> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.smdp.com/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # Cabrillo port faces battle - URL: https://www.smdp.com/cabrillo-port-faces-battle/ - Published: 2007-03-13T15:00:00.000Z - Updated: 2026-10-24T00:14:03.000Z - Author: Kevin Herrera - Tags: Environment, Malibu, #archive-import *Call us at (310) 458-7737 SM officials, activists oppose offshore port* MALIBU Assemblywoman Julia Brownley has joined a growing list of environmentalists, elected officials and celebrities who are opposed to a natural gas processing plant 20 miles off the coast of Malibu near Oxnard. Brownley was at a rally last weekend at the Malibu Pier, where she joined former “James Bond” star and environmentalist Pierce Brosnan and his wife Keely Smith, along with residents and her colleagues in the state Legislature to voice her objections to the project, which is currently under consideration by state and federal authorities. If approved, the $800-million plant, dubbed Cabrillo Port, would become the first liquefied natural gas terminal built on the West Coast. “Each one of us has a moral obligation to keep this ocean clean, to protect its vast range of critical habitats, to be its steward,” Brownley, a resident of Santa Monica, said. “And when we use it, to use it responsibly and gently, not to exploit it in reckless ways that carry unnecessary and unjustifiable risks. “Cabrillo Port is a big risk.” The press conference came one day after a comprehensive study on the proposal was released, stating that the project poses substantial environmental and safety concerns for the California coast. BHP Billiton, one of the largest energy companies in the world, wants its terminal, capable of processing 800 million cubic feet of natural gas daily for use in homes, factories and power plants, to become the portal through which California receives natural gas from Australia. Californians are the largest consumers of natural gas in the nation, with about 35-45 percent of all electricity used in the state generated by natural gas, a figure that is expected to rise nearly 44 percent by 2013, according to the California Energy Commission. With several regulatory hearings on the project set to begin in April, the study says the terminal would significantly affect air quality, ocean views and marine life. It also concludes that an accident or terrorist attack, while unlikely, could affect ships heading or departing from the nation’s busiest port complex at Los Angeles and Long Beach harbors. The findings are contained in a 3,000-page final environmental impact report (EIR) prepared by the U.S. Coast guard, California State Lands Commission and the U.S. Marine Administration. The document is expected to play a key role in a series of hearings over the next three months. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger will have the final say sometime this summer on whether or not the LNG plant is good for California, and environmentalists and elected officials are expected to lobby vigorously against the project, pointing to the EIR as proof that it should be scrapped. “We feel that this document confirms what we have been saying all along, that this project would be harmful to our environment and coastal communities, and should not be approved,” said Linda Krop of the Environmental Defense Center. Representatives with Billiton claim the project will be safe and environmentally sound, utilizing the latest technology to reduce impacts to the land, air and sea. Unlike other projects, it will in no way utilize or extend the life of offshore oil platforms off the California coastline, officials said. “The truth is, saying no to LNG is saying yes to something else, like coal, nuclear power, diesel or some other dirty fossil fuels,” said Kathy Hann, the environmental advisor for the project said.“We need to look at cleaner, more reliable, safe sources of energy for our future and that includes renewable energy as well as LNG.” The port will be a floating, LNG terminal that will receive gas from ships and transfer it to land using pipelines connected to the Southern California Gas Company’s onshore natural gas pipeline distribution system. Once operating, Cabrillo Port is expected to meet almost 15 percent of California’s daily natural gas needs. While Billiton seems to have the backing of the EPA and the Bush Administration, which endorsed offshore gas terminals, it will have a rough time gaining the approval of state agencies and officials, evident by the list of those fighting it. In addition to Brownley, the chairman of an Assembly committee that heavily influences California’s energy policy announced his opposition to the LNG terminal. Assemblyman Lloyd Levine (D-Van Nuys) said he would fight the terminal because it is “unneeded and dirty.” Back in 2004, Levine wrote a letter in support of the Cabrillo Port. However, Levine said he was misled by Billiton into thinking the project would comply with all the state’s strictest environmental laws. Levine pointed to an inquiry by Congressman Henry Waxman (D-Los Angeles), chairman of the house committee on oversight and government reform, who questioned why the EPA dropped a key environmental roadblock to Billiton, and then refused to turn over key documents surrounding the decisions. The EPA originally required Billiton to reduce more than its fair share of emissions, but the agency reversed itself in June 2005 without explanation after Billiton officials lobbied the White House Task Force on Energy Project Streamlining. Since then the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District has told the EPA that the project must meet the original rigorous cleanup standards, which includes the purchase of emission reduction credits. Those familiar with air pollution in the area, said such credits are hard to come buy, especially in the quantity Billiton would need to purchase. In a letter to EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson last week, Waxman charged a senior EPA political official with intervening in the permit decision on the company’s behalf without ever justifying the reversal. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Rep. Lois Capps (D-Santa Barbara) have also wrote to Johnson demanding an explanation of the reversal as well as documents that Waxman’s said he has yet to receive. In addition to air pollution, those opposed to the project point to the EIR’s findings in regards to noise and views. Noise could be a serious problem for boaters within three miles of the terminal and loud enough to interfere with personal conversations within about half a mile. The terminal could also be an eyesore for whale watchers and visitors to the nearby Channel islands National Park. At night, those on the mainland may be able to see lights from the terminal, the report said. The report conclude that although many of the impacts can be mitigated, a number would remain significant and unavoidable. “That still doesn’t point to all the migrating whales and what impacts it would have on them,”Krop said.“What about noise, potential tanker strikes and also the disruption of the food system because the project takes in a lot of sea water and sea life as part of ballasting.” Renne Klimczak, president of Billiton, said in a prepared statement that the port will be a positive for California, and in particular, Ventura County, generating $25.5 million a year in economic activity, including new jobs for residents. “We support an open and constructive and reasoned dialogue about Cabrillo Port because we believe when stakeholders and residents have all the facts, they will understand that Cabrillo Port will be built to the highest public safety and environmental standards and will provide clean, safe reliable energy …” Brownley isn’t convinced. “This is about our quality of life,” she said.“This is the wrong project, in the wrong place and this applicant has taken on the wrong communities … I am with you until this project is dead in the water.” *Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on March 13, 2007.* [Read the original PDF.](https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/smdp%5Fbackissues/031307.pdf?ref=smdp.com)