ChevronTexaco Corp. said Thursday it plans to build a $650 million liquefied natural gas terminal off the coast of Baja California, Mexico, that will
be able to process 1.4 billion cubic feet per day.
San Ramon-based ChevronTexaco, the world's fifth-largest oil company, said the freestanding Gravity Based Structure will be located 8 miles offshore
and include facilities for offloading, regasification and storage.
The company said it expects to begin constriuction in 2004 with completion targeted for 2007.
The LNG terminal is the second in North America planned by ChevronTexaco, a major global natural gas player with plans to expand its market share from
production through distribution.
The company previously announced plans for "Port Pelican," a GBS regasification terminal proposed for installation offshore from Louisiana. The
project is undergoing permit review by U.S. authorities.
ChevronTexaco's global gas strategy incorporates large gas field developments, such as the greater Gorgon-area in Australia and Plataforma Deltana in
Venezuela; a proposed LNG project in Angola and the recently announced Brass LNG project in Nigeria; gas-to-liquids projects through its Sasol Chevron
joint venture; and proposed offshore regasification projects, including Baja California in Mexico and the Gulf of Mexico in the United States.
Additional LNG terminal projects are also under consideration for California, ChevronTexaco said. Mike Humfreville - 10-30-2003 at 04:59 PM
I glanced through an article in the L.A. Times regarding Texaco/Chevron and an alleged $6 Billion damage suit against them in South America. Whill I
have no knowledge other than what I have read, it seems like it might be a good idea to watch them closely in Baja California.Family Guy - 10-30-2003 at 06:39 PM
I saw the same article Mike is referring to. It has to do with environmental damage in Ecuador. I traveled extensively in the region about 10 years
ago and heard horror stories from locals about the damage then. It was the one area we avoided in our travels.Dave - 10-30-2003 at 06:49 PM
Eight miles offshore from where?
What a quote, Dave.
Stephanie Jackter - 10-30-2003 at 11:58 PM
More spasmodic laughing. Almost as good as photos of Ken Bondy's dog! Keep it coming. - StephanieJESSE - 10-31-2003 at 02:43 PM
The proposed plant is supposed to be located in the Coronado islands, its Mexican territory but any eviromental problems will affect the U.S. and
Mexico equally.
Do Imperial beach residents want that?
Gas plants
Ski Baja - 10-31-2003 at 04:07 PM
Having spent a good portion of my childhood on the beaches in So.Cal., I kinda miss coming home with globs of black goo on my feet. Would a natural
gas island/ structure produce any of these fond memories for me or will it just be the usual birds falling out of the sky ?
[Edited on 10-31-2003 by Ski Baja]
Chevron
thebajarunner - 11-2-2003 at 08:47 AM
Did you notice on Friday the announcement by Chevron of record earnings?
Why??? Substantially increased gas & fuel prices... and they told us they were just "passing on increased costs"
Sounds more and more like a goverment deal to me... pass it on, but mark it up!
And I am a raging conservative capitalist,
Whats wrong with this picture??!!
Baja Vida!!
Beach Tar
David K - 11-2-2003 at 10:03 AM
Hah ha J.R.... I remember tar on my feet! The first 7 years of my life we lived in Del Mar, right on the beach (3010 Sandy Lane, I recall). My mom has
a bottle of kerosene and a rag or brush next to the side door to clean any tar off. Natural gas plants do not produce this... it seeps up naturally
from the ocean bottom and perhaps from any crude oil leaks from ships or distant platforms.
Tar n stuff
Ski Baja - 11-2-2003 at 10:46 AM
Yep, kerosene was it. hahahaha. I didn't go that far with the recollections, just not being let in the house!
Yesterday, I rescued two birds that were floundering in the waves out front. Is it something in the air ? I took them and put them under that
shipwreck on the beach. They stayed for about a half hour and headed back into the ocean ???
Birdbrains? Suicidal?
Don't know but they were a team.
chevronTexaco to build LNG terminal
daveB - 11-6-2003 at 01:29 AM
Can anyone help me here, what kind of problems might develop from an LNG terminal? My understanding is there is potential for explosion if severe
leakage were to occur, and ignite. Anything else? Does anyone have knowlege of a Boston Harbor explosion of the 1940's where LNG was the culprit?
I really don't see the downside to this guys. Sure Baja will get the crumbs but it will mean at the very least an NG pipeline from TJ to Ensenada and
possibly beyond. Rosarito's electric plant will burn cleaner fuel. Am I missing something here?
Baja LNG plant
thebajarunner - 11-7-2003 at 06:33 PM
I waited until our weekly meeting to ask my partner in our industrial gas company about the dangers or safety of the proposed LNG plant off the Baja
coast.
I guess that they are planning it 8 miles offshore is a good thing because these babies make a big boom when they go off. Now, to be sure they don't
go off too often, and the fuel they provide the consumer is far cleaner than the liquid goo that is currently being burned in Rosarita and elsewhere.
But, the Shell website you referred to is a joke. If you put any form of LNG in a full, open container and light it, there is a very benign and slow
burn.
Get it in a closed container, get it overheated or super-sparked, like in a ship collision, and POW!!!
There were two massive LNG explosions this summer, one in Sacramento and one in Tulsa. Look it up, when it blows, baby it blows.
And, I am in the business and am defending the concept, just want to set the record straight that this stuff can be very lethal. (Last year a 5000
gallon tank at a neighboring business caught fire. The FD told us that if it had blown it would have levelled a one mile radius, and we were next
door! Just the 'blow-off' was on fire at that point)
check out this site and then tell me it is safe: http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/local_government/stor... html
Baja Arriba!! Dave - 11-7-2003 at 11:25 PM
"Get it in a closed container, get it overheated or super-sparked, like in a ship collision, and POW!!!"
" (Last year a 5000 gallon tank at a neighboring business caught fire. The FD told us that if it had blown it would have levelled a one mile radius,
and we were next door! Just the 'blow-off' was on fire at that point)"
So...which is it? As far as I know ALL LNG is stored in closed pressurized containers. (has to be) Why didn't this 5000 gl tank blow?
LNG
thebajarunner - 11-7-2003 at 11:32 PM
They blow when the heat gets so intense that the "bleed off" cannot keep up with the internal heat buildup.
The Sacramento explosion occurred on a very hot day, cylinders left in the sun, one got into a bleedoff mode, sparked off and BOOM! (I assume you
looked at the SacBee article I referenced) Same thing happened in Tulsa.
The reason the tank next door did not blow was that some very very brave fire fighters doused it continually and cooled it down before things let
loose.
Meanwhile, streets were blocked for a mile in all directions an Hwy 99 was shut down while everyone held collective breath.
Does not happen often, when it does it gets real ugly!!
Yeah, as you said, all LNG is stored in closed pressurized containers. Yet, the Shell site that showed how "safe" it is demonstrated how it burns in
an open copntainer. Go back and look at that site.
Their proof proved nothing.... POOF!jimmy smith - 11-8-2003 at 06:23 PM
Little over a year ago, Televisa showed some footage from one of their newscoptors of a LPG explosion down near Mexico D.F. The reporter won some sort
of an award for this.Anonymous - 4-17-2004 at 11:49 PM
Photo by: CHARLIE NEUMAN / Union-Tribune
Two of three small boats holding opponents of ChevronTexaco's floating LNG receiving terminals headed out from the small Popotia fishing village to
plant banners on the Coronado Islands to protst the project.
From the week of April 5, 2004.
LNG - LPG
bajalou - 4-19-2004 at 06:58 PM
What are the differences dangerwise in LPG (Propane) and LNG (natural gas)?Anonymous - 4-20-2004 at 12:18 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by bajalou
What are the differences dangerwise in LPG (Propane) and LNG (natural gas)?
If I were there, I would be in my boat, protesting too!
When I moved to Texas City, Texas as a small child, I saw the body parts all over the roads, some blood and flesh stuck to signs and walls of homes.
Due to an explosion that seems to never be forgotten! That was about 1947. Some say it was the worst tradgedy ever other than 9/11 in NY>
Slowly but surely, the chemical companies ruined the land in Texas City, people got ill, including my Mom who unfortunatly died due to the pollutents,
and so much more.
This is such a tradgedy happening all over the world due to greed!
Breaks my heart to read all about this!
I love this site! Hola all....from SeaJESSE - 4-20-2004 at 02:26 PM
I actually support this project, we do need gas you know.
It's Not Over 'Till The Fat Lady Sings
Margie - 5-20-2004 at 06:34 PM
Both leaders of the former ruling party, the PRI and the PRD are opposed to this plant. They believe that the Plant would violate Mexico's
sovereignty and compromise it's national security.
There is a full article in Sign on San Diego, dated 4/20/04.
This is not a done deal, there was front page coverage in today's San Diego Union.
[Edited on 5-21-2004 by Margie]JESSE - 5-21-2004 at 02:25 PM
It will get done, there isnt much those parties can do, its betwen the federal gov headed by Fox and the local gov headed by Elourduy, and both
support the project.
Good bye Costa Azul
Margie - 5-21-2004 at 07:39 PM
We left early this morning to finally go take care of the yard down in PB, and it's still not finished .
I really tried to take in the Cosat Azul, both on the way down and coming back.
What a jewel, everything just sparkled.
What a mistake, a big friggin LNG plant on it's way, a huge treasure lost.
Costa Rica is looking better everyday.
[Edited on 5-22-2004 by Margie]
Losing Perspective?
The Gull - 5-22-2004 at 07:43 AM
The upside:
1. Possibly lower cost fuel
2. No contamination floating on the water and getting into the marine life as is now the case with pumping oil.
3. Cleaner burning with far fewer cancer causing chemicals in the soot pouring over the current and future residents of major Baja cities.
4. Placed far away from the coast such that it may look no larger than a passing cruise ship on the horizon.
5. Managed by a company with the experience, both good and bad, such that protection of their investment would be of utmost importance (converse to a
government installation).
OK, now for the emotional outpouring of the negatives...
[Edited on 5-22-2004 by The Gull]
good answer, Gull
thebajarunner - 5-22-2004 at 03:30 PM
We used to say they were
NIMBY- Not in My Back Yard
now we have the
BANANA- Build Absolutely Nothing Absolutely Nowhere Anytime
My answer to those folks is simple,
"Do you live in a house?"
"Do you drive a car?"
"Do you burn fuel in your car or house?"
If the answers are yes, then sit down and shut up, you got yours, and you don't want others to have theirs.
For me, I am concerned that the BANANAS will keep my kids from having a house or anything else they need in life.
Ah well, this too shall pass...
Baja Arriba!!
Paradise Lost?
The Gull - 5-22-2004 at 03:43 PM
thebajarunner:
Cool view!
Makes me wonder what might happen if the activists really wanted to do the right thing for the environment would they go to the electric company today
and protest the damage to the ecosystem from the pumping of oil into water at Rosarito Beach? Would they protest and throw their bodies in front of
the gates demanding that the carcinogenic plume that covers their community every day from the smokestack, should stop?
Then we would have no power going to areas like SADM... wait a minute! There might be something of a thought beginning ...
Fellow Nomads, join me on a march for humanity against the power company in Rosarito Beach. We need to shut it down. Please join me any day of the
week.Margie - 5-22-2004 at 11:13 PM
As a matter of fact, Greenpeace and NDRC are addressing this issue as we speak. Infact, Greenpeace activists sailed to the power generating facility
and mounted a demonstration against the electric company just a short while back.
Not in my backyard is exactly what the oil corporations are doing, these plants are being reviled in the US, so they are bringing their crap down
here; the windfalls are going to the oil corporations and whoever they paid off down here, 80% of the product is for US consumption,
only 20% for Mexico.
Let's hope that Bobby Kennedy Jr. and the NRDC will launch a successful campaign against the electric company, as they did against the Mexican
government and Mitsibushi salt project.
[Edited on 5-23-2004 by Margie]
Best of luck to Greenpeace and the NRDC
The Gull - 5-23-2004 at 09:12 AM
Good to hear that Greenpeace and NRDC are addressing and mounting as we speak. Are the lights flickering in San Antonio del Mar?
When they are successful in shutting down the power plant in Rosarito, the land all along the coast will be allowed to return to it former condition.
Also the ownership will revert to the ejidos and the gringos will be forced to leave their campos. Can't wait to see that one. There is nothing
extreme in that view.
The Mexican residents will be provided yet another economic hardship, but hey, US liberals, will have spewed their extremism in another part of the
world and provided themselves the disillusion that they are ridding themselves of the guilt of being what they are.
These groups only want to impose "their style of life and belief structure" on the rest of the world. Isn't that want they accuse Bush of doing?
What is that called?
Why is it that Greenpeace and NRDC can know what is best for the world and the US government under Republican leadership cannot do the same?
Baffling????
[Edited on 5-24-2004 by The Gull]Margie - 5-23-2004 at 12:51 PM
Gull, you were the one who complaned about pumping oil into Rosaito Beach and the carcinogenic plume, and asked if environmental activists really
wanted to help, why aren't they doing something about it.
What these organizations, along with Mexican environmental groups are doing is working to establish a reduction in toxic flow and emission levels.
So, I take it you were for the proposed San Ignacio Lagoon and Guerro Negro Salt Plant?
Greenpeace
thebajarunner - 5-23-2004 at 01:09 PM
Hey, this is news.... Greenpeace actually lives up to their name and "sails" to the site>>>> riggghhhhtttt, bet they went out in their fossil fueled,
pollution emitting Zodiacs, just like they always do, what a bunch of hypocrites!
And Bobby Kennedy, Jr..... double-WOW! You mean he finally got a job, nahhhh, no way! Soon that family will have spent all the old man's money and
we will hear no more of them.
Meanwhile, the plant goes into Mexico for the same reason people move to Mexico, less restrictions, less government interference, etc.
Baja Arriba!!Margie - 5-23-2004 at 01:28 PM
You know, why do I get the feeling that if all of these proposed LNG plants go in , 16 in all from the border to the tip, and the Nautical Ladder, you
will be one of the very first ones wringing their hands and crying what happened? What happened to Baja?
I have to agree with jrbaja on this one, see it now before it's too late.
You generalize about why people move to Baja and Mexico, however it is true that the big American oil companies are coming here too avoid scrutiny, as
well as around the world in less developed countries.
Margie - 5-23-2004 at 07:47 PM
These are your words ,Gull, how else are we to interpert them?
"Makes me wonder what might happen if the activists really wanted to do the right thing for the environment would they go to the electric company
today and protest the ecosystem from the pumping of oil into the water at Rosarito Beach? Would they protest and throw their bodies in front of the
gates demanding that the carcinogenic plume that covers their community every day from the smokestack, should stop?"
For more information on Greenpeace activities in Mexico, log into http://www.nmsy.edu/~frontera/ Seems they are also helping over in Chiuahua.
I simply asked if you favored the Salt Plant, in a question form, since you obviously have put down these same environmental groups that helped stave
off this plant.
