noLNG

Why we Fight!

Would anyone see our river changed from the above picture to the one below. (click on the picture)

Northern Star should pay before building LNG.

To The Eagle:

Thanks to the Board of Wahkiakum County Commissioners for their attention to the proposed LNG terminal and pipeline at Bradwood, Oregon. Our citizens and their properties are the closest to the proposed LNG terminal and the LNG carrier during unloading and river transit. Unfortunately, NorthernStar, the Bradwood promoter, has not been candid in its response to the county.

On December 18, 2007 the Commissioners wrote to the Federal Regulatory Energy Commission (FERC) expressing concerns that the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) does not adequately address the safety and economic impact on the county’s residents.

Our Commissioners requested a Community Benefits Agreement (CBA) based on an independent safety assessment and economic impact assessment, to be funded by NorthernStar. The Commissioners also asked FERC to make the results a condition to the federal permit and Final EIS. After no response from NorthernStar, the Board submitted a follow-up letter on April 8, 2008. The answer from NorthernStar reads as follow: “Bradwood Landing has funded Wahkiakum County $100,000 per year without restriction on how they spend the money. A fraction of the money could have been spent on the referenced study or could be spent in the future. Bradwood Landing has generously funded Wahkiakum County for these types of needs”.

NorthernStar’s answer is not accurate. NorthernStar gave the money to a private non-profit organization, Wahkiakum Community Foundation, not to the County government.

Therefore, the control of the money is not within the County government and is not readily available for these studies. Secondly, the cost of these studies could far exceed the amount of the gift. The Public Safety Assessment and Emergency Response Plan (ERP) Revisions and Response Resource Cost Share Report for Clatsop County, Oregon cost more than $170,000.

Even though the LNG terminal would be in Oregon, Wahkiakum County would face enormous expenses for emergency, medical and security services and related infrastructure. We need to know what we would need and how much it would cost.

The funding by NorthernStar and execution of the needed resources should be completed before the start of the operation phase and continued thereafter.

Frans Eykel

Puget Island, WA.

Add Political Damage.

This letter was send in response to an excellent article in The Oregonian. (Zuckerman)

It's easy to identify the massive environmental threats from the
proposed LNG terminals and pipelines. Thanks to the Oregonian for
highlighting another danger - the corruption of our political
process, as shown by the Clackamas County Commissioners and the
"donations" they received from natural gas lobbyists.

It's something we've experienced here in Clatsop County.  We saw
some of our Clatsop County Commissioners and Planning
Commissioners indulging in what I call acrobatic law - bending
over backwards and twisting the law to meet NorthernStar's
desires.  Although there is no evidence of cash changing hands,
it looked like a corrupted process and contributed to the
successful recall of one county commissioner.

Add political damage to the dangers posed by LNG to Oregon's air,
water, health, safety, economy, environment, quality of life, and
future.  Oregonians must get involved in the politics of proposed
LNG pipelines in their county.

Laurie Caplan

Now, lets argue about the title to a referendum.

4/29/2008 12:48:00 PM

LNG backers challenge ballot title NorthernStar Natural Gas argues that parklands are not ‘protected’ By CASSANDRA PROFITA The Daily Astorian Bradwood Landing liquefied natural gas project developer NorthernStar Natural Gas Inc. today submitted a challenge to the ballot title for the proposed referendum on the Clatsop County Commission's decision to allow pipelines on land zoned for open space, parks and recreation. The company has already filed a motion for a preliminary injunction in Clatsop County Circuit Court to stop the referendum process from moving forward, arguing the county's land-use decision isn't an appropriate subject for a ballot referendum and any challenges should be handled by the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals. As of this morning, the court hadn't ruled on the motion. More: www.dailyastorian.com

Our Beautiful Columbia River.

And trying to keep it that way!

No comments neccessary.

(Click on the picture)

Letter to FERC.

As the engineering and other mitigated issues change faster than it can be printed (bait and switch), the following letter was submitted to the FERC.

Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

888 First Street, NE. Room 1A

Washington, DC. 20426

Ref. Docket No. CP06-365-000 et al.

Dear Ms. Bose:

Thank you for the opportunity to submit my comments and concerns related to the proposed Bradwood LNG facility.

As the permit process continues and following the filing of the Draft Emergency Response Plan (ERP), several issues surfaced pertaining to Wahkiakum County, WA.

and Puget Island in particular.

Puget Island is the closest community to the proposed facility and adjacent to the LNG carrier turning basin (less than 0.5 mile) as is the County’s shoreline to the LNG carrier transit route. But after review of the Draft ERP the only mentioning of our community is related to evacuation as for Tsunami’s. Aural warnings by means of siren and reverse 911 calls.

In the Emergency Management Plan (EMP) Annexes is mention of Puget Island pages 6D 9.1.4. and 7D 4.2.4. Related to aural warnings and evacuation.

Much more will be required to bolster the County’s infrastructure for the protection and safety of our citizens, the elderly and our properties.

In the ERP Appendix 4,  First Aid Response Organizational Chart shows ship support  with only two (2) tug boats. As per USCG Water Suitability Report (WSR), three (3) tug boats are required during dockside transfer of LNG. (While unloading, all three tugs will remain on standby to assist with emergency departure procedures.)

Three tug boats are A-1 equipped with high volume 5000gpm fire fighting pumps for a total capacity of more than 15,000gpm, will the pump intake be screened for protection of these pumps and accidental ingesting of marine live? (NOAA Fisheries)

In order to comply with 49 CFR 193.2057 and 49 CFR 193.2059 NorthernStar has to submit weather related data pertaining to Temperature, Relative Humidity, and Wind Speed, my question is: why is FERC requesting weather data from the past  three (3) years from Oregon LNG^[1] , but NorthernStar would be able to submit only one (1) year of data, due to their local weather station was only in operation for one year.

Unless NorthernStar submitted data from the Astoria, OR. weather station, which data should be unacceptable.

I have an electronic weather station (Davis Vantage PRO with a Weatherlink Data loader) installed for the past eight years and the results are quite different from the Astoria station due to location and terrain.

Due to the close proximity of Puget Island and the prevailing weather conditions, I’m asking the FERC to calculate the exact 49 CFR 193.2057 Thermal radiation protection zone and 49 CFR 193.2059 Flammable vapor-gas dispersion protection zone.

As these zones are calculated from the LNG storage container and LNG transfer systems, the ships transfer system will be outside the containment area.

These zones have to be owned or be in control of the facility operator, would normal river traffic be allowed through  these zones?

In summary, FERC has to hold the applicant(s) to the highest standards possible to meet NEPA, which should include “need” and “alternatives” and address the safety and security for the citizens of Wahkiakum County, WA.

The draft ERP and EMP are grossly inadequate in reference to Wahkiakum County and should not be addressed as a surrounding counties² due in part to the above mentioned criteria.

All cost of the necessary equipment, personnel, training, etc. should be borne by the applicant(s) as they are outside of our taxing district. 

---

^[1]  20080402-3019 FERC PDF dated 04/02/2008

²  Cover letter page 1, dated 02/25/08 Bradwood Landing, LLC

Beautiful Port Arthur, TX.

It doesn't take much to figure why  most of the people on the Lower Columbia River do not want industrial facilities like oil refineries, LNG terminal or IGCC generation facilities in a salmon rearing estuary.

It appears, they are welcome in Texas.

Coast Guard Bill HR 2830.

The Daily Astorian Editor is concerned about the Julia Butler Hansen Federal WildLife Refuge, what about our refuge, the folks living on Puget Island, WA.?

Thanks to The Daily Astorian for their excellent coverage of this nightmare issue.

Coast Guard's misgivings are real
LNG tankers are a security risk
The $8.4 billion Coast Guard bill that overwhelmingly passed the U.S. House last week contains much of local relevance, most notably a requirement that the USCG must enforce security zones around liquefied natural gas terminals and arriving tankers.

It will come as a surprise to many here that there previously was no such rule. Although the Coast Guard provides some security for LNG sites and ships, USCG Commandant Adm. Thad Allen strenuously objected last week to having LNG duties written into law, something he said robs the Coast Guard of "necessary discretion and flexibility to meet our mission demands in an often-changing, dangerous operating environment."

President Bush threatens to veto the bill, both because of the Coast Guard's objections and because it amounts to an "unwarranted subsidy" to LNG firms. The bill's vote of 395-7 effectively makes it veto proof.

The administration has never shown any previous compunctions about subsidizing corporations, but concerns about overtaxing and micromanaging the Coast Guard have more validity.

More: www.dailyastorian.com

Beautiful Freeport, TX.

Can anyone ever imagine to call these industrial ditches, a TOURIST ATTRACTION. Well our past EDC director ( June 28, 2007) did, so did other folks being recipients of "Gifts" (July 9, 2007).

Do we like our salmon estuary to look like THIS?

Wait till you see the whole picture, one would call it "UGLY".

Comments Regarding Significant New Environmental issues

This 13 page document is worth your time, just to find out what NorthernStar is up to now. From their crown jewel mitigation of screened ballast and cooling water, to the pipeline route, dredge spoils and coup de grace a open-loop regasification scheme. Click on the link:Download columbia_riverkeeper_comments_april_24_2008.pdf