Actors, Surfers Protest LNG

By October 24, 2006Energy

OK, the fight over energy is getting serious. The enviros have finally called out the big guns. No, not Al Gore — he was just a warm-up act. Yesterday in Malibu — according to this story in the PCH Press (“Malibu’s Only Daily News” — we’re shocked!) — former James Bond Pierce Brosnan teamed with other Hollywood luminaries like Dick Van Dyke, Kenny G (we aren’t making this up) and some famous surfers to protest the building of a liquid natural gas terminal off the coast. Nevermind that these terminals are safe and that they are a piece of our long-term energy solution, the actors and surfers came out to protest.

According to the story, “Dick Van Dyke entered the Malibu Pier where the event was being held in his familiar comedic style. He was break dancing to the Hawaiian music performed in front of a whole host of smiling and giggling people.” But this was no laughing matter, no sirree, said Dick, “I voted for Ike Eisenhower, because I worshiped him as everybody else did. He told us when he left office, beware of the Industrial Military Complex. And, we didn’t do it. And, now they’re running the country.” Wow. We need more people like this speaking out, no?

The story leaps to a discussion of Jack Abramoff (not sure of the connection), saying, “Recently released congressional reports have detailed …Abramoff’s ties into at least five Non-Profit groups, the Bush Administration, Congress, the Office of Management & Budget (OMB), the Department of Interior (DOI) and the Mafia.”

The mafia?!?

“Residents enjoyed a gourmet pancake breakfast while they watched the morning marine layer burn-off into a beautiful sunny day,” says the article. It goes on to note that, “numerous big name surfers also threw their weight behind opposing LNG.” Well if that doesn’t seal the deal, we don’t know what will. (Lest you thought Hollywood was in synch with your world, you really need to read the full article.)

We’re sure these are all fine upstanding surfers and citizens. But the point here is that LNG is safe and it’s one more way to ensure our energy security. Shell President John Hofmeister was at the National Press Club yesterday talking about LNG as one of the solutions to our long term energy problems. The enviros can’t be anti-nuke, anti-coal, anti-ANWR, anti-OCS and anti-LNG at the same time. Efficiency and alternative sources are also part of the solution but this is not an either/or proposition. To these well-meaning Hollywood types, we ask, “What’s your solution?”

Surf’s up, dude.

Join the discussion 5 Comments

  • Chris Zurcher says:

    Amen to that Scott.

    And we ARE importing from Canada. Two facilities in Canada are crucial to the entire Northeast’s supply of natural gas.

    But, hey, what’s a few more huge tankers out in Long Island Sound, or off the California coast? Let’s build more! Not.

  • Rob says:

    You people are idiots. I suppose that’s why you live in California.

  • John McNary says:

    Our solution? Thanks for asking.

    Replacing the existing natural gas generators operating in California, with state of the art, efficient generators will save three times more natural gas than Cabrillo Port will import.

    That one step alone will make this $650 million boondoggle, with costs to be passed on to the taxpayers, redundant.

    Maybe you ought to be listening to what is said instead of coming up with snarky falsehoods.

  • Scott Tallal says:

    “What’s our solution?” According to the Department of Energy (, the U.S. already has a 60-year supply of known domestic natural gas reserves — and that’s if we stop importing natural gas from Canada (which can help extend our supply to the end of the century). Also, if we update California’s antiquated natural gas-fired power plants, we can increase their efficiency by up to 50%, extending the domestic reserve supply well into the next century.

    Even if we did need LNG (which we obviously don’t), there are several reasons why the proposal from BHP Billiton is a bad idea:

    — It makes the U.S. dependent on yet another source of foreign energy.

    — The natural gas this plant would process is chemically different from that found in North America. It corrodes the seals used throughout our existing pipeline network, so every one of those seals will have to be replaced. Also, it burns at a different temperature so everything from power plants to home appliances will have to be retrofitted accordingly.

    — According to their own EIR, BHP Billiton’s Cabrillo Port facility will spew 250 tons of smog-producing emissions each year in an area directly upwind from LA and Ventura Counties. This plant only meets environmental regulations because the EPA recently bowed to intense White House pressure and changed the rules for Southern California. That’s the pollution equivalent of adding another 80,000 cars to our local freeways.

    — To transfer the gas onshore, BHP Billiton plans to build high-pressure gas pipelines on the floor of the ocean directly across known active earthquake fault lines.

    — From mining and transport to processing and delivery, the supply chain for one plant will be responsible for emitting 25 million tons of greenhouse gases each year. That offsets a full 15% of the greenhouse gas reductions the state was trying to achieve with the recent passage of AB32.

    — According to the Republican-controlled Congress, LNG terminals increase our risk of explosion, fire, and terrorist attack.

    Otherwise, there’s really nothing wrong with these plants.

  • Lisa says:

    If you educated yourself you would know that Abramoff had the SunCruz guy killed through his Mafia connections. And further, if you educated yourself, you would know that these terminals are not so safe. And if you educated yourself, you would also know that lobbying money is what is bringing this country down – you might better remember it as pork barrel spending. It is a commonly known issue what was reported in that article. There is no big news there. So maybe read up more to see you’re in the dark here.