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 pra_ggresion » Sat Jul 28, 2007 9:43 am

The Pacific Ocean is the backyard for more people than any other single feature on the planet. In my opinioin, claiming a little corner of it is petty when applying that claim to something that has far greater impact on an area far larger than that little corner. Things like LNG are beyond democracy and enters into the realm of right and wrong. LNG is wrong. Either its supporters do it or they're stopped. The field of decisiveness happens to be the US, Oregon, Oregon counties and cities legal systems. A; for LNG vote, is most likely an obtuse bid for attention in this context.
If it passes, may it somehow help make the inevitable downfall of this civilization quick. If it is stopped then at least the standard of living we enjoy collectively be saved for a while longer.
Potato salad or die!
User avatar
pra_ggresion
leashless is no way to go through life
 
Posts: 1410
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 2:26 pm
Location: Multnomah Village

Postby Dr Sloth » Thu Aug 30, 2007 9:39 am

Oregonian: Guest Editorial

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.
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 Aug 30, 2007 9:48 am

The Oregon LNG proposal for Warrenton's Skipanon Peninsula site is now heating up. If you live in the Portland metro area and still believe this does not affect you, read on.

Do you really think Oregon should host California's gas supply?


http://www.dailyastorian.com/main.asp?SectionID=2&SubSectionID=1037&ArticleID=44824&TM=45646.64

Oregon LNG moves ahead in Warrenton

FERC officials are coming to town to announce the start of an environmental review

By CASSANDRA PROFITA
The Daily Astorian


It's happening again.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission officials are coming to town to announce the start of an environmental review for a proposed liquefied natural gas terminal.

This time, they'll be taking public comments on the Oregon LNG proposal for Warrenton's Skipanon Peninsula, which was first brought forward in 2004 by the now-bankrupt Calpine Corp. The Sept. 18 public scoping meeting on the Oregon LNG project comes almost exactly two years after the one held in Knappa for NorthernStar Natural Gas Co.'s Bradwood Landing LNG project, proposed for a site 20 miles east of Astoria.

LNG terminals are designed to receive supercooled natural gas liquid from ships and regassify it for pipeline distribution. Under the 2005 Energy Policy Act, FERC has sole LNG siting authority, but terminals also require state permits and local land-use approvals prior to construction.

FERC's Draft Environmental Impact Statement review of Oregon LNG is starting a week after the release of a completed DEIS for Bradwood Landing. The DEIS is a lengthy document that compiles all known impacts of a proposed project and eventually becomes the basis for FERC's decision to approve or deny an LNG permit application.

In considering permits for two companies looking to site liquefied natural gas terminals on the lower Columbia River, FERC "will not choose the market winner," according to FERC spokeswoman Tamara Young-Allen.

"We allow competition to do that," she said.

Oregon LNG is proposing an LNG terminal on a 96-acre site leased by the Port of Astoria on the east bank of the Skipanon Peninsula and a 117-mile pipeline that will run south and then southeast across Clatsop County on its way to Molalla.

While it is two years behind Bradwood Landing in the federal permitting process, the Oregon LNG project has already gotten the local zone changes needed to build a terminal. Bradwood Landing developers, meanwhile, are still in the middle of Clatsop County's land-use approval process.

Oregon LNG Chief Executive Officer Peter Hansen, who also headed the Skipanon project for Calpine Corp., said his project isn't as far behind Bradwood Landing's as it might appear. It took Calpine 10 months to get through the land-use appeals process after the Warrenton City Commission approved the requested zone changes, and ultimately the decision was settled at the state level. The Bradwood land-use application could take even longer because LNG appeals can go all the way to federal courts, said Hansen.

"We're not two years behind them because by the time the Bradwood folks are done with their land use process and all the appeals, it will be near the end of 2008," he said. "We think we'll be getting our permits at the end of 2008 or first quarter 2009."

Even if Bradwood gets its federal permit earlier, Hansen said, the real competition is in obtaining LNG supply contracts. He doesn't expect supply contracts for either terminal to be set until 2014.

"We believe that there probably will not be customers for either terminal until 2014, and nobody is going to start construction until they have customers lined up," said Hansen.

Though NorthernStar doesn't have supply contracts yet, Gary Coppedge, vice president of development for Houston-based NorthernStar Natural Gas Co., said his company is not worried about possible competition from Oregon LNG.

"I think we're far enough along on our commercial agreements that we won't have to worry about that," he said.

Hansen said his Warrenton site has more marketability because it's closer to the mouth of the river than Bradwood Landing. New LNG ships are being built bigger to make transportation more efficient, he said, and the larger ships may be "too big to make it up the river."

According to the FERC's draft EIS for Bradwood Landing, Oregon LNG has an environmental advantage by being closer to the mouth, but its proposed sendoff pipeline, which is more than three times longer than the proposed Bradwood pipeline, is noted as a disadvantage.

LNG opponents argue officials should consider a separate pipeline project led by NW Natural and TransCanada as part of the Bradwood project's impacts. The Palomar Gas Transmission line would connect the Bradwood Landing LNG terminal to the Molalla natural gas hub, following a route through eastern Clatsop County but ending up at the same spot as the proposed Oregon LNG pipeline.

The pipeline for the Warrenton terminal would head through western Clatsop County before turning southeast and running between Saddle Mountain and Oregon Highway 202 and following U.S. Highway 26. The proposed line dips into Tilla-mook County and skirts the Portland metro area to meet the Williams Northwest Pipeline in Molalla.

FERC and U.S. Coast Guard officials will hold a public meeting on the Oregon LNG project at 7 p.m. Sept. 18 in the Warrenton High School gymnasium, 1700 S.E. Main Ave. There will be similar meetings held along the pipeline route in Forest Grove and Woodburn.
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 » Mon Nov 26, 2007 5:05 pm

The Daily Astorian

http://dailyastorian.com/main.asp?SectionID=23&SubSectionID=392&ArticleID=47068

LNG is not a done deal

State professionals have concerns; Kulongoski must raise his voice

Finally. After months, indeed years, of silence, the state of Oregon has revealed its concerns about liquefied natural gas.

And they are wide-ranging concerns that some people on the lower Columbia River have been expressing loudly since LNG reared its ugly head when the Port of Astoria's Skipanon-Calpine lease debacle was revealed in November 2004.

Federal authorities seem to be marching on relentlessly, as if the proposed NorthernStar terminal at Bradwood Landing east of Astoria is a done deal, simply with a list of paperwork items to check off before its current owners can fly in from around the nation for a groundbreaking photo opportunity.

Draft documents from state agencies clearly show that experts from several agencies have serious concerns about the potential dangers if Bradwood Landing is allowed to go ahead.

Agencies providing data on which Kulongoski will make any pronouncements include the departments of energy, environmental quality, fish and wildlife, forestry, transportation, and geology and mineral industries.

Their concerns:

• Building a terminal would conflict with long-standing efforts to restore the Columbia River and its estuary;

• Proposed dredging would harm the watershed, water quality, and threaten sensitive species and habitat; mitigation "is not adequate";

• No commitment has been made to pay for emergency response if there is an explosion or fire;

• LNG tankers would disrupt commercial and recreational fishing;

• Air pollution would pose the potential for a "very significant risk" to local residents;

• Landslides, earthquakes, tsunamis and flooding would be devastating because the site has "very poor foundation soils."


Now that we have in-depth analysis from the state, the shallowness of the Clatsop County Planning Commission's reversal of findings by county planning staff is exposed as a power play utterly without intellectual merit.

Some prescient North Coast residents have been warning about the state's newly voiced concerns all along. It is pleasing to learn that professionals in state agencies are quantifying opinions that have previously been dismissed by LNG supporters as the shrill unsubstantiated cries of worrywart NIMBYs.

This LNG permitting process should not be evaluated as a race for economic development. This should be a strategic, national planning exercise. Instead, we have a horse race among developers of prospective LNG terminals. It is a process that rewards - more than anyone else - Washington, D.C.-based lawyers who specialize in regulatory law.

The competition is heated for LNG terminal siting permits, because none of these developers intend to be in it for the long term. They will get the permit, develop the site and flip it, most likely to an oil company. The people promoting the proposed terminals will be counting their money in Texas while Clatsop and Pacific county residents live with a river culture that has been drastically altered for the worse.

The one person who can speak most effectively for the enduring interest of the lower Columbia River is Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski. California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger had that effect when he spoke against an LNG terminal proposed for that state. Kulongoski's personal opposition would add an important dimension to the drive to inject realism into a deeply flawed siting process.
Last edited by Dr Sloth on Mon Nov 26, 2007 5:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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 » Mon Nov 26, 2007 5:20 pm

The Oregonian

http://www.oregonlive.com/oregonian/stories/index.ssf?/base/editorial/1195700140148320.xml&coll=7

Gas project must meet Oregon's standards
Congress stripped the states of LNG siting authority, but that
Sunday, November 25, 2007

Federal energy regulators and Texas speculators are sprinting down the homestretch in a race to site a liquefied natural gas operation on the lower Columbia River, a massive project based on studies that Oregon officials say fail to meet state standards.

This race needs to slow down. And Gov. Ted Kulongoski needs to do what he can to make sure the concerns of Oregon watchdog agencies aren't run over.

If "do what he can" sounds weak, it's because the state has a greatly weakened say in the siting of terminals for liquefied natural gas, or LNG. In 2005, at the request of the LNG industry, Congress took away states' authority to site these massive installations and gave it instead to FERC, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

Oregon, which vigorously opposed that shift, is now home to a pair of late-stage LNG terminal siting applications. One is at Coos Bay, and the more advanced of the two is at Bradwood Landing, 38 miles from the mouth of the Columbia.

The Bradwood developers, Houston-based NorthernStar Natural Gas, seek to invest nearly $1 billion in a terminal that would receive two to three LNG shipments a week in large tankers from overseas. The super-cooled liquid gas would be stored in towering twin tanks, regassified and piped to markets in the Northwest and California.

FERC completed public hearings on the project this month. Written comment will be accepted through Dec. 24, and NorthernStar executives say they expect final approval in April.

But Oregon agencies have serious qualms about the draft version of FERC's environmental impact statement. The document "lacks assurance that Oregon standards have been or will be met," Michael Grainey, director of the Oregon Department of Energy, wrote in a Nov. 7 memo to the governor's staff.

An attached analysis called FERC's study "incomplete and flawed" and said the commission "should not license a facility when its decision will be founded on assertions and not facts." It called on FERC to provide data "to support the claim by LNG developers that additional supplies of LNG are needed in the Pacific Northwest."

In an accompanying 79 pages of objections, the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries found the Bradwood site to have "severe natural hazard potential" that FERC's environmental impact study "did not adequately address."

The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife concluded that "significant fish habitat will be lost and mitigation is not adequate" and that the plan for more than 100 LNG ships per year on the Columbia "will be very disruptive to commercial and recreational fishing boats."

And the Department of Energy warned that "there is no protection against the licensee declaring bankruptcy and abandoning the site."

Clatsop County opponents of the Bradwood project have little chance of blocking it or forcing revisions. But that doesn't mean Oregon's governor and regulatory agencies have to roll over.

Quite to the contrary. The same federal law that gives sole siting power to FERC also requires the commission to work with the state on a vast array of issues. If the federal commission brushes aside that law, Oregon may be well-positioned for litigation to block or at least delay the Bradwood project.

That gives Kulongoski a club, and he should wield it effectively during the public comment period that ends on Christmas Eve.
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 » Sun Mar 02, 2008 3:26 pm

Image

http://nwprc.org/index.html



Here is the potential route where the pipeline will go.

http://palomargas.com/map.html



.
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 Apr 12, 2008 1:07 pm

Oregon LNG Pipeline information

This will skirt Forest Grove area.

http://www.oregonpipelinecompany.com/project.php



Image

Less than a year before they plan to start "purchasing" easements


Image
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

Oregon doesn't need imported LNG

Postby Dr Sloth » Fri May 09, 2008 2:49 pm

Oregon doesn't need imported LNG

Posted by Ted Sickinger, The Oregonian
http://blog.oregonlive.com/breakingnews/2008/05/agency_concludes_oregon_doesnt.html

May 09, 2008 14:11PM

In a potentially fatal blow to three proposals to build liquefied natural gas terminals in Oregon, the state Department of Energy released a report Friday stating that imported LNG isn't needed, would be more expensive and polluting than domestic natural gas, and would come at a higher environmental cost than alternative proposals to ship more gas in from Wyoming.

Also Friday, Gov. Ted Kulongoski sent a letter to federal energy regulators asking them to go through an entirely new environmental analysis of the Bradwood Landing LNG project, as significant new information has become available, and the scope of the terminal project, located 30 miles upriver from Astoria, has changed substantially since the last review was undertaken.

Kulongoski's energy policy director, Mike Carrier, said the letter and report did not mean that the governor was adopting a hardened position against the terminals, but that he wanted to see the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission address the state's concerns before issuing its licensing decision.

The Department of Energy report "raises some really troubling issues about what the introduction around LNG would do" in terms of energy prices and environmental impacts, Carrier said. The governor believes this report is credible, it looks like they did a very professional and thorough job, and it immediately got his attention ... It certainly is going to be part of what forms his position on this."


-- Ted Sickinger:

tedsickinger@news.oregonian.com
Last edited by Dr Sloth on Fri May 09, 2008 2:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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

All currently registered Clatsop County voters can sign.

Postby Dr Sloth » Fri May 09, 2008 2:52 pm

All currently registered Clatsop County voters are eligible to sign a petition so the referendum can be on the September ballot.




Court rules that citizens ballot referendum attacking County LNG decision is legal, LNG opponents celebrate!

Astoria, OR Backers of a ballot measure referendum aimed at overturning Clatsop Countys approval of the Bradwood Landing LNG terminal on the Columbia River are celebrating a ruling by Clatsop County Circuit Court Judge Cindee Matyas holding that the referendum is legal and denying LNG backers challenge to the measure. Columbia Riverkeeper and County residents Marc Auerbach, Debbie Twombly and Don West filed the ballot referendum to challenge Clatsop Countys decision to change County law in order to allow gas pipelines from LNG terminals to run through zoned parklands, recreation, and open space. The judges ruling blocks a move by NorthernStar and proponents of the Bradwood LNG project to keep the referendum off the ballot and to prohibit volunteers from gathering signatures for the measure.

Columbia Riverkeeper attorney Brett VandenHeuvel, who also represented the chief petitioners behind the ballot measure referendum, applauded the judges decision. "NorthernStar filed this baseless lawsuit because they are afraid of letting the voters decide whether to allow large gas pipelines in parks. Bradwood lost because Oregon's Constitution clearly protects the peoples right to vote on important decisions."

Debbie Twombly, Astoria resident and a chief petitioner, added, "They wanted to keep the public from voting on this since even they recognize that voters will decide against opening up our parks for high-pressure gas pipelines. Even people who support the LNG projects do not support the Commissioners re-writing our laws to allow pipelines throughout our parks."

Marc Auerbach, also a chief petitioner and chair of the Northwest Property Rights Coalition, looked forward to the referendum campaign. "The tainted approval of Bradwood was a mistake in law and a mistake in policy. The referendum will enable the people to voice their opposition to this regrettable project and its disastrous pipeline."

Volunteers for Clatsop County Citizens for Common Sense are already amassing the necessary signatures for the referendum and will qualify the measure for the September 15 ballot.
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 Doc » Fri May 09, 2008 11:37 pm

Wow...

I read none of that...

Still not for tho...

doc
"If you don't surf...don't start".
User avatar
Doc
noodle arms/noodle brain
 
Posts: 4522
Joined: Fri May 07, 2004 4:08 pm
Location: Oregon

Postby Dr Sloth » Wed Aug 06, 2008 2:15 pm

http://dailyastorian.com/main.asp?SectionID=2&SubSectionID=395&ArticleID=53324

LNG push poll angers opponents
Company’s polling strategy upsets some people; pollsters don’t know who hired them

By CASSANDRA PROFITA
The Daily Astorian


A telephone poll about Clatsop County's Sept. 16 natural gas pipeline referendum could be designed to sway voters toward supporting the Bradwood Landing LNG project.

The Portland-based polling company RDD Field Services is calling county residents and asking them how they plan to vote on ballot measure 4-131, a referendum that will determine whether the pipeline for the Bradwood Landing project can follow its proposed route.

But several residents who have completed the poll say the 10- to 20-minute quiz is loaded with rosy information about the value of LNG as a clean fossil fuel and the improvements Bradwood Landing developer NorthernStar Natural Gas Inc. will bring to the region.

Referendum organizers suspect NorthernStar hired a "push poll" to convince county residents to support the company with a "yes" vote on the measure.

But the pollsters say they don't know who hired them, and neither RDD nor NorthernStar will say who commissioned the poll.

"We routinely engage in research polls as do a number of other companies," NorthernStar spokesman Joe Desmond said. "We don't ever discuss our research activities."

The measure will ask voters whether the Bradwood Landing LNG terminal pipeline - which is 3 feet in diameter - should be allowed to run through county land zoned for open space, parks and recreation.

Several county residents who told pollsters they planned to vote "no" on the measure were given a list of reasons to support LNG: increased tax revenue, job creation, cheaper natural gas and salmon population enhancement.

Then they were asked if they would change their vote on the ballot measure.

Lewis and Clark resident Jim Coughlin, who opposes the Bradwood Landing development, said he felt the poll was trying to manipulate him into changing his "no" vote.

"They weren't actually asking me questions," he said. "They were very definitely making statements. Once they made a statement, they'd ask how do I feel about that and could that change my mind."

Coughlin and others who took the poll said the statements detailed many specific benefits of the Bradwood project, including the number of construction and permanent jobs the facility would require and the amount of tax revenue the project would generate in the county.

The poll included a few less specific statements attributed to project opponents about the gas from the LNG terminal in Oregon going to California and the potential safety hazards of LNG.

It also asked respondents to weigh in on a story in The Daily Astorian where Desmond, NorthernStar's spokesman, stated the referendum is a waste of taxpayers' time and money and referenced company arguments about pipelines that already exist on park land in Clatsop County.

The seeds of the Sept. 16 referendum were sown when the Clatsop County Commission voted to allow Bradwood pipeline to run through county land zoned for open space, parks and recreation (OPR) earlier this year.

Before the decision, pipelines were only allowed in OPR zones if they were needed to serve an approved recreational use, such as a golf course.

Commissioners agreed to change a county ordinance and grant a conditional use permit so the Bradwood pipeline, which stretches 38 miles from the proposed LNG terminal site east of Astoria to Kelso, Wash., can cross through less than a mile of open space, parks and recreation-zoned land.

The commission's pipeline decision was one of about two dozen required by county government to approve the Bradwood project, but the referendum will not affect any of the other land-use changes the commission made in approving the Bradwood Landing project.

However, the pipeline decision did open the door for other natural gas pipelines - such as the one connected to the Oregon LNG terminal in Warrenton and the Palomar Gas Transmission pipeline - to run through other park land throughout the county.

The referendum will ask voters if they agree with the commission that natural gas pipelines should be allowed as a conditional use in OPR zones. A yes vote will in effect confirm the Clatsop County Commission's decision approving the Bradwood Landing pipeline route. A no vote will overturn the commission's decision on the pipeline and prevent the Bradwood pipeline from crossing the OPR zone.

If the referendum fails, Bradwood project developer NorthernStar will have to change its pipeline route to avoid OPR-zoned land.

Desmond said the referendum won't stop the Bradwood project from moving forward because there are several ways for the company to resolve the pipeline issue - even if voters decide it can't go through the open space, parks and recreation zone.

But members of the local group Clatsop County Citizens for Common Sense, which organized the referendum, say the recent poll is evidence that NorthernStar is worried about the vote.

Lori Durheim, a referendum organizer, said she was wondering when NorthernStar would start campaigning. Her group has received about $11,000 in campaign contributions and has been handing out signs and organizing public meetings for weeks. She and others are warning residents that the poll was not sponsored by her group and could be harmful to their cause.

"I think it's underhanded," she said. "It's trying to confuse people."
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 Dub Star » Mon Sep 22, 2008 1:16 pm

Bradwood FERC permit OK'ed by the Feds. Something like 4 to 1.

We'll see about the State permits though. Could be a difficult process and how most of the Californian's LNG projects were stopped.

If this does go through could also be a better scenario for Astoria? 12 miles up river instead of right in town as planned for the OR LNG terminal. Guess we'll see what happens next.
Dub Star
 

Postby Dr Sloth » Mon Sep 22, 2008 3:41 pm

Bradwood is far from approved. Everyone expected FERC to give the conditional approval as FERC seems to be part of the good 'ol boys network for big oil (oh, did I say that out loud?).

There are many state permits that both NorthernStar and Oregon LNG require before they begin building. Both Gov's of OR and WA seemed to be very upset that FERC ignored their wishes for slowing down the process and looking at complete impact reports. Kulongoski has already said that he will take this to the courts if he has to. Clatsop County has also voiced their opinion, by 2/3 of the vote, that LNG pipelines are not permitted on public grounds. If you read between the lines, that was a vote to correct the wrong doings by the Clatsop County Commissioners and show the state that the majority of Clatsop County does not want LNG. Expect to see a big change in the Clatsop County Commissioner ranks in the coming months/years.

Recent in the news is the Oregon LNG plan is SEVERELY flawed. They want to build three tanks and found that the tanks sit within Astoria/Warrenton airport airspace and the tanks are some 12 - 18 feet too tall. hahahaha!

The fight is far from over and none of the LNG sites are acceptable if you want my opinion.
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 wanty » Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:55 pm

Gazsurf wrote:Where is the gas we now use being stored at the present time? Is it in Mist or Jewell?

looks like one in yaquina and one in portland.

http://www.bradwoodlanding.com/Benefits%2022-OCT-07.pdf

sloth, any updates on the state permits for bradwood? or FERC certification of the skipanon purposal?
User avatar
wanty
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2398
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2004 10:12 pm
Location: NW

Postby Dr Sloth » Fri Oct 17, 2008 1:54 pm

As far as I've heard, State permits are still:

There are many state permits that both NorthernStar and Oregon LNG require before they begin building. Both Gov's of OR and WA seemed to be very upset that FERC ignored their wishes for slowing down the process and looking at complete impact reports. Kulongoski has already said that he will take this to the courts if he has to.


It was reported that Oregon LNG, the Skipanon proposal, is about ready to submit to FERC for Federal approval.
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

PreviousNext

Return to Event Announcements

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest