Quick Links
Calendar
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
Archives
XML/RSS Feed
Statistics
Total entries in this blog:
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Jan 11, 2006 04:21 PM
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Jan 11, 2006 04:21 PM
LNG Review Process Tainted By Fraud
Ventura
County
Star
Statements on LNG issue appear false
Some comments about gas terminal can't be verified
By Sylvia Moore and Tom Kisken, smoore@VenturaCountyStar.com tkisken@VenturaCountyStar.com
July 10, 2005
Some citizens and environmentalists are perplexed and angered over revelations that a number of written public comments in support of a proposed liquefied natural gas facility off the Oxnard coast may have been faked.
The Star investigated comments regarding BHP Billiton's proposed Cabrillo Port submitted to the U.S. Department of Transportation's Docket Management System Web site. The site serves as a clearinghouse for documents connected to development projects under federal review.
A number of the online comments in support of the facility couldn't be verified, listed fake addresses or used names of people who denied they had written the comments when contacted for verification.
On the site are copies of documents pertaining to BHP's deepwater port application and public comments on the project's draft environmental impact report. The Australia-based BHP wants to build an LNG and regassification facility 21 miles off the Oxnard coast.
The Coast Guard, the federal Maritime Administration and the California State Lands Commission have the authority to approve or reject BHP's request for a deepwater port license. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has the authority to veto an approval. The public comment period for the project's environmental impact report ended Dec. 20.
848 total comments
The public comments came from a diverse group of public agencies, elected officials and ordinary citizens. Of the 848 comments submitted to the Web site, 435 supported Cabrillo Port; 318 either were against the project or expressed concerns about the environmental document, and the rest took no position. Some of the comments were submitted more than once to the site.
Out of the 318 letters expressing concern, 13 were submitted in groups from Dec. 17 to 20 through another Web site, http://www.cabrilloport.ene.com. Out of the 435 letters of support, 259 came from that site during the same time period. The site was set up by the Coast Guard, the Maritime Administration and the State Lands Commission to gather comments.
Twenty-three of the letters submitted through the site came from Ventura County. Four of those letters supported Cabrillo Port and were verified by The Star as legitimate. But 19 letters could not be verified. In some cases, the person who purportedly wrote the e-mail could not be found in a national online search engine or a 2005 cross directory of county addresses and phone numbers.
In other cases, the writer didn't live at the address listed. For example, a man who identified himself as Dean Jordan from Simi Valley praised the proposed project for its potential to fight air pollution and save people money. But Randy Jones, who owns the residence listed as Jordan's, said he's never heard of Jordan.
"I'm shocked that someone would leave my address," said Jones, who has owned his home for 17 years. "If they have a comment about something, I would hope and see no reason why they wouldn't leave their real address."
A woman identified as Karen Kane wrote from Ventura that she couldn't imagine Cabrillo Port having an impact on marine traffic, adding that she supports the project. Yet the man who lives at the address listed said he has lived at the residence for two years and doesn't know a Karen Kane.
"I'd like to know who she is," said the man, who didn't want to give his name. "I don't like anybody using my address."
Credibility at stake
Mark Massara, director of coastal programs for the Sierra Club, which opposes building an LNG facility near populated areas, said public comments need to be carefully scrutinized.
"This type of affirmative fraud and misrepresentation certainly undermines any credibility these companies have in providing assurances that these LNG terminals do not threaten public health and safety," Massara said.
Jose Arredondo, a spokesman for Californians for Clean Affordable Safe Energy, a group of 60 organizations that support importing LNG to California, said he was shocked to hear about the e-mails. The group submitted comments into the federal record.
"I really don't know how this could have happened," Arredondo said. "There is legitimate support for (LNG). I hope this isn't somebody playing dirty tricks. ... We've sought to build a real coalition of people who think LNG is needed for California."
Officials from BHP, the Coast Guard and the State Lands Commission said there's no way to trace who posted the comments.
"Who can say?" asked BHP spokeswoman Kathi Hann, reiterating that Cabrillo Port has many supporters. "We don't have any control, nor does the Coast Guard or the State Lands Commission have control over who submits comments there."
"We don't call every single person and verify the comment," Coast Guard Lt. Ken Kusano said.
Comments don't affect decision
The officials said comments specifically for or against Cabrillo Port have no bearing on the agencies' decision whether to grant BHP a deepwater port license. They said the purpose of the public comment period is to provide feedback as to whether the environmental document is accurate and whether it has completely addressed issues such as safety, impacts or project alternatives.
"It's not really intended to be a straw vote from the public on whether or not to support the project," said Paul Thayer, executive officer for the State Lands Commission. He said the fact that some of the letters aren't real "wouldn't change how we approach the EIR."
Thayer and Kusano said there are no plans to conduct an investigation. But Alicia Roessler, staff attorney for the Santa Barbara-based Environmental Defense Council, which opposes Cabrillo Port, disagreed.
"I think it's critical to investigate who did this and for the agencies to get to the bottom of this," Roessler said. She said whether real or not, the comments could still have an impact on the project's fate.
"The governor has a veto role, and the governor is obviously going to be swayed by public opinion," Roessler said.
Although the vast majority of comments presented in clusters of submissions from cabrilloport.ene.com praised the proposed project, seven comments from Ventura County residents presented questions about or outright opposition to the project. Six of those people contacted by The Star verified they had written the statements. One person did not respond to queries.
'It's misrepresentation'
"I think it's criminal because it's misrepresentation and using another person's name. ... It's kind of like padding the input to slant public opinion," said Bill Terry, an Oxnard resident and one of the seven who submitted comments questioning the project.
Tom Nielsen of Oxnard raised questions about Cabrillo Port but still supports it as a way to cut fuel prices and avoid shortages. He said he has no problem expressing his opinions.
"I would never worry about someone being upset with me," he said. "I never would have any hesitancy in saying what I think."
The public record comments from outside Ventura County come from as far away as Denver. The Star used online search engines to try to locate 33 people from outside the county.
About 28 people either didn't respond to phone messages, couldn't be located or refused to answer questions. Five people -- from San Diego, Berkeley and Green River, Utah -- confirmed that they had made comments on LNG. Three other people said they never made comments attributed to them supporting the project.
"I don't even know what liquefied natural gas is," said Jimmy Knauf, a construction management student at California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo. "I definitely didn't say anything like that. ... I'm appalled."
Joel Zdarko, a former Cal Poly student who now lives in the Bay Area, also said he didn't make comments attributed to him.
'I'm a little outraged'
Terry Rosson of Merced said he may have stumbled across the Cabrillo Port public comments Web site while surfing the Internet. But he knows he didn't say, "I was impressed to see that BHPB (BHP Billiton) will be using tankers powered by natural gas, further protecting air quality," as attributed to him on the public record.
"I'm a little outraged -- not surprised -- but outraged," Rosson said. "The Internet's not protected, so you can pull anyone's name off it."
Sara Chieco, a software engineer from San Francisco, said the issue of liquefied natural gas sounds vaguely familiar and can't dismiss the possibility she may have signed off on a pre-written online statement sent by an organization or person opposed to the offshore proposal.
"I definitely didn't say that," she said of comments made more than a year ago and attributed to her about the dangers of importing natural gas. "I definitely didn't write that."
Comments (5) | Trackback (0)
Copyright 2005, Ventura County Star. All Rights Reserved.
Statements on LNG issue appear false
Some comments about gas terminal can't be verified
By Sylvia Moore and Tom Kisken, smoore@VenturaCountyStar.com tkisken@VenturaCountyStar.com
July 10, 2005
Some citizens and environmentalists are perplexed and angered over revelations that a number of written public comments in support of a proposed liquefied natural gas facility off the Oxnard coast may have been faked.
The Star investigated comments regarding BHP Billiton's proposed Cabrillo Port submitted to the U.S. Department of Transportation's Docket Management System Web site. The site serves as a clearinghouse for documents connected to development projects under federal review.
A number of the online comments in support of the facility couldn't be verified, listed fake addresses or used names of people who denied they had written the comments when contacted for verification.
On the site are copies of documents pertaining to BHP's deepwater port application and public comments on the project's draft environmental impact report. The Australia-based BHP wants to build an LNG and regassification facility 21 miles off the Oxnard coast.
The Coast Guard, the federal Maritime Administration and the California State Lands Commission have the authority to approve or reject BHP's request for a deepwater port license. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has the authority to veto an approval. The public comment period for the project's environmental impact report ended Dec. 20.
848 total comments
The public comments came from a diverse group of public agencies, elected officials and ordinary citizens. Of the 848 comments submitted to the Web site, 435 supported Cabrillo Port; 318 either were against the project or expressed concerns about the environmental document, and the rest took no position. Some of the comments were submitted more than once to the site.
Out of the 318 letters expressing concern, 13 were submitted in groups from Dec. 17 to 20 through another Web site, http://www.cabrilloport.ene.com. Out of the 435 letters of support, 259 came from that site during the same time period. The site was set up by the Coast Guard, the Maritime Administration and the State Lands Commission to gather comments.
Twenty-three of the letters submitted through the site came from Ventura County. Four of those letters supported Cabrillo Port and were verified by The Star as legitimate. But 19 letters could not be verified. In some cases, the person who purportedly wrote the e-mail could not be found in a national online search engine or a 2005 cross directory of county addresses and phone numbers.
In other cases, the writer didn't live at the address listed. For example, a man who identified himself as Dean Jordan from Simi Valley praised the proposed project for its potential to fight air pollution and save people money. But Randy Jones, who owns the residence listed as Jordan's, said he's never heard of Jordan.
"I'm shocked that someone would leave my address," said Jones, who has owned his home for 17 years. "If they have a comment about something, I would hope and see no reason why they wouldn't leave their real address."
A woman identified as Karen Kane wrote from Ventura that she couldn't imagine Cabrillo Port having an impact on marine traffic, adding that she supports the project. Yet the man who lives at the address listed said he has lived at the residence for two years and doesn't know a Karen Kane.
"I'd like to know who she is," said the man, who didn't want to give his name. "I don't like anybody using my address."
Credibility at stake
Mark Massara, director of coastal programs for the Sierra Club, which opposes building an LNG facility near populated areas, said public comments need to be carefully scrutinized.
"This type of affirmative fraud and misrepresentation certainly undermines any credibility these companies have in providing assurances that these LNG terminals do not threaten public health and safety," Massara said.
Jose Arredondo, a spokesman for Californians for Clean Affordable Safe Energy, a group of 60 organizations that support importing LNG to California, said he was shocked to hear about the e-mails. The group submitted comments into the federal record.
"I really don't know how this could have happened," Arredondo said. "There is legitimate support for (LNG). I hope this isn't somebody playing dirty tricks. ... We've sought to build a real coalition of people who think LNG is needed for California."
Officials from BHP, the Coast Guard and the State Lands Commission said there's no way to trace who posted the comments.
"Who can say?" asked BHP spokeswoman Kathi Hann, reiterating that Cabrillo Port has many supporters. "We don't have any control, nor does the Coast Guard or the State Lands Commission have control over who submits comments there."
"We don't call every single person and verify the comment," Coast Guard Lt. Ken Kusano said.
Comments don't affect decision
The officials said comments specifically for or against Cabrillo Port have no bearing on the agencies' decision whether to grant BHP a deepwater port license. They said the purpose of the public comment period is to provide feedback as to whether the environmental document is accurate and whether it has completely addressed issues such as safety, impacts or project alternatives.
"It's not really intended to be a straw vote from the public on whether or not to support the project," said Paul Thayer, executive officer for the State Lands Commission. He said the fact that some of the letters aren't real "wouldn't change how we approach the EIR."
Thayer and Kusano said there are no plans to conduct an investigation. But Alicia Roessler, staff attorney for the Santa Barbara-based Environmental Defense Council, which opposes Cabrillo Port, disagreed.
"I think it's critical to investigate who did this and for the agencies to get to the bottom of this," Roessler said. She said whether real or not, the comments could still have an impact on the project's fate.
"The governor has a veto role, and the governor is obviously going to be swayed by public opinion," Roessler said.
Although the vast majority of comments presented in clusters of submissions from cabrilloport.ene.com praised the proposed project, seven comments from Ventura County residents presented questions about or outright opposition to the project. Six of those people contacted by The Star verified they had written the statements. One person did not respond to queries.
'It's misrepresentation'
"I think it's criminal because it's misrepresentation and using another person's name. ... It's kind of like padding the input to slant public opinion," said Bill Terry, an Oxnard resident and one of the seven who submitted comments questioning the project.
Tom Nielsen of Oxnard raised questions about Cabrillo Port but still supports it as a way to cut fuel prices and avoid shortages. He said he has no problem expressing his opinions.
"I would never worry about someone being upset with me," he said. "I never would have any hesitancy in saying what I think."
The public record comments from outside Ventura County come from as far away as Denver. The Star used online search engines to try to locate 33 people from outside the county.
About 28 people either didn't respond to phone messages, couldn't be located or refused to answer questions. Five people -- from San Diego, Berkeley and Green River, Utah -- confirmed that they had made comments on LNG. Three other people said they never made comments attributed to them supporting the project.
"I don't even know what liquefied natural gas is," said Jimmy Knauf, a construction management student at California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo. "I definitely didn't say anything like that. ... I'm appalled."
Joel Zdarko, a former Cal Poly student who now lives in the Bay Area, also said he didn't make comments attributed to him.
'I'm a little outraged'
Terry Rosson of Merced said he may have stumbled across the Cabrillo Port public comments Web site while surfing the Internet. But he knows he didn't say, "I was impressed to see that BHPB (BHP Billiton) will be using tankers powered by natural gas, further protecting air quality," as attributed to him on the public record.
"I'm a little outraged -- not surprised -- but outraged," Rosson said. "The Internet's not protected, so you can pull anyone's name off it."
Sara Chieco, a software engineer from San Francisco, said the issue of liquefied natural gas sounds vaguely familiar and can't dismiss the possibility she may have signed off on a pre-written online statement sent by an organization or person opposed to the offshore proposal.
"I definitely didn't say that," she said of comments made more than a year ago and attributed to her about the dangers of importing natural gas. "I definitely didn't write that."
Comments (5) | Trackback (0)
Copyright 2005, Ventura County Star. All Rights Reserved.
Posted: Wed - July 13, 2005 at 11:29 AM