Earth or water?

There are now several proposals for liquefied natural gas terminals in the Los Angeles area, including an onshore site in Long Beach and an offshore facility between Malibu and Catalina Island. So the Business Journal asks:

Do you think a liquefied natural gas terminal should be built onshore or offshore?

Nicholas J. Toghia

Founder

Opus Group LLC 

Given no other information than I have now, I would prefer the liquefied natural gas terminal onshore for many reasons. Firstly, it wouldn't require miles and miles of pipe to be laid in the ocean, which can be very expensive and cause disruption in the environment if the denizens of the deep are affected by the process. Also, in case of problems, it would be more difficult to reach something 22 miles offshore than a terminal on land. Building it onshore will provide more jobs in not just the port but also in businesses surrounding the plant. In the event of growth, it will also be easier to add facilities to the terminal on land.

J. Michael Issa

Executive managing director

Ballenger Cleveland & Issa LLC

I would rather have the natural gas terminal onshore because when you have some problem with the terminal or some disaster occurs, it is way easier to clean up and handle than a terminal in the ocean. If the onshore terminal were to be in downtown Los Angeles then obviously the casualties would be more in the event something goes wrong, but if it is in the ports then the number of people at risk is relatively modest. More people die in train crashes in this country than in energy-related accidents. People will react negatively to both options but they might stop ii you present them with a situation where they have to sit around in the dark with no industrial development, no fuel for their cars, no jobs or food. The prospect of being unemployed and dying of starvation will get them to take a few risks than sit around without energy.

Jim Tranquada

Director of Communications 

Occidental College

Many would prefer the offshore facility but even without a detailed knowledge of how LNG facilities work there are obvious disadvantages to both. Having them farther from population centers doesn't decrease the risks of accidents and unpleasant consequences. Simply because regulatory concerns are less for onshore terminals doesn't mean the political consequences are inconsiderable. Any decision calls for an analysis of the pros and cons of both options.

Brett Sporich

Media Relations Specialist

CCG Investor Relations 

I'd like to see the terminal in a place that is most ecologically and environmentally sound regardless of the distance from the shore. I'd also like to see it wherever it is more economically beneficial. With my limited knowledge of the issue it appears that it would be much more economical to have it offshore so it doesn't interfere with the busy Long Beach port. But if that means a greater environmental risk then I would err on the side of having it onshore.

Wendell Salvador

Senior Associate

Rothenberg Sawasy Architects Inc.

I would want the natural gas terminal where safety is ensured for people, so that may be offshore. I also want to see minimum impact on the natural environment and if that is possible at a decent cost differential then I am all for it. In the long run if it benefits our society then we should consider it. As far as disrupting port activities is concerned, port activities are hampered even when port employees strike, so if this decision is going to benefit Southern Californians then it should be supported.