Click on Image to view larger image

November 18, 2007

Two high pressure unscented natural gas (imported regasified LNG) pipelines and two foreign LNG import terminals with regasification facilities are now planned for north western Oregon. These two pipelines will run from these two large LNG import terminals on the Columbia River near Astoria through our homes, yards, farms, timber, fields, orchards, and other beloved land. Our land will be taken by these private energy corporations through the use of eminent domain. There are currently three different proposed projects in northwestern Oregon along the Columbia River and one in Coos Bay on the Southern Oregon coast. 

Project I 
Bradwood Landing LNG
Northern Star Natural Gas LNG, a Texas-based company that has never built a terminal or pipeline, has proposed the Bradwood Landing LNG receiving terminal and regasification plant on 55 acres of a 420-acre site at Bradwood, located between Astoria and Clatskanie at about River Mile 38 on the Columbia River. The facility would be designed to have a peak sendout capacity of 1.3 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas and would be capable of continuous operation. 

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has already reviewed their draft environmental impact statement and issued the opinion that the project would have “limited significant environmental impacts”, posing “no unacceptable environmental problems.” On August 29, the Clatsop County Planning Commission recommended approval of all the land use changes needed to build the terminal, against the recommendation of County Planning staff. The Clatsop County commission is now considering these changes. They met on November 7, 2007 and will continue discussing at a November 19 follow-on meeting and will make a final decision after conclusion of their hearing on this topic. 

The proposed project also includes a 34-mile long pipeline that would run from the site to Port Westward and then under the Columbia River (crossing Puget Island) into Kelso, Washington and would connect to N/S pipelines supplying Washington and Oregon. This project has been under review for approx. 18 months at this time (Nov. 2007). 


Project II 
Palomar
Palomar is a joint venture of NW Natural Gas and TransCanada, which already operates the main international/interstate North / South Natural Gas pipeline going from Canada to northern California. The Palomar pipeline (phase 2) would transport imported regasified LNG from the proposed Bradwood Landing LNG import terminal 11 miles east of Astoria on the Columbia River. This 1500 psi pipeline will be 36 inches / 3 feet wide and would travel about 110 miles from the terminal to Molalla and from there another 110 miles east to Maupin Oregon (Wasco County) to connect to the large interstate TransCanada pipeline to feed California. The pipeline would run through the Coast Range to the Timber area, along Timber Road to Glenwood, through Gales Creek Valley, passing just west of Forest Grove to Gaston through rural Yamhill, Marion, and Clackamas Counties before ending in Molalla. If the Bradwood Landing LNG terminal is not built, the east half of the pipeline, from Molalla to Maupin (phase 1), could still be built as a new route to bring gas into the Willamette Valley. Both phases are under one project at this time. A FERC meeting for the proposed Palomar pipeline (intent for project filing was initiated for the EIS – Environmental Impact Statement) Oregon LNG project was conducted along the route Nov. 12-15, 2007, where many landowners shared their concerns with the project representative. 




Project III 
Oregon LNG
A second LNG terminal, regasification plant and pipeline have been proposed by Oregon LNG (owned by Leucadia Corporation group of investors based in New York), and is in competition with (both could be built) the NorthernStar terminal at Bradwood Landing. Oregon LNG was formerly the Skipanon Natural Gas Facility owned by Calpine, which went bankrupt and sold the project to Oregon LNG in January, 2007. Their terminal and processing plant would be in Warrenton, Oregon near Astoria, at the mouth of the Columbia river. The site is already leased and zoned for the facility. This would also be 36 inch a high pressure 1500 psi pipeline transporting unscented imported regasified LNG through Oregon to California. The pipeline would travel on a 117-mile route approximately parallel to the Palomar pipeline although, rather than going through Timber, it would go along Ridge and Strassel Roads and then through Glenwood, Gales Creek Valley, Forest Grove, Gaston, and cross rural Yamhill, Clackamas, and Marion Counties, on its way to the transfer station in Molalla. The two pipelines would be only 1 – 2 miles or less apart for most of the route, and their proposed locations are identical in some areas. A meeting about the Oregon LNG project was conducted by FERC in Forest Grove on September 19, 2007 for project filing was initiated for the pre-EIS phase of the project. At the meeting many citizens eloquently expressed their anger about the project and the damage it would do to their land, their property value, their livelihoods, and their communities. 


The only reason to build the western half of the Palomar pipeline is to connect the Bradwood terminal to the TransCanada pipeline so that most of its gas can go to California. As noted above, NorthernStar already plans for a pipeline through Kelso to supply the Northwest, so the Palomar pipeline is not needed for that purpose. Northwest Natural Gas has indicated that it would buy only 1/10th of the output of the Bradwood Landing LNG terminal, and has stated that it could not support the Palomar pipeline by itself without other customers (that is, California energy companies). California has already rejected five proposed LNG import terminals. The Oregon pipelines are an “end run” to supply our more populous southern neighbor, because we are considered an easier target with less organized opposition.

Natural Gas
Oregon wholesale natural gas prices rose 168 percent between January 1999 and July 2004. Over the same period residential rates rose 94 percent. These prices have not been adjusted to remove the effects of general inflation. The percentage increases for commercial and industrial customers fell between the wholesale and residential price increases.

 

Natural Gas Supply
Oregon imports 100 percent of its natural gas and receives it from British Columbia, Alberta, Wyoming, Colorado and New Mexico. Two connected interstate pipelines deliver the natural gas 

The Williams Company’s Northwest Pipeline brings natural gas to Portland from British Columbia and the Rocky Mountain region of the U.S. British Columbia gas enters the U.S. near Sumas, Wash. and roughly follows Interstate 5. Gas from the Rockies comes into Oregon near Ontario. A lateral pipeline transports gas from Washougal, Wash. to the Portland area, the Willamette Valley and Grants Pass. Natural gas from Alberta arrives in a Gas Transmission Northwest (GTN) pipeline. It enters the U.S. near Kingsgate, Idaho, and moves through eastern Oregon, leaving the state near Malin, before traveling on to California and Nevada. A lateral line transports natural gas from Klamath Falls to Medford. The GTN pipeline is owned by TransCanada and connects with the Williams Northwest pipeline at Stanfield, Oregon.

Three natural gas utilities serve Oregon:
• Northwest Natural serves 80 percent of Oregon’s retail customers, including the Willamette Valley and the coast.
• Avista Corporation serves parts of southern Oregon and La Grande.
• Cascade Natural Gas serves parts of central and eastern Oregon.

Northwest Natural receives natural gas from the Williams’ pipeline. Northwest Natural owns underground gas storage facilities in Mist, Ore. and liquefied natural gas storage facilities in Newport and Portland. Northwest Natural also has contracts to use liquefied natural gas storage at Plymouth, Wash. and underground storage at Jackson Prairie, Wash.

Avista obtains natural gas from the Williams pipeline and the Williams-Grants Pass lateral as well as TransCanada’s main pipeline and Medford lateral. 

Cascade customers from Madras to Chemult receive natural gas from TransCanada’s GTN pipeline. The Williams Northwest pipeline serves Cascade customers from Umatilla to Ontario.

Cascade and Avista either own or have contracts to use natural gas storage facilities.

 

 

Pipelines serving Oregon
Two natural gas pipelines serve Oregon customers. The Williams Company pipeline and the Gas Transmission Northwest (GTN) pipeline owned by TransCanada bring product from the Rocky Mountains and Canada. Pacific Gas and Electric National Energy Group formerly owned the TransCanada line.

 

www.oregon.gov/ENERGY/docs/Energyplan05.pdf

 

 

 

 

[jump to top]

Why are we concerned about this?

Should hard working Oregonians be subject to Seizure of their private property and forced to subsidize GIANT for profit energy corporations to supply California with foreign gas?

We are trying to STOP these big energy companies from raping and pillaging Oregon and Washington and all the hard working citizens and land owners who live work and play here, all for the sake of big profit (11 billion in quarterly profits evidently isn't obscene enough) while supplying California with foreign gas. California has already soundly rejected 5 of these UNNEEDED dangerous, energy intensive regasification plants & their huge dangerous 1500 PSI (pounds per square inch, that is very high pressure) 36-inch pipelines (three feet, you can nearly squat down and walk through).

If we do nothing, our State and Federal Governments will force us into this. We will be forced to subsidize these big energy companies with our stolen property value, and lost safety. We will sacrifice our life styles, our safety and our land, land that in most cases is the vast majority of the equity we have spent our lives building. Our true economic losses will NEVER even be considered in this process, let alone compensated for.  Our thousands of man-hours and thousands of dollars directly spent to fight this will never be recovered.  All of this involuntary sacrifice will be for private out of state corporate profits from a foreign petroleum product that Oregon DOES NOT NEED and it is not even going to be consumed here in Oregon.

The strongest argument I have heard supporting this LNG madness is a vague promise of new jobs and increased tax revenue it will provide. Aside from the 5 or 6 minimum wage gate security jobs, few if any of the other 20-40 permanent LNG jobs will go to locals. THESE jobs will be filled by out of state talent, just as the vast majority of the construction companies and workers jobs will. LNG is not going to provide "jobs" for Oregonians! 

I have found a surprising number of friends, acquaintances and politicians to be mostly uninformed (as I was when this LNG nightmare was first thrust upon me) and somewhat ambivalent to totally undisturbed about the LNG/pipeline issue. That ignorance my friends, is exactly what they were counting on, it is the KEY to why these big money hungry petroleum companies are here in Oregon and Washington in the first place. They are COUNTING on us being ignorant and uninformed of the issues and ambivalent or totally undisturbed by their LNG\pipeline project. I ask you to step up and help us tell these petroleum companies in no uncertain terms, we don't want their dangerous destructive California energy infrastructure here, and we will not subsidize their obscene profits. Tell them their hopes of slipping it by the ignorant UNINFORMED "backwoods" Oregonians and Washingtonians isn't going to work. 

I urge you to talk to and share information with all your family, friends, neighbors, acquaintances and co-workers, anyone who looks at the whole picture on this LNG issue can't support it on any grounds, well unless they are a BIG petroleum company share holder. I believe if it is all laid out and they see what a raw deal this is for Oregon and Washington, they cannot help but join us in opposing LNG in our state. 

I urge you to talk to and share information with all your family, friends, neighbors, acquaintances, co-workers, local media, newspapers and your local, state and federal public officials. Anyone who looks at the whole picture on this LNG issue can't support it on any grounds, well unless they are a BIG petroleum company share holder. I believe if it is all laid out and they see what a raw deal this is for Oregon and Washington, they cannot help but join us in opposing LNG in our states.

I urge you to write email and call your Governor and you state and Federal lawmakers, explain to them what a raw deal this is for Oregon, ask them to step up and take the lead on opposing LNG in your state. 

I urge you to write email and call your local newspapers and television and radio television news stations, explain to them what a raw deal this is for Oregon, ask them to step up and take the lead in opposing LNG in your state. 

Please start an account here on this Bulletin Board and help by contributing whatever information or resources you can. You can read the postings without an account, but if you would like to post anything you will need an account. You may select any "available" user name, real or fictional. You must submit a functional email address though, so that you can receive the activation email and follow the enclosed link to activate your new account. 

Thanks 
Keith NO LNG 
http://oregonfirst.net

 

[jump to top]

LNG - Why it is really not for Oregon - NO LNG

Should hard working Oregonians be subject to Seizure of their private property and forced to subsidize GIANT for profit energy corporations to supply California with foreign gas?

The US Department of Energy - EIA - has demonstrated that there is no need for more natural gas in Oregon. US government statistics show that the California and Oregon natural gas market may be declining, not growing. Although the LNG developers message changes frequently, for the past year the LNG developer and their team members have stated that the market to be served is California and Nevada. Residents of Oregon must not be burdened with the risks of a catastrophic LNG event to enable the LNG developer to sell their product outside of the state of Oregon.

The sellers of natural gas to government entities, to electrical generating facilities, to commerce and industry, to business, and to residential consumers in the state of Oregon have stated, in writing, that more sources of natural gas are not required; and if one LNG import terminal facility were to be constructed in Oregon, at best, they could use a small part of one LNG facilities send out of natural gas. There are currently five large LNG import terminals proposed for Oregon. Not a single one is needed by Oregon.

Oregon currently consumes LESS THAN .75 billion cubic feet (most days less than .25 billion cubic feet) of native North American natural gas per day. The infrastructure that provides all of that natural gas and more is already in place here in Oregon. Each of these proposed LNG import terminals (regasification facilities) and their 36 inch 1500 PSI pipelines will be sending 1.5 billion cubic feet of LNG derived foreign fossil fuel per day through Oregon into California.

FERC has stated that the transportation of natural gas by pipeline involves some risk to the public in the event of an accident and subsequent release of gas. Why should the people or Oregon be told to accept this risk when LNG or another source of natural gas is not required in Oregon? 

A new unnecessary 130 mile 1500 PSI 36" pipeline is proposed through hundreds of Oregonians private property and homes, to send LNG derived foreign fossil fuel natural gas to the California market, a market that may not exist when the LNG facility is completed because of California's planned use of alternative energy sources including 20% of the energy source being solar or wind power or other means prior to 2020. 

In an attempt to gain the support of the people and local politicians, these dishonest LNG developers have misled the all Oregonians by promising lower natural gas rates to the people of Oregon when a LNG import terminal and pipeline are built. The state of Oregon agency that regulates natural gas rates and the sellers of natural gas in the state of Oregon have stated that the LNG developers can not promise lower rates to any single community; nor can they promise that siting a LNG facility in Oregon will result in any rate change in Oregon. Additional natural gas MAY stabilize - not reduce - the rates to Oregon residential consumers who have seen their rates increase by almost 40% in three years.

Does the energy industry have Oregon's best interest at heart? Do you believe the energy industry when they say Oregon needs to import more foreign fossil fuel?

 

[jump to top]

LNG - Pipeline Factsheet = NO LNG

Prepared by a group of Ridge Road/Strassel Road neighbors  11/27/07

Several of us on Ridge, Strassel and Timber Roads have received letters asking permission to survey our property for planned liquefied natural gas (LNG) pipelines. We have collected some information regarding these projects and would like to share it. Here are some key facts that may help to sort out this information:

• Two LNG pipelines are now planned for our neighborhoods, both running from large terminals in the Astoria area. Three other LNG projects are also planned in Oregon, two more on the Columbia River and one in Coos Bay on the Southern Oregon coast.

• The Palomar pipeline is a joint venture of NW Natural Gas and TransCanada, which operates a large pipeline going from Canada to northern California. This pipeline would transport natural gas from the proposed Bradwood Landing LNG import terminal 20 miles east of Astoria on the Columbia River. It would be 36 inches wide and would travel about 110 miles from the terminal to Molalla, and from there another 110 miles east to Maupin (Wasco County) to connect to a large interstate TransCanada pipeline to California. The pipeline would run through the Coast Range to the Timber area, along Timber Road to Glenwood, through Gales Creek Valley, passing just west of Forest Grove, and through or near Gaston, Yamhill, Carlton, and Woodburn before ending in Molalla. If the Bradwood terminal is not built, the east half of the pipeline, from Molalla to Maupin, could still be built as a new route to bring domestic natural gas into the Willamette Valley; this portion of the pipeline has been under discussion for several years.

• The Bradwood Landing LNG terminal and processing plant is a project of NorthernStar Natural Gas, a Texas-based company that has never built a terminal or pipeline. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has already reviewed their draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) and issued the opinion that the project would have “limited significant environmental impacts”, posing “no unacceptable environmental problems.” The comment period on this DEIS ends on December 24, 2007. On Aug. 29, the Clatsop County Planning Commission recommended approval of all land use changes needed to build the terminal, against the recommendation of County Planning staff. The Clatsop County commission is now considering these changes and will make a final decision in the next month or two. A shorter, 35-mile pipeline is included in this project; it would go under the Columbia River to Kelso, Washington where it would connect to the Williams pipeline that supplies Washington and Oregon.

• The only reason to build the western half of the Palomar pipeline is to connect the Bradwood terminal to the TransCanada pipeline so that its gas can go to California. As noted above, Bradwood Landing already has plans for a pipeline through Kelso to supply the Northwest, so the Palomar pipeline is not needed for that purpose. Northwest Natural Gas has indicated that it would buy less than 1/10th of the output of the Bradwood terminal, and has stated that it could not support the Palomar pipeline by itself without other customers (that is, California energy companies). California has rejected four proposed LNG import terminals (but is now considering two others). The Oregon pipelines are an “end run” to supply our more populous southern neighbor, because we are considered an easier target with less organized opposition.

• A second terminal and pipeline have been proposed by Oregon LNG (owned by Leucadia Corp. based in New York), and is in competition with the NorthernStar terminal. Oregon LNG was formerly the Skipanon Natural Gas Facility owned by Calpine, which went bankrupt and sold the project to Oregon LNG in Jan. 2007. Their terminal and processing plant would be in Warrenton at the mouth of the Columbia. The site is already leased and zoned for the facility. The pipeline route, rather than going through Timber, would go along Ridge and Strassel Roads but then would closely parallel the Palomar route through Glenwood, Gales Creek Valley and Forest Grove all the way to the transfer station in Molalla. The two pipelines would be only 1 – 2 miles apart for most of the route. Like the Palomar pipeline, it would then connect to a Molalla-to-Maupin pipeline to connect to the interstate TransCanada pipeline. A meeting about the Oregon LNG project was conducted by FERC in Forest Grove on Sept. 19. At the meeting many citizens eloquently expressed their anger and fears about the project and the damage it would do to their land, their livelihoods and their communities, as well as their frustration with the lack of information or notification about the hearings from either Oregon LNG or FERC.

The FERC Review Process

• LNG projects are evaluated and approved by FERC, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The members of FERC are appointed by the President. Since the passage of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT), FERC has essentially all the power to evaluate LNG projects and decide if they can be built. In the past projects would have been evaluated by the Oregon Energy Facilities Siting Council. Now states and local jurisdictions have no role in evaluating projects and very little legal power to block or modify them. There are just three exceptions: states can attempt to block projects based on the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act or Coastal Zone Management Act.

• The first part of the FERC evaluation process, leading up to an Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), is “scoping,” that is, determining what issues need to be addressed in the DEIS. There have been scoping hearings on both pipelines, where FERC took testimony about the specific impacts of the pipeline on the environment, cultural and historical resources, and economic and recreational activities. At these hearings it was important to bring up any and all issues that FERC needs to consider. However, we have not been provided with adequate maps to comment on the specific route the pipeline will take, or the siting of pumping stations along the route. After the scoping hearings and (very short) comment period, FERC takes a few months to prepare the DEIS.

• Once the DEIS is issued, we then have a short time to respond to it before a final Environmental Impact Statement is issued. For the Bradwood terminal, FERC only allowed 45 days for responses to its DEIS (the short comment period is a provision of the 2005 Energy Policy Act to “streamline” reviews). U.S. Representative David Wu repeatedly demanded a longer time for comment, and finally, after he refused to take “no” for an answer, they extended the comment period to this December 24th. A similar process will probably play out for the Palomar pipeline.

• FERC is doing no overall assessment of the need for imported LNG, the total number of terminals and pipelines that might be necessary, or the best sites. The U.S. currently has 5 LNG terminals, including one in Alaska. Since 2005, proposals have been made for an additional 45 terminals, including 5 in Oregon. The current process of reviewing all of them one at a time, with no overall strategic planning, means that companies are racing each other to be the first to gain approval and thus reap huge profits. FERC’s definition of “need” appears to be the existence of customers willing to buy the gas.

The Impact on Landowners in the Pipeline Path and on Our Neighborhoods

• By Federal law, land can be taken for LNG pipelines by eminent domain, against the wishes of landowners. If a mutual agreement cannot be reached between the pipeline company and the landowner, a judge will decide what compensation the landowner will receive. Compensation is not based on the full value of the land—it is not for purchase of the land but only for an easement, which typically is worth about 10% of the land value (and the landowner continues to pay the property tax). In similar cases in southern Oregon, landowners received “pennies on the dollar”. This does not take into consideration that a pipeline corridor may alter or restrict use of the entire property, cut it in half, and/or in many cases make it impossible to continue previous activities such as farming and timber management. Furthermore, with a pipeline in place or even planned, property values will plummet and land will become unsellable. Some landowners have been told they could not get insurance. The result for many will be loss of their livelihood and life savings. It strikes us as an extraordinary abuse of power that two competing, privately owned corporations can use the power of the federal government to seize our land against our will for the purpose of profit, not for the greater good of the community. Before eminent domain can be used, FERC must issue a “Certificate of Public Necessity.” We see no such necessity for building these pipelines. They amount to use of eminent domain for private gain.

• The pipelines would take a permanent 60-foot-wide easement (twice the width of Route 6) that would be logged, cleared and maintained by the company, with access rights at any time. During construction they would clear a temporary easement of about 120 feet (the width of the sections of Sunset Hiway with 4 lanes and a center median). No trees or perennial crops could be replanted, but invasive weeds will proliferate. In other places the easements were sprayed with herbicides to control brush. Furthermore, once a pipeline is built and the route established, additional pipelines could be built alongside it—something that has happened elsewhere. One of our neighbors personally witnessed this in New Jersey, where one pipeline was expanded to five over the same route within a few years, with ever-wider “easements” taken from the landowners.

• Both pipelines will be 36 inches in diameter. In the case of the Oregon LNG pipeline, it is planned to be just 3-5 feet underground. Pipelines are known to spontaneously rupture and explode with disastrous consequences. A few years ago, two boys in Washington state were killed by an exploding gas pipeline, and a pipeline exploded and started brush fires in Port Arthur, Texas this October. The natural gas in a pipeline is under very high pressure, so a rupture would cause a large explosion and fireball, with obvious results if such an event occurred in a forested area in the summer. According to a September article in the Argus, there have been 866 natural gas pipeline accidents in the U.S. since 2000—about 1 every 3 days. Recently in Mexico gangs have been blowing them up on a regular basis. Our local communities do not have adequate fire and emergency services to cope with this level of disaster.

• The pipeline route is unsafe because much of the proposed route is through steep hillsides with unstable soils. Our area regularly has landslides that block our roads. The route would also cross several critical streams and rivers that are prime salmon habitat.

• No natural gas from the pipeline would be available locally; it can’t be tapped from a high pressure pipeline.

The Need for Natural Gas
• Does Oregon need this natural gas? Oregon’s current usage of natural gas is 0.7 bcf/d (billion cubic feet per day). Each of the proposed pipelines would have a capacity of 1.3 - 1.4 bcf/d; so just one of them would triple Oregon’s gas supply! In contrast, increases for demand in the Northwest are projected to be quite small and can be met by the state’s initiative to increase use of renewable energy. It is obvious that these pipelines would bring in an excessive supply of natural gas that is not needed. Oregon Senate Bill 838 was passed on June 6, 2007, and mandates that Oregon utilities get 25% of their energy from renewal sources by 2025. Meeting this target would take care of Oregon’s future energy needs. An oversupply of natural gas would undermine Oregon’s law and energy policy, and would divert resources from the urgently needed development of renewable energy sources that promote independence and lessen global warming.

• Does California need this natural gas? (assuming that we are willing, as self-sacrificing neighbors, to let our land be destroyed to provide it.) The 2006 California Gas Report, released by a consortium of California gas and electric utilities, projects that demand in California will decrease through 2015. An LNG terminal has already been built and will become operational in January 2008 at Costa Azul, Baja Mexico that will transport gas via pipeline to California; an expansion and extension of the California pipeline has already been approved. The state’s Lieutenant Governor has stated that this will provide all of the state’s natural gas needs for the foreseeable future, and furthermore has said that the plan to bring LNG to California through the Oregon “back door” undermines California’s priorities and energy policy, including its aggressive programs to promote conservation and renewable energy sources.

Broader Negative Impacts of LNG Import Terminals and Pipelines
• The proposed pipelines would be needed specifically to transport imported LNG. Our country has a stated goal of reducing our dependence on imported energy. Imported LNG does not reduce this dependence but rather perpetuates it. The major sources of LNG would be Indonesia, Algeria, Nigeria, Russia and Qatar; Iran has some of the world’s largest reserves. These are not the most stable countries or our best allies. Therefore supplies and costs of LNG would be unstable, and we could be at the mercy of numerous political and economic factors, just as we currently are for our supply of imported oil.

• Imported LNG will not reduce the cost of natural gas to Oregonians. Because of the cost of transportation, security and processing, it is more expensive that domestic natural gas. Its cost is not determined by local supply but by global supply. Right now the LNG supply is less than the demand. Europe and Asia are currently outbidding the U.S. for LNG, so that terminals that have already been built are unable to obtain a supply and are sitting idle or operating far below capacity. This means that the cost of imported LNG will be high if we can get it.

• Although domestic natural gas is a relatively clean fuel, imported liquefied natural gas (LNG) is a different story. Extracting the LNG, transporting it from far corners of the globe, and the liquification process itself, are highly energy intensive and add 35-50% to greenhouse gas emissions, producing large amounts of carbon that contribute to global warming. With these factored in, LNG is as dirty as oil. Expansion of LNG facilities is part of a “dinosaur” policy to continue to promote the fossil fuel industry, rather than put serious effort into alternative energy sources, including conservation strategies. The latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (which just won the Nobel Prize together with Al Gore) includes the most dire warnings yet on the accelerating pace of climate change, and the UN Secretary-General has said that “we on the verge of a catastrophe.” This is not the time to increase the use of fossil fuels—it is a suicidal strategy.

• On 11/16/07 the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a suit brought by several states against the Bush administration to challenge federal fuel economy standards, ruled that greenhouse gas emissions and effects of global warming must be considered in setting such standards. Judge Betty Fletcher wrote that the “impact of greenhouse-gas emissions on climate change is precisely the kind of cumulative-impacts analysis” required as part of Environment Impact reviews. The Supreme Court also recently ruled that the EPA can regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore FERC must now take this issue into consideration in their review of LNG projects.

• The LNG companies will tell you than LNG can’t burn. That’s true while it’s still at 260 degrees below zero. But as soon as it is released into the air it warms up, mixes with oxygen in the air, and becomes potentially highly explosive. Large quantities burn so hot that the fires cannot be put out and just have to burn themselves out.

• Tankers filled with LNG, and the processing plants on the Columbia, pose a frightening security risk. A typical tanker carries 30 million gallons of LNG. Richard Clarke, the National Security Advisor who tried in vain to warn of the 9/11 attacks, identified both LNG tankers and terminals as prime terrorist targets. A tanker explosion could release as much energy as 50 Hiroshima-sized atomic bombs, with a fireball at least 3 miles wide; release and ignition of 1/10th of a tanker’s cargo would fatally burn people a mile away, according to a report by Sandia National Laboratories. Some of the main sources of LNG (Algeria and Indonesia) have serious terrorist issues, so one could imagine a tanker becoming a Trojan horse, loaded with time-delayed explosives. Plane crashes, accidental or deliberate, would also be a serious threat. The U.S Coast Guard released a Waterway Suitability Report calling the Bradwood Landing site “unsuitable without extensive measures to improve safety and security,” measures that would have major impacts on both sides of the river because security restrictions would interfere with shipping and recreation. Large exclusion zones would be necessary around an LNG facility, including areas where all travel or activity is prohibited, flight paths restricted and bridges closed. This would restrict travel and recreation on the Columbia.

• Potential LNG leaks from hundreds of tankers would pose a serious environmental risk to the Columbia River with its key role in the survival of many species. The mouth of the Columbia is notorious as one of the most dangerous shipping routes in the country. Collisions, groundings or other accidents could lead to LNG release and explosions.

• Expansion of LNG processing and pipelines is one of the policies being actively promoted by the current administration. The current FERC approval process was set up to “streamline” approvals of such projects by giving states and local governments almost no say in the decisions. However, four projects were stopped in California and in Puget Sound in Washington by public opposition. Calpine, the original developer of the Oregon LGN project, was forced to abandon a similar project in Humboldt County, California. Brian Baird, U.S. representative for Western Washington, and several Washington state legislators have come out against the plans for the LGN plants on the Columbia. If we want to oppose this plan, the most effective strategy will be to get the support of our state and congressional representatives, who in turn can pressure FERC.
Things do to:

1) Send comments to FERC on the Bradwood Landing DEIS. The deadline is now December 24th.

2) Contact Governor Kulongoski and your congressional and state representatives. They are the only ones that have the power to pressure FERC to consider our state’s real needs and priorities. This tactic was successful in California and Washington state. See contact information on the attached page. They must be constantly bombarded with letters and phone calls from concerned citizens or they will not stand up on this issue.

3) We are not granting permission to survey our property, and are making clear that we oppose the pipelines and will work and organize to stop them. Obviously this will have more weight if many of us do the same, and we appear as a united group. Palomar and Oregon LNG might get the message that their project will be fought at every step and may not be worth the battle. However, billions of dollars are at stake for these companies, so they will not give up easily.

We have lots of other informative material about this issue, so if you want more, just let us know.

Thanks!

Martha and Allen Neuringer:
Tom and Debbie Thrall

 

[jump to top]

Eminent Domain

Northwest Property Rights Coalition

“It seems there’s a greater appetite by both public and private parties to use eminent domain, and yet it’s supposed to be a last resort.”  Rural landowners should have the same rights enjoyed by state government under eminent domain laws.  We need to push for reform of state laws concerning the authority of government and industry to force access to private land.  Private landowners have fewer rights than does state government on the issue.  When the federal government or industry seek to cross state land with pipelines or power lines, the state enjoys the right to: A requirement for prior notice; initial and annual fees, and a 30-year limit on all contracts, rather than in perpetuity.  It is clear that current law places all of the cards in the hands of government and private companies.  There are MANY cases where private companies zig-zagged around public land when the route with least construction cost was across public land.  It is clear that companies and governments, seeking to minimize spending, using the law to coerce landowners. Since they cannot coerce another government entity, they go after private landowners, those perceived least capable of responding, or defending themselves. Our protection is in the representatives we elect. 

 

[jump to top]

Oregon's total natural gas consumption is actually in decline!

We currently have more thane enough natural gas infrastructure in the state of Oregon.

There is absolutely NO true proven NEED for increasing natural gas infrastructure in the state of Oregon.
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/ng_cons_sum_dcu_SOR_a.htm

 

 

[jump to top]

Nationally total natural gas consumption is not rising!

We currently have more thane enough natural gas infrastructure in the United States.

The dramatic increase in natural gas pricing over the last 15 years has helped to dramatically decrease it's demand.
There is absolutely NO true proven NEED for increasing natural gas infrastructure in the state of Oregon.
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/ng_cons_sum_dcu_nus_a.htm

 

 

[jump to top]

US Natural Gas Imports 2002-2006

Do we really need to become more dependant on Middle Eastern and African fossil fuels?

 

 

[jump to top]

Where is the natural gas consumption happening in the USA ?

Do we really need to become more dependant on Middle Eastern and African fossil fuels?

 

Where will all of the gas from these proposed LNG projects in Oregon go?
LNG Developer	Location	LNG Volume annually	Intended market
Northern Star LNG	Bradwood, OR	365.0 billion cubic feet	California
Oregon LNG	Warrenton, OR	547.0 billion cubic feet	California
Jordan Cove LNG	North Bend, OR	383.3 billion cubic feet	California
Nothing prevents the sale of any of these proposed LNG import terminal facility and their pipelines to a Persian, Russian, Peoples Republic of China or any other foreign entity.

 

 

[jump to top]

Why have Oregon Law Makers REFUSED to take the point on this issue?

Oregon law makers have REFUSED to take the point on this issue

Despite our requests, Oregon law makers have REFUSED to take the point on this issue, Oregon's politicians instead are basing their energy policies largely on written requests made by big energy companies and utilities. Policies that have come from the relevant state and federal agencies and from our politicians in Salem have largely favored the energy industry, and have greased the skids for LNG. The state has yet to produce any conclusive proof from an independent source that Oregon needs LNG.