noLNG

Editorial: Coast Guard, reassures, alarms

Approval does not address whether LNG is appropriate for river, or needed
It is possible to feel both reassured and alarmed by the U.S. Coast Guard's approval, with conditions, of two liquefied natural gas terminals on the Lower Columbia River.

Reassurance comes in the form of secure knowledge that one of the federal government's most reliably competent agencies can certainly be trusted to safeguard the public to its utmost ability. The Coast Guard will operate with its usual smooth efficiency in making certain that LNG ships and terminals comply with the rules and avoid physically endangering anyone.
More:  http://www.dailyastorian.info/main.asp?SectionID=23&SubSectionID=392&ArticleID=60512&TM=1022.585

Checkout other Coalition members.

Click on the http://nolng.net/

LNG bill moves down the pipeline

Property owners say legislation puts their rights at risk; Rep. Witt criticized for co-sponsoring bill

By CASSANDRA PROFITA
The Daily Astorian

The controversial House Bill 3058, which opponents are now calling the "LNG fast-track bill," moved out of its first legislative committee Tuesday without a recommendation.

The bill made it out of the House Sustainability and Economic Development Committee before a key deadline, so it will stay alive and move to the Rules Committee. Another LNG-related bill, House Bill 2015 also known as the LNG Public Protection Act, died in committee last week.
More: http://www.dailyastorian.com/main.asp?SectionID=2&SubSectionID=395&ArticleID=60462

Bill to fast track LNG in Oregon Fails to Get Key Committee Vote

 The House Sustainability and Economic Development Committee  did not vote on HB 3058 on Tuesday, a bill that would allow corporations to obtain state wetland destruction permits on private property without landowner permission.  A coalition of conservation groups, farmers, and property rights groups who opposed the bill because it would ease the path for LNG developers in Oregon lauded the setback for HB 3058.According to Dan Serres with Columbia Riverkeeper, “This is yet another setback for the LNG in Oregon .  This bill was designed by the LNG companies to fasttrack their permits.  We’re please that the Sustainability Committee did not approve the bill.  The bill would have allowed major energy project proponents—including Palomar pipeline, Bradwood LNG, Oregon LNG, and the Jordan Cove LNG/Pacific Connector pipeline project – to immediately file for permits for hundreds of miles of pipelines on private lands.  Cheryl Johnson, a retired librarian and 30-year resident of Clatsop County near the Bradwood LNG terminal, expressed her hope that the bill would be halted.  “This LNG fasttrack bill is an idea that came straight from Bradwood LNG, and it makes no sense for the Oregon legislature to waste their time doing the LNG industry’s bidding.  We need to protect Oregonians in this process, not change the rules to make building these pipelines faster and easier.”“The Committee did their homework on this one.  A bill that would make it easier for  corporations to obtain wetland destruction permits on private land does not deserve a vote,” Dan Serres stated.The bill was sent to the House Rules Committee with no recommendation after it was clear that the majority of the Sustainability Committee would vote against HB 3058 as drafted.

by Janie Har, The Oregonian Tuesday April 28, 2009, 3:52 PM

SALEM -- A contentious bill that would make it easier for liquefied natural gas developers to apply for removal-fill permits survived a key deadline on Tuesday. Members of the House sustainability committee moved House Bill 3058 into the rules committee, keeping the proposal alive but denying backers a speedy floor vote on the issue.

Chuck Deister, a spokesman with NorthernStar Natural Gas Inc., the company that wants the bill, said legislators simply ran out of time on amendments and further vetting is reasonable.

More: http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2009/04/lng_permitting_bill_still_in_p.html

Coast Guard approves LNG

Waterways are suitable with required security upgrades
The U.S. Coast Guard has granted conditional approvals to all three of Oregon's liquefied natural gas proposals, declaring that the waterways leading to the Bradwood Landing, Oregon LNG and Jordan Cove facilities "could be made suitable" for LNG delivery tankers.
http://www.dailyastorian.info/main.asp?SectionID=2&SubSectionID=398&ArticleID=60439

LNG fight at Capitol gets personal

Environment - Two opponents picket a legislator's Beaverton home as bias accusations fly on both sides

Tuesday, April 28, 2009

TED SICKINGER The Oregonian

The Oregonian

The battle over proposed liquefied natural gas terminals and related pipelines has turned personal in Salem, and the heat may increase another notch today when an Oregon House committee considers a property-rights bill that could fast-track state permits for the projects.

More: http://www.oregonlive.com/business/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/business/1240892705223580.xml&coll=7

USCG LOR for Oregon LNG at Warrenton.

Letter Of Recommendation (LOR) analysis for Oregon LNG, a six page letter can be found on: http://www.lnglawblog.com/BlogEntry.aspx?_entry=f5b5f705-0598-40c9-8fbb-4354ae7694f7

"Whoa, Nellie".

The famous sportscaster Keith Jackson had a favorite expression he used during his broadcasts - "Whoa, Nellie." His phrase certainly applies to the liquefied natural gas issue here in the Lower Columbia River area.

More: http://www.dailyastorian.info/main.asp?SectionID=23&SubSectionID=393&ArticleID=60354&TM=60562

Guest column: The story behind the brouhaha over LNG

By BRAD WITT
For The Daily Astorian

Serving in the Oregon Legislature is a great honor for me because I am proud of our democratic system of government, our beautiful district and the wonderful people whom I serve.

More:  http://www.dailyastorian.info/main.asp?SectionID=23&SubSectionID=783&ArticleID=60290

Questions: 1. Why is this representative pushing a bill only NW Natural and NorthernStar Natural Gas supports. Labor unions are also in support for the short term gains.

2. Why was Joe Desmond V.P. of NSNG allowed 23 minutes to spin his regurgitated info. but attending citizens and landowners had only 2-3 minutes.

3. So who will be the beneficiary of this bill? (Quit asking the stupid questions)

SHAME ON BRAD WITT FOR NOT REPRESENTING THE INTEREST AND WELL BEING OF HIS CONSTITUENTS.