Keep Oregon LNG-Free!
- Oregon landowners should remain free to sell their property when they choose rather than having their property taken by private, out-of-state energy developers.
- Oregon landowners should remain free to maintain fair market value for their property rather than losing value due to pipeline developments running on or near their property.
- Oregon?s family farmers and forest owners should remain free to manage their property for their choice of agricultural and/or forest products rather than be restricted to what can & can?t be grown on land surrounding permanent pipeline easements.
- Oregonians should remain free to develop our own energy resource potentials rather than becoming addicted to yet another foreign energy source.
- Oregonians should remain free to trade with neighboring states on our terms rather than being forced into becoming California?s ?energy delivery device.?
- Oregonians should remain free to manage our forests in a way that will reduce the threat of wildfires rather than be forced to accept an increased risk of wildfires due to explosive, flammable materials being piped through already fire-prone forests.
- Oregonians should remain free to protect sensitive wildlife habitats rather than be forced to accept further environmental degradation and increased fragmentation of our forests.
Please join the broad spectrum of citizens ? from farm & timber families to environmental organizations ? who are standing together and saying that the state of Oregon should remain LNG-Free.
-Oregon doesn't need this gas. Thirteen-fourteenths of it is destined for California.
-California (and even Tijuana!!) turned down this "opportunity" due to safety and environmental concerns.
-The Columbia River has the greatest outflow of any American river, is a very important river for shipping, and is a major salmon fishery and spawning route. I can't think of a worse location for this idiocy anywhere in the U.S.
-What about tidal waves?
-Having these supertankers crossing the Columbia Bar during a winter storm would be impossible, and having them line up waiting for it to pass would cause many problems for other commercial river traffic, since they would have priority.
-Leave it to a Texas company to think putting two storage tank bombs in the Columbia River for terrorist targets is a good idea. Can you imagine the explosive power contained in these tanks if the 36-inch pipeline has a blast radius of 750 feet? And the gas in the tanks expands by a factor of 16 before entering the pipe.
-The destruction caused by a 100-200 foot clearcut for pipeline construction through hundreds of miles of farmland and forests, under hundreds of rivers and streams, is hard to imagine, and even harder to accept. These areas will never be "made whole" again and the private property will be condemned and taken by force from the owners using imminent domain laws.
-This gas is going to cause even more dependency on foreign fuels than the US has today. Most of the sources of the gas are nations that are unfriendly to the interests of the US.
This is a huge price for Oregon and Oregonians to pay for a resource that we don't need and don't want.
Dave and Linda McKeel
The LNG terminals and pipeline are foolish for many reasons. It starts with importing the gas from unstable countries, which will raise the cost and cause the USA to have "strategic interests" in those countries. The amount of energy it takes to super cool and keep the gas cool while bringing it across the Pacific ocean in tankers is significant. This fuel will will not end our dependency on fossil fuels which are destroying the environment humans and most other species need to exist. We must face the real problems of overpopulation and over-consumption. Crossing the Columbia River Bar is a very bad idea, but I want to get to a point I have not hear addressed and that is the "venting stations" along the pipeline that periodically are used to release excessive pressure build up of this ODORLESS gas into our forest and farmlands. This is not about jobs, it is about what kind of world we want to live in. No terminals on the Columbia.
I sure am glad that you folks don't speak for all of us - we have a state that will be short millions of dollars in the general fund and an unemployment rate that appears to be on the rise. A LNG pipeline is no big deal and will create jobs as well as money to continue running this Socialist state - so what is the rub? Oh yea, I forgot the mentality of "Not In My Backyard" that seems to permeate so many folks in this state. I am a Native Oregonian and a minority in this state so I guess you Californian's win.
I'll bet 5 bucks farmerziffel has not and will not read the submissions, but I'll write one anyway. Re jobs: The LNG and pipeline people have construction crews that travel from state to state to build these projects.
Natives usually care what happens to their place. I am, and I do. Farmerziffel says he is, but he doesn't. He seems to think money is a fair trade, but we won't be able to buy back what will be lost.
Wrong - union labor and it is folks like you that retard the necessary growth that will keep this state ahead of the rest.
Oh yea, I did listen to the radio and the fact that my post was brought up to the "Guru" at FERC and his reply leads me to believe that this whole thing will go through with or without people that oppose it because of the political process. Hey, like the man said, let the Californian's pay for this and tax them in order to fill our coffers. There are people on this thread that are a lot smarter than most that agree that these projects are a good thing and if we don't climb on board, we will be left in the proverbial dust...
cassidy2 says "Re jobs: The LNG and pipeline people have construction crews that travel from state to state to build these projects."
Wrong - You must have missed the news about Bradwood Landing and a labor agreement with just about ALL of the labor unions in OR & WA. Local labor will be used to build that facility.
And as far as jobs once its built, most of them will be filled with local people trained at the the College in Astoria. Being a plant operator isn't rocket science, it just needs specialized training.
I am glad that Gov Kulungoski has finally spoken up about this issue and asked the FERC to assess need. As someone who has gotten notices from two separate companies who would like to build their pipelines through my property is is hard to NOT be a Not-In-My-Backyarder! Although I requested copies of the environmental impact statements from FERC when I submitted comments on these projects; I have yet to receive anything. I have not even gotten information about where on my property the private companies intend to place the pipelines.
It scares me that a private for profit company can build these pipelines and use eminent domain to obtain the land they need. The process thus far seems to have taken very little consideration of local and state input. If this project is needed for public good; should this not be a public venture?
As for the jobs that would come? Probably very few lasting local jobs; those that would build the pipeline would come and then go. What about our farmers and their jobs? What about the winery my husband works in that would lose a large portion of their planted grapes and for sure jobs would follow. (In the past the vineyard workers ruptured a large irrigation pipe that was underground in the vineyard. This pipe is deeper than the proposed gas pipeline! The land would not be workable.)
There are numerous safety concerns as well! Putting a 3and 1/2foot diameter pipe through a valley that is known for both landslides and flooding seems foolish. There is also a very limited fire response in this rural area; should there be an expolsion the local fire cheif stated it would have to burn until it could be shut down! When your house is the blast zone;you think about such things.
Regardless of whether this is in your backyard or not I think everyone should think about how this process is proceeding as if citizens do not matter; and what it means to let a private for profit company come into a local community and dictate land use for an unproven "greater good".
The issue of safety has been raised regarding LNG ships and the
possibility of an accident or terrorist attack causing a catastrophe:
the LNG tanks on board breach, spill and release a travelling cloud of
gas that can catch fire as much as 3 to 5 miles or more away from the
ship. The exact exposure zone in terms of how many miles away could be
considered safe was not determined in the Sandia Labs report. The
Sandia Labs said that the industry and/or government should complete a
physical test of a ship on water, loaded with a certain amount of LNG,
which is breached to observe the cascading effects and calculate the
resulting exposure zone. The industry and the regulating government
agency have never done such a test, which would put to rest that safety
issue. WHY? Are they afraid of collecting this data that might broaden
the exposure zone and perhaps put a stop to certain projects like
Bradwood, which is sited so close to human habitation and relies on LNG
ships passing close to shore at Astoria, the Astoria bridge, etc. Let's
test it and end that debate and move on.
(page 69-of the Sandia Report on LNG Spills)
"Modeling and assessing the impacts of potentially large LNG spills over water is a challenge
that would benefit from additional, large-scale experiments to validate analysis techniques
and approaches. These efforts would help reduce the uncertainty and improve the accuracy
in assessing the impact and associated consequences of large LNG spills over water.
Additional testing might best be conducted as part of a joint public/private effort with
industry and government agencies to ensure widespread acceptance and support."
The solution for our 21st century energy needs will be found not so much in our choice of ?energy solutions? but rather in our ability to drastically reduce our energy consumption. It has been estimated that for every hour of energy consumed per person in the US it takes approximately 75 man-hours of labor to produce it.
Date February 19, 2008
RE: LNG/Pipeline Conversation.
Thank you for devoting your February 20th program to the LNG issue. It is complex. It is relevant and it is timely. Instead of writing sound bites for you to use, I have chosen to address an overlying context. Within my comments I hope you find a sentence or two that might be relevant to your discussion. Also I have attached a list of the named rivers and streams that the Palomar pipeline alone will cross?14 of them in the Mt. Hood National Forest including a wet-stream crossing of the Wild and Scenic Clackamas River. I look forward to hearing your show.
Simply put the LNG/No LNG issue is a classic example of the meeting of conflicting paradigms: the pre-21st century ?Human Entitlement? paradigm vs. the 21st Century ?Sustainability? paradigm.
On the one hand we have the ?Human Entitlement? paradigm that has been guiding our choices as a civilization since the Industrial Revolution and, some might argue, well before that. The Human Entitlement paradigm relates to/sees the planet and her living systems as ours to use. We can own her, subdivide her, fight over her, use her resources for our personal and societal gain, use her forests, animals, oceans, rivers and mineral resources as long as we can find them to use. The most successful amongst the industrial (Human Entitlement) nations, were those who used these resources bigger, better, faster, etc. Those who controlled the most resources (and that included money), for the most part, were considered the most successful.
With the advent of the 21st century, came the groundswell of human awareness that realized the planet and her resources as irreplaceable; who view the planet and her vast eco-systems as our life-support system, and, who ultimately have come to value the planet and her resources for more than just their economic benefit. The 21st century ?Sustainability? paradigm recognizes first and foremost the impact our dollar-driven/energy-consuming choices have on our life support system and the new paradigm highly values the welfare of our environment and our communities in making consumption and financial decisions. From this paradigm comes our quest for and commitment to clean, renewable energy sources and infrastructure.
In addition, the dynamics around the LNG/pipeline controversy pits multi-national for-profit corporations (with the aid and blessings of the Federal Government under the authority of FERC) against individual private property owners and the national, state and local public lands in the State of Oregon. Those impacted by the Palomar pipeline alone include hundreds of private property owners not to mention all of the named and unnamed rivers, creeks, streams and wetlands running over 200 miles from the Columbia River, down the Willamette Valley, through farmland, vineyards, forests, east through Molalla and its private farm and forest land, continuing on through 35 miles of The Mt. Hood National Forest, either through or beside the Warm Springs Indian Reservation, over, under or through the Deschutes River to come to it?s final meeting place with the Trans Canada Pipeline near Maupin in Eastern Oregon.
The proposed terminals and pipelines, if built, will shred the fabric of our private farm and forest lands and slice through our waterways and sensitive riparian areas and forests as though they were mincemeat - theirs ?for the taking,? literally.
For what? For whose profit? At what cost? Why now, when we are firmly committed to researching and developing infrastructures of sustainable, renewable energy sources, would we allow private, for-profit corporations aided and abetted by the Federal government to dismantle our state and ?take? property from our private citizens, in order to service further dependency on foreign fossil fuels, coming across vast seas, from mostly unfriendly countries?
And don?t forget that in addition to the hundreds of miles of proposed utility easements that will cut 100+? wide swaths through our state (construction easements), FERC is concurrently in the process of approving 3500? wide multi-modal Energy Corridors running through the public lands of Oregon (a 35 mile long Energy Corridor is proposed for the Mt. Hood National Forest along the same route as the proposed Palomar Pipeline). In some areas, Energy Corridors are proposed to be 26,000feet (as in 5+ miles) wide. The huge size of these corridors defies logic. As we move into the era of declining oil and other fossil fuels, common sense says that smaller, local and renewable energy sources are going to be our best bet for a workable future.
Our Governor is correct in asking the hard questions and demanding that FERC insists the proposed LNG facilities and pipelines meet the environmental and legal requirements for citing such facilities in our state. It is totally appropriate that this conversation be broadcast across the airwaves of public radio. Thank you for bringing the complexities and vastness of this issue to the table. Thank you for allowing our voices to be heard.
I would like to reply to "farmerziffel". My wife and I wrote an earlier post to this site.
First - we may not speak for everyone, but I bet we speak for most of those who have become aware of this project and its consequences.
Second - Most employment resulting from this project will be short term and/or low-pay. Most construction phase employment will be out of state contractors. High paying technical operation jobs will be filled by experienced out of state gas company employees who want to relocate to the state they are helping screw up. Maybe 30 residual permanent jobs will be offered to locals - probably paying $10-15 / hr.
Third - There are a lot of us against this idea who don't have the pipeline running through our property, but are worried about even more damage being done to this beautiful state than has been done since we've been "discovered".
Fourth - We are also native Oregonians - since 1945 and 1946, and can't understand how another native Oregonian could feel like you do - you must have Californian inclinations.
Linda - everything you say here is totally wrong: "Second - Most employment resulting from this project will be short term and/or low-pay. Most construction phase employment will be out of state contractors. High paying technical operation jobs will be filled by experienced out of state gas company employees who want to relocate to the state they are helping screw up. Maybe 30 residual permanent jobs will be offered to locals - probably paying $10-15 / hr."
Local Labor unions will be used to build the facility. Once built, the average wage of the 60-65 direct workers will be $60K a year - I don't consider that low pay. And local people will be recruited to be trained for those jobs.
SOME local union members may "be used to build the facility" Astorian, and 60K a year is indeed a decent salary for a miniscule percentage of the people here in the lower Columbia Basin who are looking for work. And will be looking for work when the river jams up! These LNG construction jobs are specialty jobs to a very great degree and you know what? In many parts of Cowlitz and Clatsop counties some pretty big construction companies can't find enough employees who have experience in welding, engineering, electrical wiring etc to fill their needs. I know because one of my family members is a forman for one of those companies.Don't tell me this project will find a great many more that won't be imports, even if they are union . Perhaps you work for NorthernStar, and if so you are doing your job by defending it but please don't pass out too many rose colored glasses.
Its getting late so unfortunately I won't read through the other comments, but I want to add my thoughts.
Clearly there is a demand for natural gas in the state of Oregon. We use it to heat our water and our house (sometimes). I don't know where this gas comes from, but I'm pretty sure its not from Oregon. According to some experts such as Julian Darley, author of High Noon for Natural Gas, production is either peaking now, or will be in the nearer term future, just as with crude oil. I don't think you need a degree in economics to see that the future holds increased volatility and insecurity for global trade in fossil fuels. Not to mention resource wars.
Importing gas from around the globe is the wrong decision for the long term. What few jobs that are created will disappear in a few decades.
I thought the idea was to become energy independent. Why aren't we talking about producing natural gas from the resources we have here and exporting it? That will create long term economic security and sustainability. There are companies like Coskata making fuel ethanol from agricultural and even municipal waste. I'm confident that its possible to do something similar to produce natural gas.
Just the other day I went out in the yard and tipped over a bucket full of water and old weeds that had apparently gone anoxic, and the smell was powerful indeed. The smell of methane gas.
I shouldn't have to mention the carbon benefits of using renewable resources as opposed to fossil ones, in terms of climate change.
We should be focused on becoming a net producer of gas, not an importer and certainly not a conduit for California.
To Dave McKeel - Sir, I have no Califonia inclinations and I do appreciate and respect your post. It strikes me funny that are so many posts after mine and that makes for a most interesting discussion. I believe in brevity unlike some folks on this thread and I really appreciate your opining. Let's face it, we will get the LNG Pipeline whether we like it or not - having retired from the government I will tell you that money talks and shit walks and that is what you are up against. Uncle Ted can opine all he wants, but the pipeline will come to fruition no matter what. I agree that the jobs will be fleeting and the pay will be high and then low, but you and I cannot fight the inevitable -just wait...
It's so sad that you feel that people have no say in our democracy. No wonder you retired from the government. That part of your post is not so sad.
Just to shake things up I'd like to bring a small fact to light: We don't actually live, participate, or have a say in a "democracy" b/c there is little to no Democracy involved in US politics. In a democratic govt everybody has a say and the majority rules...in the US we have a Representative govt where only select few have any say in what goes on. True, we do have the oppurtunity to 'elect' those representatives, but they aren't forced to do what the majority actually wants. They can choose to 'represent' us as they see fit...or say, as lobbiest's see fit. My point is, once the proposal bids for the LNG terminals were submitted to FERC the ball is taken out of our court so to speak. At that point, they technically have the final say on whether or not these sites will actually fabricate...not the county commissioners or the Port members that foolishly pushed the proposals through in the first place...not even the Governer, who really didn't make his two-faced standpoint until he knew it was actually too late to do anything. All we can be is a thorn in either FERC or LNG's side and maybe they'll decide to drop it...but the decisions are tragically out of our hands for the most part.
Well, "wakerider" pretty much said it all and if you think that you/we are in control of the "Democratic" process you live in the wrong state. If you are not on board, you are drowning and the best thing that has happened to this state in along time is the future of LNG. I got it, go to the Coast Guard and cry the blues to them because they can reverse the inevitable, but we can't...
Like it or not, the next two decades will be defined by global warming and peak oil.
Global warming is the largest problem our civilization has faced. It will require massive retooling of our energy infrastructure away from all fossil fuels. In response, the Oregon legislature has taken the right moves, by requiring renewable portfolio standards and creating various tax incentives for individuals and businesses to invest in renewables.
But peak oil will be the urgent problem within 5 to 10 years. Peak oil is the phenomenon that the output of all oil fields peak, that US oil production in total peaked in 1970 (exactly as engineers predicted), and that world oil production has either peaked in 2006 or will peak before 2012. After peaking, oilfield outputs decline at 3% to 8% per year. The reason oil is at $100 today is that more and more oilfields are beyond their peaks, not because OPEC won?t open the spigot! And $100 oil is a big contributor to the current macroeconomic slowdown.
So we can merrily assume that we won?t need LNG, but the supply facts are 1) Big Oil doesn?t want you to know are that our oil addiction is in for some heavy withdrawal problems, 2) North America is becoming tapped out for gas like we did with oil, 3) there isn?t enough farm land area to supply enough biofuels to make a significant difference, 4) solar power is the only source with enough capacity to fuel the planet long-term, and 5) retooling our energy infrastructure will require decades, simply because we buy vehicles and houses that last for 10-30 years.
Personally, I am retooling my house to reach net-zero energy. But as an engineer and a businessman, I support more options to get our economy through the next 20 years. Keep in mind that natural gas is far better than coal or oil for GHG emissions. And if we end up sending it all to California, then let?s tax Californians and use it to retool Oregon with renewables.
Why be a doormat for California? Oregon has little to gain by opening her rivers and ports to LNG. She has everything to lose: LNG threatens clean wildlife habitat, thriving recreational and commercial uses of her waters, safety for citizens and existing industries, seizure through eminent domain of private lands, and misallocation of precious resources that could be used for R & D of alternative forms of energy. The number of jobs for local people is low, and temporary. The effects are potentially devastating and forever. We have ONE Columbia River. It serves us all, but will serve no one without good stewardship.
While spokesmen for NW Natural Gas would have us believe we?ll be in the dark if we don?t find more supplies, can they explain why we ship LNG from Alaska to Japan? LNG is a get-rich-scheme for out-of-state corporations. We need to pull the plug, pull up our socks and show the world what can happen with a commitment to energy conservation, to clean energy sources, and an end to dependence on fossil fuels. Oregon is not a doormat. Oregonians need to educate themselves on this issue.
You are thousands of times more likely to die on the freeway driving your biodiesel car than you are to be killed by an LNG terminal explosion. We have far more natural gas than we do oil in the U.S., it's relatively clean to use and there are only so many ways to move it around.
I think a lot of the resistance to LNG is actually founded on aesthetics and a desire to have Oregon kept the way it looks rather than on science and the merits of having terminals or not.
There are 96,000 sq. miles of land in Oregon. These terminals involve some acreage at a few sites.
You have to make decisions based on hard data rather than emotions sometimes, and I'm just not buying the arguments being made here.
The blast zone for the proposed pipelines will involve approximately 33,000 acres in Oregon. I consider that amount of land large enough to warrant a closer look at whether we need this LNG. These are not your ordinary 8" or 16" NG pipelines. These are 3 feet in diameter. If you want these pipelines, consider inviting them to run through your wells and septic systems, near your schools, through your streams. Have you considered how many people will have to be laid off because of the small organic farms, wineries, and nurseries that will be compromised. Our neighbor who owns approximately 100 acres in nursery land explains that he will have to close down his nursery and lay off six full-time and 10 part-time workers.
LNG pipes do not explode their entire length like a street sewer full of gasoline fumes. Gas escapes at the point of ignition only which can make for a very hot and impressive flame but nothing else.
I'm sorry, but that kind of argument and those kinds of figures will do nothing to stop LNG. Your neighbor has to band together with others and show that the cost outweighs the benefits overall.
I'm just playing devil's advocate here. These things have been stopped elsewhere but not by people waving banners and saying they don't want it. If you're going to talk about pipe explosions you have to cite historical cases, describe the pipes used and show similarities to the proposed system. If you can't focus on showing a judge that the other sides' experts might be wrong you're wasting your time because these guys play hardball.
Try this one on for size, happened last week.
John. Aesthetics? Have you actually seen the location that is being suggested for this terminal? They may have quite a few acres there but the area where the storage units will be built is acres of dredge spoils. They say they will use vibrofloation to pound girders into the underlayment. John, the underlament is sandstone! This terminal will be located in an area which slips and slids. Right now on one side of Bradwood parts of Astoria are trying to slide down the hill. just some few miles on the other side of Bradwood highway 30 was blocked for weeks and people lost their homes due to slides. And john, this geology is not different block by block.. it is the same cobbled up, rained on, percolated sandstone,cobbles, clay, and layers of rotton basalt all up and down the lower Columbia. The Bradwood location has also experienced land slides. No, it isn't Asthetics John. it is just common sense. Please don't fool your self into thinking that this is all right brain thinking . You would be wrong.
On Monday, OPB news reported that Popular Science magazine had given Portland the title ?America?s greenest city.? Commissioner Dan Saltzman pointed out the advantage that a green reputation has for our economic future: "I think it's an important economic development tool for attracting more businesses and encouraging small businesses to expand here as well. I mean they come here for livability and they stay here for livability and this meshes well with that reputation."
For the last few years, outside investors have been proposing LNG terminals and tankers which will have horrible impacts on Columbia River salmon, dredge a turning basin in the neighborhood of Bradwood Landing which will likely dredge up dioxins, eliminate NOAA Fisheries? best site for assessing Columbia salmon runs, suck up billions of gallons of water for ballast, and impose 300 foot towers on a rural landscape.
Construction of the associated pipelines will cut a 200+ mile, 150? wide swath through public and private forest land, farm land, and vineyards. Each of the proposed pipelines will involve scores of stream and river crossings. The pipeline rights-of-way will be permanent clearcuts, with no replanting of trees, berries, or grapes; and with long-term degradation of soil structure and fertility on farm land. If the supine FERC approves these pipelines, the outside energy speculators can grab the rights-of-way through eminent domain, and destroy working landscape sustained by the devotion, care, and hard work of farmers, wine gowers, and foresters.
There has been no independent assessment of the true costs, the need, and the actual benefit of importing this fossil fuel from overseas. There has only been a faith-based assertion by the investors and their industry associations that the ?market? will determine if the projects will be needed and built. As if our landscape is not cluttered with massive investments that were only used of a few years, and some (remember PAMCO?) not at all
Suppose that we did determine that, if present trends in energy use and the pace of development of renewable energy in our region continued, there would indeed be a period of some years in which we would not have enough energy in Oregon or the West.
Wouldn?t we take all possible action to change those trends rather than further endangering our Columbia River salmon? Wouldn?t we invest in insulating our buildings more effectively rather than inflict a permanent clear-cut through Northwest Oregon?s public and private forests? Wouldn?t we accelerate the pace of wind, solar, geothermal, and ocean energy development rather than assume the risk of a catastrophic pipeline explosion and fire in one of the many communities through which these pipelines will pass?
If we allow LNG?s environmental damage (or if it is forced on us), what will that do the green reputation which is the key to our future regional competitive advantage?
The governor has done the right thing in insisting that FERC cease its review and hearings until the need for LNG is rigorously established.
Energy colony for the Californias.
A reasonable discussion about the value of a LNG port to diversify Oregon's fuel sources could be had if (an only if) the facility were about 1/10 the capacity of the proposed sites, and most of the project was focused on expanding local gas distribution lines to homes and business currently without natural gas. In this rational scenario, LNG would compete with Canadian gas, wind, coal, nuclear, etc on a total life cycle cost including environmental costs. This would be in the state's interest.
The current LNG projects are so far removed from this that they are clearly is designed to take advantage of Oregonians, not help them. There is no focus on expanding Oregon distribution of natural gas so it can substitute for dirtier energy. There is resistance to adding odor markers for safety. There is every effort to speed up the review and block citizen input.
Since California has blocked all proposed LNG terminals, the projects are clearly designed to deliver about 20X as much as Oregon needs, deliver it to trunk pipelines heading south, and make no efforts to distribute instate. Oregon then picks up the environmental cost so foreign gas can be sold to Californians. Groovy.
Why would Oregon politicians like the Guv give it a free pass? Jobs. Nothing like an economic sugar high to give the economy and tax collections a boost, especially in the current downturn. Sadly, enough citizens have to realize why this is a bad deal for us (we get the costs, CA get the benefits) and raise some hell with the Governor's office so Salem can count where the votes are.
- What's the emergency response plan for this pipeline? I'm told it's at 1000psi, unscented, and has a blast radius of 700 feet. That's a 1400' diameter. And that's just the pipe rupturing from pressure. After that, there's the fact that the gas will ignite as soon as it finds an ignition source. The gas will expand 1000 times it volume as it converts from liquid to gas once it's freed.
- This pipeline is going through the coastal range at a depth of approximately 3 feet in places. What happens in a landslide/mudslide? Is it going to handle that kind of external pressure? The land is also seismically active.
- Is this pipeline going to be compatible with the logging activities that go on in these rural areas?
- What is the terrorist threat? And casual mischief? Will the pipeline survive being struck by a stray bullet from hunters or someone just blowing off steam taking pot-shots at something?
So what are the potential impacts on property values attendant with the introduction of LNG facilities? What do we know about the people who will be administering these facilities? Remember -- we live in the state whose people decided that the government had to pay when its actions reduced someone's property values. Should we not have the same stipulation for a private company?
Here is an issue that seems to have united the opposing sides of the Measure 49 campaign.
1000 Friends of Oregon and Oregonians in Action both oppose Liquefied Natural Gas in Oregon. (reference: Forest Grove News Times, http://www.fgnewstimes.com/news/story.php?story_id=119567596811253900)
I think we should take a very close look at the impacts on farmers and farm land when gas companies propose hundreds of miles of pipelines across their farms. Pipelines buried under Oregon farms take valuable agricultural land out of production. Considering the contribution that agriculture makes to Oregon's economy, LNG poses a serious risk to our economy and should be stopped.
I would hope that as Oregonians, we would take the lead in developing alternative fuel sources that are economically viable rather than putting resources into more fossil fuel incarnations that have a finite supply and contribute to more global distress. We need to look for long term solutions not short term fixes that do nothing for the stability of Oregon's economy.
Would someone please help Emily with correct pronunciation of our governor's name? It's not GOWWWWWSKI, it's gah-ski. I look forward to hearing the butchering of Willamette next.
Thank you, I have been corrected! Many times! I blame my childhood. Apparently it was ingrained in my brain incorrectly back when I was a kid and he was in the Oregon legislature. I am working on it, because of course I'm completely embarrassed.
A side point, I'm having some trouble with certain words beginning with S. After living in Germany some Sch synapse is triggered even when no c or h is anywhere in sight. So don't hold your breath for a Willamettee. But watch out for Schalem!
how do we stop this?
Interesting to hear Joe Desmond say his company, NorthernStar, has committed to comply with all local regulations. I was just at the Cowlitz County Commissioners' meeting yesterday, where I was told they had received a letter from NorthernStar saying they would NOT be applying for permits necessary to construct a pipeline because FERC would just overrule the county.
The philosophy of FERC, and the current administration, is to "let the market decide." What's wrong with that? Allowing multiple projects to take millions of acres of private farm and forest land for these projects amounts to a multibillion dollar subsidy to energy speculators--Bush and Cheney's boys--involuntarily taken from Oregon citizens. Hundreds of family farms, some of them third- and fourth-generation farms, will be destroyed, as will about one million trees per pipeline (including 3000 from the land that we have spent the last 30 years reforesting). The companies do not pay the true costs--we do.
The arguements that make Oregon into California's "energy delivery service" ignore what occurs throughgout our nation. California is our food delivery service, do we complain about that. Bonneville Power Administration benefits the Northwest with low power cost and supplies power to California. Should we cut California off.
The speaker on the radio that said "having tankers in the river churns it up and destroys salmon via propellers and ballast filling requirements" is very uninformed. Compare those activites to volume of other existing ship traffic, dredging activities and the dams.
The Dept. of Energy's Energy Infrastructure's Adminstration's, "Short-Term Energy Outlook", published Feb. 12, 2008 projects that natural gas use in the Western states will go from a 6% increase in 2007 to a 0.9% for 2008. Graphs on this report reveal an increase in price from $6 per thousand cubic feet to $16 per thousand cubic feet. LNG companies claim that LNG will lower the price, yet the DOE EIA Report projects a rise of 3.8% in price for 2008.
Another issue is the FERC's classification of new items filed by these private energy investors. Following public awareness programs, suddenly the FERC began classifying most LNG company filings as Critical Energy Infrastructure Documents that make them no longer available. There seems to be an air of secrecy within the FERC, and one can never believe Northern Star or Oregon LNG.
No matter how you look at the potential for safety risks, there are known risks to putting a 40 mile clearcut across Mt. Hood National Forest. The proposed pipeline for transporting LNG would cross some of our most important watersheds and the major river and stream systems Oregonians depend on for drinking water. Due to a long history of mismanagement and roadbuilding, that the Forest Service is now trying to rectify, we have unstable slopes that cause major erosion every year. The forests that this pipeline will cut down are some of the most important standing forests in Mt. Hood National Forest. Without them and considering an additional road system required for such a project, this pipeline is clearly a totally inappropriate and risky use of our public lands.
Imported LNG would lock us into dependence on foreign fossil fuel. LNG would be both an expensive and unstable source of energy--even more so than oil. Right now in the global market for LNG, Europe, China and Japan are paying more than twice the price of domestic natural gas. The four biggest sources are Russia, Iran, Qatar and Algeria, and these four countries are currently setting up a natural gas cartel like OPEC. Right now Russia uses its dominant place as a supplier to Europe to hold them hostage. Do we really want to be dependent on these countries for energy?
I am the Chair of the Molalla Community Planning Organization. Many farmers and small landowners in our region are impacted by the Palomar pipeline proposal. The process of notifying and informing landowners and stakeholders has been very poor. Meetings have been held with a week or less notice, impacted landowners have learned that the pipeline would cross their land in the newspaper, and proponents and FERC have not given out accurate inormation about the route.
This project should follow the same process as any other land use proposals do in Oregon. It is essential to complete a needs analysis to show that Oregon should suffer the consequences of this pipeline project. The CPO believes that we need to support renewable sources of energy, not the importation of fossil fuels from overseas.
What are all these people thinking? There are many high pressure pipe lines bringing natural gas into Oregon from the American and Canadian Rocky Mountains. Wind and solar energy are just fine but at this moment it is overcast and the wind is calm. Alaska has natural gas a byproduct of oil drilling that is pumped into underground resorviors. In many parts of the world natural gas is flared off or worse vented off. Much better that we use it to heat our homes and generate the electric power that we need. There are train loads of dirty burning coal coming into Oregon thermal power plants. The time when hydro power from Bonneville and Grand Coulee dams supplied plenty of cheap electric power are gone forever.
If for any reason the gas from the north and east was cut off then we be very glad to have an alternative source. Just this last week the price of natural increased.
Best would be that a power plant would be located at the terminal. The gasifacation process would help in condensing the exhaust steam to a lower temperature improving the efficency.
Again - I'm hearing a lot of vague fears without historical data and a lot of emotional opinions, but if that's all you've got to take into court, you're gonna lose. I'm not in favor of building something we don't need, but if the argument FOR is about cost-benefit then the argument AGAINST has to be cost-benefit based as well. Anything else is going to be as effective as all the marching against Iraq before the invasion.
The initial impact of a threat like this is always emotional John. But you can rest assured that these citizen activists are also doing deep research, have evolving core groups integrated with a large interstate grass roots coalition ,and are well aware of the legal issue and litigations. And though we can share thoughts on postings like this, we aren't about to disclose our own agenda. rest assured we do have one. And this grass roots movement is getting stronger every day. The interlopers in this fight once said of us that, " We are unshophistacated, uneducated, and think with our pocket books" Do any of you out there agree with that profile?
LNG does not fit into Oregon's energy future. After being kicked out of Eureka, CA, Calpine came to Warrenton looking for a fast track to build a terminal. California and Tijuana, Mexico said no to LNG. Oregon must follow suit and not let these energy speculators in. Bradwood Landing is still proposing a 38 mile pipeline under the Columbia River through Cowlitz County, WA to hook up with the Williams pipeline. A spokeswoman for the Williams pipeline said that there is no room for the gas from Bradwood. She also said that they would not break their long term contracts to accomidate Northern Star. So where will the gas go? The Palomar pipeline, running through farmlands, vineyards, forests, and people's back ( front yards, too!) yards across Oregon is where the unodorized gas will go. The passage through Oregon to Northern California markets is really the destination of the re-gassified LNG. We the people of oregon say No to LNG!.
Lori, I'm so tired of you and your gang thinking you speak for Oregon - you don't. Whether you think so or not, the majority of people in the Astoria area DO want Bradwood built. They just aren't as noisy as you are. It'll be interesting to see how it all pans out.
" Astorian" Noisy? do you know why automobiles have horns, why trains have whistles, why fire engines and ambulances and police cars have sirens? Because they warn us Astorian. You call us a gang? I guess people use the words on the level of their own experience but you better include your Governor, your Speaker of the house and some other pretty impressive legislators in that "gang". Actually we more often hear the term "citizen-activists." You know ,we are part of the democratic proccess. I guess it all depends whose kid has the measles HUH?
In response to the question of "how do we stop it" the answer is simple. Oregon needs to deny the state permits that have to be issued in order to build the plant. This includes Clean Water Act permits, Clean Air Act pemits, water rights, state lands leases for the project's proposed dredging and a Coastal Zone Management Act determination just to name a few. To prevent future LNG terminals the Oregon Legislature needs to follow Maryland's lead and prohibit LNG terminals in their coastal zone. Oregon has the power to stop these projects and we just need to use it. To learn more about LNG visit www.columbiariverkeeper.org or www.lng.net which has links to groups fighting LNG in Coos Bay and on the Columbia.
Brent Foster, Columbia Riverkeeper
NO and YES- I speak for many of us who do not want an LNG terminal on the Columbia River, or where it is not needed! LNG however is a life link for many countries in this world! LNG does have an excellent safety record,BUT, of course, many of the countries who rely on it don't have the "hate America" psychosis that we are faced with , thus they don't have the terrorist issues we do. So -- Yes, I am "down on LNG" in the Pacific Northwest. It was interestng to listen to NorthernStars best salesman today on your program. My anology of his speel is like that of a shoe salesman who works on comission. He or She will try to sell the most expensive shoe, the most "IN" shoe", the most popular shoe" no matter whether it fits or not. This is an instance of an excellent salesman trying to sell the Pacific Northwest something that doesnt fit. You know form virsus function. Mr. Desmond has had much experience in the form virsus function business. His previous attempts (for Governor Schwartzenegger,) to sell high voltage transmission lines to California via out of state coal fired electric generator plants was another of those form virsus function endeavors. --There are always a multitude of variables when a county, a state, or a nation has to face the future in ways that the past ,or the present won't compliment. Domestic natural gas is a bridge energy. And for the Pacific Northwest it is a reasonable energy source to lean on while we deal with the present issue of global warming and work toward forms of renewable energy that will integrate with a relativly clean fossil fuel. Liquid Natural Gas ,however is another story. Mr. Desmond himself stated that it generated more CO2 than the domestic product. Liquid Natural Gas is also an international money maker that has huge oil companies scurring to build new LNG fuel dumps in the United States before a new administration can return to each state it's right to determine what best fits its energy needs. All of this is typical commerce in a democratic capitalistic society. Thats why we must have checks and balances. In regard to the fit of any LNG terminal on the Columbia River the shoe is too big, the risk too great, and the retoric too full of salesman lingo. As with the out of state coal fired electric generator plants to send electricity to California ( no infrastructure , just sugar) we in the Pacific Northwest are being propagandized into allowing an infrastructure here to send the sugar elsewhere! The bottom line is that if we say NO and mind our checks and balances, we will be receipants of domestic natural gas from within our own country. a Rocky Mountain conduit is in progress and Alaska is pushing hard to wrest control from international oil conglomerates who have loved the status quo for far too long. Alaska has trillions of cubic feet of untapped natural gas. FERC is in a hurry to fill their conservative based mandates! So which would you prefer. A new infrastructure in the Pacific Northwest that will chain us to another foreign fossil fuel for 50 + years? Or the foresight to remain the independant region that we are reputed to be and demand our states rights to control our own and our grandchildrens energy future. let alone being stewards of a better environment.
I live on the shore of Coos Bay at the first turn of the channel. This turn is 90 degrees. You guessed it, I am "down on" LNG because I don't want a ship filled with frozen liquid fire in my back yard, literally. Also, every time an LNG tanker would come or go, OUR once public waterway becomes privatized for a foreign energy company. This will be enforced with OUR tax dollars at the point of a gun carried by OUR US Coast Guard. Don't take away OUR Bay! NO LNG
I live in Coos Bay where the proposed Jordan Cove LNG Terminal is trying to locate in our community. I have been going to every meeting possible for the last 3 years to stop this craziness. We also have a plan for localized energy and an alternate plan for business on our North Spit. Following is 1 Reason to have LNG and 73 Reasons NOT to have LNG:
Reasons To Have An LNG Terminal In Coos County:
1. For the people in North Bend, Glasgow and North Bay who don?t like the sound of ATVs and other recreational vehicles in the dunes, it will help mask those sounds with new noises.
Reasons NOT To Have An LNG Terminal In Coos County:
1. It is in the most vulnerable spot on the Tsunami map.
2. It is in a massive earthquake zone that SOCC has been preparing us for ?the expected big one?.
3. It is too close to schools: Madison Elementary, Sunset Middle School, Hillcrest and North Bend High School.
4. It is too close to first responders: North Bend Fire Dept., Coast Guard, North Bend Police Dept. and Bay Area Hospital.
5. It is too close to business centers (Virginia Ave.), North Bend Senior Center and homes.
6. Property value will go down. Would you like to live across from the LNG terminal?
7. It will be lit up at night, like oil refineries are.
8. It will cause delay in landing and taking off at the airport.
9. It is too close to our airport.
10. There are no alternatives for evacuation routes along Cape Arago Hwy and out to the North Spit.
11. It will release 68,000 tons per year of carbon dioxide. What?s the matter with that? They use C02 in nurseries, don?t they? Well, yes they do. C02 will create more pollen which will create more asthma, allergies and lung problems.
12. There is no guarantee that it will not expand. The nature of the beast is expanding the amount of tanks on land, vessel arrivals, and getting a permit for cogeneration power plants. A 900 megawatt cogeneration power plant could add 4.9 tons of chemicals each day into the air.
13. Carnegie Mellon University came out with a report Aug. 23, 2007 that, ?LNG imported from foreign countries and used for electricity generation could have 35 per cent higher lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions than coal?.?
14. It would be located too close to other marine business: the proposed cargo terminal and Roseburg Forest Products.
15. The vessels are 900-1200 ft. long (the size of 3-4 football fields), 138?-150? wide and 14 stories tall. It is not so much the size as the cargo. Depending on the size of the vessel it will contain the energy of 50-80 Hiroshima bombs (because the natural gas is condensed 600x?s).
16. ?Low probability; high consequence?
17. LNG carriers are on the top 10 terrorist threat list in the USA.
18. Our channel at 300? is not wide enough for risk management; even the proposed widening for the proposed cargo terminal vessels to 500? is not wide enough. 5 times the width of 150? beam ship = 750? wide channel.
19. We do not know how the use of the bay will be affected for fishermen, recreational boats, clamming and crabbing.
20. We do not know what the exclusion zone will be on the in-coming ships.
21. We do not know what the exclusion zone will be while in transit in the bay to the terminal.
22. We do not know what the exclusion zone will be when the LNG vessel is berthed.
23. Why would any entity approve of something without knowing how it is going to affect our channel and surrounding areas like our Dunes National Recreation Area?
24. We do not know how many additional security, fire and police will be needed.
25. We do not know what fire dept will be in charge. North Bay?? North Bend??? Blackwater???
26. An emergency area should be on some secure acreage out towards Coquille, with cargo loads of emergency equipment and supplies and many helicopter pads to get emergency aid.
27. 2-4 specially made tugs will be needed at $10,000,000.00 each (10 million dollars each). The Port will be renting them to JCEP. What will be the cost to the taxpayers?
28. What will be the total proposed cost to the taxpayers? Extra security, upgrade to Coast Guard vessels, equipment and personnel training, berth, railroad, roads, etc. A real ?independent study? needs to be done.
29. JCEP will not have to pay taxes for 3 years, and possible more because they fall within the North Spit Enterprise Zone. When they do pay taxes it will go to the Urban Renewal District for the North Spit, not to the Coos County general fund.
30. If you wanted to invest in the JCEP (Jordan Cove Energy Project), you cannot do so unless you are a Canadian citizen. JCEP is owned by Ft. Chicago, a Canadian company.
31. We do not know if native eel grass will grow where it would be mitigated and who will be in charge to make sure it does? (What is important about eel grass??it is where baby salmon grow up and hide.)
32. Ignition risk and the extent of a gas cloud must be considered.
33. On-shore LNG terminal is old technology: they cost more, less secure, harder to expand, more hazard to the public, environmental damage. Submerged buoys off-shore are better and ride out storms.
34. I don?t want to live in the ?Zone of Concern? (3 zones, 2.2 mile radius); and ?the Zone? follows the vessel up the channel. It is nicknamed ?The Kill Zone? in the industry.
35. LNG vessels should not be in narrow, winding channels nor on the bend of the channel. (At some point, other ships passing, would be aimed at the berthed LNG carrier).
36. The Prime Minister of Canada, Stephen Harper told Pres. Bush Aug. 23, 2007 that he does not want LNG vessels in Fundy Bay in order to make their way to 2 proposed LNG terminals in Maine.
37. Human error.
38. Part malfunction.
39. Airplane crash?.let?s see, how far away is the proposed terminal from Airplane Hill? Wanna guess why they call it Airplane Hill?
40. And, yes, I will say it?.an intentional act. What better way to cut-off supply to California and Nevada.
41. We need to consider where the gas is coming from. We have natural gas right off our shores but we aren?t allowed to mine for it because of what it would do to the fishing industry and environmental concern. Oh, but it is OK for us to mess up other parts of the world.
42. Canadian gas suppliers have stated that they could provide, with contracts, a 20 yr supply of natural gas for the California market.
43. We have known reserves in the USA that are capped off. We have unique natural gas reserves in Coos County with enough gas that could service Coos County for 6,000 years.
44. Cargo and crews come from countries that are not friendly to the US: Qatar, Nigeria, Algeria, Iran, etc. It could come from Australia or Russia, but no contract can be pursued until the terminal is approved.
45. The vessel has to be vetted at sea. The Coast Guard needs to check the vessel inside and underneath for bombs.
46. The vessel needs to come in under military escort.
47. For a safe design for an LNG berth it needs to be a suitable distant from centers of population.
48. Airports need to declare air-space over an LNG terminal as being a restricted zone where no aircraft is allowed to fly without written permission.
49. Where is the need for LNG in the USA.? NEPA should do a regional needs analysis first.
50. There are no elected officials in Coos County or the State of Oregon or Federally who are looking out for the citizens of Coos County, and the other counties affected: Douglas, Klamath, Jackson.
51. Douglas County is against the LNG terminal because the ensuing pipeline will affect their property owners.
52. Canyonville City Council is against the LNG terminal because of the effect the pipeline will have in their area.
53. The site for the terminal is on an unstable sand dune.
54. The proposed berth will breakup the bay forever. And why do we need this berth, because the LNG vessels are too dangerous to sit along our channel like they do at Roseburg Forest Products.
55. Due the Energy Bill signed by President Bush in August 2005, governors cannot veto an onshore LNG terminal. They can veto an offshore terminal, but not an onshore one?.Thanks. So Oregon is a just a territory of Washington D.C.?? (Well,they do have control of 52% of Oregon lands.)
56. California, so far, has gotten rid of all the proposed LNG terminals on its shore. Eureka, Vallejo, Malibu, Long Beach (since the Mayor and City council of Long Beach were against it their Port commissioners stopped it). They still have more to fight?they keep popping up down in California like the game of pounding the gophers at the fair and arcades. (Note: The Malibu one, Cabrillo Port, if it had been approved would have been 14 miles off-shore and would have been the biggest polluter in Ventura County.)
57. The Lt. Governor of California said with the Baja LNG terminal and expansion, they will have enough LNG.
58. Californians don?t want it; foreign gas is expected to cost more than domestic and it burns hotter. The Small Appliance Assn. of California is concerned.
59. The pipeline will tear up 231 miles of Oregon; through mountain ranges?the land of an 100 valleys?.streams and rivers?oh, and people?s property.
60. The pipeline will start out 95? wide and have various staging areas and will end up as a 75? wide permanent scar on people?s property and a 53? wide permanent scar through our national forests.
61. If people do not settle with Williams Pipeline our federal government will allow them to take their property by eminent domain?for a private business?thievery.
62. To get the natural gas to Malin, OR at the California border the gas will be pumping at 1400 PSI (pounds per square inch). Normal gas flow in pipes is 80-300 psi. When it gets to a business it is 6-10 psi. When it comes into a home it is 3-4 psi?.1400 PSI is a LOT of pressure.
63. Our Port is appointed by Governor Kulongoski, they are not elected officials. They can do whatever they want without the citizens of Coos County?s approval.
64. As of Oct. 2007, 22 terminals have ALREADY been ?approved? for construction in the USA that will produce 349 bcm (billion cubic meters) of LNG. In addition to that, terminals that will produce 118 bcm are in the ?proposal? stage. The existing 5 US LNG terminals hold 60.3 bcm. Last year the US only used 17.5 bcm?approving all these terminals doesn?t make sense.
65. FERC is only concerned with the land siting of a terminal; they are not authorized to consider ?need? of LNG in the USA.
66. There are 4 on the Columbia River vying for approval and ours here in Coos Bay. A possible 5 in Oregon? They can all be approved by FERC. The process wastes billions of dollars and time for gas businesses, pipeline businesses and taxpayers. It does not make sense.
67. FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) in Washington D.C. is made up of 5 hand picked commissioners by Pres. Bush.
68. No one in Oregon is ?in charge? of the oversight of this project. It is disconnected by 12 or more state agencies, each doing little pieces?no ?go to? person.
69. Just because a business wants to be on the North Spit, doesn?t mean we have to approve them.
70. We don?t get to vote on turning our bay into an hazardous industrial wasteland that will be the armpit of Oregon thanks to the August 2005 Energy Bill and no one stepping up to change it.
71. If it was necessary for an LNG terminal to be located here, it should be at least 7.3 miles off-shore with a pipeline to San Francisco.
72. It has taken years of my life learning all this information.
73. WE, the Citizens of Coos County, DON?T WANT IT !!
PS: I could discuss each item listed for at least 15 minutes.
73 items x 15 minutes = 1,095 minutes = over 17 hours.
Coos Bay, OR
My observations of the LNG FERC process in regards to LNG JCEP (Jordan Cove Energy Project), in Coos County:
LNG Siting process in Oregon 11/07
By Camby Collier, POB 181, Coos Bay, OR 97420
1. Nice salesman comes to a community and gets involved with local clubs like Lions and Rotary, goes ?golfing with the guys? and presents what is going on to local Chamber of Commerce meetings. Gets ground support over a period of years. Does not present any public meetings.
2. Explains project: small tank, smallest LNG vessels and we are going to use ?your? existing pipeline.
3. Project changes after a year and an half to larger ships, two of the tallest tanks that can be put on the North Spit, and, oh, by the way, we don?t need your 12? inch pipeline, we are going to build a 36? pipeline at 1400 psi and, as a private Canadian company, take Oregon?s property owner?s land and BLM land. We will pay property owners once, BLM annually and have the option to sell the easement in the future to ?who knows who?.
4. No elected officials are up to speed on LNG because it is new industry. No Oregon regulations on it. No elected officials step up to help. They all say various things like: ?It is out of our control.? ?FERC is in charge.? ?We can?t make a decision for or against in case there is future litigation.? ?We don?t talk about this. We don?t have any meetings on it.? ?We need the jobs.? ?It will be as safe as a pillow.? ?I am still learning about it and haven?t made a decision.? ?Keep climbing that FERC mountain, glad you are in the ?process?. (Unsaid: cuz I don?t know anything about it.) Or they respond with ?blank stares, blank stares, mouth slightly open, glazed looked.?
5. Hours and hours of FERC hearings and county hearings. Hundreds of concerned citizens who do not want it show up. Feeling of talking to the wind.
6. Hours and hours of public doing their own research because not one elected official is helping.
7. Hours and hours of doing public forums to inform the county that you feel the county commissioners should be doing.
8. Hours and hours of writing letters to all the elected officials from the Governor to the local city councils.
9. Hours and hours of raising awareness going door to door or a peaceful protest, going to city council meetings and county commissioners and state officials and to Salem to see the governor.
10. Hours and hours and millions of dollars for the gas companies writing their applications that could be denied. Hiring professionals to write their resource papers, working with 12+ different agencies in Oregon and Federally.
11. Hours and hours of meetings with FERC, gas company and public.
12. Hours and hours of paperwork to submit to FERC.
13. Hours and hours of time to upload lots of the paperwork and research it.
14. Hours and hours of time to provide ?missing? information to agencies and FERC.
WHAT A WASTE OF EVERYONE?S TIME !!!!!
Process should be:
1. All State senators in America should move to strike from the August 2005 Energy Bill that Bush signed to not allow any state to VETO an ON-SHORE LNG terminal. That is ludicrous. States should have say over what comes into them!! Why is that line in there, because states like California would not allow this great opportunity of an LNG facility on their shores. They ran it off from Eureka, Vallejo, Long Beach, Malibu. Why would they do that if it is such a great thing to have? Because it has ?danger inherent in the system?, will change their landscape forever, and would be their biggest polluter.
2. NEPA needs to do a region by region analysis of where the need is.
3. Citizens of ALL counties affected should be mailed out info by the county commissioners, pros & cons and the citizens get to vote on it.
4. Port commissioners need to be elected and an AGREED upon direction for the port to pursue. Everyone working in harmony.
The above 4 things first, then:
5. It needs to be discussed why a government, gas industry and academia put out a report that the USA has a 65 year supply of natural gas. If this is the case, WHY are LNG terminals even being discussed?
6. FERC needs to take account of ?need?. As it stands now, they are not authorized to do so. They can approve hundreds of LNG terminals and ?let the chips fall where they may?.
7. Someone, an elected official, needs to represent the citizens. There is NO ONE in OREGON. Pass the buck, pass the buck, pass the buck?.to no one.
8. LNG terminals go against everyone getting on board the ?Green Wagon?. Building LNG terminals does not reduce dependence on foreign fossil fuels.
9. We need to be aware of the bigger footprint: We have natural gas right off our coast. We don?t tap into it because of environmental concern, so it is OK to go tear up land across the sea, transport it in polluting vessels, and force it on us.
10. Everyone in America should have solar panels: New homes, old homes, government buildings, businesses.
11. Everyone should be contributing to new technology in wind, like in Bandon, OR.
12. I know cars can be made to deliver 100 mpg but we are not letting that happen for many reasons I cannot go into here.
The process needs to change. It is outdated and backwards. And then we can talk where LNG terminals are needed, if needed in America.
The pipeline from Coos Bay carrying gas to California is required to be unencumbered by vegetation in a strip 95 feet wide by some 200 miles long. This has to remain clear of growth for the useful life time of the pipe. Will that mean that mowers will be running continuously over this ground or will they use helicopters to spray an agent orange type defoliant like the one that is working so well in Vietnam? Will all the pipe lines need to be sprayed with agent orange?
It is absolutely crucial for us to decentralize power production in this country, and for Oregon to lead the way in forward planning and development of decentralized energy production. We need to break away from the mega-corporate models that keep consumers enslved to the profits of a few. CEO's don't need to earn 400 times what the average employee makes! Public/municipal power projects YES! Business as usual NO! The good news is that the technologies already exist. The developed models are in place. All we have to do is find the resolve to customize the designs and implement them!
Please take a look at the following links:
Decentralized Power - What are we waiting for?
The Convenient Solution
For additional research on LNG and links to studies about energy solutions go to:
I recommend you also visit the following sites and read these research reports:
Clean Renewable Energy Solutions:
The following two reports offer real solutions to energy production.
1) San Diego Smart Energy 2020 - The 21st Century Alternative Prepared by E-Tech International - http://www.etechinternational.org/
2) A New Energy Direction - Bold Local Solutions to a Global Problem by the Community Environmental Council -
The following two sites also offer real solutions to energy production and jobs
1) Local Power: A Revolution in Power
2) Apollo Alliance: Three million new jobs, freedom from foreign oil:
They understand and are doing what is right in California, Sweden, Denmark, etc. What will it take for Oregon to get it and understand "What is Right"?
In case you still need more information on what is wrong with LNG in Oregon, please go to:
I work in the energy field and upon moving to Coos Bay saw my first No LNG signs around the community. My first thought was gladness that even in this sleepy little town there were people who cared. I didn't know much about the specific issues, but was probably a little more in favor then against given some dirtier alternatives such as oil or coal. But then I actually started doing my own independent research on this issue and specifically on the proposed terminal here in Coos Bay. After studying the developers own presentations, the oppositions presentations, and theoretically non-partisan, objective research, I have come to the absolute conclusion that this is a BAD DEAL. It's bad for Coos Bay, it's bad for Oregonians, and it's bad for the United States. From security measures imposed on an over-stretched Coast Guard, (there are many hillsides that would be very easy for someone with an RPG to fire from); far-reaching environmental issues that are numerous and complex, and will have a detrimental impact on our local economy as well as our health; to furthering a dependence on foreign energy supplies specifically from those who have long been no staunch friends of the USA (could we possibly be patriotic about something other then war for once?); to straining local emergency resources that are already at the breaking point; to sitting in a tsunami zone and leveling one of the few tsunami deterrents in order to build the facility (talk about el-stupido!); to negative impacts on local tourism and fishing (how many tourism guides will put it on their brochures?), this proposal specifically in Coos Bay is simply a no-brainer. And we haven't even touched on the impact of the hundreds of miles of pipeline to move it. But hey, we'll get 60-70 jobs outta the deal so let's do it. While we're at it, how about volunteering for nuclear waste dumps? That's jobs too! Seriously, it's incredibly short-sighted and selfish for our elected (Coos County Commissioners) and non-elected (Int'l Port of Coos Bay Commission) to impose these monstrosities on us. People on this post and others online and those concerned citizens who care enough to attend public hearings or board meetings only to be told to shut up is indicative of the national frustration we all feel that our "representatives" in fact represent only themselves and their donors. Protest! Stand Up! SHOUT!
This is the best information you will ever find in regard to why we should not allow an outrageous energy bill to dictate to the states of Oregon and Washington.
I received a call today from Washington's governor's personal aide. The end result of that conversation was that the governor of Washington is still not willing to take a stance in regard to this LNG issue, even though it portends termendous threats to a shared industrial , economic and environmental blessing , The Columbia River! Washington is just as threatned as Oregon in regard to port systems and pipeline issues. Our regional geology alone is enough to make Nastrodamous (how ever you spell that) roll over in his grave. And Coos Bay? What a rape! We must stand together now , We must fight for what our pioneer ancestors forsaw when they put down roots in this wonderful and nurturing region of the United States. We don't need this infrastructure! We don't need these avoracious and greedy market wolves in our farmlands and parks and we don't need a Federal Agency whose main mandate is to create a permanante infrastructure in this wonderful and still pristine part of our nation states which won't allow this infrastructure in their own territory, or are land bound and don't have a waterway that will fall prey to these huge foreign fossil fuel floating farms. The squeaky wheel gets the grease people, the politicans are in office for specified times, this is our power. Lets let them hear from us endlessly until they get the message. Just sign me tired and disgusted and too stubborn to give up or be threatned by the " DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM?" people who forgot who we are that put them there.
Absolutely unbelievable that folks on this post opine about stuff and go and on and on and on about nothing that almost no one reads. Have any of you supposedly educated folks ever heard of "succintess" or "brevity" and my guess is that you have not and that you like to post on stuff because you cannot make a difference anywhere else...
Farmer, it's unfortunate that you apparently don't have the capacity to read more then a couple of sentences before fading away. Some issues are actually complex and have many facets to them. But so long as you're going to criticize people for not having heard of "succintess"...well, look it up. The way you spell it, you won't find it in the dictionary. But that's a big book too.
Comments are now closed.