Re: Gary Cushing’s Jan. 22 commentary “LNG good investment for California�:
Cushing, an obvious shill for the gas industry, alleges liquefied natural gas is our only answer.
He's incorrect, and here’s why:
— LNG operations are horrendously expensive to construct, on the order of $3 billion each.
— Natural gas is a finite fossil fuel. Guesstimates on how much is economically recoverable vary widely.
— Extant LNG operations restrict boating and fishing operations while tankers arrive and depart. Many commercial and private businesses in our area would be severely affected.
— The Bush administration has pulled scientific considerations from the Environmental Protection Agency’s approval or denial of BHP Billiton’s proposal. The offal produced by existing port functions will be enhanced by an annual 20 million tons of environmental hazards anticipated from Cabrillo Port.
— Existing high-pressure gas lines do not exceed 250 pounds per square inch, according to the city's public works manager. Billiton proposes 30-inch pipes under at least 1,100 psi. What will be the effect of one of these lines ruptures?
— Is LNG worth going to war with China? That country has an ever-increasing need for natural gas as it raises its status to first world.
— LNG is a potential terrorist target. A naval base and a port operation make the Oxnard/Ventura area interesting to folks inimical to the United States.
— Southern California's deserts get sunshine every day. Our answer for independent power supply lies in commercial solar power plants.
— Conversion from natural gas to electricity or other power methodology for hot-water, heating, etc., will require at least two decades.
— U.S. chemical firms use more natural gas than our entire state uses for any purpose. Shouldn't we reserve such supply as remains?
Cushing's commentary contains only pure fiction. I suggest he and The Star’s readers study the facts and the science.
— Roger G. Pariseau Jr., Oxnard