NO LNG Pipeline in Oregon

suzia aufderheide, 29.01.2008 14:12

Statewide Call to Action
"No LNG in Oregon" Wednesday, February 6 11 AM to 2 PM Capitol Steps, Salem


STOP multi-national corporate submitted plans to build a hazardous liquefied natural gas import terminal on the North Spit of Coos Bay, and a 223-mile pipeline through Southern Oregon's neighborhoods, rivers, streams and public lands. The main intent is to sell gas to the lucrative California market.

pipeline route

WEDNESDAY, 02.06.08: STATEWIDE NO LNG RALLY AT THE OREGON CAPITOL

PURPOSE: To make our voices heard in opposition to LNG development in the lower Columbia and elsewhere in Oregon. For Oregon residents to lobby legislators and the Governor for them to use their powers to obstruct this corporate invasion.
Stage: We have the Capitol steps reserved from 11 til 2 on February 6, 2008. There will be a speakers, information, music provided by HARRY STAMPER; and THE RAGING GRANNIES, bring bubbles. There will be signs, bring your own, wear buttons; T-shirts.
Lobbying: After the rally Oregon residents will fan out into the Capitol building to lobby legislators. Meet Oregon friends there and ask them to make an appointment with their representatives and senator. Appointments are very important because construction apparently has the Capitol in a mess.

DON'T LET LNG HAPPEN TO OUR STATE!!! COME OUT AND MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD!!! BRING YOUR FAMILY, FRIENDS, AND NEIGHBORS!!!

Can't Make the Rally?
On February 6, CALL Governor Ted Kulongoski at 503.378.4582. Demand that he stand up for Oregonians, and to veto all LNG terminals. Tell him that you would rather see an investment in clean, renewable energy for Oregon.

Sponsoring Organizations
Citizens Against LNG
Columbia Riverkeeper
Friends of Living Oregon Waters (FLOW)
Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center
Landowners and Citizens for a Safe Community
No California Pipeline
Oregon Citizens Against the Pipeline
Oregon Wild
Pacific Green Party
Pacific Environment
Ratepayers for Affordable Clean Energy (RACE)
Sierra Club of Oregon
Southern Oregon Pipeline Information Project/No California Pipeline
Wahkiakum Friends of the River

For more information: Pacific Environment website announcement, RACE website or email  nolngrally@verizon.net.

Top 10 Things to Celebrate from 2007 in the NO LNG Battle

1. The original timeline that NorthernStar Natural Gas set for Bradwood Landing called for the final DEIS in 2006 and construction to begin in early 2007. Thanks to the efforts of determined opponents in Washington and Oregon, we successfully put them off their game!!!

2. The Oregonian and the Daily Astorian publish NO LNG editorials, the Oregonian begins regularly publishing NO LNG letters to the editor, and the Oregonian’s new business and enviro reporter, Ted Sickinger, and the Daily A’s Cassandra Profita regularly cover the LNG news.

3. Six agencies for the state of Oregon, issue reports that slice and dice the NorthernStar proposal; Departments of Energy, Environmental Quality, Fish & Wildlife, Forestry, Transportation, Geology and Mineral Industries.

4. Governor Kulingowski declares the Bradwood Landing proposal, "incomplete and flawed." Numerous NO LNGers have been urging him to publicly oppose LNG on the Columbia River.

5. US Representative David Wu pressures the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to extend its deadline for comments about the DEIS. The Clatsop and Columbia County Democratic parties issue resolutions condemning LNG on the Columbia River.

6. Columbia Riverkeeper submits 150 pages of comments criticizing the DEIS to FERC on behalf of these organizations: Columbia Riverkeeper, Columbia River Business Alliance, Rivervision, Wahkiakum Friends of the River, Landowners and Citizens for a Safe Community, Willamette Riverkeeper, Oregon Chapter Sierra Club, Willapa Hills Audubon Society, Oregon Citizens Against the Pipeline, Friends of Living Oregon Waters, Native Fish Society, Oregon Council Trout Unlimited, Citizens for a Clean Columbia Wenatchee, Rosemere Neighborhood Association, Audubon Society of Portland, Columbia River Fishermen’s Protective Union, Northwest Guides and Anglers, Oregon Wild, Northwest Environmental Defense Center, and Energy Options.

7. The Department of Interior nails FERC on the issue we have been adamantly raising for 3 years. Regarding all the LNG proposals in Oregon, "Rather than proceeding piecemeal, the Commission should conduct a comprehensive review of all the current proposals with the intent of identifying the one project or projects most capable of meeting the regional demand with the least socioeconomic and environmental damage."

8. NO LNGers speak out at hearings, public meetings, fundraisers, and rallies in Oregon and Washington, including the determined marchers at the rainy Mothers March in Astoria, numerous protesters outside the official Clatsop County hearings, 200 people at the NO LNG rally at Northwest Natural Gas headquarters in Portland, demonstrators outside the FERC meeting in Longview, and the beautiful Spirit of the River fundraiser in Astoria. Sponsoring groups and speakers represent a diverse and growing coalition.

9. With the very real threat of eminent domain threatening their property, landowners along the proposed Palomar and Oregon LNG pipeline route in Oregon organize and speak out against LNG. The advice of longtime LNG pipeline opponents in WA adds to their effectiveness in reaching the public.

10. Hundreds of people testified against LNG at the Clatsop County hearings, presenting powerful, informed, and articulate expertise, experience and vision. Speakers included commercial fishers organizations, scientists, marine industry professionals, Native American groups, conservationists, etc.



KEEP OREGON FREE OF LNG ART SHOW and FUND RAISER for COLUMBIA RIVERKEEPER
All artists are invited to create and exhibit NO LNG artwork only. Mixed media welcome
All proceeds from sales go to Columbia Riverkeeper & the AVA.
Astoria Visual Arts (AVA) 453 11th Street, Astoria
March 20, 2008 ~ March 23, 2008
Reception Friday, March 21 6 - 9 PM
Regular gallery hours: 2 - 6 PM
Information: Lori Durheim (503) 325-1556 and the AVA Gallery (503) 325-4589


If YOU
Attended one meeting – local, state or federal;
Wrote one letter – to the editor, the County Commissioners, your elected officials;
Gave one dollar – to Rivervision, Columbia Riverkeeper, etc.
THANKS THANKS THANKS THANKS THANKS THANKS


Feds launch query into ethics conflict
a small christmas gift from FERC via The Daily Astorian
Federal officials are worried about a potential conflict of interest for an environmental consulting group that's working on both the Bradwood Landing liquefied natural gas project and the Palomar Gas Transmission pipeline.

The two projects are linked by a segment of the Palomar line that's slated to serve the Bradwood LNG terminal, proposed for a site 20 miles east of Astoria.

According to a letter from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Natural Resource Group, a company with several offices across the country focused on energy project permitting, has even assigned some of the same staff to work on both projects.

In a letter sent to NRG Thursday, FERC official Richard Hoffmann noted the relationship between the two projects as an ethical hurdle requiring "additional measures ... to assure the public that the work is being carried out in an impartial manner."

"NRG's work on the Palomar pipeline could appear to provide it with a financial interest in seeing that the Bradwood Landing LNG Project gets approved," he wrote.

In spite of a preponderance of public objection, the Clatsop County Commission continues to clear a pathway for the development of a liquefied natural gas site in Clatsop County.
Recent public hearings regarding the question of whether NorthernStar may develop such a site in Bradwood have made little impact on the views of the commissioners. A public hearing implies that the decision-making body will receive, consider and take fully into account what has been presented, and then make a decision that reflects the evidence in support of and in opposition to the proposal.
What we can see now is that though our elected commissioners endured lengthy, wide-ranging testimony from the people seeking preservation of and protection for the land, the waters, the viewscape, the wildlife and the sense of place that characterizes the Lower Columbia River and its environs, they attended primarily to presentations of the interests of a venture capital enterprise that seeks to enrich its investors by developing an LNG site.
Now, instead of public hearings, we need public listenings, wherein those in whom decision-making authority has been vested by elections speak to the people. In this way, we may hear what the commissioners believe are the compelling arguments for siting an LNG plant, and the arguments against it.
Commissioners could be asked to present their respective positions, so that the public may be informed about their concepts of who will benefit, what might suffer, what the gains and losses will be to the residents, the commercial interests, the environment and the quality of life in and around this end of the river.
Commissioners could be asked also to consider and speak to the long-term effects of the project: how their decision will affect the region in 10 years, 20 years and more. When the people know these things, they will be in a better position to appreciate the decisions made on their behalf.
Is there a distinction to be made between development and operation? Will NorthernStar be the entity responsible for operating an LNG facility?
Once the development is in place, the profit is to be realized in its sale and NorthernStar will have met its objectives. Can promises and assurances made by NorthernStar be counted on?

Alan C. Batchelder
Seaview, Wash.
Join the Southern Oregon Pipeline Information Project (SOPIP) for regular updates on the plan, forums in your area and to learn how this pipeline scheme impacts your community.

 http://www.umpqua-watersheds.org/local/Pipeline.html

e-mail:: souixzan@mind.net

Download this article in pdf format >>

Add this article to your pdf newsletter selection >>

Checkout and Download your PDF-newsletter selection >>

Email this article to someone >>

Make a quick comment on this article >>

oregonian comment 01.02.2008 - 11:01 Bradbury says LNG 'dirty fuel' for state Liquefied natural gas - The official says a terminal anywhere would take Oregon "180 degrees in the wrong direction" Friday, February 01, 2008 TED SICKINGER The Oregonian Oregon Secretary of State Bill Bradbury is the first high-ranking state executive to voice firm opposition to construction of any liquefied natural-gas terminal in Oregon. Speaking at a global warming forum Wednesday in Forest Grove, Bradbury said he believed the facilities would take the state "180 degrees the wrong direction," increasing its dependence on fossil fuels just as the state has launched an effort to sharply increase the use of renewable energy, such as wind and solar. Bradbury's stance is the latest sign that LNG is fast becoming a political hot potato in Oregon. Out-of-state companies have proposed building three terminals in the state: one in Coos Bay and two on the Columbia River. The terminals would accept imports of supercooled natural gas from abroad, reheat the liquid into a gas, and ship the gas to West Coast markets through one of four proposed pipelines that would run through hundreds of miles of farms and forests. Bradbury's position against LNG puts him on the opposite side of the increasingly heated debate from Gov. Ted Kulongoski. Kulongoski has expressed cautious support for LNG -- particularly the facility proposed for Coos Bay -- as "a bridge resource" to help the state transition to a renewable future. Bradbury said Thursday that he'd had only one conversation about LNG with Kulongoski and realized they disagreed about the issue. But he said he intended to take it up with him again. "LNG is a dirty fuel that adds to the greenhouse gases we're putting into the environment," Bradbury said. In addition, Bradbury said he was worried about magnifying the state's dependence on foreign fossil fuels. Adding LNG terminals now, he said, would be similar to the oil glut that came after the Arab oil embargo in the 1970s, which extended U.S. dependence on imported oil from unstable countries. "What are we doing? Hello? Have we learned anything?" Bradbury said. Bradbury, Kulongoski and State Treasurer Randall Edwards hold the three votes on the State Land Board, which may need to approve the use of state lands for any LNG terminal and associated pipelines to carry gas to market. Bradbury made his initial remarks Wednesday at a "Focus the Nation" event at Pacific University in Forest Grove. Focus the Nation is a national campaign to brainstorm solutions to global warming. Kulongoski was slated to speak at a Focus the Nation event at the University of Portland on Thursday night, where he could face questions on the issue from students. Kulongoski has worked hard to build an environmental legacy during his second term. Those efforts have included his support of a law that will force utilities to serve 25 percent of their customer demand from renewable sources by 2025. Plusses, minuses Natural gas-fired power plants have lower carbon emissions than coal-burning ones, so environmental advocates typically see them as the lesser of two evils. Yet critics contend that the total carbon impact of LNG -- including the energy to extract it, liquefy it, ship it overseas, re-gassify it, then send it to market -- make it a far bigger polluter than domestic natural gas. Proponents of the LNG terminals and pipelines contend that imports are crucial to diversify Oregon's energy sources as supplies tighten. Opponents believe the state's gas supply is more than adequate, and Oregonians shouldn't bear the environmental burden for facilities that would ship gas out of state. The import capacity of any one of the proposed projects dwarfs the natural gas consumption of Oregon. In addition to the import terminals, energy companies have proposed building separate natural-gas pipelines that would import natural gas from the Rocky Mountains into southern Oregon. The question of need has become a contentious issue in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's environmental review of the facilities. Both state officials and federal natural-resource agencies have pushed FERC to perform a comprehensive analysis that covers all new gas facilities proposed in the state, looking first at the need for additional supply, then determining which facility would have the least environmental impact. FERC has overall siting authority for the import terminals and pipelines, but it intends to consider each project on its own environmental merit, then let the market determine which get built. FERC Commissioner Jon Wellinghoff traveled to Oregon this week and held an unusual series of meetings in Salem to allay concerns and answer questions about the federal process from state Department of Energy officials as well as landowners and other members of the public. Participants said Wellinghoff apologized to attendees for some shortcomings in FERC's process and promised to bring their concerns back to Washington, D.C. Bradbury, who participated via conference call, said he hoped the exchange would improve the federal review. "We need to make sure this process works for the people of Oregon," he said. Ted Sickinger: 503-221-8505;  tedsickinger@news.oregonian.com ©2008 The Oregonian bradbuery says no>