A New Threat to Clean Energy Development: Liquid Natural Gas

2004-04-13


Despite global efforts to combat global warming and to harness renewable energy sources, a new type of dirty and unsafe energy -- liquid natural gas (LNG) -- is emerging in the marketplace. LNG has severe environmental and social impacts and could potentially block clean renewable energy from penetrating the market. We oppose the development of the liquid natural gas energy sector for the following reasons:

LNG: Spurring the Development of a Dirty Energy Border Zone in Baja, California

  • The Baja, California border region should not be developed as a dirty energy export zone for the United States.

  • Greenpeace calls on Mexico to follow through with its ambitions to move toward a clean energy future and not buckle under pressure from corrupt U.S. companies.

  • Greenpeace opposes the export of dirty power from Mexico to California. Mexico's energy can be produced locally with Mexico's abundant renewable energy resources. Mexico should not be polluted for the benefit of Southern California electricity customers.

  • The Baja region can meet its energy needs with renewable energy. The geothermal plant south of Mexicali, Cerro Prieto, provides almost 70 percent of Northern Baja's electricity requirements and Baja has ample wind and solar resources.


    • California's Clean Energy Commitments are at Risk
  • The implementation of the Renewable Portfolio Standard, Community Choice Aggregation law and energy efficiency and conservation programs should be the state's first priority.

  • California does not need to mortgage its future with liquid natural gas. The California Power Authority has stated that the next 10 years of growth can be met with renewable energy and increased efficiency.

  • The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) should not allow utilities to sign long-term natural gas contracts when cost-effective clean energy solutions are available.

  • Californian ratepayers should not finance the construction of financially risky LNG terminals. The CPUC is in the process of determining whether California utility customers should finance LNG terminals. If the terminals cannot be financed in the open market, they should not be built.

  • LNG terminals would be an extremely risky investment. To eliminate the risk, LNG developers are pressuring the California Public Utilities Commission to approve long-term LNG contracts between developers and utilities. These contracts would be unprecedented in California history and could be a financial weight on California's shoulders for decades to come. They are likely to be priced well above the historical market price for natural gas and extend for decades.


    • LNG Slated to Meet U.S. Demand Will Result in Environmental Damage and Human Rights Violations around the World

  • Globally, the drilling of natural gas has huge environmental impacts. For example, the drilling of oil and gas off the coast of Sakhalin Island, Russia, endangers a delicate and bio-diverse marine ecosystem, which is the habitat of the last 100 endangered Western Pacific Gray Whales.

  • Indigenous people around the world have been removed from their land or forced to live in very poor conditions because of the drilling of natural gas. For example, nearly 75 percent of Camisea natural gas projects in Peru are located inside a state reserve for indigenous peoples living with little or no contact with the outside world, who have been forcibly contacted by the Camisea consortia in violation of their internationally recognized rights. Liquefied natural gas derived from the Camisea Project is intended for the California market.


    • Liquid Natural Gas Facilities are a Safety Risk

  • Greenpeace opposes the siting of dangerous and environmentally destructive LNG facilities in Mexico and the United States for the benefit of multinational corporations at people's expense.

  • Liquid natural gas storage and transportation is a dangerous business, with a history of accidents. Accidents at fuel storage sites have killed hundreds over the years. A major accident in Cleveland in 1944 killed 128 people, and a recent accident at an Algerian facility destroyed a $1 billion plant killing 23 people.

  • LNG facilities should not be sited in populated areas. The energy content of a single standard LNG tanker is equivalent to about 55 Hiroshima bombs.

  • An explosion at a LNG facility could cause tremendous damage for miles. Facilities should not be sited where an accident could harm communities or devastate economically important ports.


    • Related reports:

    Terra Sempra (pdf)