Sierra Club opposes Long Beach LNG

In the Southern Sierran, writer Bry Myown outlines the group's opposition to building a liquefied natural gas terminal in Long Beach:

Geological risks.
The project would store almost 85 million gallons of liquefied natural gas within five miles of three earthquake faults. One of them, the Newport-Inglewood fault, last shook Long Beach in 1933 with a devastating earthquake. There are 27 known, significant faults within 100 miles.

The site would support 316 million pounds of LNG, plus the weight of concrete and steel tanks, all on a small footprint.

The facility will be built in a liquefaction zone on man-made landfill that is where the mouth of the Los Angeles River used to be before it was diverted. It is now a FEMA flood zone. The site is in the middle of a subsidence zone caused by oil extraction. Subsidence is up to 27' in the area and is 18' on the proposed site. The subsidence split the underlying land into man-made “fault blocks.” The site sits on one of these blocks that is barely wider than the site.The subsidence zone is supported by constant, pressurized water injection.

The site is subject to tsunamis. A nearby fault can produce a major tsunami with virtually no warning. Pacific Rim quakes can also bring large tsunamis to the area.

Dense population.

The Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles employ approximately 25,000 ILWU longshore workers. Residential population within two miles of the project would be almost 20,000 by the time the project opens, and an additional 27,000 employees work within that distance of the site every day. Some census tracts near the project or along the proposed pipeline routes approach densities of 50,000 persons per square mile.

Hazardous surroundings.

Half of all Port of Long Beach imports and exports (on a tonnage basis) are crude oil and petroleum products. The POLB/POLA complex has 16 liquid bulk petroleum berths, extensive oil pipelines and an in-ports storage capacity of almost 11M barrels, and more petroleum projects are planned.

Prime terrorist target.
The Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles move approximately 35% of the nation's waterborne and 42% of the nation's container cargo, with an annual declared Customs value in excess of $220B and a GDP contribution of $1 trillion and growing. The ports trade places as the nation’s first and second busiest ports. Combined they are the world’s third busiest.

Because San Pedro Bay offers the lowest rail rates, most container handling infrastructure and most "supership" berths, its goods movement could not be absorbed elsewhere, and even temporary port closure could cause national economic meltdown. Both bridges to the I-710, Alameda Corridor/rail loading facilities and significant oil pipelines terminate within 2 miles of the proposed project site.

Reduced contractual oversight.
LNG importers have historically operated under long-term contracts—but Mitsubishi wants to purchase up to 10% of California's gas on a spot market. That would be economically risky and increase exposure to piracy, crew infiltration and human error.

Hostility from new sources.
West Coast LNG terminals will import from new fossil fuel exporting nations. Likely sources include Indonesia, with its Banda Aceh province separatist movement, Sakhalin (Russia), where indigenous rights groups and non-governmental organizations are currently protesting LNG exports, and South America, where planned LNG export operations have already led to protesters' deaths and the forced resignation of Bolivia's president. Other U.S. LNG sources are in the Middle East or sub-Saharan Africa, already declared to be of "strategic military importance" to the U.S. Two-thirds of the world's LNG is shipped through the Malaccan Straits, where Commander Fargo of the Pacific Fleet has already suggested the U.S. should deploy Marines.

Oddly enough, the article makes the case for the Cabrillo Port project off of Oxnard. Since it is a floating structure it will not face tsunami risks. Because it is offshore, there is not only not dense populations nearby, but none. it is far-removed from terrorist targets, being 14-miles off the coastline. And since it will import gas from Australia, it will not face the same geopolitical risks as other projects.