No Foreign LNG Regasification Facilities & Pipelines in Oregon

Economical Impacts

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?
I really don't like the idea of a private company being able to use Eminent Domain to steal private property for PRIVATE corporate Profits.  What public good?  This is a private FOR PROFIT company!

 





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

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 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 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.

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.

LNG Developer Location LNG Volume annually Intended market
Port Westward LNG Clatskanie, OR 456.3 billion cubic feet California
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

 

Read More     Comments (33)

Environmental Impacts

Posted on August 25th, 2007 by admin | Edit

Environment
The following environmental issues should be considered as part of a comprehensive assessment and management program that addresses project-specific risks and potential impacts. 

Potential environmental issues associated with LNG facilities
include the following:
Threats to aquatic and shoreline environments
Hazardous material management
Wastewater
Air emissions
Waste management
Noise
LNG transport

Threats to Aquatic and Shoreline Environments Construction and maintenance dredging, disposal of dredge spoil, construction of piers, wharves, breakwaters, and other water-side structures, and erosion may lead to short and long term impacts on aquatic and shoreline habitats. Direct impacts may include the physical removal or covering of sea floor, shore, or land-side habitat while indirect impacts may result from changes to water quality from sediment suspension or discharges of stormwater and wastewater. Additionally, the discharge of ballast water and sediment from ships during LNG terminal loading operations may result in the introduction of invasive aquatic species. For LNG facilities located near the coast (e.g. coastal terminals marine supply bases, loading / offloading terminals), guidance is provided in the EHS Guidelines for Ports, Harbors, and Terminals.

Hazardous Materials Management Storage, transfer, and transport of LNG may result in leaks or accidental release from tanks, pipes, hoses, and pumps at land installations and on LNG transport vessels. The storage and transfer of LNG also poses a risk of fire and, if under pressure, explosion due to the flammable characteristics of its boil-off gas.  In addition to the recommendations for hazardous materials and oil management discussed in the General EHS Guidelines, recommended measures to manage these types of hazards include:

LNG storage tanks and components (e.g. pipes, valves, and pumps) should meet international standards for structural design integrity and operational performance to avoid catastrophic failures and to prevent fires and explosions during normal operations and during exposure to natural hazards. Applicable international standards may include provisions for overfill protection, secondary containment, metering and flow control, fire protection (including flame arresting devices), and grounding (to prevent electrostatic charge).

Storage tanks and components (e.g. roofs and seals) should undergo periodic inspection for corrosion and structural integrity and be subject to regular maintenance and replacement of equipment (e.g. pipes, seals, connectors, and valves).  A cathodic protection system should be installed to prevent or minimize corrosion, as necessary;

Loading / unloading activities (e.g. transfer of cargo between LNG carriers and terminals) should be conducted by properly trained personnel according to pre-established formal procedures to prevent accidental releases and fire / explosion hazards. Procedures should include all aspects of the delivery or loading operation from arrival to departure, connection of grounding systems, verification of proper hose connection and disconnection, adherence to no-smoking and no-naked light policies for personnel and visitors.


Myth: LNG has a minimal impact on global warming.

Reality: While it's true that natural gas power plants emit about half as much carbon dioxide as coal plants, the 
natural gas combustion required to produce and transport LNG to the plants adds 20 to 40 percent more carbon dioxide 
than burning natural gas alone. This includes extracting the gas from the earth, proecessing the gas to meet U.S. 
standards, transporting it through pipelines (many of which leak), chilling it, shipping it overseas, and then 
converting it back to natural gas. In the end, LNG is a major source of greenhouse gasses, and investing in LNG 
infrastructure increases our dependence on climate destabilizing fossil fuels.

In short, don't be fooled, LNG is a major source of greenhouse gasses.
Download the RACE - Global Warming.pdf by clicking here




Read More     Comments (33)