California's gain but Oregon's pain 
Tuesday, August 28, 2007

The push by energy speculators from Texas, New York and California to build the first West Coast liquid natural gas terminal in Oregon is yet another unfortunate sign that our state is being viewed as a suitable place for high-risk industrial projects that California and Washington won't tolerate. While the residents and political leaders of Tijuana, Mexico, successfully fought plans for an LNG terminal there, most of Oregon's politicians have been unwilling so far to speak out against such projects. 
Last year, Oregonians reacted angrily to plans to bring a ship-breaking operation to Oregon that would not be allowed in California. The LNG schemes planned for the lower Columbia River estuary and for Coos Bay, however, make the ship-breaking project seem mild in comparison. 

The Oregonian's recent story on plans for two massive new gas pipelines that would extend more than 200 miles from the proposed LNG terminals on the Columbia to the existing California-bound pipeline in Madras makes clear what's motivating the Oregon plans. While the pipeline for the Coos Bay project would run directly into California, the Columbia River projects have the same goal: quench California's appetite for gas while sparing our southern neighbors the safety, environmental and economic impacts of an LNG terminal. 
It's no secret that California has a massive demand for gas or that it has consistently rejected risky LNG terminals that create a mere 35 to 40 long-term jobs. While California recently rejected an LNG terminal 14 miles offshore, Texas-based Northern Star wants to put such a terminal 38 miles up the Columbia River. 

The project would degrade prime salmon habitat, and each outgoing tanker would take with it 20 million gallons of fresh Columbia River water as dead weight to help stabilize the empty ship. Because of the incredibly high energy content of liquid natural gas, there are real reasons to be concerned about the risk of an accident or terrorist attack. According to studies from the U.S. Sandia National Labs, a terrorist attack on an LNG tanker off Astoria's shore has the potential to engulf the city in flames. Not exactly a selling point for local tourism. 

The Coast Guard has said LNG tankers would have a 1,500-foot safety exclusion zone on either side of the ship. As a result, recreational boaters and fishermen would be forced to the margins of the river every day, and there is a real potential that commercial shippers also would be affected. Commercial fishermen have said the project may be the straw that breaks more than 100 years of fishing tradition in the estuary. And the Coast Guard also has reported that if the project is approved, it would take 20 full-time staff to man a new system of 24-hour surveillance cameras along the lower Columbia. 

In addition to these Oregon-specific impacts, importing even more foreign fossil fuels at a time when the world is focused on the issue of global warming would be a major step in the wrong direction for our state. 

Although Tijuana doesn't usually come to mind as a place Oregon's politicians should look for inspiration, we can only hope our leaders will follow that city's example in saying no to a future of being the back door for California's gas imports. 

Brent Foster is executive director of Columbia Riverkeeper. 
http://www.oregonlive.com/oregonian/stories/index.ssf?/base/editorial/1188255348196890.xml&coll=7

Letter to Alex Pulaski at the Oregonian 6/26/2006
Tuesday, June 26, 2006

Having read your excellent piece on LNG importation and its effect on our region in the Willamette Week September 28, 2005 issue, I thought I would up-date you on efforts being made in Cowlitz County to keep Northern Star from gaining a permit to build their facility at Bradwood, Oregon 
We have formed a non-profit corporation, Landowners and Citizens for Safe Communities, and are joining with Columbia Riverkeeper in filing for intervenor status. One of our members has filed with FERC to extend the date for commenting on the project to July 30th. I don’t know if that request has been granted. 
What started with a group of people concerned about having a 30 inch pipeline being forced upon us and our properties has grown into a real citizen involvement, with the knowledge that this may transform life and livelihoods in our community. The Coast Guard won’t release the risk assessment report, citing national security, but those of us familiar with the area know it is simply not feasible to protect the tankers once they enter the Columbia River. The exclusion zone now in place at the four existing LNG plants in the US is wider than the shipping channel, thus closing the river to all other traffic when a tanker is there. 
The Council on Foreign Relations has an excellent background paper on the likelihood of terrorists attacking LNG tankers and facilities. 
Just today, the Natural Resources Defense Council released a report showing that energy efficiency could cut natural gas use by 12 percent in the next 10 years.
An interesting sidelight to this story can be found by following the money. The website of the LNG Journal reported on Sept 2, 2005 that High-Point Rendel , a UK based international consulting firm had been appointed to assist in the permit process for Bradwood. The website of High-Point Rendel states that their major shareholder is the “influential Al Rushaid Group of Saudi Arabia.” I wonder where this LNG will be imported from? 
We really need the public to awaken to what is about to be foisted off on Oregon and Southwest Washington. Many of our neighbors are just now realizing that they may be living next to a pipeline, this project has just flown under the radar of the average person. Please help us by continuing to feature LNG prominently in the Willamette Week. 

Thank you,
Gayle Kiser
Media Committee
Landowners and Citizens for Safe Communities
http://www.safecommunity.us

Pipeline safety letter to the media 

The Liquefied Natural Gas facility at Bradwood Landing in Oregon is one of four that have been proposed for the lower Columbia area. So far, it is the only one to attract the funding necessary to construct such an expensive project. Northern Star Energy filed an application with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on June 5. 2006, to build an importation facility at Bradwood and a 35 mile pipeline running through Cowlitz County, to connect with the existing Williams pipeline, that runs North and South on the east side of Interstate 5. Public comments will be accepted until July 6, 2006.

On August 8, 2005, George W. Bush signed the energy bill that gave FERC the sole authority over the siting of these facilities. There is little our states can do to prevent them. Oregon could withhold water permits based on the federal Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act and Coastal Zone Management Act.

The Dept. of Homeland Security has identified such facilities and pipelines as prime terrorist targets. In relation to that, whenever these large tankers come into port they have an armed Coast Guard escort. The buffer zones that are now being observed at the four existing facilities in the US are wider than the shipping channel in the Columbia, meaning river traffic would be stopped and the river would be cleared every time a tanker came in, which has been estimated at 125 times a year. The Coast Guard is withholding the Waterway Suitability Assessment report, citing national security.

Fishermen are up in arms about the proposed dredging that would be necessary near Cathlamet to allow the tankers to dock. It would destroy prime salmon waters. 

Our local group, Landowners and Citizens for Safe Communities, was formed originally from landowners, such as myself, who oppose having a 30 inch gas line running through our properties. There are many safety issues, including building it on unstable ground, mapped as debris fields from ancient landslides. My husband walked the route with them that they want to take through our property, identifying concerns and suggesting alternatives. They made it clear to us that they have only one route in mind. At that point, we quit cooperating. If we lose this battle, our land will be taken from us under the Eminent Domain laws
. 
We worry about the dangers inherent in locating both the import facility and the pipeline in an area known for its scenic beauty and the effects on the residents if an accident were to occur. Similar, but smaller, pipes have burst in Algeria and Nigeria, with the latter resulting in complete devastation over an area of 14 square miles. If that were to happen on our property, it would wipe out the community of Lexington, the fastest growing area in our county. And we're told that if the gas didn't explode, but just drifted on the wind, it would suffocate everything in its path. The Kelso School District has purchased property in Lexington for a new grade school.

An interesting sidelight, uncovered by one of our members via the internet came from the LNG Journal. It states that Northern Star appointed High-Point Rendel to undertake the preliminary design and layout of the terminal at Bradwood. High Point Rendel is a company from the UK that has as a major share-holder, the Al Rushaid Group of Saudi Arabia. 

Our group is working with Columbia Riverkeeper and several other groups, filing for Intervenor Status, so we can express our concerns to FERC. We have amassed a wealth of material supporting our view that it would be a grave mistake to build these facilities in the Columbia River area. We would welcome the opportunity to have you attend one of our meetings, or we could come to Portland to present you with our material.

Our contact person is Vonda Brock, at 360-636-1766. She is on the go, interviewing authorities and newspaper editors, so please leave a message if you don't reach her in person.

Thank you for taking an interest in this. I believe that the people of our SW Washington and NE Oregon area deserve to know what is happening.

Thank you,
Gayle Kiser
Media Committee
Landowners and Citizens for Safe Communities
http://www.safecommunity.us

Letter to CBS 60 Minutes
Tuesday, February 6, 2007

Story Editor
60 Minutes
CBS News
524 West 57th Street
New York, NY 10019

Gentlemen, 

I would like to suggest that “60 Minutes” look into the collusion taking place between the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the liquefied natural gas importing companies on all shores of our country. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 gives sole siting authority for LNG plants to FERC. According to the website of The Center for Public Integrity, this bill was arrived at after at least 83 meetings, held in private, between the FERC commissioners and representatives of the oil and gas industry. As you well know, the Supreme Court has held that Vice President Cheney doesn’t have to turn over records of the energy representatives he met with to develop this policy. Then- Senate Energy Committee Chairman Pete V. Domenici slipped the LNG siting provision into a massive spending bill,where it passed because lawmakers were unaware of the change.

There are now more than 40 proposed LNG importation facilities on the drawing board. One of which, Bradwood Landing is being built by NorthernStar Natural Gas, on the lower Columbia River in Oregon. This concerns the citizens of the area because of its location 30 plus miles inland, on a narrow shipping channel. Because of the explosive danger from the LNG tankers, the Coast Guard maintains an “exclusion zone” around tankers docking at the existing LNG facilities in the United States. Such a zone would shut down shipping on the Columbia River, essentially strangling the ports of Portland, Vancouver, Kalama and Longview. The $100,000,000 fishing industry on the lower Columbia would also be endangered. 

In the LNG Journal of Sept 2, 2005, it was announced that NorthernStar hired High-Point Rendel to assist in the permitting process for Bradwood Landing. This is a company headquartered in the United Kingdom, with the ALRushaid Group of Saudi Arabia as a major shareholder. The LNG will be imported from countries in the middle-east, further deepening our reliance on foreign fossil fuel.

NorthernStar has made many promises, but evidence to the contrary on many of them is not that hard to find. The first promise was that the gas was for Northwest residents. Now we know of plans to pipe the gas to Calilfornia, where citizens have successfully fought LNG facilities. NorthernStar promised $59 million in mitigation for the damage to the salmon runs, which by their own Biological Assessment filed with FERC says the facility will have “an adverse affect” on threatened and endangered salmonids. But the money is spread out over a 35 year period, longer than the life expectancy of the plant itself. There is a high probability that the plant will be sold soon after construction, and the mitigation plan will be moot. The cornerstone of their mitigation plan, the purchase of Svensen Island, is a sham. The island was in the process of being acquired by the Columbia Land Trust when NorthernStar scuttled the deal with an offer of more money to the landowner.

They have successfully petitioned to keep information from being distributed to the affected landowners by invoking CEII, critical energy infrastructure information. The Coast Guard’s Water Suitability Assessment, the Emergency Response plan and the final landowners list for the proposed 35 mile pipeline are all considered secret because of Homeland Security. Meetings are being held at which intervenors are being excluded. Our coalition has filed complaints with FERC about these “ex parte” meetings. 

Lastly, the New York Times carried a story on Jan.30 that throws another light on what could occur following the signing of an executive order by Pres. Bush which says each agency must have a regulatory policy office run by a political appointee. Somehow, this makes me feel like the fix is in and we citizens are beating our heads against a wall in trying to work within the law. 

Exposure to the light may by the only thing that stops this exploitation from being perpetrated on the American public by these Enron wannabes. Please look into the facts and report them as only you can do. 

Thank you for your consideration,

Thank you for your consideration,
Gayle Kiser
Media Committee
Landowners and Citizens for Safe Communities
http://www.safecommunity.us

Letter to Magalie Salas, Secretary Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
Monday, April 17, 2006

Magalie Salas, Secretary
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First St. NE
Washington, DC 20426

RE: NorthernStar Natural Gas, LLC
Bradwood Landing, LLC
Dockets: CP06-365-000; CP06-366; CP06-376-000; CP06-377-000

Secretary Salas,

I’m writing you out of concern for the Lower Columbia River region of Oregon and Washington. The project that NorthernStar is proposing for Bradwood, OR is ill-conceived from one end to the other. 

1. To begin with, the United States should NOT be looking to import another foreign fossil fuel. We should concentrate our efforts on developing alternative energy, such as wind power and solar power. This importation scheme will only further our dependence on foreign countries and worsen our trade deficit.

2. Existing gas supplies in North America can be extended by 12% merely by improving energy efficiency with existing technology. Natural gas usage has declined in Washington over the past 3 years. 

3. The idea of bringing this combustible cargo across the most dangerous bar crossing in the world is ludicrous. The area off the mouth of the Columbia is a graveyard of sunken vessels.

4. In this post 9/11 world, we cannot afford to let these tankers travel unescorted. The United States Coast Guard recently released the Water Suitability Assessment, in which, they require a 500 yard security zone around the LNG tankers. How would other river traffic, both commercial and recreational, be affected by the closing of the river during the three times a week that shipments are projected? Ironically, the Port of Longview recently signed a contract with Siemens to import wind-generating turbines. I hope they are able to fulfill their end of the bargain. 

5. Millions of dollars have already been spent under the Endangered Species Act to protect the salmon runs in the Columbia. The location of the facility at Bradwood would disturb one of the most important salmon smolt rearing areas on the river. Clifton Channel is the area where the smolt, upon their return to the sea, adjust from fresh to salt water. By NorthernStar’s own biological assessment, this project will “likely have an adverse effect” on salmonids. No amount of “mitigation” on the part of NorthernStar will off-set the damage that will be done if they are allowed to dredge the 45 acre turning basin, removing 700,000 cubic yards of material from the bottom of the river. This material is shown to carry pollutants such as PCB’s that would better be left undisturbed. 

6. Small family forest landowners have been saddled for years with regulations that imposed limits on what they were allowed to do with their property, in order to protect the endangered fish and wildlife. It would be a slap in their faces to see this big, for-profit company allowed an end run around existing laws, merely because they were able to persuade FERC that this facility is a short-term answer to our nation’s energy needs. Those landowners previously identified as being on the route of the pipeline have received letters explaining eminent domain; we take that as a threat. 

7. The route for the sendout pipeline traverses areas of slide debris and ancient landslides. Those areas have been identified on geological maps as too risky to allow construction of housing. How could they possibly be considered for a 30-inch gas pipeline? Land movement has played a major role in the two explosions of the existing Williams pipeline twice in the past eleven years. I know, I could see the flames and smoke from both explosions from my house. The existing KB pipeline lies within one half mile of the proposed location of the Bradwood pipeline on our property. There was such instability at that location that a neighbor had to relocate his house and the pipeline is now above ground. 

8. The gas in this pipeline will not be odorized. We will have no warning of a leak until a catastrophe occurs. Where the pipeline is proposed to cross the Cowlitz River, there is a 100 foot deep liquefaction zone, meaning no solid support for the line. The unincorporated community of Lexington, population 7200, lies within one mile of the pipeline. The Kelso School District purchased land for a new elementary school within this area. 

9. This project will not benefit our area. The gas will be shipped to California. No trunk lines are proposed to service Cowlitz County. We get all of the risk and no benefit. Our way of life on the lower Columbia River will be compromised, and for what? The billions of dollars in profits will go to a group of energy speculators who have no concept of the importance of salmon to our culture and well-being. Their ill-disguised public relations campaign, showing our beautiful area, sans Puget Island on the map, was just another slick self-promoting attempt to bribe the unknowing public into believing they will be good for the area. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The money being promised by NorthernStar for habitat mitigation will be coming mostly in the future. What is to keep them from selling the facility, thus negating their obligation? 

Please keep my concerns in mind when the decision over granting NorthernStar a permit for their Bradwood, Oregon facility is made. They reflect the thoughts of many in our area. 


Sincerely,
Gayle Kiser
Media Committee
Landowners and Citizens for Safe Communities
http://www.safecommunity.us

Sample Letter to Governor Ted Kulongoski

Dear Governor Kulongoski,

Thank you for your commitment to renewable energy in Oregon! I am writing because I am concerned that your clean energy plan faces a major threat by fossil fuels in the form of Liquefied Natural Gas. I want to remind you that renewable energy is not only good for the environment, it is also good for our economy. It creates 700 percent more jobs per kilowatt than fossil fuels do. And it forges a path to energy independence. LNG, on the other hand, will handcuff our state to decades of foreign fossil fuel dependence.

Please uphold Oregon's promise of a clean energy future, and reject industry demands for LNG!

Yours,

Sample Letter to legislators

[Today’s date]

The Honorable [rep or sen X]

[Office address]



Dear [rep or sen X]:

I am writing to express my deep concern with the Oregon LNG and Palomar gas pipeline projects. 

As you are probably aware, these projects propose to cross hundreds of miles of rural Oregon lands, several major rives, and hundreds of streams to deliver gas largely to California. Northwest Natural Gas and Transcanada are teaming up to push the Palomar project forward, a project that would extend from near the Bradwood Columbia River LNG project to Transcanada’s California-bound GTN system. Simultaneously, Oregon LNG is seeking a very similar right-of-way through the Willamette Valley between Molalla and Warrenton. Both pipelines are driven by huge LNG import terminal proposals and would allow imported foreign fossil fuels (LNG) to read the California gas market. 

We have many concerns with both the LNG terminals and the pipeline, each of which exceeds Oregon’s total average demand of gas. The projects, for which there is no demonstrated need, will seriously disrupt landowners along the proposed route. The LNG terminals will disrupt the Lower Columbia economy while the pipelines disrupt farming, nursery and timber operations and depress real estate values. Furthermore, private and public lands will be damaged in the pipeline’s construction. With so much effort being given to the restoration of fish habitat, it seems absurd to allow these huge destructive projects. Lastly, the public safety of citizens in Astoria, along the Columbia River, and adjacent to the pipeline is of paramount concern. 

As first steps in defending the land rights, environmental quality, economic well-being, and public safety in Oregon, please consider either sponsoring or supporting legislation that would increase State and local authority in this matter. Please consider taking the following steps through legislative action (there are examples of both State and Federal legislator action items below: 
· Repeal the provision of the 2005 Energy Policy Act stripping states of siting authority (federal). 
· Support regional and state assessments regarding the need for LNG in a transparent, thorough, public process. This could scuttle the site-by-site “horserace” that currently dominates LNG siting (federal). 
· Pressure state agencies to halt permits until Oregon’s energy needs are evaluated in a public process, and until the project is clearly shown to be in the “public interest.” (state – see state legislative action sheet)
· Introduce legislation that restricts public safety impacts from unnecessary, large-scale LNG and gas pipeline projects, potentially banning the proposals from bringing schools, homes, and other structures within hazard zones for tankers, storage tanks, and pipelines. (State – see legislative action sheet again). 
· Introduce legislation that changes imminent domain laws in Oregon to define “public interest” clearly. (state)
· Introduce legislation that regulates pipeline size and safety with spacing to houses and other structures being equivalent to schools and churches (700 ft). Also, can regulate the size of pipelines and pressure that they are operated under. (state)

Obviously, these are simple steps that only address the LNG part of the picture, but the LNG terminal is the source of the pipelines and offers you as our elected representative an opportunity to enhance the voice of those impacted by the entire project – both terminal and pipeline. The use of eminent domain for a pipeline that is probably unnecessary for Oregon violates my common-sense standard of fairness. I also encourage you to challenge FERC’s power of eminent domain for privately owned project that do not benefit impacted areas. Remember that there is hypocrisy in being silent in this matter; you represent your constituents, Oregonians and they are asking for your support. 

I look forward to your response to my concerns and hope that you will agree that these projects are unnecessary, destructive, and not in the public interest for Oregon. 

Sincerely, 

[Your name]

[Your address]

[Optional: your phone number and / or email address]

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.

Please join us in urging the Oregon Public Utilities Commission to hold open, evidentiary hearings to determine the need for LNG before we sign our future over to it. 

Oregon Public Utilities Commission
http://www.puc.state.or.us

Please help convince our lawmakers that as a matter of good government they should take the point on this very important issue, it is imperative that the state consider all of the impacts and the alternatives to LNG before we sign our energy future away to it. 

United States House of Representatives
http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW.shtml

Oregon Public Utilities Commission
http://www.puc.state.or.us/

Find your Oregon legislator
http://www.leg.state.or.us/findlegsltr/

Sen. Ron Wyden (DEM)
District: 0S1
United States Senate
230 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC  20510-0001
Phone: (202) 224-5244
Fax: (202) 228-2717
Email: http://wyden.senate.gov/contact/

Sen. Gordon H. Smith (REP)
District: 0S2
United States Senate
404 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC  20510-0001
Phone: (202) 224-3753
Fax: (202) 228-3997
Email: http://gsmith.senate.gov/webform.htm


Federal Representative

Rep. David Wu (DEM)
District: 001
United States House of Representatives
2338 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-0001
Phone: (202) 225-0855
Fax: (202) 225-9497
Email: http://www.house.gov/writerep/

State Senator
Sen. Gary George (REP)
District: 012
900 Court Street NE
Suite S-214
Salem, OR 97301-4067
Phone: (503) 986-1712
Fax: (503) 986-1167
Email: sen.garygeorge@state.or.us

State Representative
Rep. Donna G. Nelson (REP)
District: 024
900 Court Street NE
Suite H-279
Salem, OR 97301-4050
Phone: (503) 986-1424
Fax: (503) 986-1934
Email: rep.donnanelson@state.or.us 

Philadelphia City Council Resolution Opposing LNG Terminal (Passed by Council on 2/16/2006)

RESOLUTION
Memorializing Council’s opposition to the proposed project to expand PGW’s Port
Richmond liquefied natural gas (LNG) facility into an import terminal facility, and
expressing Council’s intention not to enact any legislation needed to implement that
project, and further expressing Council’s unqualified opposition to any project that
would create an LNG shipping terminal within the City of Philadelphia or that
would cause loaded LNG tankers to regularly traverse the Delaware River alongside
the City of Philadelphia.

WHEREAS, The Philadelphia Gas Works (PGW) has issued Requests for Proposals for
a project that would expand PGW’s Port Richmond liquefied natural gas (LNG) facility
into an import terminal facility that would receive regular shipments of LNG from
tankers that would traverse the Delaware River all along its Philadelphia frontage; and

WHEREAS, The potential risk created by terrorists targeting LNG shipments has been
well documented. The Sandia National Laboratories, in a report entitled “Guidance on
Risk Analysis and Safety Implications of a Large Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Spill
Over Water,” concluded that a terrorist attack on a LNG tanker, in the worst case
scenario, could cause second-degree burns to people more than a mile away from the
tanker. Further, a report issued in May 2005 by national security analyst Richard Clarke,
at the request of Rhode Island Attorney General Patrick Lynch, concluded that such a
terrorist attack was consistent with the demonstrated intent and capability of known
terrorist organizations; that there “is also a basis to judge that likely enhanced security
measures would not significantly reduce the risk,” and that there is “significant grounds
to conclude that a high risk exists of catastrophic damage from the types of attacks
terrorists are capable of mounting”; and

WHEREAS, It is difficult to imagine a worse location for an LNG shipping terminal
than Port Richmond. The proposed terminal would require loaded LNG tankers, on a
regular basis, to travel along the Delaware River close to areas of high population
density, close to the Philadelphia International Airport, close to refineries, close to the
professional sports stadiums and the large crowds those stadiums attract, close to Center
City Philadelphia, and close to the housing, commercial and institutional development the
City of Philadelphia and the City of Camden have attracted and seek to attract to their
waterfronts; and

WHEREAS, While a successful terrorist attack on an LNG tanker or an LNG shipping
facility may never occur, the reality in the post-9/11 world is that if the Port Richmond
LNG shipping terminal is built, the City and the region will need to incur extraordinary
expenses to prevent terrorist attacks and to be ready to respond to the unimaginable,
should preventive measures fail; and

WHEREAS, It is difficult to believe that the City could successfully transfer all the
current and future costs of preventing and responding to a terrorist attack to a private
developer. Moreover, the people of the City and the region will incur non-financial costs
that can never be compensated, from the inconvenience created by regular bridge
closures (as is done for LNG facilities in other areas), to living with the knowledge that
regular LNG shipments are an inviting target for terrorists; and

WHEREAS, There are four LNG terminals in the continental United States, the closest
being Everett, Massachusetts, a suburb of Boston, which has similar demographics to
Philadelphia. It costs the City of Boston approximately $80,000 every time makes a trip
to its harbor. Once a tanker enters the harbor, the Coast Guard maintains command and
control. The state Police and Boston Police Department as well as agents from the
Massachusetts Environmental Police meet the LNG tanker for escort. A state police
helicopter hovers above the LNG tanker and all bridge and maritime traffic cease.
Flights must also be redirected to and from the airport; and

WHEREAS, Boston PD is forced to take regular patrol units out of service and place
them alongside the shoreline for added security. Prior to the tanker’s arrival at the import
terminal, a team of nine state police dive the pier and adjacent waters. While the ship is
in port, both the state and city police maintain a 24-hour detail inside the LNG import
facility and its surrounding area; and

WHEREAS, Unlike other municipalities, which are preempted from regulating LNG
shipments and are at the mercy of federal regulators who will decide whether LNG
projects will be built in their areas, the City of Philadelphia is in the unique and enviable
position, as proprietor of the Gas Works and owner of the Port Richmond facility, to say
“no” to LNG tankers sailing up the Delaware River and unloading in Port Richmond;
now, therefore,

RESOLVED, BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA,
THAT The Council hereby memorializes its opposition to the proposed project to expand
PGW’s Port Richmond LNG facility into an import terminal facility, and expresses its
intention not to enact any legislation needed to implement that project.

FURTHER RESOLVED, THAT the Council expresses its unqualified opposition to
any project that would create an LNG shipping terminal within the City of Philadelphia,
or that would cause loaded LNG tankers to regularly traverse the Delaware River
alongside the City of Philadelphia.

February 16, 2006