noLNG

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 

Would one like to see this on our river.

Beautiful Everett LNG, Some call it a tourist attraction!

Board of Wahkiakum County Commissioners file correction

Download wahk. Cty letter april22 2008.pdf  Click on the download link for the complete letter.

They don't want us to vote
As the LNG site selection process becomes more visible, the worse it looks
To paraphrase Ronald Reagan: There they go again.

NorthernStar Natural Gas Inc., and its allied interests are seeking judicial intervention to halt a referendum on the Clatsop County Commission's approval of the proposed liquefied natural gas terminal at Bradwood Landing.

Northern Star's retention of the Portland law firm Stoel Rives is reminiscent of the gambit used by former county Commissioner Richard Lee and his allies to keep county residents from voting on a ballot initiative in response to the commission's decision to eliminate the district attorney's stipend.

Lee's forces brought longtime Astoria lawyer Nick Zafiratos out of retirement to plead their case. Josephine County Judge Loyd O'Neal did not buy Zafiratos' argument and issued a decision to let the ballot measure move forward.

The most appropriate re-sponse to commissioners who didn't want their judgment questioned was a sign carried by Jean Dominey which said "Let us vote."

To counter the efforts of an alliance of three anti-LNG public interest organizations, NorthernStar Natural Gas argues that county commissioners made a land-use decision, which is quasi-judicial and therefore exempt from the referendum process. It will be a judge's job to ascertain the validity of that argument.

When the County Planning Commission voted 3-2 on the LNG matter, it became clear that the fix was in. It was only a matter of time before the commission would follow suit in a 4-1 vote.

More: www.dailyastorian.com

LNG opponents file Bradwood ballot measure referendum and appeal

By CASSANDRA PROFITA
The Daily Astorian

Groups opposing NorthernStar's Bradwood Landing liquefied natural gas import project today launched a two-pronged challenge to Clatsop County's recent decision to approve land-use permits for the controversial LNG and pipeline project. 

The Columbia River Business Alliance, Columbia Riverkeeper, and Northwest Property Rights Coalition submitted legal papers with the Clatsop County elections clerk to hold a ballot measure referendum to overturn the county commission's recent decision to open all county lands zoned for parks, recreation and open space to gas pipeline construction.

More at: www.dailyastorian.info

LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS

Wednesday, April 09, 2008
The Oregonian
There are some things Americans, and Oregonians in particular, should consider as they weigh the possibility of liquefied natural gas as a "bridge" energy source. The industry is quick to paint a rosy picture of LNG as a "green" and "available" source of energy. But there are many things they're not telling you.

Palomar, a joint venture between Northwest Natural Gas Co. and TransCanada Pipelines Ltd., is quick to point out the proposed Oregon projects' benefit to the local economy, but it never speaks of the costs to our communities and our nation. As reported in The Oregonian, proponents estimate the Palomar pipeline project would pump $75 million into local economies each year and provide $8 million in annual taxes. What they don't say is that the $75 million would come from regional ratepayers and, on top of that, another $1.6 billion to $2.2 billion, at current prices, would be extracted from the same ratepayers and piped out of our nation annually into foreign banks to pay for the LNG. The $75 million "profit" would be split between a small number of workers and the stockholders of the corporations that are pushing these proposals. The Palomar pipeline would cross hundreds of miles of our state, degrading hundreds of streams and many tracts of farmland, before slashing its way through the Mount Hood National Forest.

Proponents say LNG is a green source of energy. It's not. By the time it's extracted on a foreign continent, liquefied, shipped to our shore, re-gasified and pumped hundreds or thousands of miles to its end user, it has a huge carbon cost. Whatever reduction of carbon emissions is gained because of its cleaner burning is more than offset by the long journey it must take to get here.

Under the guise of national security, the federal government would condone the condemnation of private property for the benefit of corporate profit. It would also take and trash public assets and property for that same corporate profit. Farmland that has been family-owned for generations would be split and restrictions placed on its use. The litany of ill-effects could go on, but the winners and losers of the proposed LNG projects are already apparent. The industry stands to make a lot of money, while the planet, the country, our state and future and current generations of people, fish and wildlife will all pay a heavy price.

For the complete opinion go to: www.oregonLive.com

Cowlitz County standing up for Safety and Security

Board of Commissioners
County Administration Building
207 Fourth Avenue North
Kelso, WA 98626
TEL (360) 577-3020
FAX (360) 423-9987
www.co.cowlitz.wa.us

March 25, 2008

Dear Mr. Coppedge:

The Board of County Commissioners has reviewed the Cowlitz County Environmental Criteria Evaluation prepared by URS dated October 2007 to assist the County in connection with SEPA/NEPA review related to the proposed Bradwood Landing Pipeline. The Board notes in particular the footnote on page 1 of that document indicating that NorthernStar does not plan to submit applications for necessary permits under Cowlitz County land use regulations. This is to advise you that such a plan is simply unacceptable to the County.

Cowlitz County hereby informs you that Bradwood Landing LLC will be expected to comply with all applicable County land use regulations implicated by the proposed pipeline in Cowlitz County. The proposed 36-inch gas pipeline would cut across Cowlitz County, impacting roads, forestland, farms and streams, while potentially involving the acquisition of private lands by eminent domain. The County must ensure that the safety of its citizens, as well as its economy and natural resources are protected, all of which are of course the reason for the adoption of the local land use regulations. In addition, the County and its municipalities will be responsible for police and fire protection related to pipeline construction and operation, imposing burdens on those services. Pipeline construction and maintenance will further create infrastructure costs to the County, including disturbance of existing roads, new roads, and additional traffic. In order to protect the citizens of Cowlitz County and its financial resources, the County expects the following of Bradwood Landing LLC:

• Bradwood Landing must comply with the County's adopted land use regulations in connection with the siting and development of the pipeline. County land use regulations ensure orderly and efficient development, protect the safety of citizens, and protect natural resources. Regulations include the comprehensive plan, critical areas ordinance, floodplain management ordinance, shorelines management master program, gas and oil pipeline permit ordinance, and forest conservation regulations. The County will assist Bradwood Landing in applying for necessary permits under these regulations.
• Bradwood Landing must fund 100% of the costs related to public safety response and infrastructure requirements incurred with respect to construction and operation of the pipeline. As noted above, the proposed pipeline will create additional burdens on the public safety response resources of the County and its municipalities. Those costs should be borne by the applicant, rather than the taxpayers. In addition, the applicant should fund any necessary capital improvements, infrastructure modifications, or required mitigation.

We have determined the foregoing requirements to be critical to the protection of the safety of County residents, and to the protection of its economy and natural resources. The County looks forward to working with Bradwood Landing during the permit application and review process. Please contact our Department of Building and Planning at 360-577-3052to facilitate timely processing of applicable permits.

Sincerely,