| # | Name | Comments |
|---|
| 101 | Lee Frank | We need sanity in our leadership. That means environmental, and therefore species, protection. Production and consumption must take a back sear to this essential need. |
| 102 | David Villar | |
| 103 | Deirdre | This is backward motion. Experimental and dangerous. Wind blows onshore, lighting affects marine and bird life, affect on fishing and recreational boating, visual blight. Need has not been established sufficient to warrant the risk. |
| 104 | Brad Parker | |
| 105 | Ros Wolf | |
| 106 | Hedwin Naimark | |
| 107 | Marjorie Engel | |
| 108 | Gerald J. Benecke | |
| 109 | Dubnoff | |
| 110 | Sandy Emberland | We need to decrease our dependence on fossil fuels and invest in renewable, green energy. This project is a BAD idea. |
| 111 | Kim Kaufman | |
| 112 | Eugene D Hubbard | By what stretch of the imagination can we justify importing extremely high priced LNG into this country when we have close to a 200 year supply of much cheaper domestic natural gas? |
| 113 | Lucy Horwitz | |
| 114 | Carol Cetrone | |
| 115 | Barbara Macri-Ortiz | |
| 116 | Alice Lynn, MFT | |
| 117 | Judy Branfman | |
| 118 | Susan Vaill | |
| 119 | M.S. Epstein | |
| 120 | Kevin Ward | With the admitted surplus of natural gas resources within our own shores by no less that T. Boone Pickens and the need to "free ourselves from foreign power" as well as the most important need to breathe air and drink water the idea of importing dangerous LNG can only be the solution for those who are being bought by Exxon...again. Stop the mercenary madness and go solar everywhere. |
| 121 | Bruce Campbell | It is time to downsize the OceanWay LNG proposal to non-existence !!! Shame on those who could care less about global carbon footprint as long as they bilk customers for rate increases due to increased fossil fuel costs and expensive infrastructure. |
| 122 | Sarah Hays | |
| 123 | Melissa Rosen | |
| 124 | Patricia Hurlic | |
| 125 | Rochelle Low | As a residnet of Santa Monica, in no way, do I want this project in my backyard. |
| 126 | Gilbert B. Weingourt | |
| 127 | Bernie Eisenberg | |
| 128 | louise fleming | |
| 129 | William Nuttle | |
| 130 | Gene Burke | |
| 131 | kyle baker | |
| 132 | Linda Sullivan | |
| 133 | Lee | |
| 134 | N.L. Lawrence | |
| 135 | Kirsten Morningstar |
| 136 | julie shannon | |
| 137 | Jacob Watt | |
| 138 | Anonymous | please go away LNG.we do not want you in Ca.as we have more than enough problems. |
| 139 | Kenneth Hundzinski | When I walk on the beach I frequently get tar on my feet or shoes. It takes hours to get it off shoes and having it on my feet is a very big inconvenience. It only comes off with an oil product and putting socks or shoes on ruins the shoes and socks.
I do not know what kind of pollution or contaminants will appear after Santa Monica Bay hosts a LNG terminal, and I do not want to find out. |
| 140 | Desi Doyen | An LNG terminal on the California coast might as well have a big red target painted on it and a sign with "Terrorists Please Bomb Here".
We have abundant energy available from solar, wind, wave energy and geothermal -- please stop wasting taxpayer dollars on short-sighted "projects" that everyone knows will only serve the interests of a greedy few. |
| 141 | Rachel Beinish | |
| 142 | Joannie Parker | |
| 143 | Michael Tarbet | |
| 144 | Martha Madison | |
| 145 | Maria Ramirez | |
| 146 | Anonymous | |
| 147 | Linda Calderon |
| 148 | Kelly Ducharme | |
| 149 | Ernest Canning | |
| 150 | Erica Fernandez |