noLNG

Power - Operations and Strategy

LNG Lowdown: Opponents continue Bradwood protests; Blumenthal seeks regional energy strategy
July 31, 2008 10:50 AM ET
By Katie Teller

FERC delayed its decision on the Bradwood Landing LNG facility in order to review additional comments, and those comments keep on coming.

On July 24, the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission told regulators "we do not believe the FERC should approve this project, as the risk this project poses to aquatic and terrestrial resources is much greater than the purported benefits to the public."

The final environmental impact statement prepared for the project "is inadequate and woefully lacking in detail by which anyone can make any determination or reasonable assessment of the impacts of this project on the environment," the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission said.

7/30/2008 10:06:00 AM

Four upcoming North Coast gatherings designed to rally opposition to LNG Four public meetings will be held in August about proposed liquefied natural gas and pipeline development in Oregon. Topics for the events include landowner rights, economic and environmental impacts of the proposed projects and the pipeline referendum that will appear on the county's September ballot. There will be time for questions and discussion following a presentation. There is no charge for these events. All of the meetings start at 6:30 p.m. The dates are Aug. 5 in Gearhart at the Sand Trap; Aug. 7 at the Warrenton Community Center; Aug. 14 in Seaside at the Bob Chisholm Community Center; and Aug. 20 in Cannon Beach at the Wave Crest Inn. The events are sponsored by the Columbia River Clean Energy Coalition. "We're eager to inform local landowners about their rights and choices in dealing with the LNG and pipeline companies," said Olivia Schmidt of the coalition. Thousands of Oregon residents have already been contacted by Palomar, Oregon LNG, and NorthernStar Natural Gas and are facing the threat of eminent domain for the purpose of these projects. "LNG-related pipelines require huge easements, restrict future use of the land, and yet still require landowners to pay full property taxes, even if the land's resale value decreases," said Schmidt. Maps of proposed pipeline routes and informational literature will be available at the meetings. Speakers at the meetings will present updates about the proposed projects, including state authority and federal oversight, legal challenges and a summary of action taken by OCAP. All Clatsop County residents are encouraged to attend. For pipeline information, contact Olivia Schmidt at (971) 533-2390or oliviariver@gmail.com.

State House passes bill restricting LNG projects

---

By Michael Holtzman

Herald News Staff Reporter

Posted Jul 25, 2008 @ 06:02 PM

Last update Jul 26, 2008 @ 12:14 AM

---

Fall River —

The House of Representatives unanimously passed state Rep. David Sullivan’s bill regulating liquefied natural gas tanker import terminals late Thursday night.
Nearly four years in the works, the bill now moves to the Senate for engrossment, then onto a final vote in both chambers and to Gov. Deval Patrick's desk.
The law would prohibit construction of LNG terminals within 5,000 feet of designated areas, and prevent tankers from passing within 1,500 feet of shorelines inhabited by populations meeting certain criteria.
LNG activities would not be allowed near residences, schools, hospitals, health care facilities and elderly housing complexes, businesses and developments, the legislation says.

More:  http://www.heraldnews.com/news/x390639455/State-House-passes-bill-restricting-LNG-projects

Sandia reports spill over water.

U.S. DOE Releases Analysis of Spills Over Water from Large LNG Carriers

Posted: July 25, 2008

The U.S. Department of Energy this afternoon released a report by Sandia National Laboratories that assesses the hazards of potential spills over water from large LNG vessels. According to the report, the thermal hazard distances resulting from a spill from a large capacity LNG vessel at a near-shore facility are about 7-8% greater than the distances associated with a smaller vessel. Citing the continued development of LNG deepwater port projects, the report evaluates separately the hazards of potential LNG spills at offshore facilities. The full report is available on the Department of Energy's website.

Filing by CRITFC 24 July, 2008

The Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC) filed their powerfull comments to the FERC's FEIS concerning Bradwood. following one paragraph:

We are not assured by the FEIS that any of our concerns about the Bradwood LNG development proposal will be adequately addressed now or in the future. In fact, many of our comments on the DEIS were either ignored or dismissed, as were many of the other federal and state agency comments. This lack of accountability to agency and tribal expertise on technical issues is troublesome. We are very dismayed by the flawed process by which FERC has conducted this project. We do not believe FERC’s conduct is legally permissible, nor do we believe that FERC has honored its tribal trust responsibility in any way to CRITFC’s member tribes.

For the complete 58 page document click:

http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/opennat.asp?fileID=11758790 

7/23/2008 12:41:00 PM

Why not an LNG terminal in Portland? By STEVE FORRESTER The Daily Astorian The Oregonian's editorial page has raised its voice on behalf of NorthernStar Energy LLC, developer of the prospective Bradwood Landing liquefied natural gas terminal. The O's editorial on July 15 was titled "The overheated LNG debate." It concludes that, "The Bradwood project should be allowed to move ahead." I believe the newspaper's editors should be more magnanimous about this contentious matter. Believing in LNG as much as the editors do, and believing in NorthernStar, there should be an invitation to bring the LNG upriver to the Portland waterfront. The O's pitch on behalf of a Houston-based company reminded me of what my father wrote in 1975 when Willamette Week did a five-part series on The Oregonian. Of the O's editorial page he wrote: It tends to speak for interests that can very well afford to speak for themselves. In the O's defense, that reflex tendency to speak for the money has changed considerably over the past few decades. And that's why the LNG piece caused my head to turn.

7/23/2008 11:48:00 AM

e

Warrenton leaders support chief's LNG concerns Ames said his small department was ill-equipped to deal with the size of an LNG disaster By JOE GAMM The Daily Astorian WARRENTON - On liquefied natural gas terminals, Warrenton Mayor Gil Gramson said the City Commission backs its own. "On LNG, I want it clearly understood, this commission backs our chief on that issue," Gramson said at Tuesday night's City Commission meeting. Warrenton Fire Chief Ted Ames was quoted in The Daily Astorian Monday saying fire departments wouldn't have the resources necessary to protect their communities, should either of the LNG terminals be located nearby. Oregon LNG is proposing a plant in Warrenton on the Skipanon Peninsula while NorthernStar Natural Gas is proposing one at Bradwood Landing 20 miles east of Astoria. Ames thought he was stepping out on the limb alone, when he said negotiations with one LNG developer had tailed off, and the resources he requested haven't been offered. He said his small department was ill-equipped to deal with the size of tragedy an LNG disaster potentially represented. Astoria Mayor Willis Van Dusen and others have echoed these concerns. Ames said the department has two paid employees and 30 volunteers, and he needed "an awful lot of people and an awful lot of stuff to prepare for that, and it shouldn't be the taxpayers' responsibility to do that."

LNG fire concerns.

7/21/2008 9:25:00 AM

Warrenton fire chief re-ignites LNG fire concerns Ted Ames is worried about his department’s ability to protect the public if the terminal is built By CASSANDRA PROFITA The Daily Astorian Warrenton Fire Chief Ted Ames is worried about his agency's ability to protect the public if a liquefied natural gas terminal is built in Clatsop County. Ames knows his department doesn't have the resources to handle an LNG emergency right now. In fact, with 800 service calls a year, he said, the agency struggles to keep up with day-to-day operations as it is. If the Bradwood Landing LNG terminal is built upriver from Astoria, the Warrenton and Astoria fire districts would have to be prepared to assist the Knappa fire department in responding to an LNG emergency. Last year, project developer NorthernStar Natural Gas Inc. hired consultants to negotiate with local public safety officials over who would pay for the additional resources needed to protect the new facility. But Ames said he hasn't talked with the company representatives since last fall, and he hasn't been offered the resources he requested. "I'm really stepping out on a limb here," Ames said, "but I am concerned about my own department's ability to not only keep up with day-to-day operations, but to provide any kind of response assistance to Astoria or Knappa. I'm very concerned about our ability to do anything in case of a tanker mishap. I'm just not comfortable at all." Earlier this year, the cities of Astoria and Warrenton sent letters to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the agency that approves LNG terminals, disputing NorthernStar's claims that local public safety issues had been resolved. "Astoria categorically rejects and disputes any claim or characterization that the proposed Emergency Response Plan and proposed cost-sharing agreements are acceptable to Astoria, or are otherwise fair and reasonable," stated Astoria's letter, signed by Mayor Willis Van Dusen. Overall, the company's offerings to fill gaps in local resources were "insufficient and unacceptable," the letter said. As the Bradwood project moves into the final stages of the federal LNG approval process, Ames said he's wondering when NorthernStar will address outstanding public safety issues at the terminal and along the LNG tanker transit route up the Columbia. "It seems like there's a train on the track ... and it's definitely got a head of steam. It's definitely roaring ahead," he said. "The ability for Knappa, Warrenton and Astoria to protect public safety can't be lost, and in my opinion Bradwood Landing is not negotiating in good faith." Ames said he is only speaking for the Warrenton Fire Department, and that he doesn't support or oppose LNG. The industry has a good track record, he said, with very few accidents. "But I have to look at the potential for an accident or potential danger to the citizens," he said. "If we put in a product that is as potentially flammable as an LNG facility, we've increased the probability to do harm to the public. My job is to prepare for that." On weekdays, Ames said, his department may only have two or three people available to respond to emergency medical calls, car crashes or fires. "How can a small fire department with two paid people and 30 volunteers prepare for a potential of an accident involving an LNG tanker somewhere along the Columbia River on our shores?" he said. "The bottom line is I need an awful lot of people and an awful lot of stuff to prepare for that, and it shouldn't be the taxpayers' responsibility to do that." His requests for resources to protect the Oregon LNG facility, on Warrenton's Skipanon Peninsula, are more extensive than his requests to Bradwood Landing. His list includes four additional paid personnel, a ladder truck with 100-foot elevated platform, a foam engine, a four-acre training facility, a fire boat and a training session at Texas A&M for staff and volunteers. Based on his experience so far with NorthernStar, Ames is not so sure his requests will be taken seriously. "Whatever proposal is built," he said, "the governor's office doesn't have a fire department. ... FERC doesn't either. But the decisions those people make have a direct impact not just on the environment ... they have a direct impact on local agencies' ability to protect public safety. ... The needs of the public safety providers need to be addressed and paid attention to, and I just don't think they're being addressed appropriately."

7/18/2008 10:37:00 AM

Letter: Invaluable resource It is now almost two years since I visited Astoria to speak about concerns I have regarding potential safety hazards to the public posed by liquefied natural gas import terminal operations. I came away feeling that the majority of those I addressed sought only to be dealt with openly and truthfully - I detected no ax to grind that was not their right. As I have been in similar positions on the LNG question before, I am not surprised at the contention that has developed in Oregon over the Bradwood Landing project. Just about everybody has become involved, and the situation seems to me to be headed for compromise. That may be the best that can be achieved, as this issue is extremely complex, involving some of the most serious questions we face today regarding our husbandry of natural resources and energy. Today's editorial byline in The Oregonian reads "The state's environmental concerns should be addressed, but the Bradwood Landing project deserves fair treatment" ("The overheated LNG debate," July 15). I find this statement impossible not to support. But I also believe that the safety-related concerns of the public should be as fully and fairly as practicable addressed as the process moves forward. I am not anti-LNG in any way. I do not think I need to go on here about the value of LNG any more than I need to go on about the value of salmon - that value is not questioned. My concern is this: As a scientific observer of the methods that are being used to define the potential consequences of credible events that could attend LNG import terminal operations, I am concerned that pressures to move forward have resulted in failure to realistically consider the potential for events that the public would consider (after the fact) to be catastrophic. To that end, I summarized in my Astoria presentation those safety concerns which I felt were not being adequately addressed, and I reiterated some of them at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission public hearing in November. The consequences, as well as the likelihood of credible hazard events occurring during the operation of an LNG import terminal at Bradwood Landing must be considered scientifically and accurately if all our interests are to be served. I remain concerned that the potential consequences of all of those credible events are not being sufficiently considered. Jerry Havens Professor of chemical engineering University of Arkansas

The Oregonian Op-Ed.

Great Op-Ed by Brent Foster, Executive Director of the Columbia Riverkeeper.

http://www.oregonlive.com/commentary/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/editorial/1216335319123450.xml&coll=7

End the LNG threat that faces Oregon

Friday, July 18, 2008

The Oregonian

T he Oregonian's unfortunate support for a liquefied natural gas terminal on the Columbia River aligns the editorial board with a small group of Texas energy speculators, Northwest Natural Gas Co. and other LNG boosters who would profit directly from the project ("The overheated LNG debate," July 15).

In contrast, a diverse cross section of interests opposing LNG on the Columbia ranges from the Democratic Party of Oregon to the Cowlitz County Republican Party, the Sierra Club to the Yamhill County Farm Bureau, Columbia Riverkeeper to the National Grange, and from the Northwest Property Rights Coalition to 1000 Friends of Oregon. These groups and many others agree with the Oregon Department of Energy's finding that there is no need for the proposed LNG projects in this state.

Locals Voice Concerns About Bradwood Landing As LNG Site

LNG  BRADWOOD LANDING  ENERGY  ENVIRONMENT   

By Rob Manning

Astoria, OR  July 17, 2008 12:44 a.m.

Federal energy regulators pulled away from making a decision Thursday that could have allowed a liquefied natural gas terminal on the Columbia River. Commissioners probably won’t decide on it for a couple months.

At the same time, people living near that LNG terminal are preparing for a county-wide vote on the issue. Rob Manning reports on the local opposition to the Bradwood Landing LNG project.

Mike Duley is piloting a small jetboat on the Columbia, through what’s called Clifton channel. He says on a good day, the river here is full of boats.

-Mike Duley navigates through the Clifton Channel on the Columbia River. He predicts the LNG terminal would drastically effect the fishermen here. More Photos From Bradwood Landing

Mike Duley: “On a weekend day, if you did a telephoto lens, you probably wouldn’t see any water, you’d just see boats. I betcha sometimes, it’s pushes 200 boats on certain weekend days, when spring Chinook are in.”

Also on board is George Exum, a long-time ship and barge operator, who’s helping Duley steer around old logs. Some may date back to when Bradwood was a mill site.

LNG supporters say the industrial history speaks in favor of a gas terminal. But Exum is worried about LNG clogging up river traffic.

LNG gets delivered in long tankers with big security zones around them, that other ships have to avoid.

George Exum:  “And when you’re talking about a thousand-foot ship, that’s going to have to come up this river, turn 180 degrees, back down, and dock, we’re talking a few hours. When all that’s happening, that’s going to affect anything that’s coming up and down this river.”

As we pause in a shallow area, George Exum also complains that each visiting tanker would draw thousands of gallons of water, for ballast and cooling. They could suck up juvenile salmon that thrive in this part of the river.

George Exum: “No ships should be allowed to come to this dock, that aren’t retrofitted to take water from a shoreside facility. That’s the only way to protect the salmon in here. And Northern Star has said ‘well, we can’t guarantee that.’ They have to guarantee that.”

Joe Desmond is Northern Star’s chief spokesman. When he’s in Oregon, he works out of a tenth-floor office in downtown Portland.

As for juvenile salmon, Desmond says his company can’t guarantee what Exum is asking for – but he has an alternative.

Joe Desmond: “A permeable curtain, which is essentially a curtain which would be put next to the ship, next to that ballast when they take that water in. We’re the first to propose this solution for ships on the Columbia River, and here we are being criticized.”

Environmentalists, and federal scientists, say that the "curtain" hasn't been proven to work. Desmond says on balance, the project will be good for the river’s environment, because it comes with $57 million in enhancements, though opponents say that money won't go very far.

LNG opponants celebrated the launch this week of their anti-LNG referedum at Astoria’s Wet Dog Café.

Some are are worried that changes upriver will hurt the very culture of the lower river - whether it's salmon fishing, or Astoria’s reputation for tourism. Don West is a worried hotel owner.

Don West: “The benefit for the state of Oregon is minimal, if any. And all we’re doing is we’re becoming the gas station for California and the rest of the nation. Natural gas station.”

NorthernStar’s Joe Desmond, says less than one fifth of the natural gas would go to California. He argues the increased gas supply would benefit Oregonians, long-term, as gas prices rise, not to mention the jobs it would bring.

The Columbia River gas debate may heat up as summer cools.

Three things are coming in September: that’s when federal energy regulators are likely to rule on Bradwood Landing. It’s when state agencies are expected to decide on the necessary air and water permits that Bradwood needs. And it’s when Clatsop County voters get their say, at the ballot box.

Published:Wednesday, July 16, 2008 11:21 AM PDT Serving the South Coast of Oregon

LUBA returns LNG case to the county By Alexander Rich, Staff Writer Wednesday, July 16, 2008 11:21 AM PDT The Land Use Board of Appeals has remanded Jordan Cove Energy Project’s land-use application for a liquefied natural gas terminal to Coos County. LUBA found Tuesday that the board of commissioners failed to address some of the opponents’ archaeological and environmental concerns. LUBA disagreed with opponents on several issues, but agreed the county needs to review its conclusions, including whether there are wetlands in the North Spit area proposed for the LNG terminal. It also suggested the county cannot fulfill its responsibility to resolve disputes between local Indian tribes and Jordan Cove over archeological sites under the agreement proposed by the company. LUBA said a third concern was unwarranted. Opponents had argued the county should include a condition that construction of a pipeline be approved before construction begins. Project opponents quickly issued a press release, welcoming the news. “This LUBA decision is a big win for the people of Coos County and Oregon,” said Jody McCaffree, of Citizens Against LNG. “The Coos County Commissioners should have listened to their constituents’ legitimate concerns.” Not everyone involved had seen the decision, including Oregon International Port of Coos Bay Executive Director Jeffrey Bishop. He said he couldn’t comment on it because he hadn’t read it. Jordan Cove Project Manager Bob Braddock was not available at press time. James Nicita, the Oregon City-based attorney who successfully argued for the appeal, took the decision as a sign of more problems to come for Jordan Cove. “This is the first major permit that Jordan Cove has sought, and LUBA’s decision is a huge signal to them that their project has major problems.”  David Lohman, a Medford attorney representing appellant Southern Oregon Pipeline Information Project, said LUBA’s decision extended beyond technicalities. “Correcting the problems with this permit — if Coos County decides to try to do so — will require a lot of new work by Jordan Cove and the County, including public involvement processes that were skipped over before,” he said.

-- CLOSE WINDOW --

The Daily Astorian: Editorial

7/15/2008 11:53:00 AM

Whoa! Let's take another look FERC must slow the pace on LNG approval race There's only one word to say to the Federal Energy Commission: Whoa. The commission meets Thursday. And on its agenda is the Bradwood Landing liquefied natural gas terminal. Even executives at Northern Star Natural Gas Co., the prime movers in the project, were surprised it made its way onto the FERC approval agenda so quickly. Why the haste? There are many reasons to say whoa. Approval and construction of any LNG receiving terminal on the Columbia River will materially alter the lives of every person in the Columbia-Pacific region. It will disrupt today's already complex shipping patterns and has the potential to have a serious detrimental effect on salmon populations. So shouldn't the decision be taken only once the appropriate studies are done? Gov. Ted Kulongoski believes FERC should not issue any license before the state of Oregon completes the permitting process for the Clean Water Act and the Coastal Zone Management Act. Federal statute and case law require FERC to issue a supplemental environmental impact statement when there are significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns. The public must have a chance to comment on the new information. The governor's office asked for such an action when the project's scope changed after a draft environmental impact statement was issued in August 2007. The governor calls this a "fatally flawed and legally deficient" environmental analysis. To resolve outstanding issues, Kulongoski said FERC should withdraw its final environmental impact statement on the project, released June 6, and write a new draft report for the public to review. The new report needs to include more detailed information on the project's design, safety and mitigation plans, as well as the state energy department's report questioning the need for LNG in Oregon, he said. Kulongoski isn't the only one with concerns. U.S. Rep. David Wu, whose district includes the proposed site, says any decision needs to take into account local concerns. The National Park Service - ironically another agency of the federal government - is urging more study of the effect of the proposed terminals on the Lewis and Clark Trail. Local fire agencies and others have complained that there is still not an adequate plan in place for who will pay for additional security and safety coverage if a terminal is built. Right now three competing private companies want government approval to locate an LNG receiving terminal in Oregon. (The other two are in Warrenton and Coos Bay.) FERC still hasn't adequately addressed the question of how many, if any, of these terminals are needed to fit in with our national energy policy. Its response: "Let the market decide" has got to be one of the dumbest statements ever to come out of Washington D.C. If our national energy policy is to reduce our dependence on imported fossil fuels, why are we considering building multimillion dollar terminals to bring LNG in from overseas? California communities have succeeded in keeping new LNG terminals out. Yet pipelines are planned to hook into the LNG plants and criss-cross our region to ship the new supplies of imported gas to California markets. All this fails to pass the sniff test. If rejecting the Bradwood application as "not needed" or "too dangerous" or even "not welcome" is too much for FERC Thursday, then delaying any action for more study must be the federal commission's only alternate response. Kulongoski states it well: "The disregard for Oregon's concerns is unacceptable, particularly on a project with such profound potential impacts on the lives of Oregonians."

FERC removes Bradwood LNG project from Thursday agenda By Tony Lystra The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission announced Tuesday that it won’t consider NorthernStar Natural Gas Inc.’s proposal to build a liquefied natural gas terminal on the Columbia River this week. The commission had been expected to discuss plans for the $600 million terminal Thursday, and there was speculation the agency would decide on a permit for the project. But a FERC spokeswoman said Tuesday the commission will hold off while it reviews letters and comments citizens, government agencies and lawmakers have filed in the past month. “They’re just taking time to review everything before they make a decision,” FERC spokeswoman Tamara Young-Allen said. Late last week, Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski sent a letter to FERC saying the agency’s final environmental impact statement for the NorthernStar project, issued last month, is “fatally flawed and legally deficient.” Kulongoski asked the agency to withdraw the study and issue a more thorough one. The governor also said the document brushed over important questions about environmental and safety risks. FERC should not issue its permit, he said, until the state decides whether to certify the project under Coastal Zone, clean air and clean water standards. Kulongoski spokeswoman Jillian Schoene said the governor hopes Tuesday’s decision “is an indication that FERC is finally listening to Oregon’s concerns and is re-evaluating our request for a revised impact statement before moving forward.” U.S. Reps. David Wu, Peter DeFazio, Darlene Hooley, all Oregon Democrats, as well as Southwest Washington Congressman Brian Baird, also asked FERC to delay its decision. Young-Allen said she didn’t know if the governor’s or the lawmakers’ demands had prompted FERC to hold off. NorthernStar spokesman Joe Desmond said his company doesn’t “know the specific reasons for the delay.” But, he said, “It’s important that staff take the necessary time to prepare the final order.” He also said that, even if FERC does issue a license for the terminal, NorthernStar will have to secure the state permits before it can break ground. “I certainly hope that FERC will want to respond to the governor’s concerns and provide him the assurance that the state has a significant role to play in this,” Desmond said. It is unclear when FERC will take up the issue again. Young-Allen said FERC could make its decision at any time, outside the confines of a scheduled meeting. NorthernStar’s proposed terminal, at Bradwood, Ore., would bring LNG tankers 38 miles up the river, store the gas in two large tanks along the shore, and pump the gas to market through at least one, possibly two, new pipelines. One of the new pipelines would cross Clatsop, Columbia and Cowlitz counties. Recent related articles: Kulongoski asks feds to halt decision on LNG  (July 14) LNG decision near? FERC to meet next week  (July 11) Baird asks feds to delay Bradwood decision  (June 21) Clatsop County LNG referendum makes ballot  (June 21)

Letter to the Gov.

Turning over Oregon to NoStar and FERC

Dear Governor Kulongoski,

There were many disturbing aspects of the Clatsop County
Commissioners' approval of the NorthernStar application for its
proposed LNG terminal and pipeline at Bradwood.  The overall effect
was of watching the commissioners becoming the company's lap dogs,
eager to please regardless of what was asked.  Defying public
testimony, science, common sense, and public opinion, they essentially
gave away the county to NorthernStar.

So it's up to you, sir, to hang on to Oregon.  Both NorthernStar and
Leucadia-Oregon LNG would love nothing better than to have free rein
with our state.  I'm surprised they haven't flat out asked for a
wholesale revision of the state's land use guidelines and laws just to
simplify things.  They would if they could.  Think how easy it would
be.  We could privatize the entire state and simply rezone all land as
Marine/Commercial/Industrial.  No more hearings.  No need for eminent
domain or easements or even negotiating a fair price.  Public
officials wouldn't have to weigh in with empty pronouncements about
FERC and its biased, predetermined process and sort through endless
correspondence from angry citizens.  We NO LNGers around the state
could resume our personal lives, nurture our families, and take care
of business.  So what if we kill salmon, Oregon's economy, property
values, and any remaining faith in any level of government?

That it's up to ordinary citizens to convince you to prevent
NorthernStar from taking 15 billion gallons of Columbia River water
for corporate profits is appalling.  Why is this even an issue for
discussion?  I'm no scientist, but I know that 15 billion gallons of
Columbia River water will have disturbing consequences, many as yet
unknown, on salmonids and other fish, water temperature and flow , and
on the precious habitat of flora and fauna.  I can't begin to imagine
the consequences to those who depend on the river as it is for their
livelihoods.

Please use your authority to stop the looting of Oregon to benefit
NorthernStar and the other LNG investors.  Tell the Water Resources
Board to say NO to NorthernStar.  Please stop this farcical LNG
situation now and say NO to LNG in Oregon.

Laurie Caplan

Is FERC rushing Bradwood?

This article appeared in the Energy Economist.

Posted on July 11, 2008
By Ehud Abadi
Filed Under Uncategorized |

In what comes as a surprise to virtually every party involved in the project, FERC has announced that it will meet on Thursday, July 17 to consider and possibly vote on the fate of the proposed Bradwood LNG terminal on the Columbia River in Oregon. The announcement comes much earlier than state leaders, project opponents, and even the project’s backers had expected, according to an Oregonian article published on Friday. FERC had just issued its environmental impact statement on the plant last month, and according to its own rules, Thursday’s meeting is the very first in which the commission is allowed to vote on the project. Bradwood is a name that’s attracting a lot of attention recently in the Northwest, and not much of it is positive. Virtually everyone that lives at or near the plant’s proposed site on the Western Columbia River is vehemently opposed to its location there. Environmental groups claim that even beyond the impact of having more heavy industry and gas tankers on the river, the plant will further endanger already suffering salmon populations. According to the Oregonian, the state government has been consistently critical of FERC’s handling of the Bradwood proposal, stating that the Federal agency has moved forward in a rushed manner, without regard for Oregon’s concerns. Both Gov. Ted Kulongoski and the state’s congress have requested that FERC take into account more recent research and data to update their environmental assessment, to no avail.

Should FERC’s rushing of this approval really come as a surprise, though? It doesn’t take more than a cursory look at the current status of LNG in this country to see that there are currently far too many re-gasification plant proposals for all, or even most of them, to be feasible. In Oregon alone, there are 3 proposals in the works, including Bradwood. Economist Samuel Van Vactor points to the notion that FERC is obviously aware of this. According to Van Vactor, FERC’s policy standpoint right now is to get as many LNG proposals approved as they can, and let economics dictate which ones actually get built. NorthernStar Natural Gas, the company proposing the Bradwood Landing facility, is going to need a lot of capital to actually break ground after all the regulatory hurdles are jumped. Will it get that capital? At the heart of that question lies another question: Will the demand for the gas be there? A look farther south, past the US-Mexico border, sheds some light on this. Sempra’s $875 million Energia Costa Azul LNG plant in Northern Mexico, completed this past spring, has so far been a relatively successful venture. Markets for the incoming gas are close, transportation is cheap, and the gas sells. Between Energia Costa Azul and the recently beefed up pipeline capacity linking California to the Gulf, the West Coast is not currently under any significant supply constraint, nor will it be for a while. This makes the Bradwood Landing proposal dubious to potential investors. Furthermore, Bradwood’s site is not currently connected to any major pipeline. In order to get incoming gas to market, that will have to be built, adding to the price-tag of the project. Northwest Natural Gas, mainly a local delivery company, has already come out in favor of Bradwood, leading one to believe that they must envision some future for gas coming out of the plant, at least as far as its Mist storage facility located very conveniently close by.

It would be the place of a different post to also explore the supply side of the issue, and how that relates international gas prices to those in the U.S. Will the price differential between the two be great enough to justify the imports? These are questions that many economists are probably laboring over as investors, likely the ultimate deciders, consider Bradwood Landing.

7/11/2008 11:30:00 AM

Letter: Can you say 'speculators'? The cost of a barrel of oil a year ago was half what it is today, yet some would have us believe that the solution is to boost production in the states to help prevent coming doom. What's amazing to me is that the cost has risen by 100 percent. I am quite sure that the oil workers did not receive a 100 percent increase in their pay, or that the producing countries all of a sudden have had their cost go up 100 percent. So what is really going on? Can anyone say "speculators?" In our own Clatsop County, Texas oil speculators are proposing to bring liquefied natural gas to the area purportedly to bring "clean energy and good jobs." Why would any business want to bring LNG to the U.S. when the cost of domestic natural gas is half the price of the world market price for LNG? Why would their customers ever pay more for the unclean LNG (as carbon-loading as "clean coal") when they would have to pay double for LNG? Oh, wait a minute. Back in the 1970s, the U.S. imported about 35 percent of its oil, and today nearly 70 percent. When we become dependent on foreign sources of energy we give up any control we have about the cost or where we buy a needed product. So that's why the cost doubled in one year - because we import more than we produce. That makes no sense, because we have imported more than we produce for many years. So, again, why now? Could it be speculators? I make this correlation because we now import about 2 percent of our natural gas needs from LNG. As time goes on and we become more and more dependent, guess what will happen to our current pricing for natural gas? How would you like your heating cost to double in one year? Putting millions of dollars into developing the infrastructure to accommodate LNG is extremely wasteful, and at this time we need to be putting all our efforts in developing alternative energy sources to get rid of our dependency on foreign oil and foreign natural gas. LNG is a step backward. We can make intelligent energy choices now for the future economic health of the U.S. The referendum in September is asking for a "No" vote to stop pipelines that would transmit natural gas from LNG plants through our parks and open spaces. Why would anyone want to have 36-inch high-pressure dangerous pipelines running under our parks and open spaces where we and our kids play? Even supporters of the concept of LNG cannot honestly want to have these massive pipelines with a 100 foot right of way happen in their parks. Do not let the speculators pad their pockets with futures trading by allowing LNG, which we do not need in Oregon (Oregon Department of Energy report May 2008). Vote "No" on the September ballot to ensure that NorthernStar plays by the rules and changes their plans to conform to our laws. Don West Astoria

Thank you, TED.

The governor's respond to the FERC'ers.

The FEIS issued on June 6, 2008 is "Fatally Flawed and Legally Deficient".

Click for the complete document of 57 pages: http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/file_list.asp?accession_num=20080711-5106

It ain't over till.................

7/11/2008 11:03:00 AM

FERC could OK LNG Feds may give Bradwood Landing approval Thursday By CASSANDRA PROFITA The Daily Astorian The time has come. Over the past three years, North Coast residents have seen dozens of public meetings on the Bradwood Landing liquefied natural gas project come and go. They've read volumes and volumes and volumes of documents. They've stood at protests and rallies and written countless letters. Next week the divisive project will come before the five-member Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, a board of presidential appointees that issues LNG licenses. At a regular meeting Thursday, FERC staff will summarize the public record, which has grown to many thousands of pages. Board members, who are expected to have read the whole thing, including all the public comments, will discuss the case with staff and ask questions. "Afterward," the agenda says, "Chairman Kelliher may call for a vote." FERC was required to wait at least 30 days from the June 6 release of Bradwood's Final Environmental Impact Statement before making a decision on the project. That made Thursday the first meeting at which the Commission could consider approval. "We were surprised that it showed up on the Commission's agenda," said Joe Desmond, spokesman for Bradwood Landing project developer NorthernStar Natural Gas Co. While it may seem like FERC is fast-tracking the decision, Desmond noted the approval process has actually been underway since early 2005. This week, NorthernStar submitted the additional project details FERC requested in its final environmental report, including the company's plans for protecting salmon while LNG tankers are taking in ballast and engine cooling water from the Columbia River. Meanwhile, the National Park Service has joined Gov. Ted Kulongoski in asking FERC to delay the final decision and redo its analysis of the project's environmental impacts. Those requests will be considered by the Commission when it meets next week, said FERC spokeswoman Tamara Young-Allen. Instead of approving the license application, the board could order staff to complete a supplemental environmental impact statement. The Bradwood Landing project, proposed for a site 20 miles east of Astoria on the Columbia, is the front-runner of three LNG terminal proposals in Oregon. The terminals receive supercooled natural gas liquid delivered by tanker from overseas and reheat it to a vapor before sending it out to customers via pipeline. A second terminal is proposed for the Skipanon Peninsula in Warrenton and a third proposal is in Coos Bay. LNG opponents say they fully expect FERC to approve Bradwood's application next week, but they don't see the federal approval as the end of their fight to block the development. "It's now more important than ever for the governor to stand up to take a stand for the salmon in the river," said Brownsmead resident Ted Messing, a project opponent. "It's not a done deal. The governor has the ability to stop this." In order to begin construction on the $650 million Bradwood Landing LNG terminal and pipeline, NorthernStar needs several approvals from state agencies. The company has outstanding permit applications at the state Water Resources Department, Department of Environmental Quality and Land Conservation and Development Department. Although Clatsop County has approved the company's local land-use application, the approval faces challenges at the state Land Use Board of Appeals and on the Sept. 16 ballot. "This isn't the end," said Astoria resident Lori Durheim, who has helped organize a countywide ballot referendum on the Bradwood pipeline. "They have to have all their state permits. There will be appeals." Desmond admitted even if FERC gives approval to the Bradwood project next week, it will be heavily conditioned with additional requirements. "We may be nearing the end of this process, but there's still considerable work to be done," he said. "We cannot break ground until we've satisfied all applicable state and federal conditions." Next week's meeting starts at 7 a.m. and will be broadcast live on the Web on the FERC Web site. To find it, go to (www.ferc.gov) and look under Calendar of Events.

Robert Kennedy, Jr. says LNG bad for NW

Kennedy says LNG proposal includes use of old technology and does not fit the Pacific Northwest.

By Felicia Heaton and Brooks Burford

Thursday, July 10, 2008

Robert Kennedy, Jr. has a lot to say about a proposed liquefied natural gas facility on the Columbia River: "This is a bad energy policy and it is so out of character with how other Americans are starting to see this region - as the leader in green technology."

Kennedy, lead prosecuting attorney for Hudson Riverkeeper in New York, toured the Columbia River with representatives of Columbia Riverkeeper, the Columbian Inter-Tribal Fish Commission and other environmental activists who are opposed to the "Bradwood Landing" plan by Northern Star Natural Gas.

"They're cut through 300 streams which feed into the estuary," said Kennedy claiming the plan will damage the salmon population and cause sedimentation.

Kennedy says he has supported plans to construct LNG facilities in other areas but says the Columbia River is one of the iconic rivers in the country, "for its historical importance, for its geological importance, for its biological importance, particulary for its contribution for the salmon population and salmon culture."

Groups supporting the plan say they are taking extra steps to reduce the impact on the environment.

Columbia Riverkeeper comments to the Bradwood FEIS

Comments from CRK to the FERC FEIS for Bradwood Landing project. Exposure of the staggering number of issues yet to be resolved with regard to this project.

Click link, for the complete document; http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/file_list.asp?accession_num=20080710-5067

Thank you Columbia Riverkeeper for your dedication and hard work to protect our environment and that of the Columbia River basin.

No L, No N, No G.

LNG opponents hold rally in Oregon

Wednesday, July 9, 2008 8:22 AM PDT

By The Associated Press.

CORVALLIS, Ore. — Opponents of liquefied natural gas projects hope their protests will help fend off proposals that seem likely to get green lights from federal regulators, if history is any guide.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has yet to turn down any proposal to import superchilled gas, said Dan Serres of Columbia Riverkeeper at a meeting Tuesday in a church hall in Corvallis.

The agency may have three chances to approve such projects in Oregon, two along the Columbia River and one at Coos Bay.

“FERC is very cozy with the energy industry,” Serres said.

But, he said, the state can thwart the projects, such as by refusing the developers the permits they need.

“We’re the political backbone for Oregon to say, ’No,’ “ he said.

Secretary of State Bill Bradbury also spoke, along with members of a statewide coalition, to a crowd of about 100 at a Unitarian Universalist Fellowship hall.

He said the ports, terminals and pipelines required to import, process and distribute the gas represent a step backward in meeting Oregon’s goals to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

“It’s clear that we’re at a crossroad,” he said. “Do we move forward with energy policies that protect the planet or remain tied to an outdated, dirty technology like LNG?”

LNG may hurt our River.

See earlier filing by U.S. Department of Interior on the FERC eLibrary.

7/8/2008 11:26:00 AM

Park service warns LNG may hurt river National Park Service criticizes FERC for faulty environmental review, seeks new report By CASSANDRA PROFITA The Daily Astorian The National Park Service is criticizing fellow officials at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for a faulty environmental review of the Bradwood Landing liquefied natural gas project. Willie Taylor, director of environmental policy and compliance for the park service, has challenged FERC's finding that the Bradwood project would not damage the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail, which includes much of the lower Columbia River. In a letter sent last week, he accused federal energy regulators of consulting the wrong authority in their review of Bradwood's impacts to recreational activities on the Columbia River, and he asked FERC to supplement its work with another, more comprehensive study. "The project will significantly impact recreational users of the Columbia River by limiting or reducing access to the river," Taylor wrote, noting the required 500-yard safety and security zones surrounding LNG tankers during transit and similar zones around the moored vessels will hinder recreation. "(The environmental review) should clearly note that reducing or limiting recreational opportunities on the waterway could negatively impact the local economy in the future." Taylor complained that FERC ignored 11 miles of the Bradwood pipeline route in its cultural resources survey and incorrectly deferred to the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office on impacts to the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail without consulting the National Park Service. "While SHPO oversees cultural, historical and archeological resources, it does not oversee natural, recreational or interpretive resources of the trail, which is under the purview of NPS," Taylor wrote. "Oregon SHPO is not the appropriate authority to determine recreational impacts on the Columbia River." With Taylor's letter, the park service joins the growing ranks of officials asking FERC to delay the Bradwood Landing licensing decision. Taylor asked FERC to wait for two key approvals - from the state of Oregon and the National Marine Fisheries Service - before giving Bradwood project developer NorthernStar Natural Gas Inc. the license to build an LNG terminal and pipeline 20 miles east of Astoria on the Columbia River. Gov. Ted Kulongoski and U.S. Rep. David Wu have also asked FERC to supplement its environmental analysis of the Bradwood project in light of a state energy department report questioning the need for LNG in Oregon. Kulongoski and Wu, D-Ore., also noted numerous aspects of the project have changed since FERC's first environmental review was completed. But like the requests from Kulongoski and Wu, the park service requests will be treated as any other comments would be in the licensing process overseen by FERC. Tamara Young-Allen, a spokeswoman for FERC, said the park service doesn't have any special authority at this stage of the LNG licensing process. The five-member FERC commission in charge of approving LNG licenses can order a supplemental environmental impact statement to be completed before it votes on the Bradwood project, she said, but it doesn't have to. Joe Desmond, vice president of external relations for NorthernStar, said that a supplemental review won't be necessary because all the issues raised by the park service have already been addressed by FERC in its environmental reviews. Desmond said FERC's existing environmental reviews incorporate previous comments from the National Park Service. "There are no new issues being raised here," he said. The FERC board can decide to issue a conditional license to Bradwood before the National Marine Fisheries Service weighs in on the project's impacts to endangered species. Taylor's request that FERC wait for the NMFS determination before making a decision on Bradwood could set the project back several months if granted. Taylor also asked FERC to wait for Oregon's ruling on the project's compliance with the Coastal Zone Management Act, which isn't expected until September. Desmond said Taylor's requests are already conditions listed in FERC's final environmental impact statement, so FERC can issue a license to Bradwood on the condition that they be completed before the project is built. The timing of FERC's licensing decision could be a determining factor in which of three companies wins the race to site LNG terminals in Oregon. The terminals are designed to receive imported natural gas liquid from ships and vaporize it for pipeline distribution. Oregon LNG has proposed a terminal on Warrenton's Skipanon Peninsula and a third terminal is proposed in Coos Bay, but experts say there's probably only enough business for one terminal to be built in the state.

Bill Bradbury to lead public forum.

	Bradbury to lead LNG talk Tuesday CORVALLIS — Oregon Secretary of State Bill Bradbury will lead a public forum, “Liquefied Natural Gas: Oregon at a Crossroads,” at 6:30 p.m. Tuesday at the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship, 2945 N.W. Circle Blvd., Corvallis. With Bradbury will be activists Rory Cox with Pacific Environment, Jody McCaffree with Citizens Against LNG and Dan Serres with Columbia Riverkeeper. Oregon is faced with three proposals for terminals and pipelines to import LNG. Sponsors of the forum say the proposals have “created an uproar in Oregon among climate activists, farmers, property owners, fishermen, forest and river conservationists, and others. The projects have pitted the clean energy, global warming and land use policies of Oregon against those of the federal government, setting off a critical debate over states’ rights.” The impact of LNG on Oregon’s climate, environment, economy and quality of life, as well as how the state can develop clean energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions will be discussed. The event is sponsored by the Environmental Action Council, Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Corvallis; Sierra Club, Marys Peak Group; Pacific Environment; RACE Coalition; Columbia Riverkeeper; and Physicians for Social Responsibility.
	Copyright © 2008  Albany Democrat Herald, A Lee Enterprises subsidiary

Letter to the FERC from Brian Baird

http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/file_list.asp?accession_num=20080702-0278

Click on link and select FERC Generated PDF file.

Letter to the FERC Chairman.

Letter signed by the Oregon congressional delegation, David Wu, Peter DeFagio, Darlene Hooley.

Click on the link and the FERC Generated PDF file: http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/file_list.asp?accession_num=20080702-0280

A second letter by David Wu can be seen on: http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/file_list.asp?accession_num=20080702-0277

This documents is worth your time!

United States Department of the Interior

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance

1849 C Street, NW - MS 2342 - MIB

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240

Click on the link and open the FERC generated PDF file:

http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/file_list.asp?accession_num=20080702-5089

Happy 4th of July.

The Birnie family is celebrating Independance Day.

Follow-up to "LOW BLOW" by NorthernStar.

7/1/2008 12:17:00 PM

Feds to stay out of LNG firms' squabble FERC says review of Oregon LNG in Warrenton can proceed By CASSANDRA PROFITA The Daily Astorian WARRENTON - Federal regulators are not suspending their review of the Oregon LNG liquefied natural gas project in Warrenton - despite a request to do so by competing LNG company NorthernStar Natural Gas Inc. Tamara Young-Allen, a spokeswoman for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which has the final say in permitting LNG terminals, said her agency will look into the site control issue raised by NorthernStar, which is developing an LNG terminal 20 miles east of Astoria at Bradwood Landing. Assertions by NorthernStar Chief Executive Officer William "Si" Garrett that Oregon LNG does not have control of its proposed terminal site, as required by federal rules, will be treated as a comment in the federal review process, she said. In a letter to FERC last month, Garrett cited a county deed to a public right of way that apparently cuts through the Oregon LNG site on the east bank of the Skipanon Peninsula. Under federal rules, the public roadway could compromise the Oregon LNG project. Garrett said FERC should suspend its review of the competing project until Oregon LNG could prove it had control of its terminal site. Complete story: http://www.dailyastorian.com/main.asp?SectionID=2&SubSectionID=395&ArticleID=52488