge earthquake.
• Sea floor offsets by faulting during earthquakes: The proposed pipeline crosses at least two faults that reach the surface.
• Liquefaction: this occurs when earthquake shaking causes wet and loose sandy material to liquefy, leading to horizontal displacements as large as tens of feet. This can be especially damaging to buried utilities and unsupported foundations.
• Tsunamis: these are waves caused by sea floor displacement during local and distant earthquakes or submarine landslides in the area. These waves can affect built structures on the ocean bottom and onshore.
• Sediment transport events: submarine landslides and mass movements of loose sediment and rock slurries (known as turbidity currents, debris flows, or hyperpycnal flows, depending on their specific causes and characteristics) could impact structures on the sea floor.
• Erosion or scouring: caused by sediment transport events, tsunamis, and storm waves, could expose sections of the pipeline that were expected to settle into soft sediments on the sea floor, possibly leaving sections of the pipeline unsupported (known as pipeline spanning). Shallow gas deposit venting could lead to pipeline spanning and other disruption to the facility.
• Pipeline settling: variable settling of the pipeline into sediment of differing strength could cause deformation of the pipeline.
The scientific reviewers indicated that “some hazards are not completely represented” in Woodside’s own report, as there has been new research in the interim, so “additional scientific studies are recommended to improve geological hazard assessments.”
Laura Doll, a Woodside Natural Gas spokesperson said, “The USGS was reviewing work that we had done as part of our application, and their recommendations that further reviews be included is standard fare for the EIR process.”
Doll told the Malibu Surfside News, “This study doesn’t present any new challenges to the OceanWay project. It provides more information that will be taken into account by Woodside and the agencies as we move through the review process.”
The Woodside rep added, “We expect there will be other issues that will arise as we go through the lengthy and detailed environmental assessment, and we are confident we can work with the agencies to develop appropriate responses
“California has been a leader in seismic-sensitive construction of buildings and infrastructure, and we are designing a pipeline that draws on the best information and technology to address seismic and safety issues.
“Indeed, in the event of a major earthquake that affects the Southern California region, we believe our new pipeline will be positioned to offer a reliable source of supply should the existing pipeline from the east experience an outage.”
Last week, members of a California clean energy coalition, including Pacific Environment, Columbia Riverkeeper, Santa Monica Baykeeper, and Citizens Against LNG, that has been in the fore-front of the opposition to any new LNG projects on the West Coast, said recent government reports demonstrate that projects along the lines of OceanWay are not needed. This coalition, Ratepayers for Affordable Clean Energy, or RACE, says the reports contain energy projections that show “the LNG speculative bubble is over.”
These “projections make clear that the West Coast does not need LNG,” said Rory Cox, California program director at Pacific Environment and RACE coordinator. “LNG was an inappropriate choice to begin with, and it remains so.”
Doll said Woodside “disputes the ‘conclusions’ reached by these opponents of imported natural gas. We have seen some of the same reports from the energy agencies, and their reports specifically and consistently cite imported natural gas as an important source of energy for California’s future. We do not base our business assumptions on today’s demand.”
The Woodside representative said that these groups’ views aren’t the only ones in circulation on LNG and cites a recent speech by California Public Utilities Commissioner Timothy Simon on the potential role for LNG as “the blue bridge to the new green economy.”
Simon said, “I support LNG facility buildout on the West Coast where those facilities can be sited in a safe and environmentally benign manner.”
He added, “California must address the permitting quagmire that creates enormous obstacles to infrastructure growth. We must ensure that excessive NIMBY-ism does not impede our efforts in this area, particularly given our current economic conditions, which clearly do not afford us the luxury of aesthetic debates.”
Although Simon’s train of thought was largely repudiated during the debate over the BHP Billiton Cabrillo Port project that was defeated two years ago, the current economic climate throughout the nation is giving it new life. One example is the backlash to Robert Redford’s campaign to curb energy production in Utah that has major national organizations calling him elitist and out of touch with the impact of high energy costs.
Nevertheless, numerous local elected officials are on record as opposed to OceanWay, even after the project was downsized and revised to have less impact on residential areas than when it was first proposed.
That OceanWay has not generated visible opposition on a par with the Cabrillo Port project may be due to the earlier project having been proposed for closer to Malibu, and OceanWay is still in the early stages of the approval process.
Whether the current economic climate might be a game-decider still hasn’t become a major topic of discussion. If the economy worsens, that may change.
The November report by a team of 27 researchers from USGS and California Geologic Survey assesses the seismic stability of the proposed project site and determines the probability of an earthquake measuring 6.5 or above on the Richter scale along OceanWay’s planned pipeline route in Santa Monica Bay to range from 16 percent at the deepwater port itself to 48 percent where the pipelines come ashore at Los Angeles International Airport.
The OceanWay Secure Energy Project—its full name—would be located in 3000 feet of water, and includes submersible buoys, manifolds, and risers. It would connect to Southern California Gas onshore operations by 24-inch-diameter pipelines about 35 miles long, ending at the LAX terminus.
OceanWay is proposed by Woodside Natural Gas, based in Santa Monica, which is a subsidiary of the Australian Woodside energy conglomerate.
The USGS team said the proposed pipelines face hazards from potential sea floor offsets because they cross at least two major and several minor earthquake faults, and also could be impacted by tsunamis, erosion, shallow gas deposit venting and pipeline settling.
The team also reviewed geologic hazards identified in a study prepared by Fugro West Inc. for OceanWay’s 2007 deepwater port application. Part of the license application process, the applicant submits a geologic hazard study that is then subject to public agency review.
The 60+-page USGS report reiterates that the federal agency does not recommend for or against energy projects, “It is the USGS’s goal to provide accurate and up-to-date geologic information for use by public policy officials involved in the approval process and for use by engineers in the design process, if such a project does go forward.”
The known hazards in the OceanWay project zone as detailed by USGS are:
• Strong shaking from earthquakes: the estimated probability of a magnitude 6.5 or larger earthquake occurring in the next 30 years within about 30 miles of the proposed pipeline ranges from 16 percent at the pipeline’s offshore end to 48 percent where it nears land. Earthquakes of this size can cause damage over a large region, such as occurred as a result of the 1994 M[agnitude] 6.7 Northridge earthquake.
• Sea floor offsets by faulting during earthquakes: The proposed pipeline crosses at least two faults that reach the surface.
• Liquefaction: this occurs when earthquake shaking causes wet and loose sandy material to liquefy, leading to horizontal displacements as large as tens of feet. This can be especially damaging to buried utilities and unsupported foundations.
• Tsunamis: these are waves caused by sea floor displacement during local and distant earthquakes or submarine landslides in the area. These waves can affect built structures on the ocean bottom and onshore.
• Sediment transport events: submarine landslides and mass movements of loose sediment and rock slurries (known as turbidity currents, debris flows, or hyperpycnal flows, depending on their specific causes and characteristics) could impact structures on the sea floor.
• Erosion or scouring: caused by sediment transport events, tsunamis, and storm waves, could expose sections of the pipeline that were expected to settle into soft sediments on the sea floor, possibly leaving sections of the pipeline unsupported (known as pipeline spanning). Shallow gas deposit venting could lead to pipeline spanning and other disruption to the facility.
• Pipeline settling: variable settling of the pipeline into sediment of differing strength could cause deformation of the pipeline.
The scientific reviewers indicated that “some hazards are not completely represented” in Woodside’s own report, as there has been new research in the interim, so “additional scientific studies are recommended to improve geological hazard assessments.”
Laura Doll, a Woodside Natural Gas spokesperson said, “The USGS was reviewing work that we had done as part of our application, and their recommendations that further reviews be included is standard fare for the EIR process.”
Doll told the Malibu Surfside News, “This study doesn’t present any new challenges to the OceanWay project. It provides more information that will be taken into account by Woodside and the agencies as we move through the review process.”
The Woodside rep added, “We expect there will be other issues that will arise as we go through the lengthy and detailed environmental assessment, and we are confident we can work with the agencies to develop appropriate responses
“California has been a leader in seismic-sensitive construction of buildings and infrastructure, and we are designing a pipeline that draws on the best information and technology to address seismic and safety issues.
“Indeed, in the event of a major earthquake that affects the Southern California region, we believe our new pipeline will be positioned to offer a reliable source of supply should the existing pipeline from the east experience an outage.”
Last week, members of a California clean energy coalition, including Pacific Environment, Columbia Riverkeeper, Santa Monica Baykeeper, and Citizens Against LNG, that has been in the fore-front of the opposition to any new LNG projects on the West Coast, said recent government reports demonstrate that projects along the lines of OceanWay are not needed. This coalition, Ratepayers for Affordable Clean Energy, or RACE, says the reports contain energy projections that show “the LNG speculative bubble is over.”
These “projections make clear that the West Coast does not need LNG,” said Rory Cox, California program director at Pacific Environment and RACE coordinator. “LNG was an inappropriate choice to begin with, and it remains so.”
Doll said Woodside “disputes the ‘conclusions’ reached by these opponents of imported natural gas. We have seen some of the same reports from the energy agencies, and their reports specifically and consistently cite imported natural gas as an important source of energy for California’s future. We do not base our business assumptions on today’s demand.”
The Woodside representative said that these groups’ views aren’t the only ones in circulation on LNG and cites a recent speech by California Public Utilities Commissioner Timothy Simon on the potential role for LNG as “the blue bridge to the new green economy.”
Simon said, “I support LNG facility buildout on the West Coast where those facilities can be sited in a safe and environmentally benign manner.”
He added, “California must address the permitting quagmire that creates enormous obstacles to infrastructure growth. We must ensure that excessive NIMBY-ism does not impede our efforts in this area, particularly given our current economic conditions, which clearly do not afford us the luxury of aesthetic debates.”
Although Simon’s train of thought was largely repudiated during the debate over the BHP Billiton Cabrillo Port project that was defeated two years ago, the current economic climate throughout the nation is giving it new life. One example is the backlash to Robert Redford’s campaign to curb energy production in Utah that has major national organizations calling him elitist and out of touch with the impact of high energy costs.
Nevertheless, numerous local elected officials are on record as opposed to OceanWay, even after the project was downsized and revised to have less impact on residential areas than when it was first proposed.
That OceanWay has not generated visible opposition on a par with the Cabrillo Port project may be due to the earlier project having been proposed for closer to Malibu, and OceanWay is still in the early stages of the approval process.
Whether the current economic climate might be a game-decider still hasn’t become a major topic of discussion. If the economy worsens, that may change.
FAULTLINES—The area where the OceanWay project would be located is in the middle of a jumble of earthquake faults. Los Angeles International Airport, or LAX, is where the project’s pipelines are proposed to come ashore.
posted by MalibuSurfsideNews @ 7:47 PM
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home