> ## 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.

# Malibu passing on gas Ventura agency out to sink LNG
- URL: https://www.smdp.com/malibu-passing-on-gas-ventura-agency-out-to-sink-lng/
- Published: 2006-11-22T16:00:00.000Z
- Updated: 2026-10-23T23:08:50.000Z
- Author: Kevin Herrera
- Tags: Environment, Malibu, #archive-import

*BHP Billiton insists it will be a good neighbor*

MALIBU — A plan to anchor a liquefied natural gas facility off the coast here may have to be scrapped after a Ventura County smog control agency voted unanimously to impose stricter standards on the world’s largest energy supplier, environmentalists said.

The Ventura County Air Pollution Control board last week sent a letter to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency asking it to reconsider granting an exemption to BHP Billiton that would allow the Australian-based energy company to operate a LNG facility roughly 14 miles off the coast of Malibu, and 25 miles off the coast of Santa Monica.

The exemption allows BHP to run generators on Cabrillo Port to power the facility without having to offset added emissions by purchasing existing air pollution credits, officials with the board said.

If the EPA requires BHP to comply fully with the federal Clean Air Act, it would be difficult, some say impossible, for the LNG facility to be built because there are very few credits available for purchase.

The board has asked BHP to purchase 1.3 pounds of smog credits for every one pound of nitrous oxide emissions generated at the LNG terminal.

Currently, Ventura County does not meet the federal air quality standards for ozone. It also exceeds the state standards for ozone and particulate matter, said Mike Villegas, the board’s executive director.

“All districts are running into a tight supply. It’s a problem for much of California,” Villegas said of the shortage of credits. “Numerically, Credits are created when a company institutes practices that reduce pollution. Credits can then be stored for future use or sold.

LNG is natural gas that has been “supercooled” to around 260 degrees and condensed into its liquid form for trans-oceanic shipping. After transport, LNG must be warmed up and vaporized, or “regasified,” before it can be distributed via pipeline for use by consumers.

LNG exporting nations are typically those that also export oil. Russia, Qatar and Iran hold almost 60 percent of global gas reserves, according to the Natural Gas Supply Association.

The fuel has been promoted as a cleaner and cheaper alternative to coal or oil, however it is highly volatile, capable of destroying buildings more than a mile away if ignited in large quantities.

Four years ago, the United States had only two LNG terminals — in Everett, Mass., and Lake Charles, La. Today, two more are operating, one in Maryland and another in Georgia. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has approved 12 proposals in Louisiana, Texas, Georgia and Massachusetts, with a dozen more applications pending from Oregon to New Jersey, according to Environmental Magazine.

The Coast Guard, which regulates offshore terminals, has approved two facilities off Louisiana and is considering eight more in the Gulf of Mexico and off the coasts of California and Massachusetts.

The Ventura County board’s request reverses an earlier position in support of the EPA’s exemption for BHP. Villegas said public testimony last summer, as well as legal opinions filed on behalf of Malibu residents, “shed new light” on the project and its impact on the region.

Villegas said initially the board thought that an exemption granted to small operations on the Channel Islands applied to BHP’s project on Cabrillo Port because it was essentially a man-made island that was off the coast and out of the board’s jurisdiction.

However, that opinion changed upon further examination of the law, Villegas said.

Environmentalists who have joined forces to fight BHP’s application have been aggressive in lobbying the board to make the request.

“When you build a facility of this type, it is a major new source of air pollution,” said Susan Jordan, the director of California Coastal Protection Network, which is working with the City of Malibu and residents in hiring the Environmental Defense Center to fight BHP’s application.“This air pollution will come ashore and affect Malibu and Ventura County, which are already struggling with poor air quality.”

Representatives with BHP said the facility, which is at least five years from operation, would utilize the best technology available to limit emissions.

BHP is also in the process of replacing “dirty”engines on two tug boats that operate along the coast of California. This would remove about 165 tons of smog producing emissions annually from the coast, said Kathi Hann, an environmental advisor and spokesperson for BHP.

“The board’s decision was a surprise to us since they signed off on this a year ago,” Hann said. “We remain confident we will receive a positive decision on our project, which will help California meet crucial energy needs in the most environmentally benign way possible.We have been subject to an extensive review. This is our fourth year, so we believe we have exceeded requirements of state and federal authorities.”

The LNG facility is supported by business interests who are looking forward to the hundreds of jobs the operation would create, Hann said.

Supporters include the Oxnard, Simi Valley and the Gold Coast Hispanic chambers of commerce.

Hann said she expects federal officials to return with a final recommendation by the end of the year, at which time the governor and the U.S. Coast Guard will have an opportunity to weigh in.

The air permit granted by the EPA is just one piece of the puzzle, said Joseph Lapka, an environmental engineer with the EPA.

“We are working through more than 12,000 public comments, including the board’s letter, and we will work through them as best and as fast as we can,” Lapka said.“We will not make a decision until after the broader environmental review process is completed.”

*Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on November 22, 2006.* [Read the original PDF.](https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/smdp%5Fbackissues/112206.pdf?ref=smdp.com)