Change font size   Print view

What's So Bad About LNG?

This board is for announcing meetings and events (i.e. Surfrider meetings, surf club events, beach clean-ups, surf contests, etc). Registration is required.

Moderators: Spider, wanty

Postby Dr Sloth » Sun Jun 24, 2007 8:19 pm

Gazza - I am not sure where the storage facilities are in this area if one exists. It is my understanding that the sited LNG locations will tie into pipelines that are already in place near Longview, WA that run north/south. Of course, pipelines will need to be built from the LNG facility to Longview. So, up the Columbia it will go ~ 50 miles of needed pipeline. It is sad though that the information I have read states that most, if not all, the LNG brought into the Columbia will be shipped out of this state. If that is the case and if any of the LNG sites get built, my view is that we are being used.

Since you are down south, any word about the sited LNG facility in Coos Bay? Or do you not hear anything about it where you live?


Betty - I can understand possible conflict on your behalf. A surfer true at heart that conflicts with your livelihood. It is what it is. To me that is very different from an oil rich company trying to dig in to this area and take advantage of the people and the geography.


pra_ggresion - I like the way you think. Not sure if anyone would volunteer to attempt something that could be so hazardous. As for the ACoE, the jetty construction is supposed to be 100% separated from anything related to LNG. Nothing to date has been approved for LNG to proceed. But, the ACoE will be involved with any dredging required for the much larger tankers needed to transport the LNG. That pristine salmon fishery known as the Lower Columbia River Fishery will be subject to major dredging because of LNG. But, LNG proponents say that only good will come from LNG for the salmon. :?

Anyone know how to get any of this information out to the masses of people that use the Lower Columbia for fishing?
Big Promises + Secrecy x Fast Track = Liquid Natural Gas (LNG)
We don't need no stinkin LNG

Sign the No LNG petition --> http://www.rainforestwildlife.org/No%20LNG.htm
User avatar
Dr Sloth
baitfish expert
 
Posts: 651
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 7:58 am
Location: on the sand in the lack of pines

Postby Dr Sloth » Wed Jun 27, 2007 3:15 pm

so gills, sorry for the delay, things have been hectic with work/travel.


LNG companies on promising to deliver economic growth and good jobs for the Lower Columbia River area while not having much of an effect on the natural surroundings. Sound like it's too good to be true?

There are 4 FERC sitings for LNG plants to be built on the Lower Columbia as depicted in the jpg brochure I posted. Don't forget about the FREC sited Coos Bay LNG facility that is trying to get pushed thru as well. From the brochure, those red areas are the agreed upon danger areas for the LNG tankers. But, aren't those LNG tankers mobile...hmm, a 3 year old can understand that tankers move. Point is, if one of those tankers goes up in flames, goodbye to a significant area surrounding where ever that tanker is. And, it can burn and travel. But, what are the chances one of those tankers will go up in flames? Probably not much.

My issue is with bringing petroleum into the area and the facilities required to re-gasify the petroleum to be held in storage tanks locally prior to being shipped out-of-state in new pipelines to be built to reach Longview. Can LNG companies guarantee that there will be no harmful effects from petroleum in this area? No. So lets just turn a nice area into complete crap and build the facilities and pipelines.

LNG companies claim that a facility will bring around 1700 jobs to the area. Ok, but how many are not to just build the facility? About 50-60 and opponents speculate ~ 40 full-time permanent jobs. So, since this area is not petroleum rich in experience, how are these 50-60 jobs going to be filled? They will need to bring in experienced people to work most of those jobs. Sure, they can hire cleaning crews from this area...last I checked, a cleaning crew gets paid 6 digit salaries. :roll:

So now that LNG is bringing in all this money to the area, why would I be upset? Because it is going to scare away tourism that has been created by the cruise ships that are now visiting the area. As well, tourism from the Lower Columbia fishery. They expect 3 tankers a week to be offloading petroleum at the LNG facility. If you have read into the information I have posted, you will see that the Coast Guard will be involved with protection of those tankers and maintain exclusion areas surrounding the LNG tankers. This might not make the cruise ships feel as comfortable in the Port of Astoria. Less tourism to the area, fishery or cruise ship, will mean that businesses dependent on tourism will suffer.

I am a surfer and don't go to Astoria, why should I care? Severe dredging, a lot deeper and wider than now, will have to continue on a regular basis to support LNG traffic in this area. This WILL affect you. Doesn't the Columbia River flow the most CFM of water in the USA?

More importantly...do we really want this kind of destructive industry moving into Oregon and Washington? I do not. I would also be opposed to LNG facilities built in Portland.
Big Promises + Secrecy x Fast Track = Liquid Natural Gas (LNG)
We don't need no stinkin LNG

Sign the No LNG petition --> http://www.rainforestwildlife.org/No%20LNG.htm
User avatar
Dr Sloth
baitfish expert
 
Posts: 651
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 7:58 am
Location: on the sand in the lack of pines

Postby nasty » Wed Jun 27, 2007 3:33 pm

I just signed the petition.
My signature was #240.
What number will you be?

http://www.rainforestwildlife.org/No%20LNG.htm
nasty
 

Postby Seastack » Wed Jun 27, 2007 3:52 pm

Not to steal you thunder here Dr. Sloth this is all very relevant and know nothing about this LNG other than ones going in in Coos Bay. But what about logging. Does anybody care about logging anymore? Talk about destructive industires. The salmon were fuked years ago. Guess we have the chance to at least stop this now, if it is infact destructive. Need to do some research.
I'm like a sea lion inside, always take a pounding, pounding for my pride.
User avatar
Seastack
stinkbug stance? I walk this way!
 
Posts: 36
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 2:40 pm
Location: laying tile

Postby Dr Sloth » Wed Jun 27, 2007 8:16 pm

I hear you...major difference here is that once a LNG, or multiple LNG sites, get built, good luck trying to get rid of them. We have the opportunity now to get rid of them before they start destroying this area.

Once built, the LNG claws will be deeply embedded in this area and it will be near impossible to have them leave. Think about it. LNG gets in this area and they spend $100 million to build a facility, do you think they will just abandon it because people don't like the way things are going? If a major disaster happens at a LNG site, then what? Will they put everything back to the way it was? Impossible.
Big Promises + Secrecy x Fast Track = Liquid Natural Gas (LNG)
We don't need no stinkin LNG

Sign the No LNG petition --> http://www.rainforestwildlife.org/No%20LNG.htm
User avatar
Dr Sloth
baitfish expert
 
Posts: 651
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 7:58 am
Location: on the sand in the lack of pines

Postby Dr Sloth » Thu Jul 05, 2007 4:48 pm

An IMPORTANT week for NO LNG on the COLUMBIA!

The staff report's "NO" to Bradwood is only a first step
The county staff report recommended NO! to the Bradwood terminal. However, the county Planning Commission and the County Commissioners can still choose to approve all the zone changes NorthernStar wants so it can build at Bradwood.

That's why our letters and comments to the county are ESSENTIAL! The county must hear from local folks (YOU!) why LNG does not belong on the Columbia River. Public comment begins in the afternoon and will go until 10 p.m. Each person has 3 minutes to speak, but you can say a lot in 3 minutes! Comments received from the public after July 10 cannot be considered when the county commissioners make their final decision, probably in August. Contact the county commissioners by July 10 at commissioners@co.clatsop.or.us; 800 Exchange, #310, Astoria, Or 97103

Clatsop County Planning Commission hearing
re: NorthernStar's requests for 27 changes in county laws and zoning at Bradwood
Tuesday, July 10 from 10 a.m. - 10 p.m. -- evening attendance is especially important
Astoria High School auditorium

- - - - - - - - - - - -

If you or someone you know has already received a letter about surveyors coming on their property to survey for an LNG pipeline, please contact Dan Serres of Columbia River Clean Energy Coalition at 503-890-2441 or dserres@gmail.com. They need to know how to best safeguard their rights and property.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -

"YES!" to LNG Workshop at the Cannery Pier Hotel, Astoria
A full house at Monday's workshops with people from along the Columbia and even the Cowlitz Rivers! Great information, energy, and determination. We'll be sending out ideas for Talking Points in the next day or so. Please let me know if you'd like me to resend LNG information emails. I'm at lcaplan@pacifier.com.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"HUH?" to Oregon LNG!
Community members at Thursday night's Oregon LNG scheduled presentation in Warrenton were surprised to find there wasn't a presentation after all. The company declined to have speakers, so people had to find company reps to talk to individually about their questions. Many in the "audience" left angry and puzzled, and the gathering was mostly over by 8 p.m., an hour earlier than scheduled. We like to think the company was not willing to face a roomful of NO LNG people!

It appeared that most people attending were against LNG, and they were greeted outside by a friendly group of folks handing out NO LNG brochures, pipeline info, buttons, etc. Thanks to Laurie Caplan, Debi Donnelly, Carolyn Dunn, Lori Durheim, Cheryl Johnson, and Carol Newman for representing NO LNGers. Thanks to the great NO LNGers who traveled from Washington to attend - 1 hour each way!

- - - - - - - - - - - - -
NO LNG buttons and decals are available from Laurie, 338-6508 or lcaplan@pacifier.com. Get yard signs from Cheryl at 458-6910 or at the Lower Columbia Clinic, 325-9131. If you want brochures to share w/ friends, please contact Laurie. Your donations help pay for the legal and professional expertise in this struggle.
Big Promises + Secrecy x Fast Track = Liquid Natural Gas (LNG)
We don't need no stinkin LNG

Sign the No LNG petition --> http://www.rainforestwildlife.org/No%20LNG.htm
User avatar
Dr Sloth
baitfish expert
 
Posts: 651
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 7:58 am
Location: on the sand in the lack of pines

Postby Dr Sloth » Thu Jul 05, 2007 4:50 pm

LNG on the Columbia River and YOU!

A significant step forward in eliminating LNG on the Columbia River happened this week. The report by the STAFF and consultants hired by Clatsop County recommends that the zoning changes requested by Northern Star be denied!!!

Unfortunately, due to the headlines in the Daily A and TV News coverage in Portland, many people think that we have won. NOT TRUE! Here’s the process:

├ś July 10th – Clatsop Co Planning Commission will hold public hearings and later vote on the changes requested by Northern Star. They can follow the recommendations of the staff report, or they can ignore it and vote to ALLOW the changes. (YES they can!) Astoria High School, 10 a.m. - 10 p.m. Evening attendance is really important!

├ś Sometime in August – Clatsop Co Commissioners will hold public hearings and vote to grant or deny the same changes.

We have a REAL chance at victory in defeating LNG right here, right now in Clatsop County! YOUR voice is now more critical than ever.

Clatsop Co. has heard from the staff, now they need to hear OVERWHELMINGLY that the citizens of CC don’t want LNG on our river, in our community.

HOW CAN MY VOICE BE HEARD:

├ś Out of Town on July 10th? Submit your concerns/opinions in writing to the CC Planning Commission BEFORE July 10.

├ś Too shy to speak in public? Attend the hearings on July 10. Your attendance is important. The number of people attending the hearing will be reported in the news and will influence the decision makers. Wear your NO LNG button and/or your NO LNG shirt. BRING 5 FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS WITH YOU – BODIES COUNT!

├ś Don’t know what to say at the hearings? You don't have to be a land use attorney to participate! . As a citizen, you have both a right and responsibility to speak up on something that will change our community and river more dramatically than anything since the dams! Laurie Caplan has been sending out fact sheets on the effects of LNG on our air, water, & environment; safety, and economy. If you need info. sent again contact: lcaplan@pacifier.com

WORKSHOP to Prepare comments for Clatsop County Planning Commission hearing

* MONDAY, July 2 at the Cannery Pier Hotel from 7:15 - 8:30 p.m.
* turn off Marine Dr. by the Kentucky Fried Chicken and go toward the river
* We will be joined by Brett VandenHeuvel, attorney for Columbia Riverkeeper

€Dan Serres, Columbia River Clean Energy Coalition \
€Brent Foster, Executive Director for Columbia Riverkeeper

Workshop for general public; those who want to participate, but aren't sure what to say. you will get valuable information and ideas. Come with your neighbors, co-workers and friends.

** Send this email to 5 friends who may not be on this email list, but who care about our community.

See you on Monday!

Our River is NOT for Sale!

Cheryl Johnson - 458-6910 and Laurie Caplan - 338-6508
Big Promises + Secrecy x Fast Track = Liquid Natural Gas (LNG)
We don't need no stinkin LNG

Sign the No LNG petition --> http://www.rainforestwildlife.org/No%20LNG.htm
User avatar
Dr Sloth
baitfish expert
 
Posts: 651
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 7:58 am
Location: on the sand in the lack of pines

Postby Dr Sloth » Thu Jul 05, 2007 4:56 pm

What┬╣s So Bad About LNG?
Second in a four-part series
Our Safety and Security

Security and Emergency Planning

"In the absence of the measures described in this letter and the resources necessary to implement them, or in the absence of any changes to existing Coast Guard policy or guidance to lessen safety and security requirements, the Columbia River would be considered unsuitable for the LNG marine traffic associated with the Bradwood LNG terminal." -- Federal Maritime Security Coordinator, U.S. Coast Guard, February, 2007

Firefighting and security resources are extremely limited along the entire transit route, both to manage LNG shipments or respond to an LNG emergency such as spills, explosions, and pipeline leaks. --U.S. Coast Guard Waterway Suitability Report, 2007

The federal government considers LNG tankers to be a terrorist target and requires armed gunboats to escort each tanker. LNG tankers will need to have Coast Guard escort boats and firefighting tugs close by at all times; other vessels on the river will need authorization to enter a 1500-foot moving security zone surrounding the tankers in the shipping channel. -- U.S. Coast Guard Water Suitability Report, February 28, 2007

"The EPACT (Energy Policy Act of 2005) leaves emergency planning ┬ş one of the most important pieces of LNG siting ┬ş until one of the very last stages of the process Š . FERC does not require an applicant to reach an agreement with state or local agencies on an emergency response plan before an LNG application can move forward." -- Brian Baird, U.S. Rep, WA, June, 2006

"Some members of Congress, including U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Tuscaloosa, have voiced concern that serious safety risks -- as well as federal laws designed to encourage the siting of LNG terminals in "remote" areas -- are being overlooked, or even ignored, by federal agency officials." --Mobile Register, December 23, 2003

"Š the Department of Transportation (DOT) is responsible for setting safety standards for on-shore LNG terminals (due to its regulatory authority over pipelines) ┬ş including the siting, construction and operation of these facilitiesŠ. " -- Staff report for the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Marine Transportation, U.S. House of Representatives, April 23, 2007

The Exclusion Zone: Set by the Coast Guard, the zone limits or prevents ship and bridge traffic around an LNG tanker. On the Columbia, this will be 500 yards (slightly more than 1/4 mile) around a tanker in all directions. At other sites, exclusion zones are usually a minimum of 500 yards to each side, 2 miles in front, and 1 mile in back.

Excerpts from testimony of Senator Barbara Mikulski, Maryland, to the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Marine Transportation, U.S. House of Representatives, April 23, 2007:

… "I am absolutely opposed to a new LNG facility at Sparrows Point. We must do all we can do to protect the Port of Baltimore and the people of the Baltimore metropolitan area. I oppose this because of my fears and my frustrations. I worry about a terrorist attack. I worry about an accident with ghoulish consequences. This is a national security issue and a community security issue, not just an energy or a budget issue."

… "So the safety and security of the people of Calvert County and all who live or work on the Bay is provided by an uncertain mix of private security guards, local law enforcement and the overstretched Coast Guard. What will this mean? I┬╣ve tried to find out ┬ş all I get is platitudes and abstractions ┬ş and a lot of paper. If there is a problem, do you call the Sheriff of Calvert County? Do you call the rent-a-cops from a private security firm? We must have these answers!"

Vapor Cloud Fires

Schools, communities, Highway 30, and Columbia Memorial Hospital are within the dangerous heat burn hazard range of 1.55 miles of a possible LNG tanker spill, as analyzed by the Sandia National Laboratories Report for the U.S. government, December, 2004.

Astoria┬╣s Columbia Memorial Hospital is not a designated burn center. The closest centers are at Emanuel Hospital in Portland and in Seattle. The hospital is a Level 3 Trauma Center and is the designated receiver of all trauma patients in the county. Trauma patients who cannot be treated at CMH are evaluated and referred out as needed.

"If about 3 million gallons* of LNG spills onto the water from an LNG tanker ship, flammable vapors from the spill could travel up to 3 miles." --Jerry Havens, Director, Chemical Hazards Research Center, University of Arkansas *3 million gallons is only 10% of a typical LNG cargo.

Vapor Burn Zone: Scientists say vapor from a liquefied natural gas spill or fire can ignite and burn up to 3 miles away and start other fires in its path.

"A (LNG) Pool fire is intense, burning far more hotly and rapidly than oil or gasoline fires. It cannot be extinguished Š. Its thermal radiation may injure people and damage property a considerable distance from the fire itself." --Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress Report for Congress, January 28, 2004



"Leading LNG scientists have said that a terror attack on an LNG ship, styled after the boat bomb strike on the USS Cole, could lead to a massive and uncontrollable fireball in one of the nation's ports. If such an attack were to occur as the ship passed through a populated area, such as around Boston Harbor, thousands of people could be killed, according to some scientists." --Mobile Register, December 23, 2003

There are no plans to add mercapten (rotten egg) odor to the regasified LNG, which allows people to smell if gas is leaking from the 36" high-pressure pipeline(s) proposed to go through Oregon to California.

- - - - - -

Excerpts from a study done by for Congress by the U.S. Government Accountability Office. The results were presented on February 22, 2007 to Honorable John D. Dingell, Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representaive and Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security, House of Representatives:

… "When LNG is spilled from a tanker, it forms a pool of liquid on the water . . . As the liquid warms and changes into a natural gas, it forms a visible, foglike vapor cloud close to the water. The cloud mixes with ambient air as it continues to warm up and eventually the natural gas disperses into the atmosphere. Under certain atmospheric conditions, however, this cloud could drift into populated areas before completely dispersing." If there is an ignition source, such as a cigarette lighter or a spark from a car or boat engine, the result is a vapor cloud fire or "pool fire."

… "Our panel of 19 experts . . . agreed that the most likely public safety impact of an LNG spill is the heat impact of a fire . . ."

… "Experiments to date have shown that LNG fires burn hotter than oil fires of the same size."

… "Furthermore, a large, unconfined pool fire is very difficult to extinguish; generally almost all the LNG must be consumed before the fire goes out."

… "The Sandia National Laboratories study concluded that the most likely distance for a burn is about 1,600 meters (1 mile.)"

… "Both cold temperatures of spilled LNG and the high temperatures of an LNG fire have the potential to significantly damage the tanker, causing multiple tanks on the ship to fail in sequence-called a cascading failure. Such a failure could increase the severity of the incident."

More excerpts from a study done by for Congress by the U.S. Government Accountability Office and presented on February 22, 2007:

… "Because an LNG vapor cloud displaces the oxygen in the air, it could potentially asphyxiate people who come into contact with it."

… " Eighteen of the 19 experts agreed that the ignition of a vapor cloud over a populated area could burn people and property in the immediate vicinity of the fire."

… "Heat Hazard distance describes the distance at which 30 seconds of exposure could cause second degree burns."

- - - - - - - - -
Excerpts from the remarks of Chairman Elijah E. Cummings, U.S. Representative from Maryland when he convened Coast Guard Subcommittee Hearing on Proposed LNG Site at Sparrow's Point, April 20, 2007

… "The willingness of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to consider sitings in populated areas like Baltimore is of deep concern to me. These facilities are obvious terror targets - and an attack on an LNG terminal could produce terrible consequences."

… "The Coast Guard is our thin blue line at sea... it is all that stands between our communities and the risks that LNG shipping can bring to them."

… "LNG fires burn hotter than regular gas fires - and may emit thermal radiation that could burn even people near the vicinity of the fire. Further, LNG spilled on water is theoretically capable of re-gasifying almost instantly - creating a vapor cloud that may also explode if it finds a source of ignition. There is no reason to place these facilities in any location that could expose nearby residents to such risks. Š."

… "Our Subcommittee, which oversees all aspects of the Coast Guard's operations, is deeply concerned that an increase in the number of LNG terminals will stretch a Coast Guard already strained by the new homeland security responsibilities it assumed after 9-11 as well as by the need to continue its traditional missions of search and rescue and environmental protection."

… "Before we commit the Coast Guard to providing the resources needed to ensure the security and safety of new LNG operations, we need to know that we are making commitments the Coast Guard can keep."


Compiled by Laurie Caplan
Astoria, Oregon June, 2007
Big Promises + Secrecy x Fast Track = Liquid Natural Gas (LNG)
We don't need no stinkin LNG

Sign the No LNG petition --> http://www.rainforestwildlife.org/No%20LNG.htm
User avatar
Dr Sloth
baitfish expert
 
Posts: 651
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 7:58 am
Location: on the sand in the lack of pines

Postby Dr Sloth » Thu Jul 05, 2007 4:57 pm

What┬╣s So Bad About LNG?
Third in a four-part series
Our Economy

"One of the issues that kept coming up over and over again was the fact that a (LNG) facility this big with all the security regulations that are going to be necessary, is going to make it harder for people who depend on the river to make their livelihoods." --Adam Bless, senior facility analyst, Oregon Dept. of Energy, in the Daily Astorian, August 2, 2005

"After reviewing the U.S. Coast Guard Waterway Suitability Report (issued 2/28/07), I believe there is enough compelling evidence to oppose the proposed LNG project .Š the overall negative impacts on the entire river system are too great for me to support. The costs, economically, to the environment, to those living in the community, and to the river itself are just too much to justify moving forward on this one project." -- Brian Baird, U.S. Representative, WA

"Timing is critical for fishing. Those LNG tankers with big exclusion zones will disrupt fishing and push us out of the way." -- Gary Soderstrom, President of the Columbia River Fisherman┬╣s Protective Union

"Detrimental effects to fisheries habitat, impacts to fishing fleets, visual industrial blight and lowered real property values as well as the local legacy of abandoned industrial sites when such businesses are no longer profitable are some of the reasons we cannot support the siting of an LNG terminal on Humboldt Bay."
-- Humboldt Fishermen┬╣s Marketing Association, Eureka, California

"Militarizing the mouth of the Columbia River will have serious negative economic effects on the burgeoning tourism industry of this region, as well as a significant impact on the aesthetics, beauty and safety currently enjoyed by residents and visitors. LNG is not compatible with the culture, heritage and resources of this unique historical area."
-- Don West, President, Astoria Lodging Association; V.P., Columbia River Business Alliance

"Stigma of having (the Columbia R)iver system shut down is long term and economically disastrous; some permanent shift in cargo is likely." --U.S. Coast Guard Ports and Waterways Safety Assessments, Final Report, 2001

"On the Columbia, where the shipping channel is not even 600 feet wide, a 1500-foot Exclusion Zone would effectively limit the Columbia to one-way river traffic whenever an LNG tanker came up the river." -- Columbia River Clean Energy Coalition, Hood River, OR, September, 2006
"The WSR recognizes the inherent conflicts between cruise ships docked in Astoria and LNG tanker traffic. The WSR prohibits cruise ships from passing LNG tankers, requires that cruise ships obtain "separate waterside security," and restricts LNG tanker passage when a cruise ship is docked in Astoria and visibility is less than six miles. The added security costs and restrictions on cruise ship transit would threaten an important local economic benefit for Astoria and surrounding communities and could deter cruise ship dockings." -- U.S. Coast Guard Water Suitability Report, 2/28/07

From the Columbia River Business Alliance:
… LNG facilities employ at most about 45 people, mostly highly skilled technicians experienced in this industry.
… The terminal construction jobs, which will end after the site is constructed, equal about 17 months of local tourism jobs in terms of wages and revenue.
… Fewer tourists will come to an industrialized, militarized area that has a higher likelihood of being a terrorist target and requires armed gunboats to escort LNG tankers on the river several times a week
… It has taken persistent efforts for years by Astoria business leaders to lure cruise ships here. Passenger and crew spending is an increasingly significant part of local business revenues. It is likely cruise ships will skip Astoria due to the costly disruptions, delays, and dangers caused by LNG tankers.

* * * *
Martin O┬╣Malley, Governor of Maryland, to the Subcommittee on the Coast Guard and Marine Transportation, U.S. House of Representatives, April 23, 2007:

… "Because of the potential for vessel delay, the proposed LNG terminal (at Sparrows Point) will give our existing and prospective (cruise lines and shipping lines) customers another "bargaining chip" while negotiating rates at our terminals, or worse, a reason to do business with other ports. This terminal, if permitted, could be a strong reason not to come to Baltimore. This socio-economic impact needs to be carefully and extensively assessed in the EIS and given due consideration.

"LNG vessel traffic in the upper Bay and particularly in the project vicinity will affect historically available and projected commercial and recreation water uses. The vicinity has many marinas, private docks and a well-established ad growing community of commercial watermen... who rely upon access to historically utilized fishing grounds. The marine exclusion zones that will certainly be imposed by the US Coast Guard to ensure the safety of the LNG-laden vessels will negatively impact these activities."

… "The residents of the Sparrows Point and adjacent communities have historically been required to shoulder a disproportionate burden of environmental and health impacts from the heavy industries of the Sparrows Point. This (LNG terminal) proposal promised to exacerbate and propagate that pattern."
- - - - - - - - - -
Condemnation and/or seizure of private property for LNG pipelines are allowed by the 2005 Natural Gas Act passed by Congress. Several possible pipeline routes seem to be emerging, and letters have been mailed to Clatsop County landowners saying that pipeline surveyors want to survey their land.
* * * * * *
From the Report on Potential Economic and Fiscal Impacts on the Town of Harpswell, Maine of the LNG Terminal Proposed by TransCanada Pipelines and ConocoPhillips, prepared by Yellow Wood Associates, Inc.:

… "In the event of a heightened threat of terrorism, new security measures could be enacted that would increase the impact to the fishing industry and the greater community. These security measures could include expanded security zones and the closing of airports and bridges. Šthere will also be a loss of access to waters at the project site itself. When an LNG vessel is berthed at the project site, there will be an imposed security zone as well, which would prevent access to fishermen who traditionally use these waters, unless specific exceptions are made."

… "Š. Economic losses to tourism and recreation businesses, and Harpswell residents who lose time to emergency drills have not been factored into the cost to the Town, nor has the possibility of law suits by owners whose property values are diminished by the presence of the LNG facility. These costs, taken together, may run into millions of dollars."

… "There is a great deal of evidence to suggest that the proposed LNG Terminal, as an industrial disamenity and a potential source of danger, will have a detrimental impact on property values in the Town of Harpswell."

… "Industrial development in general, as well as electric power plants, utility lines, and LNG storage facilities, are considered disamenities and have each been found to be associated with a decrease in property values of properties within an approximate two-mile radius. The literature includes documented decreases of over 50%. The factors that create a disamenity include visual effects, noise, light, traffic congestion, and odors."


Compiled by Laurie Caplan
Astoria, OR June, 2007
Big Promises + Secrecy x Fast Track = Liquid Natural Gas (LNG)
We don't need no stinkin LNG

Sign the No LNG petition --> http://www.rainforestwildlife.org/No%20LNG.htm
User avatar
Dr Sloth
baitfish expert
 
Posts: 651
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 7:58 am
Location: on the sand in the lack of pines

Postby Dr Sloth » Thu Jul 05, 2007 4:58 pm

What┬╣s So Bad About LNG?
Fourth in a four-part series
Our Environment

Excerpts from Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife; Bradwood Landing LNG Plant & Pipeline Fish & Wildlife Issues:

… "Ships: Disruption of the Columbia River recreational and commercial fishery from the mouth up to river mile 38 twice a week for incoming/outgoing ships┬╣ safety zones."

… Ships┬╣ ballast and cooling water use is estimated at (approximately) 2 billion gals/year, equivalent to the use of a small town; drawn in quickly over an 11-12 hour time period causing possible impingement and entrainment of fish larvae and fry. No screening proposed."

… "Dredging: 700,000 cubic yards of material over 45.8 acres removed from the Columbia River for the turning basic and ships┬╣ berth will affect listed salmonids and other fish and invertebrates due to turbidity and habitat disruption."

… Habitat: "(Approximately) 62 acres of habitat will be converted for the terminal and associated facilities; dredge spoils will be placed on site and 13.5 acres of wetlands filled."

… "(Approximately) 412 total acres of fish and wildlife habitat will be disturbed by pipeline construction including 31 acres of wetlands."

… Species Impact: "The ships, terminal and pipeline will all potentially impact listed salmonids in the Columbia River. The terminal and pipeline could affect nesting bald eagles and Columbian white-tailed deer habitat."

… Pipeline: "Numerous streams and the Columbia River will be crossed using open trench or horizontal directional drilling (HDD). Both methods will have impacts on the streams┬╣ water quality, riparian habitat and aquatic life. HDD uses bentonite (clay) which occasionally oozes to the surface resulting in what┬╣s called Œfrac-outs┬╣ which contaminate streams and wetlands."
- - - - - - - -
"Additional environmental concerns with LNG terminal siting and development include shoreland development, dredging, vessel and plant emissions, noise, and impacts to fishing and other natural and scenic resources."
--Conservation Law Foundation, regarding LNG proposals for New England




"DEQ (Oregon┬╣s Department of Environmental Quality) does not currently have the resources or information needed to model the Columbia River (for air and water quality). DEQ needs more detailed information on the concentration of the pollutants each facility discharges, where the discharge occurs, the volume of the discharge, the timing of the discharge, and specific information on river conditions." -- Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, "Questions & Answers: DEQ Permits and Industrial Development in the Lower Columbia River Area," Spring, 2007

"Contrary to industry claims, LNG is not a "clean" fuel. It is a fossil fuel and generates substantial amounts of air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, when one looks at the emissions from the full supply chain ┬ş including extraction, liquefaction, transportation, storage, regasification and combustion - it is painfully clear that LNG results in greater GHG emissions than domestic natural gas and, in some cases, may be no cleaner than coal. In the case of the BHP project, global warming experts calculated that the project would emit up to 25 million tons of greenhouse gases each year. This is in direct conflict with California┬╣s and the Governor┬╣s stated commitments to reducing greenhouses gases on a global basis,"
-- Linda Krop, Chief Counsel of EDC, which coordinated the legal and scientific review of the project for California Coastal Protection Network, May 18, 2007:

"Š some impacts that are likely to be consistent with most (LNG) facilities.:
… Dredging up to 43 feet for turning basins and docking berths
… Shoreline hardening, such as rip rap and sea walls in off loading locations
… Impacts to wetlands and tidal mudflats from dredging and or construction
… Localized impacts to currents, directional flow, the shape of the river┬╣s bottom, and light intrusion.
… Impacts resulting from new pipeline construction. Stream and wetland crossings may be necessary to connect plants to pipelines miles away Š."
-- Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership (LCREP), "Common Waters," Summer, 2005

"LNG can only pencil out (on the Columbia River) if Oregon becomes an energy farm for California." -- U.S. Representative David Wu, Oregon, March 2005

"As the 12th largest consumer of energy in the world, California markets are driving new LNG projects on the West Coast. Importing LNG will not only perpetuate environmental degradation in remote regions but increase greenhouse gas emissions, decrease air quality, and undermine California┬╣s clean energy commitment." -- Pacific Environment, June 2007

Compiled by Laurie Caplan, Astoria, OR June, 2007
Big Promises + Secrecy x Fast Track = Liquid Natural Gas (LNG)
We don't need no stinkin LNG

Sign the No LNG petition --> http://www.rainforestwildlife.org/No%20LNG.htm
User avatar
Dr Sloth
baitfish expert
 
Posts: 651
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 7:58 am
Location: on the sand in the lack of pines

Postby Dr Sloth » Sat Jul 14, 2007 6:46 pm

BTW, the Oregon Chapter of the Surfrider Foundation is in full support of the opposition to the siting and completion of LNG facilities in Oregon. This includes the 4 sited locations on the Lower Columbia River as well as the siting in Coos Bay.

Thank you Pete for getting the Surfrider Foundation on board.
Big Promises + Secrecy x Fast Track = Liquid Natural Gas (LNG)
We don't need no stinkin LNG

Sign the No LNG petition --> http://www.rainforestwildlife.org/No%20LNG.htm
User avatar
Dr Sloth
baitfish expert
 
Posts: 651
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 7:58 am
Location: on the sand in the lack of pines

Postby tail first drop » Thu Jul 26, 2007 8:12 am

I say yes to LNG in Coos, its my back yard after all.
Is it in yours?
tail first drop
 

LNG!

Postby redalert » Thu Jul 26, 2007 11:06 am

I was all for it, LNG...Live Nude Girls!

It's not what I thought. Turns out.
Now my mood ring has turned all black. :cry:
redalert
cross stepping..... stumble bum
 
Posts: 199
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 1:26 pm

Postby Dr Sloth » Thu Jul 26, 2007 1:01 pm

tail first drop wrote:I say yes to LNG in Coos, its my back yard after all.
Is it in yours?


I happen to live in Warrenton, so that is a big yes.
Big Promises + Secrecy x Fast Track = Liquid Natural Gas (LNG)
We don't need no stinkin LNG

Sign the No LNG petition --> http://www.rainforestwildlife.org/No%20LNG.htm
User avatar
Dr Sloth
baitfish expert
 
Posts: 651
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 7:58 am
Location: on the sand in the lack of pines

Postby Sparky » Thu Jul 26, 2007 1:28 pm

tail first drop wrote:I say yes to LNG in Coos, its my back yard after all.
Is it in yours?

I say no to LNG period though it would not be in my back yard just my play ground :evil:
Love many, trust few, do harm to none!
User avatar
Sparky
coast guard rescue float
 
Posts: 2913
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 7:45 am
Location: west of Portland but not west enough

PreviousNext

Return to Event Announcements

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests