[Grovenet] Gas Lines are not fun

Tue Jan 29 15:41:03 PST 2008

One of the problems with this LNG pipeline which is to take LNG from
Astoria through Oregon to California, is the property upon which the
pipeline(s) would be sited. The notification has been limited and many
of the small farmers are struggling as it is, without having significant
chunks of their land torn up and taken out of production. This is one of
the main concerns for the Forest Grove area -- and I speak of our
neighbors as those rural landowners around town. Selfishly, I would like
to continue to buy the produce grown on some of these small farms. 
--Martha

-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
Behalf Of Ron D'Eau Claire
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 3:15 PM
To: 'Forest Grove local interests list'
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Gas Lines are not fun

We already have LNG facilities in Oregon. There's one right here in
Newport, and another in Portland, both operating efficiently, cleanly
and safely for decades. 

Neither is considered a danger or 'dis-amenity' to the local properties.
The Newport facility is close to new million-dollar homes, a huge marina
filled with yachts and fishing boats and surrounded by businesses. The
other in Portland is only five miles from downtown in an industrial area
where businesses have eagerly added new construction. 

The issue today is that there's not enough local natural gas, or it's
not cheap enough, to compete with gas brought in by ship, so the
obvious, sensible thing to do is to bring in gas and the safest, most
efficient proven way to do that is LNG. Northwest Natural is meeting its
obligation to the public with the safest technology known: a technology
with a near-perfect track record working with a fuel, LNG, that is
inherently far less dangerous in the event of a problem than either
gasoline or propane. 

For facts about the new facility whose pipeline would run west of Forest
Grove, there's a web site that will pop up in any web search:

http://www.oregonlng.com/

For facts about the new facilities planned for Coos Bay see: 

http://www.scdcinc.org/documents/ECONW-SCDC-LNG-Impacts.pdf

Okay, maybe it's not good to take their word for what's so. There's a
wealth of LNG safety information on the WEB based on actual experience
with the stuff that documents an excellent safety record for LNG that
far exceeds many other energy sources, including coal, oil and gasoline.
It's a proven technology with proven regulatory standards that have
protected the public for decades. There are some links to on-line
information below. 

Let me be clear that I don't like using LNG, just like I don't like
using fossil fuels including natural gas in any form such as liquefied
gas, ethanol, oil in all of its forms, wood, or any other carbon-based
fuel, but not for the idiotic reasons given by many of the naysayers. I
don't like using those fuels because they all produce greenhouse gasses
and represent limited, non-sustainable energy sources. But I am grateful
we have them and, like most Oregonians, use them every day because my
options are very limited. Like the rest of us, some mix of all of the
above is economically and functionally essential for me to earn my way
in society. 

I agree that we need to pursue alternative forms of creating energy.
Pumping and importing oil and gas are only  stop-gaps to meet critical
energy needs.

I have a hard time being patient with those who simply say "No". Any
darn fool can offer a reason why not to do something. And sometimes
their reasons are as foolish and nonsensical as their thinking. 

For example the claim that LNG will increase greenhouse gasses in Oregon
while saying that most of it won't be used here in Oregon. Say again? If
we don't burn it, it won't add to greenhouse gasses! And why would our
energy consumption go up? More industry, more jobs, more incomes, that's
what will increase energy demands here. If so, is that bad? 

And what's wrong with bringing industry to Oregon to bring our people
money? Would the naysayers rather we opened up the forest preserves for
clear-cutting to produce wood products and then strip the lands looking
for coal? 

No, they do not. Indeed that's the problem. The naysayers have no
alternatives to offer. All they know how to say is NO! 

Any idiot can make a case for not doing something. It takes brains and
expertise to offer a solution with a careful assessment of the risks and
benefits, such as those below. 

Ron D'Eau Claire

Just a few studies by various universities and other agencies include:

http://www.beg.utexas.edu/energyecon/lng/documents/CEE_LNG_Safety_and_Se
curi
ty.pdf

http://www.energy.ca.gov/2005publications/CEC-600-2005-002/CEC-600-2005-
002.
PDF

http://www.energy.ca.gov/lng/documents/2004-05_FERC_CONSEQUENCES_ASSESSM
ENT.
PDF

http://www.energy.ca.gov/lng/documents/2004-12_SANDIA-DOE_RISK_ANALYSIS.
PDF 

-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
Behalf Of Vickie Madeoneup
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 8:28 AM
To: Forest Grove local interests list
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Gas Lines are not fun

I have not been able to find much concrete information on the pipeline,
but surfing the web this is what I did find. It is all fairly one sided
as I did not find any information for the pipeline. I will add that a
personal friend of mine that will have the pipeline going through his
land said the high pressure pipe that this pipeline will have is 36"
where as the pipeline that exploded in Washington was much smaller, so
he feels if there was an explosion it would have a far greater impact.
He also said he will not be able to build or grow anything on the
easement of the pipe which would be 50-100'. One of his objections is
that he doesn't feel as if he has a choice, even though it is a private,
for profit company it can claim eminent domain.

NO LNG Rally at the Capital in Salem 
    Wednesday, February 6, 11:00 am - 2:00 pm
Lobbying: After the rally Oregon residents will fan out into the Capitol
building to lobby legislators. Meet Oregon friends there and ask them to
make an appointment with their representatives and senator. Appointments
are very important because construction apparently has the Capitol in a
mess. Can't Make the Rally? On February 6, CALL Governor Ted Kulongoski
at 503.378.4582. Demand that he stand up for Oregonians, and to veto all
LNG terminals. Tell him that you would rather see an investment in
clean, renewable energy for Oregon. Also contact: Tim McCabe, Gov.'s
Energy Advisor
(503) 9866520
tim.mccabe at state.or.us      (503) 378-5690
Michael Carrier, Gov.'s Natural Resource Policy Advisory (503) 9866525
michael.carrier at state.or.us

   Sponsoring Organizations: Citizens Against LNG, Columbia Riverkeeper,
Friends of Living Oregon Waters (FLOW), Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands
Center, Landowners and Citizens for a Safe Community, No California
Pipeline, Oregon Citizens Against the Pipeline, Oregon Wild, Pacific
Green Party, Pacific Environment, Ratepayers for Affordable Clean Energy
(RACE), Sierra Club of
    Oregon, Southern Oregon Pipeline Information Project/No California
Pipeline, Wahkiakum Friends of the River.
   For more information: Pacific Environment website announcement, RACE
website or email nolngrally at verizon.net.
http://www.willamette-riverkeeper.org/documents/WRK_LNG_ALERT.pdf 
"The proposed LNG projects would use supertankers to ferry natural gas
from countries such as Russia, Iran and Peru in supercooled liquid form.
At the processing plant, the imported LNG would be offloaded,
revaporized and as much as 1.5 billion cubic feet per day would be
pumped in a new pipeline across six Oregon counties to a point on the
main transmission line serving California. This project threatens the
environmental health and safety of Columbia River and Willamette Valley
residents, as well as habitat for all species in the area. There is no
demonstrated need in Oregon for this new gas, which has up to 40%
greater carbon impact than domestic natural gas. This pipeline would
cross over 1000 creeks, streams and rivers, cut swaths of ancient
forest, and destroy Willamette Valley farms." Come to an informational
session about LNG with Dan Serres from Columbia Riverkeeper January 29
at 7 pm, Willamette Riverkeeper Office, 1515 SE Water Ave, Suite 102

http://www.friendsoffrenchprairie.org/pdf/Pipelinetapsresidents_11-16-07
.pdf
"Many landowners fear the property and environmental damage that could
come with a 50- to 100-foot right-of-way across their property. Their
concerns range from the increased risk of wildfire and introduction of
noxious weeds to destruction of valuable farm and timberland."

http://groups.google.com/group/cascadeclimate/browse_thread/thread/f6186
bef2
dc356b0
"NW 
 Natural has become an active participant in this scheme by proposing to

 build the 220-mile long Palomar pipeline that would rip across Oregon
from 
 the key salmon habitats of the Columbia Estuary, across the family
farms of

 the Willamette Valley, through the wildlife habitats of the Mt. Hood 
 National Forest and over the Wild and Scenic Deschutes River *- all
this in

 order to send gas from the proposed LNG terminals on the Columbia River
to a 
 California-bound pipeline near Madras. *"www.lngpollutes.org

Why should you care about this?
   . There are 3 LNG projects proposed for the Oregon coast.

  . If even one should get built, it will increase Oregon's greenhouse
gas emissions by millions of tons per year.

  . These projects will cost billions, money that could be spent on
clean, renewable energy.

  . The terminals and pipelines linking them to California will endanger
communities, cross and condemn hundreds miles of land, and destroy
habitat.

  . LNG is not needed in Oregon; even the Governor admits that most of
the gas is going out of state.

  . Ask yourself: Why is Oregon being chosen for LNG that will go to
California?

Newstimes:
Citizens Against the Pipeline
"At least one city councilor said he'd like the chance to weigh in. Pete
Truax, in an interview after the meeting, noted that the proposed
pipe-line paths would cut a swath between the city and its municipal
watershed in the coast range." " Do you know that the proposed path for
the pipelines carrying this very explosive fuel lies just west of Forest
Grove and will run though Gales Creek and Gaston on its way to
California? 
 Do you know that about 90 percent of this gas is destined for
California? Do you know how dangerous this fuel is? Do you understand
the impact the construction of these projects on our
land/water/wildlife?"

_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet