Proponents

Florida’s two senators plan to unveil legislation Wednesday that they say will offer something for both opponents and proponents of offshore drilling — it will give the state of Florida continued protection of its coastline from energy production, will permanently set aside an area for military training in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, and will open up additional acres of the natural gas-prone Lease Sale 181 to producers. A key House energy lawmaker criticized the bill as being too limited in its scope.

While proponents of expanded offshore drilling were disappointed that the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee did not take up the issue in its budget reconciliation package last Wednesday, Chairman Pete Domenici (R-NM) said he would continue to press President Bush to exercise his power to open up a portion of the gas-rich eastern Gulf of Mexico to production activity.

Some top personal and political advisers to California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger are turning up as part of the public relations/lobbying team for one of the major proponents of a liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal along the state’s coast, Australian resources giant, BHP Billiton, according to a political analysis report in Monday’s San Francisco Chronicle.

Although the proponents are downplaying it, U.S. Coast Guard and California officials last week stopped the regulatory clock on Australian resource giant BHP Billiton’s proposed Cabrillo offshore liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal along the Southern California coast. Basic operational, public safety and shipping information on the $550 million, 800 MMcf/d project was requested before the environmental review process can be resumed.

California’s state regulators and proponents wanting to site a liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal in Long Beach Harbor had what may be a concluding head-butt late last month when a final request for a rehearing by Sound Energy Solutions (SES) was denied, reiterating the California Public Utilities Commission’s order that SES file with the state authorities for permission to build its proposed 1 Bcf/d receiving facility.

California’s state regulators and proponents wanting to site a liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal in Long Beach Harbor had what may be a concluding head-butt late last month when a final request for a rehearing by Sound Energy Solutions (SES) was denied, reiterating the California Public Utilities Commission’s order that SES file with the state authorities for permission to build its proposed 1 Bcf/d receiving facility.

California’s state regulators and proponents wanting to site a liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal in Long Beach Harbor had what may be a concluding head-butt late last month when a final request for a rehearing by Sound Energy Solutions (SES) was denied, reiterating the California Public Utilities Commission’s order that SES file with the state authorities for permission to build its proposed 1 Bcf/d receiving facility.

With the jurisdictional fight still unresolved in a pending federal court case, proponents of a liquefied natural gas (LNG) receiving terminal in Long Beach Harbor and California regulators continued last week to move closer to an eventual head-on legal collision. State regulators are moving ahead with a formal regulatory proceeding, and Mitsubishi Corp.’s Sound Energy Solutions (SES) is refusing to participate until the jurisdictional question is resolved.

With the jurisdictional fight still unresolved in a pending federal court case, proponents of a liquefied natural gas (LNG) receiving terminal in Long Beach Harbor and California regulators continued this week to move closer to an eventual head-on legal collision. State regulators are moving ahead with a formal regulatory proceeding, and Mitsubishi Corp.’s Sound Energy Solutions (SES) is refusing to participate until the jurisdictional question is resolved.