I am concerned about the risks of the liquid natural gas (LNG) import terminal proposed for the Port of Long Beach, California. No elected official from Long Beach or California has any say in the decision.
I am concerned about the risks of the liquid natural gas (LNG) import terminal proposed for Pier T at the Port of Long Beach (PoLB). It is clear that a catastrophic LNG release would primarily harm low income and/or people of color in residential Long Beach. Smaller accidents would be limited to PoLB employees, which still number in the thousands.
Even in the absence of an accident, there is reason to believe that the promised offset of air pollution will not be realized. Mechanical problems with LNG-fueled heavy vehicles may make them an inferior technology among alternatives. If this true, one of the important criteria favoring the Long Beach location is invalid.
Readings of reports by Sandia National Laboratories, the California Energy Commission (CEC) and the California Public Utility Commission (CPUC) are in conflict with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's report. In short: the State of California believes this is a dangerous project and inappropriately located while FERC believes this project is acceptable and should go ahead.
It occured to me that one of the sicknesses of a democracy in peril is the concentration of power away from the hands of the people. A symptom of this is the preference for mega-projects, like an LNG terminal which would import twice as much natural gas as southern California currently consumes.
The decision makers for this project are FERC (which has seized all regulatory and permitting authority), the Port of Long Beach (which owns the land) and Sound Energy Solutions (the Mitsubishi/Conoco-Philips joint venture which will build the facility). No elected official from Long Beach or California has any say in the decision.
For more information, visit the saveLBCskyline.org website.