noLNG

Daily Astorian: Inconvenient questions are urgent

LNG game is like financial mistakes that became the Great Recession
There has been a certain turn in the long road of government deliberation over whether a liquefied natural gas terminal will be sited on the Columbia River at Bradwood. The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality has said it will not approve the plant without more definitive information. The National Marine Fisheries Service has said it must do more testing before giving its approval. And Oregon Sens. Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley have reintroduced legislation that would end the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's sole power to license LNG plants. All of this happened last week.

The Wyden-Merkley legislation targets the absurdity and the inadequacy of the federal process by which LNG terminals are sited. But in the near chaos of this election year, their progress is unlikely. The other gaping hole in the Bradwood LNG proposal is the lower Columbia River as prime habitat for salmon and a host of other creatures. On that score, the actions by Oregon DEQ and the federal NMFS are immediately significant.

Pentagon planners these days talk about asymmetrical warfare. There is a similar phenomenon in the LNG siting process. NorthernStar LLC, Bradwood's promoter and owner, talks about jobs, investment and the supply of natural gas. That is alluring campaign talk. But construction jobs are transitory, and the river lives on. At this late date in the Pacific Northwest's manipulation of the Columbia River, our fisheries and environmental agencies cannot ignore the reality that the river off Bradwood is a highly important corridor for endangered salmon runs in which the nation has invested billions trying to restore.

There has never been a compelling case to establish the need for an LNG terminal at Bradwood. NorthernStar's proposal is all about the profits that come from flipping the terminal, once it is built. The FERC licensing process is all about who gets to federal regulators first with a completed and defensible application. The FERC process is not about establishing the basis of national need and strategic siting for a terminal. That is the role the federal government should play in this process.

All in all, the FERC process thus far shares many similarities with the financial mistakes that blew up into the Great Recession - a careless rush that is all about easy answers and quick profits. What we need, both as a region and a nation, is to slow down and ask the right questions. How many LNG terminals does America need? Where can new terminals and related pipelines be located to do the most good with the least harm to the environment? Who has the best long-term track record for safe, community-friendly operations? Can all adverse impacts to the Columbia and its species be reversed when this terminal has outlived its usefulness?

These inconvenient questions and many others have gotten short shrift. The process assumes that anything good for LNG is good for the USA. It is good to see Oregon's DEQ, federal fisheries scientists and our U.S. senators demanding answers and searching for better ways to arrive at these decisions.

A glut of articles on the domestic gas glut

Wow, there has been a flood of high profile articles in the last couple of weeks on the huge U.S. supply of shale gas, and how this completely changes the U.S. and global energy market.  It was in part spurred by a big oil and gas industry meeting in Houston last week.  Here are links to the most important articles, with some brief summaries or quotes - I especially recommend the articles in the Economist and the NY Times.  It's a whole new world.... and importing LNG makes less sense every day.  When will Northern Star and Oregon LNG/Leucadia finally wake up to reality and realize they are in an obsolete industry?

BP chief hails American breakthrough in gas supplies from shale rocks

The Guardian (U.K.)   January 28, 2010

At the World Economic Forum, the chief executive of BP says the supply of shale gas in the U.S. is “a complete game changer”.

IEA CHIEF: US Unlikely To Import LNG Unconventional supply saps U.S. interest in LNG imports

Wall Street Journal     March 10, 2010

“HOUSTON (Dow Jones)--The avalanche of shale gas that has flooded the U.S. oil market is having a "huge impact" in the global market for the commodity, International Energy Agency's Executive Director Nobuo Tanaka said Wednesday. “

LNG sector rethinks long term amid US natgas glut

Reuters  March 10, 2010

“A glut of unconventional natural gas supplies from U.S. shale deposits has fundamentally recast the long-term prospects for liquefied natural gas imports that were once considered the linchpin of the nation's energy security, industry executives said on Wednesday.       ….

U.S. natural gas reserves are up by a third since 2006, thanks to unconventional gas development including shale gas, with estimated reserves sufficient to supply the U.S. market for nearly 100 years at current rates.”

Natural gas – An Unconventional Glut

The Economist    March 11, 2010

Newly economic, distributed sources are shifting the balance of power in the world’s gas markets

[This excellent in-depth article begins with a description of the significance of the Kitimat, B.C. LNG terminal that switched from import to export.  It has a map of U.S. shale gas reserves and describes how they bring U.S. reserves up to the level of Russia, which has been thought for many years to have by far the largest gas reserves.  It describes the effect on the global gas market of the combination of shale gas discoveries at the same time that LNG supplies are increasing but long-term demand is not growing due to efforts to slow global warming.]

Natural Gas from Shale Plays Create ‘New World’ for Energy Industry

New York Times   March 11, 2010

A report from a recent oil and gas industry conference in Houston:

Conoco Phillips CEO Jim Mulva, in his keynote speech, called shale gas “nature’s gift to the people of the world” and said “Some people even forecast the U.S. becoming an LNG exporter.”  The Chair of Cambridge Energy Reseach Associates, the group that organized the conference, called the “shale gale” “simply the most significant energy innovation so far this century.”

Knappa LNG meeting heats up

Opponents come out in force at KHS to voice opinions; DEQ session highlights four permits

By CASSANDRA PROFITA
The Daily Astorian

KNAPPA - Liquefied natural gas opponents were out in force Wednesday for a public information meeting on the Bradwood Landing liquefied natural gas project's air and water quality permit applications.

Around 200 people packed into the Knappa High School gymnasium along with a panel of state officials poised to answer questions and take public comments.

The session was organized by Oregon Department of Environmental Quality in response to four permit applications the agency has received from Bradwood project developer NorthernStar Natural Gas Inc. of Houston.
More: http://www.dailyastorian.com/main.asp?SectionID=2&SubSectionID=398&ArticleID=68326

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

Press Releases

Press Release of Senator Wyden

Wyden, Dodd, Cantwell, Mikulski, Cardin and Merkley Fight for Local Control Over LNG Terminal Siting

Senators Want to Wrest Power Over Terminal Placement from FERC

Tuesday, March 2, 2010

WASHINGTON, DC – Working to give state entities the power to determine both the need for – and the location of – liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals in their states, U.S. Senators Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) introduced legislation today to repeal portions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which gave that authority to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Prior to the passage of the 2005 Energy Bill, such decisions had historically been decided by siting agencies in each state.

More:  http://wyden.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=322678

Bradwood LNG opponents take case to commissioners once again

Published on Thu, Feb 25, 2010 by Rick Nelson

Read More News

Ask for more, opponents of the proposed Bradwood Landing liquefied natural gas (LNG) receiving plant told Wahkiakum County commissioners on Tuesday.
County officials are negotiating with Bradwood Landing's parent company, an agreement to provide maritime security for LNG tankers headed to the proposed terminal.
    Three weeks ago, the NorthernStar negotiator told Sheriff Dan Bardsley the company would withdraw from negotiations, but the following week, the company asked to resume negotiations, and Bardsley and Commissioner Lisa Marsyla met during the past week with the negotiator.
The company wants the sheriff's office to have an additional seven or eight deputies who would man patrol boats to escort loaded tankers enroute to the plant. NorthernStar has offered to pay the salaries of the officers, but Bardsley has told the company he wants more to cover related costs, and that, he has said, has been a sticking point in the negotiations.

More: http://www.waheagle.com/news/article.exm/2010-02-25_bradwood_lng_opponents_take_case_to_commissioners_once_again

FERC remains silent on LNG appeals

By Alexander Rich, Staff Writer
Tuesday, February 23, 2010

Federal regulators still haven't decided whether to reconsider a developer's plan to build a liquefied natural gas terminal on Coos Bay.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission had until Feb. 19 to respond to requests to rehear Jordan Cove Energy Project's application. Instead of giving an up or down vote, the commission issued a tolling order.

"By issuing a tolling order, the Commission gives itself more time to review the arguments raised in the petitions for rehearing," wrote FERC spokeswoman Tamara Young-Allen in an e-mail. "The Commission may then, at its own discretion, render a decision when it is ready to do so."

There now is no deadline for FERC to make a decision, Young-Allen added.

More: http://www.theworldlink.com/articles/2010/02/23/news/ferc_remains_silent_on_lng_app_997.txt

Bradwood dealt triple permit blow

LNG company told water quality permit will likely be denied

By CASSANDRA PROFITA
The Daily Astorian

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality has rebuffed three "demands" from the Bradwood Landing liquefied natural gas project developer and warned that a key water quality permit will likely be denied.

DEQ's Director Dick Pedersen told Northern Star Natural Gas Inc. in a Feb. 17 letter that the company still has not provided three-dimensional modeling of the LNG terminal's water-quality impacts, even though the state has been requesting the data since 2007.

The modeling data are "essential" to DEQ's permitting decision, he wrote, as they provide "biologically meaningful information" for the state's evaluation of the $650 million development, proposed for a site on the Columbia River 25 miles east of Astoria

A growing concern

 

By Brian McGrory

Globe Columnist / February 19, 2010

It began with a dot on the morning horizon, backlit by the February sun. “That’s definitely it,’’ said Jim, a resident of the Charlestown Navy Yard, as he peered through a pair of binoculars.

Within a few minutes, the sound of a helicopter filled the air above Boston’s inner harbor, the distant dot took the shape of a ship, and the flash of police lights from nearby boats reflected off the glassy surface of the calm water

A liquefied natural gas tanker, flanked by Coast Guard and police boats, was making its way to the Distrigas terminal in Everett, an event that occurs just about once a week in our grand metropolis

More:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/02/19/a_growing_concern/

Oh, by the way; read the comments(111) blogger.

NOAA Fisheries drops appeal of LNG Port on

By JEFF BARNARD
AP ENVIRONMENTAL WRITER

GRANTS PASS, Ore. -- The Obama administration won't be appealing federal approval of a liquefied natural gas port on the lower Columbia River.

The U.S. Department of Justice filed a motion Tuesday with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals saying NOAA Fisheries was dismissing its petition for review of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approval of the Bradwood Landing project.

NOAA Fisheries is still considering whether the project may threaten the survival of salmon in the river, in a study known as a biological opinion.

The states of Oregon and Washington, Columbia Riverkeepers and the Nez Perce Tribe are still appealing the approval, arguing FERC made its decision before environmental reviews and state permits were in.

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/6420ap_or_oregon_lng.html?source=mypi