Bad Energy
Energy giant Sempra has been given the go-ahead to begin construction of a massive seaside liquefied natural gas terminal in northern Baja California. The San Diego-based company received the final construction permit from the nearby city of Ensenada last month. "We won the race," Sempra Chairman Stephen Baum told the Los Angeles Times, as his bulldozers prepared to push tons of rip-rap into the sensitive marine habitat. The concrete onshore/offshore terminal, christened Energía Costa Azul, will cost $1-billion and be up and running by 2008.
While Sempra claims to "favor the development of alternative- and renewable-energy resources like solar and wind energy," the company still plans on getting rich the old-fashioned way, by sucking natural gas from limited deposits near the Russian island of Sakhalin and from "fields beneath a remote jungle of West Papua, Indonesia." The gas will then be liquefied and transported by tankers to Costa Azul where it will be "de-gasified" and delivered to the U.S. and northern Mexico by a company-owned pipeline. Sempra and its partner in this venture, Shell Oil Co., stand to profit handsomely from the project as the demand for natural gas rises dramatically, as have its prices, tripling since 2000. The companies project a $14 billion profit over the next 20 years.
Opposition to the project has come not only from residents of nearby communities who have petitioned the Mexican government to halt construction, but by Greenpeace and Pacific Environment who point out that Sakhalin is the breeding grounds of the last 100 Western Pacific gray whales. Further, they claim the extensive (see above photo) "breakwaters, piers, storage tanks and regasification facilities, will harm plant, animal and sea life," not to mention local surf breaks and recreational areas. At public hearings held earlier this year, however, company execs assured concerned residents that "their project's economic benefits would offset any destruction of plant and animal life." In fact, "Energy industry executives and insiders" claim the facility will actually "improve the region's air quality," at least from how polluted it was when it was still more profitable for them to burn oil.
Then there's the safety factor. A January 2004 blast at an Algerian liquefaction facility (recently renovated by our good friends at Halliburton) killed 27 people and injured dozens more. A similar incident at Costa Azul would seriously threaten the nearby community of Bajamar, "caus[ing] second-degree burns within 20 seconds for anyone within a mile. " As for a mishap in the transferring of the fuel from ship to shore, Shell security official Martin de Groot assures us that though "there have been eight instances of spills in the last 40 years, . . . none have been connected with Shell," a fact sure to comfort the varied plant, animal and marine species of the area. But perhaps the biggest impact, environmentalists point out, is "that the introduction of [liquid natural gas] will commit the region to continued use of fossil fuels instead of renewable energy sources."
While it's likely that Sempra and Shell have chosen Mexico due to looser environmental regulations (similar facilities are slated for Playas de Tijuana and the offshore Coronado Islands), it seems other companies aren't really having much problem doing the same thing right here at home. Australian energy company BHP Billiton and Texas' Crystal Energy are both planning LNG facilities off the Ventura County coast, while Japanese company Mitsubishi wants to build its terminal near Long Beach Harbor. "The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which grants permits along with the Coast Guard and Office of Pipeline Safety, [currently] has six applications pending approval and four in pre-filing status." Has anyone asked your opinion about any of this?
Meanwhile, the residents of northern Baja haven't given up. At the public hearings, "many speakers noted that the federal government has designated [the area] as suitable only for low-density tourist developments." In fact, similar projects, including a nearby government electricity plant were recently "rejected because they weren't compatible with the designated land use." But that was before big foreign dollars came into the picture. "We have to be careful in this age of globalization not to fall by the wayside," said Ensenada mayor and Costa Azul proponent Jorge Antonio Catalan. Unfortunately, "the [local] community that's impacted is one that relies on subsistence agriculture and fishing," said John Coequyt, a Greenpeace organizer. No word on how Sempra's plans would benefit them.
What you can do.
Write Sempra, Shell, Crystal Energy, BHP Billiton, and the other companies mentioned here and tell them you?d rather they implement solar and wind energy than damage what little natural environment we have left.
Quotes from this piece taken from the June 15 L.A. Times, Oct. 30 L.A. Times, American Cetacean Society Conservation Report , The Steel Tank Institute?s Tank and Petroleum Use Mishaps , and SignOnSandiego.