2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration international internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

I would like to reply to "farmerziffel". My wife and I wrote an earlier post to this site.

First - we may not speak for everyone, but I bet we speak for most of those who have become aware of this project and its consequences.

Second - Most employment resulting from this project will be short term and/or low-pay. Most construction phase employment will be out of state contractors. High paying technical operation jobs will be filled by experienced out of state gas company employees who want to relocate to the state they are helping screw up. Maybe 30 residual permanent jobs will be offered to locals - probably paying $10-15 / hr.

Third - There are a lot of us against this idea who don't have the pipeline running through our property, but are worried about even more damage being done to this beautiful state than has been done since we've been "discovered".

Fourth - We are also native Oregonians - since 1945 and 1946, and can't understand how another native Oregonian could feel like you do - you must have Californian inclinations.

Dave McKeel

posted 5 years, 3 months ago
view in context

-Oregon doesn't need this gas. Thirteen-fourteenths of it is destined for California.
-California (and even Tijuana!!) turned down this "opportunity" due to safety and environmental concerns.
-The Columbia River has the greatest outflow of any American river, is a very important river for shipping, and is a major salmon fishery and spawning route. I can't think of a worse location for this idiocy anywhere in the U.S.
-What about tidal waves?
-Having these supertankers crossing the Columbia Bar during a winter storm would be impossible, and having them line up waiting for it to pass would cause many problems for other commercial river traffic, since they would have priority.
-Leave it to a Texas company to think putting two storage tank bombs in the Columbia River for terrorist targets is a good idea. Can you imagine the explosive power contained in these tanks if the 36-inch pipeline has a blast radius of 750 feet? And the gas in the tanks expands by a factor of 16 before entering the pipe.
-The destruction caused by a 100-200 foot clearcut for pipeline construction through hundreds of miles of farmland and forests, under hundreds of rivers and streams, is hard to imagine, and even harder to accept. These areas will never be "made whole" again and the private property will be condemned and taken by force from the owners using imminent domain laws.
-This gas is going to cause even more dependency on foreign fuels than the US has today. Most of the sources of the gas are nations that are unfriendly to the interests of the US.

This is a huge price for Oregon and Oregonians to pay for a resource that we don't need and don't want.

Dave and Linda McKeel

posted 5 years, 3 months ago
view in context