Natural Gas Terminals

Despite opposition from state officials, the prospects have improved for a proposed $700-million liquefied natural gas terminal that would be built at the Port of Long Beach. The Long Beach City Council has no immediate plans to take a stand on the project. And local opposition has dwindled in recent months.

Opponents of a proposed liquefied natural gas terminal in Long Beach lambasted a newly released environmental review at a public hearing Monday, calling the project too dangerous to build near the center of the region's second-largest city. But union representatives and other project supporters contended that such safety concerns are exaggerated. And others called the plant a source of cleaner-burning fuel that would help combat air pollution.

A liquefied natural gas terminal proposed for the Port of Long Beach was deemed "environmentally acceptable" in a report released Friday by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The draft report -- which was prepared by the commission, the port, the U.S. Coast Guard and other agencies -- was the product of more than a year of research and concluded that the proposed terminal would not pose a threat to the environment, a major victory for project proponents.

Chevron Corp., the second-largest U.S. oil company, said Thursday that it asked federal regulators to approve construction of a natural gas import terminal on the Mississippi coast to capitalize on rising U.S. fuel demand. The plant would be next to the company's Pascagoula refinery and would initially be able to process 1.3 billion cubic feet of natural gas a day, San Ramon, Calif.-based Chevron said. The company didn't say how much the plant would cost.

Occidental Petroleum Corp. won federal approval Thursday to build a $600-million terminal in Texas to receive tanker shipments of liquefied natural gas. Occidental's Ingleside Energy Center would be able to process 1 billion cubic feet of natural gas a day. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approved the project at a meeting in Washington. More than three dozen projects have been proposed throughout North America as rising gas demand outstrips growth of domestic supplies.

Plans for new liquefied natural gas terminals in Massachusetts and Texas won federal approval on Thursday. An LNG project in Rhode Island was rejected as regulators said they tried to balance energy needs with public safety. It was the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's first such rejection. Seven other projects have been approved since 2003. Commissioners approved the Weaver's Cove Energy project for Fall River, Mass., by a 3-1 vote.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has expressed a preference for a liquefied natural gas terminal offshore from Oxnard over other sites, including Long Beach, igniting a furor along the Southern California coast as some local officials and residents praise the safety of an offshore site while others decry his comments as premature and irresponsible. The governor expressed his "personal preference" for a proposed BHP Billiton terminal 14 miles offshore from Oxnard.

The Senate voted Wednesday to give federal regulators authority over the location of liquefied natural gas terminals, despite objections from governors, including California's Arnold Schwarzenegger, that states should be have an equal say in deciding where such projects are built. Republican and Democratic officials from city halls to Capitol Hill have expressed concern that the terminals could become terrorism targets or pose other safety risks, and they have sought a role in siting them.

The Long Beach City Council decided Wednesday to continue talks with the developer of a proposed liquefied natural gas terminal at the city's harbor, although none of the nine council members appears to decisively favor the plan. In the early morning vote, the council split 5-4, divided between those firmly opposed to the $450-million gas facility proposed by a Mitsubishi Corp. subsidiary and those who want to wait for an environmental review before taking a stand.

Four hundred people packed Long Beach City Hall on Tuesday night for a City Council debate over the future of a controversial liquefied natural gas terminal proposed for a pier in the city's harbor. The crowd spilled out of the chambers as the council began the debate over whether to end talks with a subsidiary of Tokyo-based Mitsubishi Corp., which is planning a $450-million gas terminal less than two miles from downtown.