|
|
Post by sparklingblue on Dec 10, 2006 11:51:22 GMT -5
Some smaller ones with no watermarks -- why bother with larger photos with watermarks over his face? Including a closeup of his sneakers that made me laugh.   Pierce, "I like your new shoes". |
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Dec 28, 2006 2:49:04 GMT -5
Malibu Surfside News
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
LNG: Controversy Dogs Every Step of the Policy Process
• Attempts to Fast-Track Floating Offshore Facility Are Countered by Steadfast Opposition
BY HANS LAETZ
It’s been four years since Californians first heard about Cabrillo Port, the marketing name chosen by an Australian mining conglomerate for its proposed permanent, floating energy terminal off the coast of Malibu. Five government decisions are expected in the first half of 2007 on whether BHP Billiton will be allowed to anchor its liquified natural gas terminal in the Pacific Ocean some 16 miles off Point Dume.
As the decision approaches, the project’s history is important:
Summer, 1999: California is wracked with rolling blackouts and localized electrical shortages. State investigators later win hundreds of millions of dollars from natural gas wholesalers, including Enron and El Paso Energy, for having manipulated the availability of natural gas, driving up electricity and natural gas prices.
September, 2003: BHP Billiton offers to ease a supposed natural gas supply shortage by importing the fuel through a terminal off California. The Federal Register incorrectly locates the LNG terminal as “between the cities of Oxnard and Port Hueneme” but Malibu residents are later shocked to learn the project would be closest to Malibu, visible from oceanview houses west of Malibu Canyon Road.
December, 2003: About 100 people attend the first Cabrillo Port public hearing, where the project’s environmental impact is discussed. Company officials continue to tell reporters the plant will be located off Oxnard, not visible from Malibu.
January, 2004: An LNG explosion in Algeria kills 27 and does $800 million in damage, BHP Billiton officials assure Californians that such an explosion would be impossible at Cabrillo Port.
June, 2004: Australian Prime Minister John Howard lobbies California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to approve Cabrillo Port, said to be worth $5 billion in Australian gas sales to the U.S. Schwarzenegger political consultant Mike Murphy is on the LNG industry payroll for $1 million to lobby for California permits.
November, 2004: State officials say the worst case explosion from a catastrophe at Cabrillo Port would be a 1.6-mile-wide flash fire, opponents question that and ask for more data.
December, 2004: Environmental hearings begin, residents and coastal advocates begin to object to perceived engineering, safety and operational shortcomings.
January, 2005: Federal officials “stop the clock” and tell BHP Billiton they cannot issue a fast-track license because of a large amount of questions as to the project’s operational details.
February, 2005: BHPB is given a “data gap” list of more than 120 substantive questions that the federal government wants answered before the permit can be processed. Company officials refuse to release the list, saying it’s confidential.
May, 2005: Federal geologists warn that the undersea pipeline route chosen for Cabrillo Port is subject to massive undersea debris flows, landslides and 6.5 magnitude earthquakes, and question the pipeline’s safety.
June, 2005: a Malibu newspaper obtains the list of “data gaps” from federal officials, and reports that Coast Guard has major questions about possible ship collisions, public safety, smog generation, water quality and other issues.
June, 2005: an investigative reporter discovers that dozens of people who wrote letters supporting Cabrillo Port are fakes, other letters were signed by real people who, when questioned, said they never heard of the project. BHPB officials deny any connection, opponents call it outright fraud.
July, 2005: a reporter discovers that EPA officials have quietly reversed themselves after two years: Cabrillo Port gets exempted from smog offsets and other tight regulations. EPA officials do not answer why the change was made, and do not reveal it came at the request of the White House after the Australian government and BHP Billiton lobbying.
August, 2005: Federal officials order Cabrillo Port planners to include stinky gas to be injected on board the ship, in case of otherwise-undetectable leaks.
September, 2005: An Australian energy secretary gets an anti-Cabrillo Port message from California Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante, causing the minister to leave Sacramento “in a snit.”
October, 2005: Hurricane Rita rips a floating BHP Billiton natural gas facility off the ocean floor, and sends it 100 miles crashing into the shore of Louisiana. “The facility is designed to withstand the effects of severe hurricanes, so we are not sure why it has gone off location,” a BHPB official says.
March, 2006: Long-awaited, second study of Cabrillo Port concludes it “would result in both short- and long-term adverse impacts” to the coast and its residents that cannot possibly be mitigated.” Impacts that coastal residents would be asked to accept include increased smog levels, the intrusion of a permanent 14-story-high factory ship on Malibu’s coastal horizon, and the extremely remote possibility of a 14-mile-wide flash fire reaching to within seven miles of the city limits.
March, 2006: Mayor pro tem Andy Stern, noting that Malibu is not shy about lawsuits, promises to “dedicate any and all resources” for the coming legal battle “to tie up the Billiton project forever.”
April, 2006: BHP Billiton president Renee Klimszak is booed and cannot complete opening statements as 400 angry people pack Malibu High School for the project’s environmental hearing. “What will Billiton do to compensate me for my ruined million-dollar sunset view?” asks one Point Dume homeowner.
May, 2006: The Environmental Defense Center, backed by a small City of Malibu grant, notes 23 million tons of greenhouse gas per year will be added to the earth’s atmosphere by Cabrillo Port.
July, 2006: Second and third companies propose nearby LNG terminals, both would use substantially greener technology and avoid much of Cabrillo Port’s boilers and smog production.
August, 2006: Nearly 13,000 people send letters or testify before the Environmental Protection Agency to protest the proposed smog permit, which includes the EPA’s earlier flip-flop on the smog offset rules. Lawyers say the smog issue may be the port’s Achilles’ Heel.
August, 2006: A chain of memos from Australia to White House energy office to EPA, resulting in the EPA flip-flop, is uncovered. “Thanks, Amy, to you personally and your team for making this happen” wrote White House advisor Jeffrey Holmstead to regional EPA officials; Holmstead is a former energy industry lobbyist, whose qualifications to be the EPA’s leading smog cop are under Senate investigation.
September, 2006: California Coastal Protection Network screens Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” at Bluffs Park, hundreds attend.
October, 2006: Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, the only person with authority to veto Cabrillo Port, refuses to comment on the issue as he tries to use Malibu as a backdrop for signing his Greenhouse gas bill. Malibu is invisible, smog from a brushfire obscured the view.
October, 2006: Outside media finally pay attention when Halle Berry, Cindy Crawford, Dick Van Dyke, Ted Danson, Jane Seymour, Pierce Brosnan and other local industry heavyweights attend the now-famous paddleout to protest against all five Southern California LNG terminals.
October, 2006: six crew members are killed when a workboat snags a natural gas pipeline in shallow waters off the coast of Louisiana.
November, 2006: Governor’s office issues unusual denial that he has taken any stand on Cabrillo Port. But his wife’s personal lawyer, a longtime Schwarzenegger political ally, takes a $1 million job lobbying for the project.
November, 2006: Ventura smog board members hand Cabrillo Port a possible stunning setback, and say their smog rules do not exempt the floating factory from the strictest levels of smog regulation. Unless federal officials override the local rules, Ventura’s smog czar says it may not be possible for the LNG terminal to be built under those tough terms.
December, 2006: BHP Billiton officials conspired to sell $5 million worth of Australian wheat to Saddam Hussein in 1996, secretly bypassing American trade sanctions against Iraq, in order to secure valuable oil and gas rights, an Aussie inquiry concludes. Opponents note BHPB was dealing with Saddam at the same time its government was telling Malibu residents it is a trustworthy trading partner.
December, 2006: Company attorney BHPB Thomas Wood says the Ventura County smog board acted as “the result of a politically-charged local decision-making process rather than reasoned analysis” and infers that it will sue if the county holds Cabrillo Port to the same smog rules as all other heavy industry in the area.
As of the end of 2006, the final round of hearings by the California State Lands Commission is slated to be held in Southern California in late March. If approved there, the application will likely go before the California Coastal Commission at its mid-April meeting in Santa Barbara.
Also next spring, two federal agencies, the Coast Guard and the Commerce Department, must act on the project’s license, which is presumed to be a done deal by opponents. The EPA will then have to issue its final decision on the controversial smog and water permits, a possible glitch that could require additional public hearings.
And after all that, the governor has final veto power. A decision is possble by July.
CAPTION 1.
INTERNATIONAL ATTENTION—Worldwide media focused a high-intensity spotlight on the growing opposition to the LNG projects in California at the Paddleout Protest in October.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Mar 7, 2007 16:15:34 GMT -5
Malibu Times: New questions raised over EPA's handling of LNG project
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
Pierce Brosnan will protest the LNG port Saturday at the pier. Rep. Henry Waxman says that an EPA official personally intervened in the permitting process for the regasification port proposed for Malibu's coast. Meanwhile, Malibu residents Pierce and Keely Shaye Brosnan plan another large LNG protest for Saturday. By Laura Tate / Associate Publisher / Editor Pressure from a high level official with the Environmental Protection Agency overrode EPA staff opposition to the agency's reversal on the air quality permitting of a proposed liquefied natural gas facility by an Australian energy company for the coast of Malibu, according to a letter issued from the office of Congressman Henry Waxman, chair of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The letter, released Tuesday to the press, addressed to EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson and signed by Waxman, questioned the handling of the oversight committee's request for documentation supporting the federal agency's reversal on its decision to require that BHP Billiton's LNG Cabrillo Port needed to meet the Ventura District's more stringent air quality permitting, which would also require the company to obtain emission offsets. The oversight committee requested that the EPA provide it with its analysis upon which the reversal was based. "However, EPA provided no analysis that justified the reversal of [its] position. Nor does the agency now claim that such an analysis even exists," Waxman wrote in the letter. "In short, while EPA assured the public that its decision was based on sound analysis, EPA has been unable to produce documents to support this claim." Waxman further notes that some documents the EPA provided reveal that Jeff Holmstead, EPA Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, "personally intervened in the decision about the permit." During the time Holmstead was meeting with BHP officials and phoning a regional EPA office, "career [EPA] staff continued to insist that the project should be subject to the Ventura District rules, including the offset requirements." Waxman notes specific dates of phone calls and other correspondence between EPA officials and Holmstead, and regional EPA officials and the federal agency's Office of General Counsel in Washington DC, including an e-mail written by Kara Christenson, senior counsel for Region 9, who opposed the EPA reversal. "We believe offsets are required, but the applicant, BHP, disagrees and has some unusual regulatory interpretations," wrote Christenson in an e-mail to the EPA's Office of General Counsel. "We think the agency should have some OGC input before any significant decisions are made." "Based on the information provided to the Committee, it appears that career officials at the EPA opposed the permit decision reversal; a senior EPA official intervened in the permit decision after meeting with the company seeking the permit; and the analysis that EPA cited to justify reversing the career official's [decision] does not appear to exist," Waxman states in his letter. Waxman also notes that the EPA only provided eight full and five partial documents of 20 that the oversight committee requested to see. He requested that the EPA provide the oversight committee with all the documents mentioned by March 16. "BHP Billiton has known since 2004 that its proposed Cabrillo Port LNG Terminal project was a non-starter under the requirements of the Clean Air Act," stated Susan Jordan, director of the California Coastal Protection Network, in a press release. "BHP's solution was to go behind the public's back and use its political connections to pressure the EPA to reverse course and drop the requirements that every other major new source of pollution would have to comply with. BHP's disingenuous behavior is reprehensible, EPA's reversal is illegal, and nothing short of full compliance with the Clean Air Act is acceptable." As this latest news has come to light, local residents, including Pierce and Keely Shaye Brosnan, are planning another major protest against the LNG port. They will gather Saturday at the Malibu Pier. "Please join Pierce and I, the California Coastal Protection Network, the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Environmental Defense Center, and many others who oppose this dangerous project," Keely Shaye said in a prepared statement. "We stand in solidarity with all coastal communities who are being forced to accept LNG terminals they do not want, and we call upon Governor Schwarzenegger to use his absolute veto power to 'Terminate the Terminal.'"
|
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Mar 10, 2007 23:11:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Mar 10, 2007 23:50:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Mar 11, 2007 1:51:07 GMT -5
Study ranks LNG plant as polluter
Environment: Natural gas terminal would affect air quality, noise levels in Malibu.
Press-Telegram staff reports
03/10/2007
MALIBU - A liquefied natural gas terminal proposed 14 miles offshore between Malibu and Port Hueneme would significantly affect air quality, noise levels, ocean views and marine life, according to published reports.
According to a study released Friday, the $800-million terminal and natural gas-bearing ships going into and out of the terminal would emit about 219 tons of ozone-forming emissions and 35 tons of smoke and soot daily, ranking it as one of the biggest air pollution sources for Ventura County, the Los Angeles Times reported.
The terminal, a 971-foot-long gas-processing vessel connected to the mainland by underwater pipes, could also pose a safety risk, according to the 3,000-page environmental impact report.
The report was prepared by the U.S. Coast Guard, California State Lands Commission and U.S. Maritime Administration.
If another vessel crashed into the terminal at high speed - an event deemed improbable in the study - liquefied natural gas could spill into the ocean beyond a 1,640-foot safety zone.
In a worst-case scenario, an attack could release about 200,000 cubic meters of fuel, unleashing a massive fireball spreading more than seven miles across the water and damaging any recreational
Advertisement
boaters or ships near the Santa Barbara Channel, according to a safety study conducted by the Sandia National Laboratories. Such an explosion is considered only a slight risk and would end 6.6 miles from land, causing no damage to people onshore.
BHP Billiton, one of the largest energy companies in the world, wants to build the terminal, which is expected to process about 800 million cubic feet of natural gas daily for use in homes, factories, and power plants.
Tankers would transport the gas pumped from fields overseas.
L.B. proposal
Last week, in a separate proposal, officials with Esperanza Energy said they will move forward with a plan to build an LNG terminal in 1,100 feet of water near existing oil platforms about 15 miles off the coast of Long Beach.
Esperanza officials hope to locate their proposed Port Esperanza at least 10 miles from the nearest coastline in Huntington Beach to allay fears of an LNG vapor cloud explosion reaching land.
The site would be patrolled around the clock by a private patrol vessel and closely monitored under existing Coast Guard regulations, according to the proposal.
As a precaution, incoming ships would be stopped 10 miles from the site and boarded by special mooring pilots. Coast Guard vessels would also play a role assisting and securing the ship.
The Esperanza proposal is in its early stages and would need approval from a variety of agencies, including the U.S. Maritime Administration, Coast Guard, Environmental Protection Agency, California Public Utilities Commission and California Energy Commission.
The city's Harbor Commission recently voted to end negotiations with Sound Energy Solutions on a proposed onshore LNG terminal in the Port of Long Beach. The move effectively ended progress on the project, which was in the initial environmental review process.
In February, Sound Energy filed a legal motion seeking to force the port to finish its environmental impact report.
Energy source
According to BHP Billiton, its proposed Cabrillo Port would provide a new source for "clean, reliable energy" and help avoid a future energy crisis in the state.
"California produces only 15 percent of the total natural gas we need to operate our businesses, warm our homes, feed our families and get us to work everyday," the company previously noted in a statement on its Web site. "Widely used throughout the world for decades, liquefied natural gas imported through Cabrillo Port is a reliable option to help address future natural gas needs here in Ventura County and California."
The company says that in addition to providing energy, Cabrillo Port "will bring significant economic benefits to the local community - over $25.5 million each year will be infused into the Ventura County economy alone."
To reduce air pollution, the company has agreed to use advanced technology at the floating processing plant, power the tankers and tugboats with clean-burning fuels and offset the remaining emissions by cleaning up other tugboats that push barges up and down the state's coast, according to the paper.
The report also predicts the plant would create noise that could be heard by boaters up to three miles from the terminal and it would be loud enough to disrupt personal conversations within a half-mile of it, the paper reported. The noise could also affect marine life.
The plant could be an eyesore for boaters, whale watchers and visitors to nearby Channel Islands National Park, according to the study, which says the project would "cause a long-term significant adverse change in the visual character of the open ocean."
At night, lights from the operation would be visible from Malibu homes.
Although many of the impacts can be mitigated, the study concludes they "would remain significant and unavoidable."
A series of regulatory hearings to determine the fate of the project begins April 9.
Last October, Malibu residents and surfers participated in a star-studded protest to stop the terminal from being built.
Actor Pierce Brosnan and surfer Laird Hamilton were among those who attended the "Paddle Out Protest" at Surfrider Beach, near Malibu Pier.
|
|
|
|
Post by donnamcg on Mar 11, 2007 11:20:10 GMT -5
Thank you, Ace!!! The family photos are terrific! SOOOOO good to see them all together! (rare these days!)
Donna
|
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Mar 11, 2007 12:20:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Mar 13, 2007 21:18:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Mar 14, 2007 17:19:51 GMT -5
Malibu Times: LNG hearings approach amidst investigationsWednesday, March 14, 2007 Keely Shaye Brosnan, with the support of her husband Pierce and sons, Paris and Dylan, led the charge on Saturday at a press conference on the pier opposing the proposed construction of the BHP Billiton LNG terminal off the coast of Malibu. Photo by Amy Williams / TMT Growing protests of federal intervention to ease BHP LNG Cabrillo Port approval precede four crucial hearings likely to determine its fate. An environmental review states that, in addition to contributing pollution, the port would be an eyesore, and lights from it would be visible to Malibu at night. By Ward Lauren / Special to The Malibu Times The fight against the proposed BHP Billiton liquefied natural gas project for the coast of Malibu is ratcheting upward, as local protests, a Congressional investigation, and a series of state and federal hearings scheduled for early April that will likely determine the fate of the controversial BHP Billiton Cabrillo Port LNG floating storage and regasification terminal take place. Sen. Barbara Boxer and Congresswoman Lois Capps have tossed their hats into the ring with Rep. Henry Waxman in investigating why the Environmental Protection Agency reversed its decision to require strict air quality permits and offsets for the LNG project. And, at a press conference on the Malibu Pier Saturday, state Assemblyman Lloyd Levine (D-Van Nuys), who in 2004 had written a letter in support of the LNG project, announced his complete reversal and henceforth his opposition to the proposal. He was joined by fellow Assemblymembers Pedro Nava (D-Santa Barbara) and Julia Brownley (D-Santa Monica) in aligning with the efforts of citizen protest leaders Keely Shaye and Pierce Brosnan to "Terminate the Terminal." Local Martin Sheen also joined the effort, appearing on Saturday, noting that he is joining the protest late and needs to educate himself on the issues. "This proposed liquefied natural gas terminal is part of the globalized assault taking place on our Earth," Keely Shaye Brosnan said on Saturday. "We cannot let this project be approved!" On March 5, Rep. Henry Waxman, chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, sent a second letter to Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Stephen Johnson requesting an explanation of the agency's reversal of its original interpretation of the air permit rules affecting the LNG port. The letter was prompted by Waxman's dissatisfaction with Johnson's reply to his first request, which failed to supply documents supporting the claim that the EPA's decision was based on sound analysis. It also stated that it appeared that pressure from a high-level EPA official overrode concerns by EPA staff regarding the project. Boxer and Capps sent a letter, dated March 9, to Johnson expressing their concerns about the reversal and requested all EPA records, including internal ones, in connection with communication between BHP agents and the EPA regarding the air permits or requirements for Cabrillo Port and all EPA records regarding communications between the White House and the EPA regarding the project, as well as additional records and information. They asked that all documents be supplied by no later than April 13. In response to a request for comment from the agency, Washington EPA Press Officer Dave Ryan said, "We are reviewing the congressman's letter and will respond in a timely manner. The EPA is committed to protecting public health and the environment by increasing our domestic energy supplies by developing alternative sources of energy like liquid natural gas." BHP Billiton Environmental Advisor Kathi Hann, in a prepared statement by the company, said, "Congressman Waxman's letter to the EPA concerns the process that a government agency followed, not BHP Billiton or Cabrillo Port." The Cabrillo Port terminal would be anchored to a 22.2-mile pipeline, located at a depth of 2,800 feet. Described as being 14 stories tall, and the length of three football fields, the ship would receive natural gas from around the world that has been cooled and compressed; the gas would then be reheated to return it to its natural state, and be piped onshore at Oxnard. Critics say the process is dangerous and accidents could cause catastrophic fireballs, and that the process of regasification, as well as emissions from tankers unloading the LNG, would contribute excessive pollution to the Ventura and Los Angeles regions. The long-awaited Federal Environmental Impact Report, or FEIR, that is to address these concerns and more, was released on Friday. The 3,000-page report of technical information will be key to a series of hearings next month leading to the governor's final decision on the LNG project. The Los Angeles Times reported on Saturday that the FEIR states Cabrillo Port would "emit about 219 tons of ozone-forming emissions and 35 tons of smoke and soot daily-ranking it as one of the biggest air pollution sources for Ventura County." And although BHP Billiton officials say it will offset those emissions, the FEIR states the company fails to show it can reduce emissions significantly. Although the FEIR says any danger risks are low, noise pollution from the port's construction and operations would be high, and could cause harm to marine mammals. At night, lights from the port would be visible in Malibu, and the project could be an eyesore to those visiting the Channel Islands National Park, to boaters and whale watchers and would "cause a long-term significant adverse change in the visual character of the open ocean." The first meeting on the project's FEIR will be the U.S. Coast Guard's final hearing on the subject in Oxnard on April 4. Although the Coast Guard will only accept public comment at this hearing, it is critical because it triggers the 45-day review period mandated by the Deepwater Port Act under which the Cabrillo Port application is being processed. On April 9, the State Lands Commission will conduct a hearing in Oxnard to vote on two aspects of the project: the certification of the FEIR and the lease for the LNG pipeline. Three days later, on April 12, the California Coastal Commission will hold a hearing in Santa Barbara in which it will vote on federal consistency with the state's coastal plan. "This is a very important hearing," said Linda Krop, chief counsel for the Environmental Defense Center. "The Coastal Commission can actually deny the project even though most of it is located in federal waters." The next significant date will be May 19 when the clock runs out on the 45-day review period. "The governor must veto the project or it will be deemed approved even if the SLC and CCC vote against it," said Susan Jordan, director of the California Coastal Protection Network, the leading environmental group opposing the project. Assemblyman Levine's opposition is an important addition to her group's efforts to prevent approval of the LNG terminal, Jordan said. In his role as chairman of the State Assembly Utilities and Commerce Committee he has substantial influence and input on energy policy in California. The reason he changed his position, Levine said, was that "BHP Billiton assured me that their LNG project was clean and would comply with all of California's strictest environmental laws. This statement turned out to be false and I am now strongly convinced that the project will pollute the environment, threaten the health and safety of residents, violate the Clean Air Act, and place a needless and dangerous facility off our shores." Levine came to this conclusion, in part, because of some of the same unexplained EPA decisions that prompted Rep. Waxman to send his second letter to the agency administrator. "What Rep. Waxman has confirmed is that EPA had no valid justification for reversing its position," said EDC's Krop. "The decision was based on pressure from Bush appointees in the EPA."
|
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Mar 15, 2007 1:20:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by sparklingblue on Mar 15, 2007 7:17:10 GMT -5
This sounds to me like they think by adding the word "natural" to liquified gas they can convince people this isn't harmful to the environment.
All that talk about offsetting emission is crap as well because trying not to produce these emissions in the first place is the only reasonable thing to do.
PS: The photos are lovely! I like the colours.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Mar 15, 2007 11:40:11 GMT -5
I downloaded it from Youtube it's an flv file and plays for me. It's 23mb . Hope this works for everyone else. Malibu LNG Protest 031007 www.sendspace.com/file/iky9nn |
|
|
|
Post by sparadra on Mar 15, 2007 12:48:31 GMT -5
Hope this works for everyone else. Unfortunately, it doesn't work for me. I have a "forbidden" message. Sparadra |
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Mar 15, 2007 12:53:06 GMT -5
Hope this works for everyone else. Unfortunately, it doesn't work for me. I have a "forbidden" message. Sparadra Strange. When downloading or playing it? Ace |
|
|
|
Post by sparadra on Mar 15, 2007 15:26:17 GMT -5
It works now !! Thanks Ace !
Sparadra
|
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Mar 20, 2007 12:13:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by sparklingblue on Mar 20, 2007 18:06:36 GMT -5
Is there anything significant in these that is missing in the other big file? (Trying to save download time here.  ) |
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Mar 20, 2007 18:17:46 GMT -5
I don't know, I haven't downloaded them yet for the same reason.  The first one shows a picture of Keely speaking so that looks to be the segment of her speech if that helps. |
|
|
|
Post by sparklingblue on Mar 20, 2007 19:17:57 GMT -5
Let's hope people with larger bandwith than we have will report.  |
|
)
