noLNG

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)

Coast Guard alerts FERC to LNG tanker ballast problems

Juvenile fish could be sucked up into ship; new ideas cause concern

By CASSANDRA PROFITA
The Daily Astorian

The U.S. Coast Guard has stepped into the fray on Bradwood Landing's already complicated problem of how to prevent juvenile fish from being sucked up into liquefied natural gas delivery tankers along with the ballast water.

More: http://www.dailyastorian.com/main.asp?SectionID=2&SubSectionID=395&ArticleID=61039

Ballast water is only a small amount, compared to the amount of cooling water intake and discharge, especially from steampowered ships. Most LNG carriers are powered by steam turbine, only the newest and larger ships are being powered by multiple fueled diesel power. An average 148.000m3 steam powered LNG carrier will during a 24 hour delivery visit have a combined intake of ballast and cooling water of 74 million gallons, the ballast portion of this will be only 14 million gallons.(Blogger)

The USCG does not differentiate between river traffic of other ships and the building of a terminal in a salmon estuary, I for one see a significant difference as do many scientists and NOAA.

 

Letter: Look at LNG studies

Congressionally-crafted regulations have again resulted in theU.S. Coast Guard making decisions recommended against by the liquefied natural gas industry's own best safety practices ("Coast Guard approves LNG," The Daily Astorian, April 28).
More than 95 percent of the world LNG industry is represented by the Society of International Gas Tanker and Terminal Operators. SIGTTO is a nonprofit organization that researches and promulgates best practices for the industry.

More:  http://www.dailyastorian.info/main.asp?SectionID=23&SubSectionID=393&ArticleID=60687&TM=80868.58

Abbreviated summary of SIGTTO LNG Siting standards:
http://www.lngtss.org/

Download SIGTTO Standards

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

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

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.

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 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.

Federal government agency contact information

The Coast Guard and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission are apparently both still accepting public comments on the proposed LNG project at Bradwood. It's not clear exactly when they will cut off the comment period so we encourage you to write soon.

(for contact data, click the "continue reading..." link below)

Comments may be submitted via physical mail, email, or fax and should include your name and address as well as the appropriate docket number.

Coast Guard
Docket No. CGD13-05-017
Lt. Shadrack Scheirman, Commanding Officer
U.S. Coast Guard Sector Portland
6767 N. Basin Ave.
Portland, OR 97217
Email: Shadrack.L.Scheirman@uscg.mil
Fax: (503) 240-2586
Voice: (503) 247-4015

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Docket No.  CP06-365-000
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First St. NE, Room 1A
Washington DC 20426
File comments electronically

If you are mailing physical letters, label one copy of your comments for the attention of Gas Branch 3, PJ11.3