noLNG

Advocates laud halt of LNG proposal

ASIG suspends project due to Gulf oil spill fallout

BY ANDREW DAVISON Staff Writer

Ocean advocates are welcoming a decision by Atlantic Sea Island Group to withdraw its proposal to construct Safe Harbor Energy, a 116-acre liquefied natural gas (LNG) facility on a manmade island 19.5 miles off the coast of Sea Bright.

Cindy Zipf, executive director of Clean Ocean Action, which led opposition to the project it labeled “Insanity Island,” said last week that she thinks public opinion played a large role in the company’s decision.

Complete Article: http://atlanticville.gmnews.com/news/2010-08-05/Front_Page/Advocates_laud_halt_of_LNG_proposal.html

Insanity Island plan comes to an end

By JOHN OSWALD • STAFF WRITER • July 30, 2010

At least some of the insanity is over. Late last week, the U.S. Coast Guard and the Department of Transportation's Maritime Administration formally acknowledged Atlantic Sea Island Group (ASIG)'s withdrawal of their permit application to construct "Safe Harbor Energy," a massive man-made island in the Atlantic Ocean to import foreign liquefied natural gas (LNG).

Complete article: http://www.app.com/article/20100730/OPINION05/7300342/Insanity-Island-plan-comes-to-an-end

Safe Harbor?

Ships bringing liquefied natural gas from the Middle East pass regularly through Boston Harbor. Experts say there’s little chance of an LNG tanker going up in a fireball. Then why are city officials so worried? Should you be?

Full story by: Jason Schwartz

http://www.bostonmagazine.com/articles/safe_harbor/page1

The State of Oregon submits the following comments on the Draft Description:

If the Biological Opinion is to be useful, consistent with NMFS's assessment of the

relative roles of the FERC and the Coast Guard, and comply with the Endangered Species Act,

NMFS's Biological Opinion must consider the impact on the Columbia River fisheries of

unscreened ballast and cooling water withdrawals on LNG tankers. The Draft Description

should be revised accordingly.

Read the complete (2 pages) document: Download Oregon submit 20100331-0006(23614631)

Comment on Filing submitted in FERC CP06-365-000,et al. by State of Oregon,et al.

Read the comments on screened water intake for LNG carriers.

Download 20100326-5040(23599330)

Let USCG do LNG security work. (LTE)

To The Eagle:
I've attended a couple of town and county LNG-related meetings wherein the Sheriff's Office indicated it may double its force to provide security for LNG tankers in the Columbia River.
Now that I found out a little bit about it, I don't get it. Why would we (the county) go into a new line of business even if it didn't cost us anything? The Coast Guard was on record in their water suitability study that they could accommodate LNG tanker traffic. Even though they might not want to, they are qualified to do all of the security work along the river or find somebody who is. With all respect to Sheriff Bardsley, whom I personally love, the last people I would go to for a maritime security operation is a modest, mostly land-based police operation in one of the smallest counties in the state. I don't get it.
We have some actual problems in this county. I don't see the point of inventing new ones. Why are we considering being diverted from our primary responsibilities in order to pursue some adventure out on the river in what is essentially an Oregon operation (for eight county jobs)?
Getting involved almost certainly will generate indirect costs, which the county will have to bear in excess of those direct costs the agreement can nail down. In my industry (petroleum), they might range from 10-30 percent of direct costs. Unless the Sheriff's office has built a business model based on actual maritime law enforcement experience from other counties or cities, the indirect costs could be greater and thereby place a large burden on this county. I hope that any agreement has some nifty exit clauses in case we cannot afford that burden.
From my perspective, the only thing we need to address is how an LNG terminal affects us, both positively and negatively; not those operational security problems that are their responsibility to fix. I just don't get it.

James Reed
Cathlamet

NEW ENGLAND: Coast Guard reviews LNG shipments in wake of attempted attack

http://www.necn.com/Boston/New-England/2009/12/31/Coast-Guard-reviews-LNG/1262306531.html

Reauthorization Bill May Limit New LNG Construction

WASHINGTON, Oct. 19 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The Abraham Energy Report's new
edition released today to subscribers includes an article highlighting a
little-known provision in the $10 billion Coast Guard Reauthorization bill
passed on Sept. 24 by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
which could place additional limits on construction of new liquefied natural
gas (LNG) facilities in the United States.

Full story: http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS186639+19-Oct-2009+PRN20091019

Letter: Tail wagging the dog

After reading and rereading the redundant letter the U.S. Coast Guard recently sent to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in regard to the Bradwood tanker ballast/screening issue, I have come to the conclusion that the tail is wagging the dog ("Coast Guard alerts FERC to LNG tanker ballast problems," The Daily Astorian, May 18).

None of the criteria mentioned in this FERC letter would need to be addressed if this terminal was not intended for one specific location on the Columbia River: a location that for centuries has been a vital nursery for native smolt and Columbia River smelt - nature's abundance that has sustained generations of ancestral and modern Northwesterners, and has continuously supported commercial, sport and individual family ventures - an abundance of food that is a Northwestern icon.
More: http://www.dailyastorian.info/main.asp?SectionID=23&SubSectionID=393&ArticleID=61144

According to a Congressional Report up to $1.5 Billion annual have been spend annually on habitat restoration, mitigation and the survival of the endangered salmon and steelhead species. (Blogger)