noLNG

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 

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.

complete story: Feds launch query into ethics conflict

While you are there, read the letters to the editor page, too. It will make you smile.
 

Beware Texans bearing gifts

Today's Daily Astorian has an editorial worth a read. Titled Beware Texans Bearing Gifts with a subhead of "LNG developers are here to make a pile, not to make our region more livable," the piece makes some nice points about the long-term impact of allowing this sort of heavy industry on our river.

A few quotes:

     At the heart of the LNG discussion is this simple truth: An LNG terminal at Bradwood will dramatically alter the culture of the Lower Columbia River, and in a way that many of us will not like 20 years from now.    

...NorthernStar and the others are here to make the kind of killing that big developers dream of. They are not here to be our longstanding friends or to make this a more livable place.    

Developments like this are for all practical purposes irreversible in a meaningful human time frame. Particularly at a time when this region is being considered for designation as the West Coast's first National Heritage Area, we should approach all major decisions with seriousness and profound awareness of our obligations to future generations.

Read Beware Texans Bearing Gifts.

Remember the Planning Commission meets in Astoria this Wednesday to make a preliminary recommendation. The meeting starts at 10 a.m., in the Judge Guy Boyington Building, 857 Commercial St. in downtown Astoria

Latest county staff report reaffirms opposition to LNG plant

Great news out of Clatsop County this evening. The Planning Commission staff report has reaffirmed their opposition to the proposed county-wide zoning changes that Northern Star was requesting in order to build at Bradwood.

It remains important that as many as possible attend the hearing on Wednesday, August 29th, 10:00 am, to let the Planning Commission know that they should follow the recommendation of their staff and the wishes of the majority of their community.

Is your sign in your yard?
Is your decal on your car?
Is your button on your chest?

County says Bradwood Landing executives failed to meet criteria for land-use approval

An updated report from county planners continues to advise the Clatsop County Planning Commission to deny Bradwood Landing LLC's application for zone changes and other land-use permits for an LNG terminal on the Columbia River east of Astoria.

Bradwood Landing made several advances in addressing deficiencies raised in an earlier staff report to the Planning Commissioner. However, after analyzing all the evidence presented during the commission's public hearing process, Bradwood Landing ultimately did not adequately address all of the deficiencies and ultimately does not satisfy the criteria to grant a zone change to build a liquefied natural gas marine terminal and related facilities at the former mill site, leading staff to reiterate its recommendation for denial.

full article  Latest county staff report reaffirms opposition to LNG plant

Supplemental Staff Report to Clatsop County Planning Commission, Aug. 23, 2007 (pdf)

Clatsop County Planning Commission: Bradwood Landing information 

As an added bonus to our day, the photo at the top of this post is KMUN Coast Radio's photo of the day tomorrow. You can show your appreciation for their helping save our river by dripping them a note. Or seeing as how it's pledge week, you can always give them your quarters, and if you do, make sure you mention you saw our "save our river' banner on their site so they know we know we are out here.

Photos from our very own "Bradwood Landing"

Even very small people know that we need to protect the river!

This little one is just one of the largest crowd of folks I've seen come out  locally against LNG. Last Monday, the NO LNG Armada of about 75 people left Puget Island, braved the mighty and landed at Bradwood. Friends of the River members ferried dozens of WFoR members, along with many of our new friends from the convergence and the press over to the Oregon side of the river where they were joined by kayakers and a dozen folks who came over in an Inuit fishing boat. A similar number stayed onshore on the Washington side and cheered them on.

The weather was glorious and according to Kristin and Mike, who took us around the river so we could take pictures, even the water in the river was 70 degrees. (See, there is an upside to global warming!) Frans and Mika Eykel were generous enough to open their lovely home to the invading hordes for the event which was, as someone said in email, joyous. Seriously, there were smiling faces everywhere. If you want to see them, click here.

Additional pictures from the climate convergence can be found here: West Coast Convergence for Climate Action and here.

If you have photos of the convergence you would like to post but you do not have a flickr account, one has been created for this purpose. Drop me a note if you would like the account logon information.

Natural Gas Plan Has Neighbors Nervous!

A well balanced article in Clark County's "The Columbian" by Katie Durbin.

Natural gas plan has neighbors nervous

Friday, August 10, 2007
BY KATHIE DURBIN, Columbian staff writer

CATHLAMET - Franz and Mieke Eykel are expecting a lot of guests Monday at their house on the west side of Puget Island.

The Eykels live a half-mile from the site of a proposed liquefied natural gas terminal directly across the Columbia River. If the $600 million terminal is built, they will have a close-up view from their backyard beach of 900-foot-long tanker ships 15 stories high unloading their cargo of super-cooled natural gas.

The Eykels are not happy about that, and neither are their neighbors, as evidenced by the "No LNG" signs planted along the beach and in the nearby town of Cathlamet.

Opponents of the LNG facility are getting some help making their case from participants in a weeklong Convergence for Climate Action, a combination camp-out, seminar and celebration of alternative energy that began Wednesday at the Wahkiakum County Fairgrounds in Skamokawa, a few miles downstream.

More;

http://www.columbian.com/news/localNews/08102007news181224.cfm

Armed vessels on the Columbia an unwelcome vision

Several members of Wahkiakum Friends of the River are featured in Tony Lsytra's article "Armed vessels on the Columbia an unwelcome vision" in today's Longview Daily News. The article talks about the potential for the militarization of the river, noting that "the Coast Guard won't say what kind of armaments the escorts would include, it has been known to use small vessels mounted with M-60 machine guns on the river."

Frans Eykel says "It sets a certain tone. ... You've got that feeling like a little tickle on your back. ... We live in a peaceful area of natural beauty and all of a sudden you get those big ships with the guns and all of a sudden everybody is suspect."

Paula and Gregg Carlson also talked with Tony and are shown sitting on their beach, just across from the site where Northern Star wants to put in the LNG regasification site.

The article is worth a read and the comments...well, let's just say they are typical for Daily News stories about possible LNG plants in the area.

Congressman Baird Opposes LNG Terminal Project

This makes us VERY happy! Thank you Congressman Baird!

March 5, 2007
Congressman Baird Opposes LNG Terminal Project

Washington, D.C. - After careful and thoughtful review of the Waterway Suitability Report (WSR) for the Bradwood Landing Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) terminal project, released last week, Congressman Brian Baird (WA-03) has come out in opposition to the plan.  Below is his statement:

"After reviewing the WSR, I believe there is enough compelling evidence to oppose the proposed LNG project.  While there may be local benefits to the project, including job creation and additional gas production, the overall negative impacts on the entire river system are too great for me to support.   There are three main areas of great concern to me:  the safety and security measures that would need to be implemented to make the Columbia River suitable for LNG and the associated negative impacts on existing river commerce; the impact on the environment; and, the effect the project would have on private property owners.

"In order for the Columbia River to suitably accommodate this project, a number of measures will need to be implemented to manage navigation, safety, and security risks.   Among these are:  increased navigational aids, security boardings, and changes to emergency communications systems.  The report does not outline what the impact of these new security measures will be on the Coast Guard or local law enforcement agencies, but, the burden for paying will fall on the likely fall on the local taxpayers.

"While we are still awaiting the results of the Environmental Impact Study, I have a number of concerns about the project's impact on the environment.  Even if all of the safety and security measures are taken, the impact on the environment and economy remains unknown.  Both commercial and recreational fishing industries could be adversely affected, the long-term impact of dredging and tunneling on endangered and threatened fish species, including salmon, is unknown, and there could be significant ramifications if a leak or spill occurred. 

"Finally, I am concerned about the project's impact on private property owners.  I have repeatedly met with the people whose property would be affected by the terminal or pipeline construction and I respect their position.  For those living on Puget Island, or who may have a gas line running through their property, ensuring a safety and security must be the highest priority. 

"The WSR did identify current security concerns and resource gaps, but the costs economically, to the environment, to those living in the community, and to the river itself are just too much to justify moving forward on this one project.  After thoughtful consideration of all these issues, I oppose the proposed Bradwood Landing LNG site."

Congressman Baird recognizes the final decision remains up to state agencies and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, however, at this time he feels it is important to state his position publicly to best serve his constituents on this matter. Copies of the Congressman's position statement are being sent to FERC, the U.S. Coast Guard, and other interested parties and officials.

Coast Guard releases WSR

The Coast Guard has completed their review of the Waterway Suitability Assessment for the Bradwood Landing Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Terminal project submitted by Northern Star Natural Gas, LLC. We have heard that many people are having difficulties in attempting to download the file, so we have made it available for download here: Download Bradwood_WSR.pdf

Here are a couple of articles from local newspapers on the subject:

• Longview Daily News article: Coast Guard releases study on LNG
• Daily Astorian: Coast Guard: River not ready for LNG

 

 

LNG meeting: 'smacks of federal conspiracy'

Interesting article in the Daily Astorian about recent meetings between FERC and Northern Star that were off-limits to other concerned parties.

A meeting between Bradwood Landing representatives and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission staff was apparently closed to some intervenors while others were invited to attend.

Astoria resident Peter Huhtala, one of 10 intervenors involved in a dispute over the meeting, said FERC unfairly excluded legitimate parties from the talk and "it smacks of federal conspiracy."

Huhtala joined with Columbia Riverkeeper and other groups in filing a complaint against FERC staff and Bradwood Landing developer Northern Star Natural Gas Co. Their complaint is the Dec. 14 meeting violates FERC rules on "ex parte" or exclusive communications with project applicants.

FERC is the federal agency that will ultimately approve or deny the Bradwood Landing application to build an LNG facility 20 miles east of Astoria on the Columbia River. Intervenors are parties that have a voice in the approval process.

FERC spokeswoman Tamara Young-Allen said her agency takes "ex parte" rules "very seriously" and the Commission could decide to reassign the Bradwood Landing case to different

FERC staff as a result of the complaint. FERC has specific rules on agency meetings with project applicants. In many cases, intervenors are required to be invited, and public notice must be given even if the meeting isn't public.

According to the complaint document, no public notice was given for the meeting and some intervenors were refused by FERC staff when they tried to attend.

By CASSANDRA PROFITA The Daily Astorian

Complete article: LNG meeting: 'smacks of federal conspiracy'.

Roundup of recent articles

Did you know that the Daily Astorian has a special section where all of the articles on proposed LNG projects are collected? It's a convenient way to keep up on what is happening with Northern Star (Bradwood) and Calpine (Warrenton). Visit it by clicking here:

LNG Controversy section at The Daily Astorian

Here are a few recent articles  (click a headline to open the complete article in a new window)

General

Opponents say LNG would hurt state tourism

Northern Star / Bradwood

County pledges to open up LNG files (more on this here)

LNG safety concerns move to forefront of approval process

County to decide on LNG - but feds would handle an appeal

Bradwood LNG submits zone change, land-use requests

LNG pipeline may link with NW Natural>

Calpine / Warrenton

Ex-Calpine man looks to jump-start LNG

Calpine lease sold to Leucadia National

Latest LNG twist angers North Coast residents

Clatsop County publishes some Bradwood data

Clatsop County has published some of the Northern Star application documents on its web site (Clatsop County Oregon - Bradwood LNG)

From the site:

On Dec. 12, 2006, Bradwood Landing LLC submitted applications and supporting documents to Clatsop County Community Development to site a liquified natural gas (LNG) import terminal at Bradwood.  The applications and supporting documents are available using these links:

• Bradwood Landing LLC applications
• Bradwood Landing LLC findings in support of its applications
• Bradwood Landing LLC additional applications filed Dec. 15, 2006

There is also a PDF with county and public reaction to Northern Star's Notice of Intent (NOI) available at the site. (direct link)

Status check from Landowners and Citizens for a Safe Community

Margie Castle of Landowners and Citizens for a Safe Community sent us this summary of where things stand, for which we thank her very much!

Much is happening that needs to come to your attention. I'll set it up as bullets and hit the highlights.

• NorthernStar is on a fast track of submitting reports, comments and information to the FERC. It is in your best interest to refer back to previous emails and find the one sent on how to access information on the FERC website. It is also in your best interest to send in letters of comment. If you don't have the directions for navigating the FERC, let me know. The docket number is CP06-365.
  State and Federal agencies are holding NorthernStar accountable and not letting them slip through any of the required permitting processes.
  The channel deepening project was completed and accepted using information on CURRENT ship traffic and does not include increased ship traffic or new and bigger types of ships. This seriously impacts NorthernStar. The NorthernStar proposal increases traffic by 2 to 3 ships per week (104 to 156 ships per year) with a size range of 900 to 1200 feet in length. Not acceptable under the current project recommendations.
  NorthernStar has yet to file a full response to the Coast Guard letter dated July 24, 2006. This is the letter that clearly states delays of all other ship traffic will occur.
  NorthernStar is visiting public agencies (i.e. Land Conservation) asking what mitigation projects they are currently working on and offering to foot the bill or pledge money toward the project. This is their way of buying acceptance of their destroying our land, environment and way of life. All pledges have the big string attached of "if they get their permits"
  After putting our names, addresses and tax lot descriptions out to the public on the FERC website and in public meetings/open houses during the pre-filing process, NorthernStar has now decided our privacy needs to be protected and we are only to know if the final route is, indeed, on our property if we can identify it by the tax description. If you want to know if your property IS on the final route, let me know and I'll connect you with our people who have the information.
  We now have copies of the program run on the History Channel concerning the danger of LNG. Let me know if you would like to arrange for a showing with friends in your home. We cannot show it in a public venue due to copyright laws.
  We also have a copy of a talk given by Loretta Lynch, past Director of the California Public Utilities Commission under Gray Davis. We showed it last Thursday evening  at our public meeting and are willing to show it again. She clearly lays out the lack of need for an LNG terminal anywhere on the Pacific coast. Her presentation is worth watching. Loretta went with a group of us to meet with Kulongoski's chief of staff, Peter Cogswell.
• The Thursday, December 7th meeting was well attended. Thank you to Howard Meharg and Jonathan Fant , candidates in the  recent primary/general elections. They were the only ones to answer our challenge to elected officials. Gentlemen, you will be remembered if you run again. Both pledged continued support. Mr. Fant offered suggestions and connections to other organizations. Dean Takko did respond he was unable to attend.
• NorthernStar has named their project "Bradwood Landing" because of the warm, fuzzy feeling that name evokes in the general public. It creates a mental picture of serene woods, gently flowing waters and the sounds of nature ever present. Don't let it fool you. The name of the location is Bradwood, Oregon. We need to make sure the public doesn't buy into the psycho-babble. Call it Bradwood or NorthernStar's proposal, not Bradwood Landing.
• NorthernStar submitted a letter of comment that was about 264 pages in length. Included were copies of letters in support of their project. Most of them were form letters signed by union members from southern Oregon with a few sprinkled in from our region. Please respond by posting your return comments against the project.
• Elected officials are still not taking a stance even with the election over. Several received large donations from unions and the River Pilots Association. Please remind your officials who really  elected them. Remember, we aren't against the unions or jobs, just against this project, eminent domain and the loss of our personal rights. Continued  calls, letters, and emails are needed to our elected officials. Keep them up to date. Pressure them to take a stand, one way or the other. If they stand against us, at least we'll know.
• Take pictures of your land where the pipeline is expected to go. Due to the heavy rains this year, much sliding is taking place. Have pictoral evidence to support your stance against the project--this may save your property.
• Media Blitz--what to do with all the glitz you've received in the mail. Your options are:
  
  • Trash it Put a 39 cent stamp on it and return to sender. You may write on the opposite side your opinion. The post office will NOT deliver if you just write return to sender. You need the stamp due to bulk mailing rules.
  • Put all of it in a large envelope along with your letter to your Senator/Representative/Mayor/Commissioner/whoever and mail it all to them
  • Put it in a large envelope along with your letter and mail it all back to NorthernStar.
  • Put it in a large envelope along with your letter to the newspaper/editor and mail to your local paper The object being to alert the above that we are not impressed nor sold on NorthernStar.

• As a group, it is our goal to mount a media campaign against NStar. However, the cost of a single running of a full-page, black and white ad is over $2000 so we are looking at several avenues to get the word out to the public. Some ideas include several smaller ads over time; billboards; access to reader boards at area businesses (do you know someone willing to take a public stance and put the message up?); and signage on private property along high traffic routes.  We raised a little over $400 Thursday night, which is a good start. Please send in your donation to:

LCSC
4503 Ocean Beach Hwy
Suite 108 PMB#531
Longview,WA 98632

• There are 13+ proposed energy related projects from Kalama, Washington to Warrenton, Oregon including a possible new pipeline connecting the Mist caverns to the TransCanadian Pipeline to California. Add to that the push for an  LNG terminal in Coos Bay, Oregon. All these projects are presented to the general public as necessary to meet the energy needs of the Pacific Northwest. How much energy do we need? How big a population do they think we have? How stupid do they think we are? Think about it--we've been shipping excess power out  of our region for years.  Therefore, what is the true stand for eminent domain when the benefit is not for our region? Do we have a legal leg to stand on in regards to this issue? Don't let them sell us another Trojan bill of goods. These are excellent points to raise in your letters.

All of us serving you through Landowners and Citizens for a Safe Community wish you and your loved ones restful relaxing times with friends and loved ones through the holiday season. Merry Christmas, Happy Hannakuh and the best in the New Year!

and now, a word from Bob and Thea Pyle...

Robert and Thea Pyle, who know lots more than a thing or two about the local ecosystem, share a letter they wrote to the Wahkiakum Eagle:

Gray's River, WA 98621
December 3, 2006

Wahkiakum County Eagle
To the Editor:

In recent days,  we have all been barraged with a load of pretty propaganda from Northern Star company--kindly letters and bright brochures in our mailboxes, full-page ads in the papers, promo pieces that those same papers published as "news."  Originating from "Bradwood Landing," which sounds more like a park or an upscale community than a heavy industrial site, these slick puff-pieces promise varying amounts of blood-money for salmon enhancement ($40 million in the brochure, $59 million in the press release), spread over many years.  They paint Northern Star as God's Gift to Fish.

We have some questions for "Si" Garrett and his hench-people:  Just how stupid do you think we are?  Do you take us for hicks from the sticks who have never seen the seductive products of public relations mercenaries?  Do you suppose we've never been fooled before by commercial flak that represents a sow's ear as a silk purse?  (But that old saying is unfortunate in this case, unfairly associating an honest animal, the pig, with these slinky moneybags.)  Did you think we wouldn't notice that these mendacious documents never even mention  "liquefied natural gas?"   And do you think we haven't heard the one  about the high-class woman who accepts a million-dollar proposition, and then takes offense at a second offer of ten bucks?  "What do you think I am?" she asks, indignantly.  "We've already established that, Madame," goes the punch line.  "Now we're just haggling over the price."

We hope everyone who read "Bradwood Landing and the Legacy of Salmon"  feels as patronized, offended, and disgusted as we do.   We hope when  everyone looks at the pretty pictures (including the comically out-of-proportion Puget Island, making it look far away from harm's way), they will see the destruction of the night sky, hear the end of the river's silence, and sense the jeopardy in which these "neighbors"  will place us if they get their way.  "Our Commitment is Total,""  reads the oily text.  That much is true: total ruination of the Lower Columbia.  If we really believed that their "guiding principal" is to "nurture and safeguard the surrounding environment" and that they will "deliver a net improvement in the Lower Columbia ecosystem," we would fully justify their faith in our stupidity.  Don't be sucked in, folks: a deal with these people is a deal with the devil.

Robert and Thea Pyle
Gray's River

LNG Theater courtesy of CoastWatch

While perusing the 'net, I stumbled upon this little slice of "LNG theater"

Agent Bob: In the next phase we'll begin to pressure those who haven't sold out yet and push the feds for more control. We will make a special effort to ignore local concerns unofficially, but of course our public relations people will be trained to sound concerned. Our consultant says we should use the word "partner" a lot in our public discussions.

CEO: Very good! Now we know we won't get much grief from the port, or the cities. They can't wait for us to come in and take away attention from them for a while. We'll bypass the little county in Oregon completely with something about National Security...We'll just make that part up as we go along. But what about that little town in Washington that's in the blast zone? what was it?

Agent Bob: Cath, or Cathy something? Yes, well that's a fairly easy matter since legally they have no standing in this matter, but we don't want to tip our hand too soon so I would suggest a simple cash buy-out just in case their Congressman wakes up about this at some point.

CEO: How much?

Agent Bob: Oh, half million should do it over a few years as long as we give it to a well established and beloved local charity with a strong local board of people who will keep others in line.

CEO: Ah heck, make it a million! As long as we can write it all off? Let's proceed.

The rest of the post is here and it's bound to make you smile--before you shake your head in angry/sad agreement.

Northern Star buys a piece of Svensen Island

Northern Star has taken out all sorts of pretty ads to trumpet an agreement to purchase the western portion of Svensen Island for use in salmon mitigation. They also have options to buy 80 percent (which must be the rest) of the island. The salmon mitigation plan calls for removing dikes to flood the island, creating "shallow marshes where migrating salmon could rest away from the Columbia's main channel." Will this work? (and do salmon rest areas have free coffee and cookies like the ones on the highway?) Seriously, do salmon rest in marshes? Where's a wildlife biologist when you need one?

Northern Star is promising $7 million between the start of terminal construction and 2010, when the proposed plant would open. After that, they promise $1.3 million a year as long as the facility operates. But what happens if they have negative impact on the salmon during construction (or operation) and then abandon the project for economic or other reason? (Not that I think the Columbia River would end up with an idle energy project waiting to be demolished. Random fact: there's 4,700 tons of nuclear waste sitting at Trojan, at least The Daily News says there is. Did you know that? I sure didn't. But I digress...back to the current proposed energy plant.)

One problem with this plan is that Columbia Land Trust had already raised funds to buy the island and was talking with the owners about a conservation purchase when Northern Star stepped in. While the two offers may appear similar on the surface, they aren't necessarily the same thing. After all, one of these groups is in the conservation business and one is not.

I do have to give it to Northern Star, they got some good soundbites out there:

They say they undertook a "rebooting of the project to make sure it was in tune with regional values" Now rebooting sounds good and all that: technical, modern...and meaningless. One has to wonder how much rebooting can be done in the ten days between when they announced their plans would damage the salmon and now. I'm also not sure what they mean about regional values, although they are calling the salmon "ours" in those full page ads. 

They say they have "virtually eliminated" the threat to fish from engine cooling and ballast water intake and discharge. (so why the list? what about the threats that aren't related to engine cooling and ballast? or are we supposed to believe that other than that, salmon are safe?)

They say they have found "a very elegant solution" to the problem of killing salmon during engine cooling and ballast uptake: screens. Water will come in through these "special" (meaning small, I guess) screens and be used to cool the engine, then used for ballast. This will help with the issue of discharging heated water into the river. It still means they are taking huge amounts of water for ballast and the rest of their proposed operation isn't exactly good for salmon. But I suppose the salmon have their rest area.

btw, this elegant solution: brand new. Untested. (sounds like it's still on the drawing board) Not in use in the industry. No ships have it. But Northern Star promises they'll pay for installation on ships.  (No surprise there, they are promising money to lots of folks these days.)

There are three articles listed here, each of them with a slightly different take on the island deal. It's interesting to read all of them and see how the approach varies at different sources. The article at the Astorian has the most detail.

Island purchase shines for Northern Star   (Daily Astorian)

Proposed gas terminal vows salmon protections   (The Columbian)

Company offers $50 million to help salmon in exchange for terminal   (Coos Bay World)

Since you read this far, tell us what you think. This site is more interesting and useful when everyone plays along.

LNG veil of secrecy on security to be lifted 'early next year'

article from the Daily Astorian

 

A report detailing safety and security issues connected to the proposed Bradwood liquefied natural gas project will be released to the public, Clatsop County announced Thursday.

County Administrator Scott Derickson said the U.S. Coast Guard and Northern Star Natural Gas, the project developer, have agreed to make available the Coast Guard's review and response to the company's Waterway Suitability Assessment.

The assessment will address at least some safety and security issues, including tanker traffic, although it will also have information redacted for security purposes. It should be interesting to see what actually makes it through the review process.

But here's the thing I really love. Remember this article from last week? Shipping impacts left out of LNG report which said:

"...the company contended large vessel traffic on the Columbia River had already been assessed by other projects such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Channel Improvement Project, which considered the impacts of deepening the shipping channel for vessels traveling upriver. Northern Star did not feel the need to do another review based on the impacts of LNG vessels."

Reread that last sentence. Then read this quote from Gary Coppedge in today's article:

"All our studies show there will be no substantial impact, aside from another ship on the river..."

Ummm, Gary, what studies? Didn't you just say you didn't do any studies? Although to be fair, I guess if you didn't do any studies, it makes it awfully easy to say that the ones you did didn't show anything negative. Or something.

ADDENDUM:

Oh wait! There another thing. While perusing the Partner list at Northern Star's site, I noticed that the company listed as providing "river transit analysis" is Parsons Brinckerhoff. That would be the same Parsons Brinckerhoff that was the project manager on Boston's Big Dig project that collapsed last summer, killing Milena Del Valle. The same company that is now being sued for gross negligence and breach of contract and being investigated on criminal charges in relation to Del Valle's death.

This is a nice piece on the pending lawsuit in the Boston Herald:

State Attorney General Tom Reilly, whose term is up at the end of the year, said the lawsuit being filed in state court is based on the belief that the project managers knew early on about problems with the epoxy bolt system used to secure 4,500-pound cement ceiling panels but didn’t take steps to fix it.

"The clock was ticking. The fuse was lit. It was just a matter of time until this tragedy occurred," Reilly said.

    The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages for repairs, loss of tunnel use and toll revenue and other economic factors. ... A separate criminal investigation is ongoing. Evidence is now being presented to a grand jury that will decide whether criminal charges up to manslaughter will be brought, Reilly said.

    "I can tell you this: What I saw was a crime. ... It will be up to the grand jury to decide whether it is," Reilly said Monday in announcing the state lawsuit.

I don't know about you, but I'm feeling safer already.

Shipping impacts left out of LNG report

Again, from Cassandra Profita at the Daily Astorian:

"Federal officials are not satisfied with the biological impact report submitted by Northern Star Natural Gas Co. for its proposed Bradwood Landing liquefied natural gas terminal, according to a document recently filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

The Bradwood Landing report left out the impact of LNG ships on the Columbia River and in the Pacific Ocean and key details are missing from its mitigation plans, according to the filing, the result of a phone conversation among multiple agencies' officials and the company's contracted engineer. Because of the company's outstanding data issues, FERC project manager Paul Friedman said his agency, which will ultimately approve or deny the terminal siting request, has not set a project review schedule for other officials to follow."

Northern Star contends that

"...large vessel traffic on the Columbia River had already been assessed by other projects such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Channel Improvement Project, which considered the impacts of deepening the shipping channel for vessels traveling upriver. Northern Star did not feel the need to do another review based on the impacts of LNG vessels.

Nice try guys, but the Coast Guard begs to differ.

"Jack Hug, a Coast Guard attorney, told the company LNG ships are different types of vessels than those considered in the channel deepening project, and the review for the Corps project did not consider terrorist acts. Dean Amundson of the Coast Guard said the company's project raises its own potential issues of vessel traffic and ship strikes off the coast.

Cathy Tortorici, chief of the Oregon Coast and Lower Columbia branch of National Marine Fisheries Service, said her agency looked at the impact of dredging for the Corps project, but the dredging project was designed for existing ships on the river, and a change in the type of vessels on the river was never considered.

Officials concluded the company should address the increase in ship traffic caused by the project, which is expected to bring in three or four LNG ships a week, as well as the fact that LNG ships are different types of vessels, and generally larger, than other ships using the river."

According to the article, other LNG projects discuss the impacts of ship traffic within a 200-nautical-mile zone of the coast, but Northern Star did not. There is also a list of other aspects of the project that Northern Star avoided addressing in their plan.

Gee, unanswered questions, ducking responsibility for the impact of their project, ignoring the concerns of both the federal licensing agency and the Coast Guard, which is tasked with keeping our river secure. I feel so much better about the proposed plant now. Don't you?

Read the entire article here.

The Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership has a plan for the endangered fish recovery

Another interesting read from The Daily Astorian
Estuary plan includes $500 million for salmon, steelhead recovery Lower Columbia Partnership analysis is open for review
By CASSANDRA PROFITA

Degraded Columbia River estuary habitat is contributing to the decline of endangered species of salmon and steelhead trout, but it is hard to tell how much because so little is known about the complex ecosystem.

Nevertheless the Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership (LCREP) has designed a plan for the recovery of the endangered fish.

The proposal that LCREP created is available at NOAA (the sponsoring agency) for public review and comment. You can download the 200 page report here. (It is a 7 MB PDF file so you might want to right-click on that link and save it to read with your next cup of coffee rather than opening it in your browser.) The piece goes on.

"There is general agreement that the estuary ecosystem is degraded and no longer provides the same level of support to native species assemblages that it did historically," the module's executive summary says. "Unfortunately, this field of research is perhaps the least understood, and its impact on salmon and steelhead is not well documented or studied."

The report notes the size of the estuary is about 20 percent smaller than it was when Lewis and Clark camped along the shore. "This reduction in estuary size is due mostly to dike and filling practices used to convert the flood plain to agricultural, industrial, commercial and residential uses," it says.

There has been a 44 percent decrease in spring freshets or floods in the last 200 years, and the flows in the estuary "do not resemble" their historic patterns, according to the report. Hydropower, water withdrawal for irrigation and water supplies and climate fluctuations have all taken their toll on the health of the system, which, in turn, has affected salmon and trout.

Water quality has been degraded by human practices within the estuary and upstream, the document says. Increased water temperatures, by an average of 4 degrees since 1938, and the presence of toxic contaminants are key threats to salmon and steelhead. A study in the estuary linked contaminants to fatal diseases in up to 18 percent of salmon tested.

The report has a number of suggestions for projects to address the little understood problem, including:

"monitoring the estuary for contaminants and restoring contaminated sites...changing main- and side-channel dredging to reduce negative impacts and removing tide gates and jetties and navigational structures that have 'low navigational value but high impact on estuary circulation or juvenile predation effects.' "

Gee, weren't we just talking about dredging?

LCREP Executive Director Debrah Marriott says that she is looking forward to hearing from people. Through the wonders of technology, we can help with that: Send LCREP' email at lcrep@lcrep.org or get the rest of their contact information here.

This report is one of a series of recovery planning “modules” that NOAA's Northwest Region is developing. It looks like those reports will be available here when they are released.

Interesting sidenote: A reader of ours wrote to point out that the increased water useage by industry, water intake for ballast and so on has a serious impact on this problem. Looking at just two proposed facilities -- Bradwood and NorthWest Energy  at Kalama -- the combined water usage will be 6.6 Billion Gallons a Year. And that's just two of the many project proposals that seem to be popping up all over the beautiful Lower Columbia River, where speculators seem bound and determined to turn our river into another ugly, polluted, heavy industrial zone.

Concerns about the estuary at the proposed Bradwood LNG site

This is an excerpt from a letter to The Daily Astorian, published today (11.24.06)

"...the zoning does not permit dredging of 55 acres of estuary used as prime salmon habitat. This has been a bone of contention for quite some time between Northern Star and Clatsop County. Kathleen Sellman, the Clatsop County Community Development director, stated in a letter to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on March 29, "Of particular concern is the proposed dredging activity within the AC-2 zone. Note: Dredging is not a permitted, conditional or review use in this zone. In other words, the site is not zoned appropriately for the proposed use."

Cheryl Johnson and Ted Messing
Estuary coordinators -- Columbia Riverkeeper

read the complete letter

Clatsop County planning for Bradwood

 Warrenton City Manager Ed Madere received approval to ask Clatsop County officials to develop a comprehensive approach to developing a public safety corridor to deal with hazards related to the Bradwood LNG facility, rather than tackling the issue piecemeal. Last month, the county signed a privacy agreement with Bradwood Landing to allow eight employees to view privileged safety information on the project, including the U.S. Coast Guard assessment of LNG ships on the river.

Madere recommended that the county hire expert consultants to represent itself and other local agencies, including Warrenton and Astoria, in developing and reviewing plans with Bradwood Landing officials, to address safety and transportation issues. Mayor Pro-tem Mark Kujala and Commissioners Terry Ferguson, Frank Orrell and Dick Hellberg were in favor. Mayor Gil Gramson was absent.

from The Daily Astorian

Bradwood site visit Sept 12th

excerpted from The Daily Astorian

A public site visit of the proposed Bradwood Landing liquefied natural gas terminal location will be held Sept. 12.  Those interested in attending the site visit should meet at 11 a.m. on Clifton Road just past the intersection with U.S. Highway 30.

Representatives from Northern Star Natural Gas will be attending the visit along with engineers with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Office of Energy Projects.  The FERC engineers are touring the Bradwood site on Sept. 12, prior to a cryogenic design and technical conference Sept. 13 at the Sheraton Portland Airport Hotel in Portland.

The conference will not be open to the public because of the "nature of critical energy infrastructure information and security issues to be explored," according to a recent filing by FERC. However, people that have formally intervened in the Bradwood Landing LNG case may register to attend the conference by contacting Terry Turpin by phone at (202) 502-8558 or by e-mail at (terry.turpin@ferc.gov)

Please plan on attending this site tour if you can. It's important that we continue to show Northern Star that the people who live here do not want their heavy industrial site on our beautiful river. Wear your red t-shirts and buttons and help protect our treasured lower Columbia River.

Coalition Blasts LNG Developers Payouts as a “Cheap Insult”

Columbia River Clean River Coalition
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE August 17, 2006

Kelso- Longview, WA - Texas energy speculator Northern Star, which has proposed construction of an LNG mega-port and pipeline in the Columbia Estuary at Bradwood, OR, gave $ 100,000 to the Wahkiakum Community Foundation it what it claimed was a no string attached gift for the betterment of the community. Community members and others working to stop the pipeline, however, blasted the payment and promise for future payments as an insult to the integrity and intelligence of the communities around the Estuary that would be put at risk by LNG project. 

“Now we know what Northern Star thinks it will cost them to buy off Wahkiakum County,” says Terry Kriesel Chair of Wahkiakum Friends of the River. “What’s unbelievable is that they think we would trade off our safety, our economy and our community for little more than a bag of peanuts each year.”

George Exum who lives on Puget Island agrees, “This is an incredible insult to our community and one that is so juvenile and unsophisticated it really makes me wonder who is advising Northern Star. We knew that they would try to buy us off just because of the risks this project poses to our economy and our families, but we just didn’t know it’d be for so little”

“Northern Star is on one hand refusing to go through the basic local land use permitting process and then at the same time trying to say they want to support the local community,” explains Brent Foster, Executive Director of Columbia Riverkeeper. “This type of payoff is something I’d expect to see in a third world country and I think it’s really going to backfire on Northern Star.”

“This attempt to basically bribe our community is as outrageous as it is cheap,” adds Longview resident Vonda Brock, a grandmother whose land Northern Star has threatened to condemn for the LNG pipeline.   “If they think that we would put our families and our land at risk for such a small amount of money they’re just crazy!”

Sandra Davis with Landowners and Citizens for a Safe Community also reacted strongly to the proposed payoff. “This is really a sad statement about how much Northern Star thinks our community is worth.  They stand to make billions of dollars by putting our community, our economy and our families at risk and yet they think they can buy our support for this high risk project for a $ 100,000 or even $ 500,000 a year?”

Columbia River Clean River Coalition
433 13th Street
Astoria, Oregon 97103
cleanColumbiaEnergy@gorge.net

Contacts
Brent Foster, Columbia Riverkeeper (541) 380-1334
George Exum (360) 431-8679
Terry Kriesel (360) 849-4334
Vonda Brock (360) 636-1766
Sandra Davis (360) 577-1043

Download a PDF of this press release

That's a big ship!

Some people have asked about the size of an LNG tanker. Here's an approximation of what a ship might look like next to the LNG tank farm that Northern Star wants to build. You can only see the bow of the tanker, but it does give you an idea of the overall size of the thing.

They are somewhere around 1000 feet long (that's just over 3 football fields) and about 15 stories tall. Just in case you're having a hard time imagining 1000 feet, here's an example. Remember the Kingdome? It was 700 feet from one edge to the other, so one way to think of an LNG ship is that's it's like 1 1/4 Kingdomes cruising down the river. Except the Kingdome couldn't cause a mile-wide fire.

How to Love a River

"How to say something fresh about the Great River of the West?  When you stack up the literature of the Columbia, it seems it must all have been uttered already."

Yet, in the following essay, Robert Michael Pyle adds his eloquent voice to our collective imagery and understanding of loving the Columbia River.

How to Love a River
Robert Michael Pyle
Gray's River, Washington

(Note: This essay was written for a public river-reading in Astoria, and subsequently published in Hipfish in April, 2005.  It refers specifically to the LNG facility proposed for Warrenton/Skipanon, but it applies equally to the Bradwood site proposal.)

         When I was a kid, another kid named Sam Hart lived down the block.  Sam Hart was famous for a special talent he possessed.  I knew several boys who could burp on demand, some even to a melody.  But Sam Hart was the only one I knew who could fart on demand.  Hart the Fart, as he was inevitably known, made a party trick of passing gas at a lit match, launching an impressive blue jet.
I don't know how much this skill helped Sam get girls; not much, I'd guess. But Patty Vido once attended a make-out party at his house, to which I was not invited; I could hear the music from my bedroom, and it drove me crazy, as I had a mammoth crush on Patty Vido.  Someone, everyone, was in there kissing Patty Vido, and all I had was the scent of the snow through my window screen and the beat of the stereo on the night air.  But I took comfort in the fact that at least I wasn't famous for my flatulence.  For Sam's part, maybe some kind of popularity was better than none.  In any case, I couldn't help but think of Hart the Fart when I learned of the Calpine liquefied natural gas scam proposed for the Skipanon Peninsula.

How to say something fresh about the Great River of the West?  When you stack up the literature of the Columbia, it seems it must all have been uttered already.  There are the logs kept by Haswell, Boit, and Hoskins on Captain  Robert Gray's Columbia Redeviva, followed by Vancouver's logs and Richard Nokes's Columbia's River.  There are the economical effusions of Lewis, Clark, and their interpreters from DeVoto through Ambrose, Botkin, and Ziak.  Washington Irving's Fur Traders of the Columbia River, Woody Guthrie's Roll On, Columbia, and Chuck Williams's Bridge of the Gods, Mountains of Fire.  Thomas Nelson Strong's Cathlamet on the Columbia, Julia Butler Hansen's Singing Paddles, and Keith McCoy's Melodic Whistles in the Columbia Gorge.  Archie Satterfield's Moods of the Columbia, Archie Binns's You Rolling River, and Murray Morgan's The Dam.  More recently a great spate of Columbia books has flowed forth, including Richard White's The Organic Machine, Bill Dietrich's Northwest Passage, Blaine Holden's A River Lost, and Susan Zwinger's The Hanford Reach.  And don't forget Sam McKinney's Reach of Tide, Ring of History, Robin Cody's Voyage of a Summer Sun, Craig Lesley's Riversong, and even Pyle's "Ring of Rivers" in Wintergreen.

And yet, there is more to say.  Maybe no one has recorded the exact way the current shifted in the lee of Tenasillahe Island yesterday when a raft of common mergansers took wing.  Perhaps the scent of cottonwood balsam when the wind from the Gorge shifts away from Camas has never yet been captured.  I don't suppose any writer has plumbed the depth of black in the sunken shadow of Beacon Rock, or taken down the dialogue where the Willamette and the Columbia finally meet, again and again and again.

Nor has the river's capacity for insults been fully recorded.  We suffer no lack of documentation of dams, no gaps in the catalogue of cataclysm, no dearth of dope on dioxins.  I have sacrificed a perfectly good butterfly net to catching an oil-soaked murre from a spill spit out the river's mouth; I have tugged invasive loosestrife from wapato beds, and written letters about dredging and dumping the spoils of this particular water war.  You'd think the Columbia had already taken our best shot at screwing it up, from Hermiston's nerve gas to Hanford's nuclear waste.  Apparently not.  Now comes the Calpine LNG juggernaut, mainlining toward Warrenton and Hammond like a blue flame for the ages.  And this is why Sam Hart, famous in Hoffman Heights, Colorado, in 1960, comes to mind when I contemplate this new enormity shuffling on our doorstep.  If it makes its way in, get ready for a Sam Hart Special, and I don't mean a party trick.

With an accidental incineration radius of a thousand yards and a burn-zone of a mile or more, this is a new neighbor that can kill--a lethal genie that can't be stoppered, once out of its acrid canister.  The epic shortcomings and monumental risks of the LNG misadventure are well known and described by other writers more knowledgeable than I.  But this wickedness cuts beyond the immediate mischief of eviscerating a pleasant peninsula, endangering its populace, and placing a critical estuary and its uses in immense jeopardy. The knavery extends into territory so near the wild heart of the entire region that many cannot even conceive how persons of right mind could contemplate such an outrage with a straight face and a whole heart. 

Our big river--second biggest on the continent--has suffered clots, stents, bypasses, and all manner of noxious plaque; has weathered dilution, pollution, and solution with every kind of foul infusion; has labored under logging silt and rip-rap, isotope and nucleotide, squawfish and sewage sludge, while watching its salmon slip like so many silverfish down the bathtub drain. But this big river--this aorta of Cascadia--has never before invited full-scale thrombosis with open arms.

Maybe I'm all wet.  Maybe, in this sublimely mercantile age, this is just the ticket.  After all, the Upright Apes of North America, Second Coming, have enflamed the Cuyahoga, oiled the Ohio, quicksilvered the Quebec, hog-tied the Tennessee, PCB'd the Hudson, slimed the Potomac, DMZ'd the Rio Grande, outright stolen the Colorado, leaded the St. Lawrence, sacrificed the Sacramento, laked the Snake, petered out the San Pedro, cemented the L.A., reversed the Labrador, radiated the Savannah, massacred the Missouri, and just plain mo' fo'd  the Mississippi.  Why shouldn't we all get behind this one grand chance, the very best yet, for first-rate, top-flight, full-scale Calamity on the Columbia?  Why should the Cuyahoga be the only watercourse that gets to burn?

Of course, it wasn't, not really.  There was also Whatcom Creek, in Bellingham.

When Olympic Pipeline Company's pipe ruptured, and a bombing wall of gasoline spewed down the streambed, then ignited, three boys were vaporized or worse, and an ecosystem baked beyond function.  Have the Port of Astoria Commissioners forgotten this event?  Did they even notice?  Perhaps they should be required to study the tragedy of Whatcom Creek in all its grim detail, for this is what happens when a gassy new neighbor goes bad.  And with LNG on the Skipanon, the losses would be many more than those three unutterably unlucky lads.

Americans are not alone in their river-blindness, nor even very special; consider the sad Danube, the wretched Rhine, the ruined Nile, the disgorged Yangtze.  But we have been particularly energetic at the task, seldom missing an opportunity to show heroic contempt for rivers.  That's been the easy part: the hydraulic-placered canyons of Colorado and California, the diverted flumes that gave rise to Denver and Las Vegas, the entire Southeast stripped of the richest fauna of pearly mussels in the world.  Hurting rivers takes no great imagination.  Chemical plants and concrete have made easy work of that part of what often resembles a hate-hate relationship.  Want to endear a river to its people?  Slap a freeway along its shore--hey presto!  No, the real challenge is the one taken up by the few who would love our rivers.

Not so few, really; in fact, maybe most, if they only knew it.  Anyone who has ever dunked a worm or cast a fly, raised a topsail or stoked a stinkpot, sailed a board or dipped a paddle; anybody who has set a net from bowpicker or sternpicker, walked the deck of a tug or barge as sunrise breaks free from heavy fog, soaked a toe at the shore or wished to be an otter while flailing away at a mediocre breaststroke--any such a one must know in at least a rudimentary, brain-stem sort of way what it is to love a river.  Maybe everybody loves rivers.  But will we ever learn how to show it?

To love a river well, like a person or a place or anything else, means to attend.  To pay extraordinary attention.  All the time.  To dive deep into the flow of water, time, and land that together lay this river down where it is and not somewhere else, flowing some other direction.  It takes fingering the bits of shell and crayfish carapace and mayfly exuvium that wash ashore; following the ripples downstream as they race, then spend themselves on the beach; watching the rafts of western grebes and tundra swans, the canvasbacks that collect for a few days a year in Young's Bay, the scoters and the scaups and the sea lion nuggets known as buffleheads.  And there is more to it than that.

You have to imagine the pilots climbing the sides of ships in storm; drop the sneer for the folks on the paddlewheelers long enough to realize that this may be their first time on a big river; and consider what it once meant to sleek the current in a canoe beside sea otters, beneath condors.  If you can do all this, and then take it into your heart in a thousand other ways, you can say that you are beginning to love the river in a way that its own giant heart might recognize.  And if, doing all this, you can still imagine casting a vote for Calpine, then you need professional help--maybe a heart transplant, for starters; then a brain.  For the soul, I'm afraid there's no help; or hope. Because it can only be this that led our elected officials to sign such a devil's deal: a deep and abiding inability to love the very entity they are sworn to manage, to nurture, to protect, for all of us who huddle here in the Columbia's lap.  And so it falls to the rest of us, who have chosen to live (not die) along these damaged (but not yet dead) waters, to embrace what's left of the Great River of the West as our home.  Just because a water- course has been sorely compromised does not mean it is no longer worth revering.  Indians still wash their dead in the tepid but living Ganges.  Athabascans yet fish the Yukon between the banks of melting permafrost.  Visiting Philadelphia, near the mouth of its besmirched river, I was struck to see the gray water lit up by thousands of flowers and fruits.  As black children skipped stones on my shore, residents of South Philly on the other side dressed the river in a summer festival transcending all sludge and chemicals. 

For all of its burdens, the Columbia yet retains its essential character--especially our share, the tidal reach.  Despite the jetties and the dredges, never mind the spoils and the wakes, the big river carries on in a state worth embracing--and saving.  When I say it is up to those of us who dwell
here, we voluntary riparians, to love the river enough in the absence of any such impulse from the commissioners, I mean we must exercise that embrace.  And in doing so, one collective utterance must issue from our love-struck throats: NO, we must say.  No, we won't have this.  It shan't happen, not here, not on this river that we love.  We must send them packing, wishing them all bad luck elsewhere.  And when we've done that, we must go out, onto the water, along the shore, or into the hills above; look this river over, breathe in the estuarine air, and say "Yes.  That's how."

I am NOT an LNG ‘acceptable risk.’

Opponents of the proposed LNG site at Bradwood wore their feelings on their bright red tshirts shirts last night at the Coast Guard/FERC meeting, and the message was clear:

I am NOT an LNG "acceptable risk"

According to the Daily Astorian, the Coast Guard says there were about 375 people attending the session at Knappa High School and it's easy to believe. The room was packed with a crowd that, unfortunately, started to trickle away as 11:00 and the final ferry run drew near. When questioned about the possibility of another meeting on the Washington side of the river so that all concerned citizens have a chance to comment, a representative of FERC said he would consider it saying, "I'm not saying yes and I'm not saying no."

Commentary from opponents was varied--a scientist drew a frighteningly plausible scenario for disaster in Astoria, fishers questioned the impact on their livelihood and safety, and residents of Puget Island cited numerous negative impacts of heavy industry on people, animals, a fragile ecosystem, and inevitably, the character of the river and their way of life. A common thread was that offshore siting should be considered, especially after it became clear that the LNG plant cited by Gary Coppedge of Northern Star as having survived a direct hit by one of the recent major Gulf hurricanes (Katrina and Rita) and a sideswipe by the other, was an offshore LNG facility.

As was noted by at least one person in a red tshirt, all but one of the speakers favoring the proposed siting were there representing a group that stood to profit from the project.

The Daily Astorian has a nice article titled "LNG foes give feds both barrels" with a number of good quotes from concerned citizens who spoke at the meeting. To quote:

Let us make no mistake and have no illusions,” said biologist and writer Robert Pyle of Grays River. “If this LNG facility goes ahead, the rural and natural setting of the lower Columbia will be changed radically and, for all practical purposes, forever.”

He added that although proponents tout the safety record of LNG, one word that is missing is “yet;” an accident worse than the pipeline explosion in Bellingham, Wash., could occur here. The facility and its construction would also have an effect on the nearby wetlands and the wildlife.

A sidebar points out that written comments are still being accepted by the Coast Guard and FERC. If you are interested in an additional meeting, you should also contact them--maybe if enough Washington residents request it, one will be scheduled. It would be nice if everyone got a chance to be heard on this huge decision.

Willamette Week story and meeting tonight

The Willamette Week Online's current cover story, Welcome to Gastoria! provides a look at all of the proposed LNG sites in the area, including Northern Star's desired site at Knappa.

Speaking of Knappa, don't forget the Coast Guard/FERC meeting tonight at the Knappa Hgh School (41535 Old Highway 30 Knappa, OR) at 7pm.

LNG on the Columbia bad for economy

Studies of the proposed Providence Rhode Island LNG facility at Weaver Cove also makes solid arguments for why LNG tankers and facilities on the Columbia River is fundamentally a bad idea.

The article by the Boston Globe, entitled Studies: LNG tanker transits would affect economy, hurt traffic document how the huge (900' +) tankers carrying LNG "could cause traffic backups, hurt tourism and marine economies and slow emergency response times". In this case, they are talking about Narragansett Bay (a bit bigger than the mouth of the Columbia River), but the blockage of commercial traffic, fishing, and private use due to security zones around the tankers is similar to what we'd face on the Columbia.

The studies focus on the economic impact and baseline safety instead of terrorism concerns. "This has nothing to do with terrorists or tankers blowing up or anything," said Keith Stokes, executive director of the Newport County Chamber of Commerce. "This has to do with our vision over the next 10 years for the economy..."

The article goes on to cite the size of the security zones: "The ships would be protected by a security zone two miles ahead, one mile behind and more than a half-mile on either side..."

If such security zones were implemented here, all traffic on the Columbia River would have to be halted (as well as the highways that run along the river on both sides).

In the Rhode Island scenerio, "Stokes said he was concerned the tankers would change the image of Narragansett Bay in the minds of recreational boaters, coastal residents and developers. 'It turns Narragansett Bay into a highway for these tankers,' he said." Concerns about the traffic delays across the bridges are also cited, as the would not only cause significant delays when the bridges are shut down due to security concerns, but also that "Those delays could prevent fire, ambulance and other services from responding quickly to emergencies." The situation here with the Astoria bridge parallels the scenerio in Rhode Island, where the prospect of regularly shutting down the Astoria bridge is fraught with issues.

Clearly, putting LNG plants on, and LNG tankers in the Columbia River is a poorly conceived idea, especially given that by siting these facilities offshore, it alleviates the need to bring such tankers into the Columbia River at all.