SHARE THIS SHOW:
RELATED CONVERSATIONS:
RECENTLY ON TOL:
The TOL Blog
TAGS:
Controlling LNG
Oregon's senators want to give states more authority when it comes to new liquified natural gas terminals. Sentators Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley, along with Democratic lawmakers from Maryland, Washington and Connecticut, introduced a bill last week that would repeal a specific section of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (pdf). The goal is to wrest control away from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), which now has the final say in permitting sites for new LNG projects.
If passed, the bill would do nothing to stop two LNG projects near Astoria, which already have approval from FERC.* If passed, the bill would affect two LNG projects near Astoria and Coos bay — which already have approval from FERC — only if those approvals are overturned on appeal. But a proposed terminal in Warrenton could be affected. Groups such as Columbia Riverkeeper, which oppose all three LNG ventures, say they think the state would do a better job of regulating liquified natural gas permits. Anti-LNG groups applauded Oregon's attorney general earlier this year when he challenged FERC's approval of an LNG facility in Coos Bay. The natural gas industry is opposed to the senators' bill. At least one company has complained that the deck is stacked against them in Oregon, in part because of Attorney General Kroger's decision to hire a vocal opponent of LNG as part of his environmental law team.
Wyden introduced a very similar identical bill in 2008, along with then-Senator Hilary Clinton. That bill elicited responses drawn along the same battle lines, but it ultimately failed to gain much ground in Congress and died before it could be voted on.
Do you live near an LNG facility? Is one coming to your area? How would state control over these projects affect your community?
GUESTS:
- Mike Carrier: Natural resources adviser to Governor Ted Kulongoski
- Bill Cooper: President of the Center for Liquefied Natural Gas
- Chris Newkumet: Chief editor of Inside FERC
- Jennifer Hoelzer: Communications director for Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR)
Tagged as: energy · jeff merkley · lng · ron wyden
Photo credit: Phatman / Creative Commons
-
When you ask questions you are ignored, bullied, and swindled. Then if they ever do pay it is way less and has all kinds of stipulations on how you can use it.
-
The current FERC process is unfair, unjust and an unnecessary hardship on affected landowners.
1. The Bush-era free-market zealotry extended to FERC as well. FERC's approach of approving everything in sight and then letting the "market" decide is unjust, unnecessary, and wrongheaded.Wrongheaded because the so called "market" is one composed of conscripted and enslaved properties.
Unnecessary because it needlessly puts government agencies and landowners through expensive and time consuming evaluation of many more projects than will ever be built.
Unjust because the process favors the interests of corporations (even foreign ones) over those of private, US landowners.
2. Landowners are subjected to years of uncertainty about when, where and even if a pipeline will be on their property.Even FERC does not know exactly where the pipeline will go until the pipe is in the ground.
This "limbo" period is an emotional and financial drain for which there is no compensation whatsoever.
Landowners report they cannot make important capital investment decisions about their land because they don't know where the pipeline will go.
3. FERC, "our" regulatory agency is not on "our" side.FERC does not even follow its own meager policies on aiding landowners.
The Columbia Riverkeeper suit against FERC seems to indicate FERC actively withheld a list of affected landowners from the public. A list of fellow landowners is an important tool to achieve a just outcome.
FERC is too quick to grant eminent domain authority.
FERC has abdicated its responsibility to establish "need" and properly consider alternatives.
Marc Auerbach
Chair, NWPRC.org
-
Our family lives in Yamhill county and farms a small parcel of ground. The LNG plants on the coast are just the ugly head of the snake; the tail affects a lot more of Oregon; up to 220 miles. There are two 36" LNG pipelines proposed to cross 23 miles of our county alone, and sometimes they are only a few feet apart. Each one will start with a clearcut of 120 to 200 feet, and a final easement of 40 to 50 feet. We will not be allowed to re-plant any crops with "deep" roots or stakes; no Filberts, grapes, cane berries, etc. And we will loose EVERYTHING in the initial clearcut route.
In Yamhill county we will loose over one million dollars in year one, in just the 40-50 foot right-of-way that we cannot re-plant in this 23 miles! This will mean dozens of PERMANENTLY lost jobs! My one neighbor will loose almost half of his Hazelnut orchard, my other neighbor will have his vineyard decimated. My wife and I will loose a large part of our native forest that we have so carefully nurtured over many years. We can't plant one thirty acre field until we are released from the limbo of the proposed LNG pipeline routes.
The project managers for the three proposed LNG plants in Oregon have told us that there is no need for three new sources of gas. They have said that only one new pipeline would be needed to supply future needs for the entire West Coast. Well that pipeline (the 42" Ruby pipeline) is currently planned to start construction this Spring. It will bring gas from the Rockies to the West Coast.
If our state had control of these projects they would recognize what the Oregon DEQ and California Energy Commission have determined. There is no need to import LNG; this country has over a hundred years worth of its own Natural Gas. North America is awash in Natural Gas; over 40% of our current gas supplies are coming from non-standard sources, and the amount that we are pumping from shale gas fields continues to grow.
-
I'm a student at Pacific University. We are working hard to get local organic produce on the tables for our students and staff, in order to support local economies and responsible agriculture. Many organic farms in our area are threatened by the proposed Palomar pipeline. Anything we can do to stop the LNG terminals and pipeline projects needs to be done. We have students actively fighting these proposals and will continue to do so until they are stopped. If this bill will help to stop even one terminal from coming to fruition, it's worth our time and effort.
LNG HAS NO FUTURE IN OREGON!!!
-
Where does the fuel come from that heats and cools your buildings that you go in to? When I went to Pacific University many years ago as a visitor I knew where they got the heat in the winter time, do you?
Its time to use all our resources no matter what but be reasonable with all of them!
-
It would only take a day for a city dweller to "walk a mile" in the shoes of those who are under the threat of these projects to fully understand the struggle against LNG and associated pipelines in Oregon!
The misery and uncertainty caused by the Federal eminent domain process is unnecessary. Wyden and Merkley are on the right track to return the process to State control.
Oregon's energy future is for Oregonians to decide. We can't risk our future on the greed of foreign fossil fuel pushing speculators or "our" NW Nasty's need to expand into the California market to please profit hungry investors.
It is almost comic to watch "land agents" try to trick Oregonians into signing away land rights - like something out of the wild West days when the railroads stole land or the first oil speculators tricked landowners into bad deals (remember the movie "There Will be Blood"? - NOTHING HAS CHANGED!).
We are lucky that AG John Kroger, Oregon DEQ, Marine Fisheries, Wyden, Merkley, and a growing vocal chorus of Oregonians are standing up to protect our natural resources, our need for a sustainable energy future, and our private property rights.
Please join us! Spread the word: NO LNG/ NO PIPELINES!!!
-
I don't even know where to begin on how wrong LNG is for our state. Oregon is known for it's environmental consciousness yet here we are fighting tooth and nail for our land and our heritage for something that will do NO ONE any good. There is a glut of national gas, not a shortage, not to mention that the LNG will be cross-directional to go to our sunny neighbors in California, who don't want the ugly and detrimental facilities in their backyards.
I am a young voter, 24, and will be remembering who destroys our state if this goes through and vow to be very vocal against those politicians who support it.
-
The Senators' legislation is important for helping Oregon have a fair process. However, it is already clear that Oregon neither wants nor needs LNG. Oregon DEQ should go forward and deny the Bradwood project outright. New York and Maryland recently denied projects using the same Clean Water Act authority that Oregon can use. It's time to give Oregonians a break from being harassed by Texas-based energy speculators. Thanks to Senators Wyden and Merkley for their efforts. Let's hope DEQ does the right thing in the meantime!
-
I am very grateful to Sen's Wyden and Merkley for recognizing the burden placed on Oregonians by having the FERC control siting of LNG terminals rather than the states. The process favors (speculative) energy corporations over individual landowners.
Our farm is in the line of one of the pipelines. It would cross our native forest land of mature trees and a seasonal wetlands that is part of our water source. There are very few wells in our area and if the pipeline damages our spring, there may not be another well on our land.
For nearly three years I have had to do what ever I can to stop this pipeline on a daily basis (reading, e-mails, phone calls, meetings, fundraisers). What is proposed is not the same as having a public utility cross our land. LNG is a fossil fuel that Oregon does not need. We have abundant domestic natural gas. If these speculators succeed and get the state hooked on expensive, dangerous, imported LNG our rates will skyrocket; and we will not be developing/funding our renewal resources.
Debbie Thrall
-
Thirty years ago, I lived on my sailboat in Portland, and I asked an old tug boat captain if there was still anyplace on the Columbia where a person could still find someplace to put in a dock, tie up a boat, and enjoy the rural, riverfront liftstyle. Only one place left, he said, "Birnie Slough on Puget Island."
I explored, bought property there, kept my city job, and parked a trailer on the lot, looking forward to retiring where the grass grows, the river flows, the fishing was good and the views are majestic. Now, I'm almost to that point, and I discover the same folks who gave us Enron, now plan a six story potentially explosive gas terminal that will cast its shadow on my little bait shack. I've seen such terminals in the Gulf Coast, and it's nothing that belongs in the Pacific Northwest. Even Tijuana said "no thanks" to LNG. The lower Columbia River is a jewel (and with a bright future for tourism, recreation, and retirement)--not a corporate weighstation for importing foreign fossil fuels, to be shipped via pipeline to consumers down south. Thanks to Senators Wyden and Merkley, and all of the leaders and activists organizing to confront this terrible idea.
BuckarooBob (Joel Davis)
-
Oregon will not benefit from LNG. Look deep into the some of the gas/oil corps. business plans and one quickly realizes that most if not all the gas that will be coming through these proposed pipelines in Oregon are already contracted out to other places, there is no excess for Oregon. Additionally our local, meaning US not imported, low cost natural gas is said to be plenty supply for OR, the same conclusion the OR dept. of Energy came up with. If our local regional prices get caught up with the global market prices, prices are not going to get lower but actually raise the cost. Because places like Japan depend solely on natural gas to energize their economies and will pay through the roof for it. That is for sure going to change the low costs we see now.
Furthermore, this state and the Federal government have spent millions on restoring water ways, the Columbia river especially, to help bring back endangered salmon, yet it is ok for these LNG terminals and pipelines to essentially wipe out much of the gains and will most likley cause even much more damage.
Who is really winning? Not Oregonains, who will lose more jobs than gain in the long run as a result of these pipelines that will wipeout several farms and other business industries that currently provide much benefit to Oregonians.
The list could go on and on, so please, please consider the long term as well as the short term gains and loses assocaited with the proposed projects. States should and must have much more say in the siting of these facilities, the longevity of quality of life depends on it.
-
Oregonians should thank their 'lucky stars' for the work of our Senators, Wyden and Merkely.
Oregon needs to have a voice in the siting process for LNG project. Since FERC has determined their role to be limited to approving LNG projects without any interest in first establishing a need exists, they in effect serve as agents and partners of the energy speculators rather than a regulatory agency charged with protecting the interests of the citizenry.
Anyone who has attended a FERC scoping meeting in Oregon over the past two years, knows too well that FERC is not listening to the concerns expressed within our communities, nor is it interested in protecting the interests of Oregon's citizens. FERC is not our friend and the power that was given this agency in 1995 has been demonstrated to be ill-advised and should be rescinded.
Our small family farm is directly impacted by one LNG pipeline, which will cut our farm in half and ruin 20 years of work to establish sustainable agricultural practices in harmony with the environment. The tragedy of this is that individual property rights mean nothing to FERC, Leucadia Corp., Northwest Natural, Oregon LNG, or Palomar. Further, these LNG projects will ruin many farms, nurseries, vineyards, and forest operations in Oregon and result in the loss of hundreds of existing jobs at a time when Oregon's unemployment rate is sky high.
Senators Wyden and Merkely's actions demonstrate their commitment to wresting our democracy back from the insatiable greed of corporate boardrooms and misguided federal agencies. We owe them a debt of gratitude for standing in our corner.
-
Version:1.0 StartHTML:0000000210 EndHTML:0000003721 StartFragment:0000002571 EndFragment:0000003685 SourceURL:file://localhost/Users/aneuring/Desktop/Pipeline/Allen%20input%20to%20Think%20Aloud%203-10-10 Hundreds of Oregonians live today with threats against their farms, forest-lands, fisheries, and homesteads, threats of eminent-domain seizures for highway-size LNG pipeline routes. FERC, a federal agency, must show need for LNG before granting the right of eminent domain, but in Alice-In-Wonderland fashion, FERC states that if a corporation is willing to gamble millions on an LNG project, that’s sufficient evidence. FERC refuses to consider whether Oregon in fact needs to import gas, or whether LNG will contribute to global warming, or whether US security will be harmed by dependence on Russian and middle-east gas, or whether LNG will interfere with Oregon’s attempts to develop renewable energy supplies. Senators Wyden & Merkley are owed our deep thanks, and Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality and Department of Energy, as well, for attempting to insert rationality and science into the irrational and destructive FERC process.
-
Oregon does not need liquefied natural gas, and neither does America. This is just another Russian Mafia/Enron/banksters-style rip-off -- not only of ratepayers, but of the Earth's biosphere. What are you going to do to STOP it -- not just make sure all the i's ar dotted and the t's are crossed? Is Ted going to man up, or just play more pattycake games with the petropigs?
-
Some say LNG is good for Oregon because it brings jobs. Fact is it will bring some temporary construction jobs for about a year and then require a small number of people to run afterwords. Most of those jobs will be filled from out of state. This will not offset the lost jobs from destoyed farmland (vinyards, nursuries, farms). Not to mention lost income to land owners (think about trying to sell your home when its inside the pipeline blast zone).
The imported gas will go to California because Oregon, currently, does not have the demand. So why build the terminal in Oregon and not California? Oh right, because California blocked the terminal construction on their shore line because of the associated polution and danger to residents. LNG is looking for a home and hopes to dup Oregon into allowing it.
I don't see any upside for Oregon other than tax dollars, which is good, but at the price of 44,000 linear miles of destruction? Lost value to existing businesses and homes? No thanks.
Many thanks to Senators Wyden and Merkley for working to give back state rights to protect their land from from this abuse.
Those in favor of LNG need to learn more about the impact to businesses, forests, streams, farmland and homes. If it was all good, then it would have been built in California years ago.
-
Some spout that these pipelines bring the promise of jobs; they sound, as this alone should sanction this project. While they may feel their heart is in the right place, I find them sadly shortsighted. They must be completely unaware of the devastation the pipelines would bring to both private and public lands. No one in Oregon is unaffected by these pipelines.
It would seem the point of having State Government is to have those closely associated with the land and people be the ones to make land use decisions.
Thank you, Sentators Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley for introducing a bill that would bring control back to the States. It helps to have back up when fighting for our homes.
-
There is an obvious error in OPB's coverage of this story. The story states,
"If passed, the bill would do nothing to stop two LNG projects near Astoria, which already have approval from FERC, but a proposed terminal in Warrenton could be affected."
This is erroneous on many levels. First, the proposed Wyden/Merkley legislation would apply to terminals that have already been approved by FERC. The states would enjoy their previous, pre-2005 authority to review these projects. This would provide the state with the authority to review the FERC-approved projects under Oregon's energy facility siting standards.
Secondly, the two FERC-approved projects are Jordan Cove (near Coos Bay) and Bradwood (on the Columbia River). There are not two approved Columbia River terminals.
Lastly, I would point out that the panel for this discussion omits any representative of the citizen groups that have been fighting these projects for over 5 years. Columbia Riverkeeper, Sierra Club, farm groups, forestry groups, fishermen, and tribes have all weighed in against Bradwood LNG. Why is OPB presenting a lopsided panel that has two D.C.-based industry apologists and not a single representative of the grassroots groups that have fought for years - successfully - to stop LNG in Oregon?
OPB is missing the real story, here. Thousands of Oregonians from every walk of life are fighting to stop these LNG projects. For example, the Yamhill Rebublican party and Yamhill Democratic party both passed resolutions against these projects. We don't need Texas-based LNG speculators telling us how to meet our energy needs. We tried that once - it was called Enron.
-
Clackamaslocal,
Thanks for the critique. I've changed the language at the top of the post to correct the error about Bradwood Landing and Jordan Cove.
I've also changed the language about what the Wyden/Merkley bill would mean for those two sites based on this quote from a recent Oregonian article:
- The bill would not overturn commission approval of the Bradwood Landing project, or the Jordan Cove project on Coos Bay, but would apply to both if federal approvals are overturned on appeal, said Wyden spokesman Tom Towslee. The bill would apply to the Oregon LNG project in Warrenton, because it has yet to win commission approval.
As for your last point, you're right that we haven't included a representative from a citizen's group in the lineup. That's mainly because we've decided to focus on regulatory issues, and questions of state vs. federal control. But we will certainly bring in experiences and ideas from these groups in the form of blog questions and callers.
Thanks again,
Dave
-
I have been concerned about LNG coming to Oregon since I attended a lecture about it years ago. The ships, terminals and pipelines that carry this highly explosive gas are large and expose everyone around them to danger. At that time it was known how explosive debris and fuel traveled on land but not known how they travel on water and I think it covered at least a mile in diameter on land.
There was a recent (scrapped) attempt in the special session of the Oregon legislature to allow LNG companies access to land without the permission or knowledge of landowners. It had the feeling of corporate intrusion to me.
I understand that Oregon does not need LNG and it most likely will be piped to California or even overseas. Some existing terminals on the West coast have only been used as temporary storage tanks. The LNG went from ships to ternimals and back to ships bound for foreign ports without ever being moved into pipelines for domestic use.
And for some reason pipelines must be built for terminals even if LNG companies have no intention of using them.
Farmers are already losing revenue since they have been waiting for years to get this resolved.
Permanent clear cuts will also affect the rights of Oregonians to enjoy our forests, rivers and streams. Up to 300 bodies of water could be crossed by pipelines.
LNG is a bad idea for Oregonians.
-
I wish to thank Senator Wyden and Senator Merkley for introducing the bill to take back power to site LNG facilities from FERC and restore it to the affected States. I also wish to thank Senator Wyden for working to change Federal tax laws to reduce incentives for oil and natural gas speculators.
- No need has been determined for foreign LNG in Oregon. If there is a need for LNG in California, then port facilities and pipelines should be located there. Oregon is not a colony of California.
- Importing LNG, a fossil fuel, from foreign countries would be a step in the wrong direction for achieving energy independence. Most LNG exporters are unfriendly to the U.S., and supplies from them would be unreliable. If we become dependant on LNG, how soon will we need to wage yet another war to assure our supplies?
- If placing LNG import facilities in Oregon is a ruse to create facilities to export Wyoming and Colorado gas, it will raise our gas prices. Do we want to compete with China for our own gas?
- Northwest Natural Gas (NWN) is NOT an environmentally responsible company. Don’t be fooled by their feel-good advertising; they’re trying to cover their misdeeds and mislead. Their partnership in the Palomar pipeline is a prime example of their shenanigans.
- I’m unemployed. I understand the job situation. The union folks think that a pipeline would bring jobs to Oregon. It would. A bunch of guys from Oklahoma would come, camp and move on. That’s actually better than hiring locals; I’d rather have someone with experience welding the bomb next to my house. Destroying a swath of land over a hundred miles long through prime timber and agricultural land for a few jobs isn’t a good trade. Land permanently lost from production would actually cause a net LOSS of jobs!
If the pipeline goes in, my property value will be destroyed. They can’t and certainly wouldn’t pay enough to compensate me. Eminent domain was meant to enable projects that are for the good of the people; not to allow greedy speculators to steal land and resources for personal gain.
-
You can’t understand the issue of state versus FERC control of LNG siting and approval if you’re not listening to the Oregonians who have been directly affected by these projects. This has become a serious issue, worthy of the attention of Wyden and Merkley and their legislative efforts, because of FERC’s outrageous behavior in the conduct of their environmental review of LNG terminals and pipelines. The current law, enacted in 2005 as a Bush/Cheney gift to the oil and gas industry, was designed to steamroll LNG projects over the objections of states and communities. The U.S. now has an abundance of domestic natural gas and no need to import LNG. Most current U.S LNG terminals stand unused because there is no demand for imported natural gas--only the lucky speculators gain. Yet FERC’s explicit policy is to refuse any analysis of need and to “let the market decide”. No matter that FERC gives the “market” the gift of the power of eminent domain and the gift of public resources such as billions of gallons of Columbia River water. FERC is working against our national interest: importing LNG undermines the bipartisan goal of reducing dependence on foreign energy and thus weakens our national security.
The FERC review process is abusive to Oregon citizens and landowners. FERC hearings and site visits have been held on short notice, and without notification of affected landowners as required by law; FERC staff have insulted citizens who gave testimony (including a State Senator); citizens have been intimidated by armed guards at hearings; knowledgable and detailed testimony on environmental hazards has been ignored in inadequate Environmental Impact Statements; FERC staff has demonstrated coziness with project developers and arrogant disregard for affected landowners; affected landowners have been denied information on the route of pipelines on their property….etc, etc. The violations of process have been serious enough that, at the behest of Senator Wyden, the new chair of FERC is sending a judge to conduct Town Halls next months to air these abuses. We are deeply grateful to Senators Wyden and Merkley for their work to stop FERC’s abuse of power and return it to Oregonians.
-
We are in the sixth year of evaluating lng terminals on the Columbia River and Coos Bay. It seems that OPB has missed the ball on this historical perspective and it is not like they have not covered it. Why are there no stakeholders that have expessed opposition to these projects as a member of your discuission group. Maybe you should think about a panel with tribal representatives, fishery representatives, affected landowners and environmental representatives.
When this process began, all states had siting authority. An even more important aspect is that an entirely different energy world existed, we were in a supply/demand squeeze. Peak oil, peak natural gas, diminishing supplies, developing world demand were all the buzz. Six years has changed this scenario. Economic meltdown, consequently less demand, and innovations in resource discovery have led to a surplus of especially natural gas in the United States. The proposed project at Bradwood would import more natural gas than Oregon & Washington consume. The proposed Palomar (Nortwest Natural Gas) pipeline that connects to Bradwood would transport all of the regassified LNG to California markets. Bradwood has contracted with Palomar to ship all of the product from its facility to the Palomar pipeline and on to California. When this project began all the stakeholders were working with Oregon Dept. of Energy (ODOE) and FERC on the siting of the Bradwood facility. In 2005, ODOE was working on a needs assessment regarding the import of LNG when the 2005 Energy Bill was passed and authority to regulate siting was taken from the states with a few exceptions. This brings us to the newly proposed legislation by Senators Wyden, Merkley, Cantwell, and others have submitted. It legislates that the states get their rights regarding siting back from FERC. This would not be such an issue if FERC adhered even to current law. It has necessitated the states of Oregon & Washington, the Nez Perce Tribe, Columbia RiverKeeper, Sierra Club, and an umbrella of other environmental groups to challenge FERC in federal court. These groups have been joined by 15 other states that have filed amicus briefs in support.
-
How can you have a discussion of regulatory issues of LNG without a perspective from the people being affected by the regulations? Oregonians are strongly affected by the potential devastation of their state’s natural and agricultural resources, as these many foregoing informed and concerned comments attest. Yet two of the participants speaking are concerned about regulatory issues from the perspective of how to manipulate them to proceed with LNG development. How was it decided to include a speaker from an industry newsletter and no one from the many citizens groups involved? We the people are affected by the question of state versus federal control in our backyards. Where is the Oregon in this OPB broadcast? I will be tuning in and hope the discussion will be broader than a discussion between industry and politicians.
-
THANK YOU OPB for this timely and heartfelt topic. Continued thanks and respect to Senator Wyden, for reinforcing his original opposition to the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
A minor correction to OPB's online summary, Senators Wyden and Merkley are not seeking 'more authority', but simply the ability to revert back to our state's authority, legal technicalities aside.
- The statewide agencies in Oregon had a very stringent siting process for energy facilities until this was usurped by FERC.
- Further, FERC stated that the states retain the final say under the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and the Coastal Zone Management Act. This was clearly demonstrated by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality in a recent letter to the applicant of the proposed LNG terminal at Bradwood, OR.
THE SECOND POINT is private property rights and eminent domain. During the Energy Policy testimony in 2005, Alan Greenspan testified with regard to the need for LNG to be expanded in the energy mix of the US.
Reading Mr. Greenspan's "The Age of Turbulence", one theme was very disturbing, his stance on property rights. "Experience leads me to consider state-enforced property rights as the key growth-enhancing institution…Do I own a parcel of land outright, or are there so many easements that it is of little value to me? Or, most important, if governments at their discretion can seize my property, how valuable are my property rights?…Under constant fear of expropriation, what effort will I put forward to improve my property? And what price can I set for it if I choose to sell it?"
Hundreds of property owners in Oregon and Washington have been living under fear of expropriation as a result of the proposed LNG terminals and hundreds of miles of associated pipelines.
The current data notes there is an abundance of domestic natural gas for the foreseeable future. Mr. Greenspan's former views have helped shape the financial market, as well as this aspect of energy policy; does he have any ideas how this current dilemma might be resolved? Would the Senators from Oregon consider approaching Mr. Greenspan to seek a 'win-win' solution?
Gloria G. MacKenzie
Conservation Committee
Willapa Hills Audubon Society
-
Well said, Ms. MacKenzie. Well said.
-
Greetings;
Chris Andreae here. Recently on my program, 'Air Cascadia', (And many years back and beyond) I have been reporting on the liquefied natural gas purgatorio in which the state seems to be stranded. There is no question that LNG is an ecological disaster for rivers and coasts. Ours just happen to be especially sensitive habitat. And there is no doubt that property owners whose land is threatened by concomitant pipelines would suffer irreparable loss. A whole interdependent network of local employment would also be jeopardized. Beyond these issues, the profits will flow straight out of Oregon as will the gas. Let's not forget the clean-up costs, should the whole thing explode somewhere down the line. LNG terminals have a rerehensible "safety" record. Leaving all this aside, let's look at the job picture. It is, in a word, ugly. There will be a year or two of construction work up for grabs and then once the proposed terminal is up and running, a handful of management-level positions will be divvied up amongst developers' in-house (and out-of-state) technocrats. So we arrive at two words: No jobs. Oregon cannot afford this 'pipe dream'.
Chris Andreae
971-645-5232
tranche3564@yahoo.com -
As a realtor in Douglas County having clients whose property will be taken by eminent domain (they are opposed to this project) & in researching the US LNG terminals operating as import terminals, most have reversed licensing to become export terminals as the cost to import LNG is expensive & not cost-effective. Foreign LNG comes from Yemen & countries known to harbor terrorists while our abundant US Natural Gas supply & reserves demonstrate their is no need for foreign LNG.
The Jordan Cove & Pacific Pipeline Connector Project commences in Coos Bay Oregon (home of the New Carissa recent shipwreck clean-up) and the proposed LNG terminal doesn't meet FAA standards of maintaining runway clearance of greater than a mile. Besides the 236 mile pipeline crossing 5 So. Oregon counties' watershed resource areas, we as taxpayers spend tremendous amounts of money to protect fish habitat, it will connect to the Ruby Pipeline from the east/Colo & Wy area. This pipeline will be all set up to connect in Malin, pump US Nat. Gas to Coos Bay & be a profit-making export terminal at the expense of property owners losing their land to eminent domain. The Jordan Cove project managers deny this intention but just research the current US import terminals switching over to export terminals, the market dictates good business practice.
Take a look at the Long Beach, CA denial of the LNG import terminal. Here is a harbor that was "perfect" for accepting natural gas for the following reasons; 1. abundant emergency response teams 2. air & ground military security 3. expansive Army Corp of Engineers maintained harbor for accepting all types of imported materials 4. area to build LNG terminals (defunct Naval shipyard & refineries) 5. No environmental impact to forests, watersheds, fish habitat. It appears that we & our environment in Southern Oregon are expendable based on the Long Beach California denial criteria.
Oregon should have the power to control the development of import LNG terminals, we the people of Oregon will be responsible for the damage control, loss of our pristine environment and value lost in citizen's private property.
-
Here we go again, as a person with disabilities I have time to listen and try to make sense of all the different ways that we get our fuel to heat and cool our houses, business, Gov't buildings ect. So many sources are out there and we do not see the big picture.(We all use energy and it fuels our lives). Some people seem to focus saying,"not in my back yard," but use that energy resource every day.
Why try to eliminate just one of these resources. The more different resources we can produce, the cost can go down for every one. If you only focus on eliminating just one of our resource, we all loose! The energy and time it took talking about it. Let's focas making this resource aviable so we all can use it in a safe manor. This can be done!
In my house, I have gas and electric that I can use as a heat source. Gs is much cheaper and I use it. It's NATURAL GAS, IT"S NATURAL
let's use it!
-
Jeff, there's a huge difference between natural gas and liquefied natural gas. Recent studies have shown that the US doesn't need to import natural gas of any form. LNG is a highly pressurized, supercooled, highly volatile liquid form for natural gas. It takes extra energy to supercool the gas, and emissions from the re-gassification process have a high carbon footprint. The pipelines needed to transport are not the average diameter of 8" to 16"; they are 36" and 42" inches. They leave a pathway of 120 ft. which cannot be traversed with any type of equipment, and deep rooted crops cannot be grown on the pipelines. In addition, there is a 1500' blast zone around the blast zone. The proposed pipelines would eat up over 40,000 acres of prime agricultural, timber, winery, and nursery lands.
If you Google the LNG industry's own reports, you will learn that because of the economic downturn, the US has a glut of natural gas, and many LNG terminals that have been built are not receiving shipments. The LNG industry is down worldwide. Oregon doesn't NEED LNG.
-
applesandlavender,
Do we know why, if there is not a market for it (as you suggest), why they would spend the money to build it?
-
California is the most populous state, home to one in nine Americans. It passed laws restricting Energy Products off its beautiful coast after Santa Barbara had oil spills. They include denial of LNG facilities.
California needs the Natural Gas. Oregon coasts have no restrictions and there are far fewer people. Energy companies see Oregon as the Appalachian backcountry that will permit gas importation to California. We are like Mexico North.
An LNG re-gas storage plant will have the capability to store 2 billion cu ft of natural gas. IF there is an accident or terrorist attack, the heat and energy release will exceed a small thermal nuclear bomb of 50- 75 kilotons of TNT devasting the enviorment and scarring the land for generations.
If we need LNG Plant, perhaps they should be closer to the source markets like Los Angeles, San Francisco, Portland and Seattle...less pipeline to crisscross land.
Alternatively New York and Jersey are installing off -shore LNG islands. These are already in use in the Gulf and Middle East. Pipeline is suspended on the sea bed. These are 20 miles off shore and cannot be seen from land. Risk of life to bystanders is minimized. Coast guard patrols could be effective. Why Not build off the Los Angeles/ Long Beach Coast?
-
"Super-siting" of energy facilities -- i.e., taking authority away from local governments and giving it to the state or federal government -- has always had its supporters and critics. It represents a policy decision that siting of such facilities is too important to be left to local and/or state governments whose decisions often are based more on political considerations than on approval standards. Indeed, Oregon has set up "super-siting" for prisons for this very reason, and allows "super-siting" of energy generation and transmisson facilities through the Energy Facility Siting Council. It's more than a little hypocritical for Oregon to be complaining about federal preemption of LNG siting while we create and defend our own "super-siting" scheme as a better way to create good siting decisions.
-
Two years ago I walked the first 20 miles of the proposed pipeline in Mt Hood and I was surprised and horrified at the number of riparian areas, very steep slopes and old growth groves that it would impact. I went into the hike open minded and came away absolutely opposed. This is a horrible option for Mount hood National forest, for the Salmon, and for Oregonian's.
Adrian Thalasinos
-
This discussion exemplifies why the states should NOT have authority over this process. The state government is too weak to follow through on projects that are important to other states.
This makes sense because the state government would not allow this project to continue if it was up to them. The Federal government needs to makes these decisions because they are responsible for more than Oregon, and can make tough decisions that the state can't.
-
Environmentally challenged topics put me in a torpor. The one thing I come away from them with: we all sound crazy. Perhaps, you have to fight crazy with crazy? Perhaps, the topics are inherently too complex to get to the bottom of, so, we resort to overblown certainty to try and get our point across? I want to believe, I want to have a position, but they all sound okay. What to do? Perhaps, we need to go back to the beginning and not get into the local technicalities of our backyards, and focus on the objections to natural gas and terminals in general.
-
I believe this pipeline will be used to export newfound stores of LNG on the world market. Not to import it as proposed.
Gino
-
It's important to remember that the state's own Energy Facility Siting Council has in the past approved large-scale pipeline projects that cross farmland -- e.g., NW Natural Gas pipelines originating in Columbia County -- over the objections of land owners concerning trespass, loss of value, etc.
-
Who gets to decide what is best for Oregon; for Oregon’s future; for Oregon’s citizens? Should it be rich Texans financed by large hedge fund operators such as MatlinPatterson Global get to decide? Leucadia National (Oregon LNG backer), a company that profits from mining and drilling, banking, and real estate speculation? Washington agencies that continue to approve LNG projects based upon limited scientific assessment? the state politicians that receive ongoing donations from LNG lobbyists? the media, including public broadcasting, that receive huge amounts of money from natural gas advertising? the unions, which have lobbied hard for temporary construction jobs? the permanent farm, vineyard, timber, and nursery workers whose jobs will be suspended and lost to LNG profits?
Perhaps Senators Wyden and Merkley understand that Oregon’s interests can best be decided by those who understand that what fits elsewhere doesn’t work in Oregon; because they realize that Oregon has independent scientists who have studied Oregon’s unique ecology, seismology, fluvial science, and topography and that these scientists are better equipped to decide what works for this state than are federal regulators who live 3,000 miles away.
Perhaps the senators are protecting my farm, which provides fruits and vegetables, the salmon spawning in my stream every November, the ancient trees on my land, my valuable workers whose jobs are as important to them as any other’s jobs are, and my grandson who attends school within yards of two proposed pipelines. Perhaps they see that LNG companies rejected by California and Mexico shouldn’t use Oregon to line their corporate pockets. Perhaps they know that Oregonians should chart our own energy future. Perhaps they represent those of us who can’t afford advertising or lobbyists and who need a voice.
-
Emily,
Change to the law would have an effect on pipelines. Since it is acknowledged that at most 1 facility is needed on the west coast, if the determination of the number is part of the upfront analysis, then multiple proposals wouldn't be allowed to go forward.
The FERC super-siting authority has failed. If it were working, these facilities would be in California where the gas is ultimately used instead of chewing up hundreds of miles of Oregon landscape to get the gas in the back door.
Marc AuerbachBirkenfeld, OR
-
The Boardman coal burning power uses about a trainload of coal every day of the year with a large byproduct of mercury falling on the Columbia Rver watershed. Also there are oxides of sulphur going into the air and maybe thosands of cubic yards of ash that must be put someplace.
Oregon has no fossil fuels and not even a refinery that turns out fuel. Our gasoline and fuel oil comes by barge up the Columbia River to Portland and into Coos Bay. Alaska exports LNG mostly to Japan they do not like to waste things there so when the LNG is gasified it cools food storage facilities.
-
Recently, March 1st, the Supreme Court rejected an appeal by Missouri Gas Energy over the taxation of natural gas that was pumped through counties. Given a fall in timber sales perhaps this will be a way to support rural areas.
If this gas is indeed shipped to California, the Trans-Canadian Pipeline, or even Portland, counties will need to ensure sufficient resources are available for mitigation of disasters, to cover the risks involved, and to help in supporting their communities.
-
Neither the Fed or the State should "decide" where ... There is a role for regulation from both the federal govt and the state govt and even local and international. The issue is veto power.
My point is that while the FERC should be able to approve projects, the state and local governments should be able to veto, that is to say where projects should not be, and they should also be able to add additional regulations. This would make it more difficult, but welcome to the real world! Most of the rest of us have to abide by both Federal and State laws.
Bob
-
The people that oppose LNG must have dwellings that are heated some way. It is cold and windy right now. My apartment is heated by gas coming by pipeline. Other people use fuel oil delivered by truck, electricity from burning coal, maybe fire wood cut with a gasoline powered chain saw. Pipe lines have never been an issue before and land owners are paid for right of ways. I think they have taken in the loggers and farmers need to clean up their own acts.
-
Just wanted to mention that I was reading through some old Vernonia Freedoms from the 1970s in which Paul Seamons wrote a series of articles about the drilling of the Mist natural gas wells outside of Mist, OR. In the articles I learned that the natural gas pumped from these wells is used for the production of fertilizers and is not used to heat peoples homes. This is just one source of natural gas I know of in Oregon that is not being utilized for heat, does anyone know of any others? Also, if the natural gas needs of this region are suppose to grow by around 1 billion ft3 in the region, we may want to think about conservation before we start on an unsustainable path of transporting natural gas half way across the world. Look at the globe, you can fit Asia, North America, Europe, Africa, South America, and the Atlantic into the Pacific Ocean. That is a very long distance to ship natural gas when we can produce it in Oregon.
Also, does anyone know how a LNG terminal would hold up to a magnitute 8.8 earthquake or 7.2 aftershocks?
-
The earthquake issue is adressed in the EIR, it it some 700 pages long and I read most of it when it was on the FERC web site. The opponents have not been able to discredit the findings.
The Mist gas field is very small the fertilizer produced is used by the farmers who are against LNG. They would be happy if the price of fertilizer went down. A few years ago it was unafordable when natural gas went to $14.00.
-
I just listened to your broadcast and I am very disappointed. There was a distinct lack of representation from key interest groups. Why did OPB present two Washington D.C. industry perspectives and no Oregon opposition groups? This program smacked of the same highhanded control of power as the FERC "hearings." Literally thousands of citizens have opposed LNG siting in our state for 5 years. There are many brilliant spokespersons. WHY DID YOU NOT HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE CITIZENS? Guess what? WE are your audience!
-
SpringFarm, you are right. I called in to the show and didn't get on. They were running out of time but the screener actually asked me if I was a member of an LNG group!!!
-
LNG is really bad JUJu .... if you look only at the eco distruction alone for the pipe lines and the death of breeding grounds of& in nature there is more than enough reason not to persue LNG plants & pipe lines .... Newport oregon has a plant that was built under the implacations that there would be port work that has not shown true & on and on the short turm greed & poppycock goes ... NOAA in newport is an other example of bad choices ; there will more dredging as was done in the mid 60s so we could ship lumber to vietnam for 3 years ... distroyed 1000s of years of breeding grounds ; and then we can look at the short turm fish farm at newport of the early 70s where the spooning grounds were electrocuted to make way for the "GMO" salmon ... like our new tax additions ; it really is time to get a grip on the world around us cause the church is not going to be'able to fix this behaviour pattern ... To bring LNG into oregon will distroy another large chunk of our food chain ... Such as monsanto & HR 875 making organic farming as a crime ... seek this info out on you tube .
-
Regarding the LNG pipeline, unfortunately a needs analayis is not required. The Oregon Energy Commission released a study in 2008 that determined that Oregon would not need imported LNG to meet their energy needs; and if in the future, if they did, it could come from within the USA at a lower cost and would be less environmentally disruptive.
If the project is approved and constructed it would negatively impact the enivronment on Oregon's farms, vinyards, forests and also the people that depend on them for their income.
We need to focus on sustainable forms of energy and less on limited non renewabel sources. Eventually, these will be gone and we need to be ready for that time. Now is the time to direct our focus and research in that direction. If we can attain new types of sustainable energy, we can be a nation of growing businesses that will provide living wage jobs with better communities.
-
The opposition does not seem to know that only 36 miles of pipeline is in the Bradford Landing project. It could bring in Alaaka natural gas and also gas from Asia and Africa where it goes begging and is often flared off. Better it be used here to generate electricity, heat our homes, make fertilizer and manufacture jet engine parts. If there was another Enron type scandal and our pipeline gas from Wyoming and Canada was cut off or was priced at an unafordable level we would sure be gratefull for an alternative source.
-
Vernon, not all LNG suppliers are friendly to American Interest. Look up top ten supppliers; it is not Australia Canada OR New Zealand. LNG is extracted from the same sites concomminantly with petroleum. Top 10 proven world reserves in order are Russia/Soviet Union, Iran, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Nigeria, Venezuela, Algeria, and Iran. All are opponents to America or are ideologically or religiously opposed.
WE SHOULD NOT BE AGAIN LOCKED INTO CARBON DEPENDENCY WITH OUR FOES. We need energy independence. We need renewable power sources: Hydro, Wind, Solar. Yes Electrical heat is efficient and that is what heats my home.,
-
Thanks for your show. I was one of the callers who spoke but I did not have time to make one of my points. The issue is that after the 2005 Energy Bill, the states still had regulatory authority regarding clean air, clean water, & the coastal zone management. Unfortunately FERC is ignoring these issues by issuing permits with conditions even ignoring the required Biologic Opinion that is necessary from National Marine Fiseries. All issues should be settled prior to the issuing of the federal permit. This is the main reason that FERC is being sued in the 9th Federal Circuit Court. Concerned citizen groups, the states of Washington & Oregon, & the Nez Perce initiated the suit. We have been joined by 15 other states via an amicus brief. George
-
Jon Wellinghoff, the Chairman of FERC, dissented from the other FERC commissioners’ decision to grant a permit for the Bradwood Landing LNG terminal on the Columbia River. His dissent provides important reasons for why importation of LNG is not in the public interest.
In outline, Chairman Wellinghoff argues that there is no need in the Pacific Northwest for LNG; that there are reasonable and environmentally preferable alternatives; and that LNG will cost appreciable more than available domestic gas. He argues also that the adverse impact on the Columbia River of 125 tankers per year are much worse than possible impacts of alternative domestic energy sources, including wind, solar and biomass. Chairman Wellinghoff emphasizes the adverse environmental impacts of 20 to 50 million gallons of ballast and engine cooling water that will be consumed per tanker. He concludes, “The evidence demonstrates that the Bradwood Project is not in the public interest and, therefore, the subject application should be denied…. (T)here are reasonable alternatives to the Bradwood Project to serve the projected energy needs of the Pacific Northwest in a more efficient, more reliable, and environmentally preferable manner… (S)ignificant environmental concerns about the Bradwood Project have not been fully or fairly evaluated.”
The entire dissent can be seen at: www.ferc.gov/.../statements.../wellinghoff/2008/09-18-08-wellinghoff-C-1.pdf
-
To jeffw: Yes, indeed, we need to diversify our energy sources—including the full spectrum of renewable sources. And we need to make energy sources more reliable in terms of supply and cost. That means having control of our sources and not being at the mercy of the foreign suppliers of imported LNG. (We’re talling here about gas that is supercooled and liquefied so that it can fit into supertankers and be shipped around the world.) The problem is not natural gas per se—‘tho we should be working to reduce the use of all fossil fuels. The U.S. now has gigantic proven reserves of natural gas that can supply Oregon, and the Ruby pipeline is in the works to bring it to the west coast. The problem with LNG is that it would commit our state and our country to getting natural gas from the Middle East, Russia, Indonesia, etc., at a time when reducing our dependence on foreign energy is a national priority. Russia’s Gazprom regularly touts its goal to control 10% of the U.S. natural gas market by selling us LNG—clearly for geopolitical as well as economic reasons. They currently control 40% of Europe’s gas supply and can cut it off, or raise the price anytime they want, as they have done in recent years. So why would we import LNG when we have so much of our own? Even the gas industry is now realizing that the case for importing LNG is dying. Among dozens of articles on this point, here’s one:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1016309920100310?type=marketsNews
“LNG sector rethinks long term amid US natgas glut
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.”
-
And to scottmil: There are several reasons why it’s worth trying to build an LNG terminal. First, once the permits are obtained, the current project developers in Oregon would most likely ‘flip” the projects, selling them to bigger players with lots of capital to speculate with. Second, they could do what two LNG terminals in Texas are now doing, with FERC approval: they buy LNG when the price is low, hold it, and then re-import it when the price goes up: pure speculative trading, with profits for the gas companies while they provide no supply to the U.S. Third, terminals, once built on the claim of providing an essential energy source to our region, could switch to exporting. U.S. gas is cheap due to the current glut in supply, and could be worth a lot more shipped as LNG to energy-needy Asia—big profits there. In Canada, one import terminal project made the switch a couple of years ago, and now has contracts to export Alaska gas to Japan and Korea. Once a terminal is built, the switch would be easy—the Canadian terminal did it in a few months. Fourth, there are “interruptible contracts”. The Costa Azul terminal over the border in Baja Mexico has contracts to bring in LNG from Indonesia and Russia’s Gazprom to supply southern California. If the supplier can get a higher price somewhere else (which it almost always can), they can divert the shipment but have to pay a fee to the terminal. So… lot of reasons that have nothing to do with our state’s or nation’s need for LNG but more to do with gas/oil industry games.
-
Thank you for the information, it is very helpful!
-
Energy is so vital in every minute of the day, so it ends up getting drageed into politics. Alot of it comes down to spin.
-
I listened to the program this morning and was disappointed that no-one was talking about the real issues: whether the pipelines are desirable for anyone other that the companies involved; whether Governor Kulingoski or Senators Wyden and Merkeley are in favor the construction of the pipeline or not; why we should want to import LNG when the price of domestic gas is lower; whether President Obama should be making some new appointmnts at FERC; and whether perhaps the pipeline and terminals might at some time be intended to be used for exporting rather that importing gas.
The discussion was entirely about the procedural issue of who should have control of the decision making process with the Oregon proponents arguing half-heartedly for a weak process, one of collaboration with FERC. I presume that there are non-explicit political considerations which make them take this line, and I wonder what they are. The only way in which the bill would have any positive effect would be if it allowed the State of Oregon to decide NOT to build the pipelines,
-
This comment has been removed by the TOL staff.
-
This comment has been removed by the TOL staff.
-
Are you struggling with less than perfect skin, and wish you knew all the top secrets the dermatologists are hoarding blue waffle?
-
Comments are now closed.
We live in Yamhill county along the proposed route of the Palomar LNG line. The maps we found (we were not given, but had to dig out on our own) show the pipe being laid about 50 feet from our family room window, with the line of "blast zone" going right through the middle of that room. The line goes through our woodland and a wetland (recognized by the state when we tried to log). We have had no luck getting accurate information from Palomar, nor having our questions addressed.
What I don't understand is why Oregon seems to have so little power in this. Shouldn't agencies like the DEQ and forestry departments DEQ be able to use their existing authority to affect permitting? Some states (Maryland and New York come to mind) have used the Clean Water Act to stop LNG terminals in much less sensitive areas. The Columbia is a major salmon spawning river. And the proposed gas lines go through several watersheds and over/around/through several other sensitive rivers.
If this bill helps beef up Oregon's ability to protect its own natural resources, I say Go For It, Ron & Jeff!