noLNG

"Collision Course".

As most if not all of this gas be going to California, we the people from Oregon and Washington will be the first to be exposed to the pollution from the shipping, transfer, gasification and the compression process, including the destruction of the Lower Columbia River estuary or coastal habitat (Coos Bay).

Click on the link at the bottom of this summary for this excellent 40 page report.

Collision Course Report: How Imported Liquefied Natural Gas Will Undermine Clean Energy in California

Executive Summary California, the world’s twelfth largest emitter of greenhouse gases, stands at a crossroads. At a time of unprecedented public support — and urgent need—for aggressive, responsible action on global warming, plans are afoot to quietly shackle the state to a new dependence on polluting fossil fuels. Instead of reducing greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs), the state pursues policies that will squander billions of dollars on importing liquefied natural gas (LNG) from overseas and prevent any meaningful reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. LNG’s high lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, severe environmental impacts, and staggering investment costs are at odds with California’s commitment to clean energy. Numerous studies demonstrate that investments in cleaner sources of energy, along with improving the efficiency with which we use it, can drive California towards a healthy, prosperous economy. Importing LNG, however, contradicts California’s environmental priorities and does not fit within this framework. California has enough financial resources to support either new fossil fuels or renewable energy, not both. Furthermore, California can choose either to burn more fossil fuels or reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but not both. This report explains the conflict between LNG and clean energy efforts, as well as LNG’s greenhouse gas impacts in California and around the world, with the following findings: •  New research demonstrates that the greenhouse gas emissions from LNG, when considering the entire lifecycle of production, transportation, and combustion, can be as bad as coal. •  Building new fossil fuel infrastructure to supply LNG binds California to a multi-billion dollar investment.This investment requires a minimum 20-year commitment of fuel purchases by utilities, and likely longer. LNG is not a transition fuel to renewables; rather, it will heighten our dependence on foreign fossil fuels for at least another generation. •  Sufficient natural gas supply exists in North America to meet California’s declining natural gas usage for the next several decades. This fuel burns cleaner and is more reliable than imported LNG. We should not lock the state to a new foreign fossil fuel by means of false scare tactics – propagated by the energy industry – claiming that California needs new sources of natural gas. Responsible and efficient use of North American supplies, while cleaner alternatives are developed,is the best course of action. •  Despite a state Energy Action Plan promoting conservation and renewable energy sources like solar and wind power, California’s regulatory agencies alternatively favor increased natural gas dependence. •  While California has an ambitious policy of getting 20 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2010 and 33 percent by 2020, the state is far behind in achieving these goals. •  LNG will compete directly with, and likely undermine, renewable energy and energy efficiency programs in California. •  Meeting the state’s renewable and energy efficiency goals requires that all additional electric generation built between now and 2020, including replacing aging generators, come from renewable sources. •  The scale of financial commitment implied by LNG is similar in size to what is required to meet the state's clean energy goals, but LNG carries much higher environmental, financial, national security, and public safety risks. PacEnvCollisionCourse FINAL.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

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.

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.

Astoria: Mothers march against LNG - May 20

Mothers March against LNG

Daughters, Grandmothers and Families too!

A Family friendly event!

Hear the mothers of Oregon and Washington talk about what the LNG re-gasification plant, tankers, and pipelines mean to our families and communities.

Save the date: Sunday, May 20th 1:00 pm 
Gather at the Blue Scorcher Café at 15th & Exchange Astoria.   

Plan to bring your entire family or a carload of friends & neighbors.

Stay tuned for more details.

Download a PDF of the flyer for the Mothers March against LNG

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

 

 

"The Case Against LNG" by Loretta Lynch

"The Case Against LNG" is a four part video of a talk by Loretta Lynch, who served as chair on the California Public Utilities Commission from 2000 - 2005. The video is of a talk given by Ms. Lynch June 20, 2006 at Cafe on A in Oxnard, California.

The Case Against LNG - Part One
The Case Against LNG - Part Two
The Case Against LNG - Part Three
The Case Against LNG - Part Four