[Grovenet] Gas Lines are not fun
Ron D'Eau Claire
ron at cobi.biz
Tue Jan 29 16:48:36 PST 2008
How many of the actual landowners involved are complaining, and what are
they complaining about?
To answer Martha's concern about "limited notification" the web site I cited
before, www.oregonlng.com has a feature where you can enter your address and
it will tell you where you are in relation to the *proposed* route. The
final route is still being negotiated and surveyed in some areas, but the
web site promises to be kept current.
For what it's worth, here are some of the FAQ's from www.oregonlng.com :
Q. How will landowners be compensated for easements?
A. Landowners will be offered compensation based on the estimated value of
the land needed for the easement, including improvements within the easement
area. Compensation will also include any measurable loss in value to the
remaining property as a result of the partial acquisition.
Most of the pipeline acquisitions will be easements. Owners still maintain
ownership of the easement area and can use the area in ways that do not
affect the pipeline. Most crop cultivation can continue on easements.
Q. How big is the pipe?
A. The proposed pipeline will be 36 inches in diameter. It will be made of
welded steel, a half-inch to .75 inches thick. It will be 3 to 5 feet
underground.
Ron's Note: this is a natural gas pipeline according to the report.
Liquefied gas is not transported through pipe. LNG is converted to gas at
the sending end and re-liquefied at the destination. Natural gas is lighter
than air so, if it escapes, it rises immediately and dissipates (unlike
propane gas or gasoline which is heavier than air and pools on or near the
ground until a source of ignition is reached). The gas line cannot explode:
it's full of gas with no oxygen for combustion. Shortly after leaving an
opening the gas is too dilute in the air to burn. Only in a narrow area
immediately after leaving an opening is the mixture flammable, just like the
burner fire on a gas range.
Q. How big of an easement is required?
A. Generally, a temporary construction easement of 100 feet is required by
the pipeline contractor. There will be some areas where this 100-foot
construction width will need to be increased to allow for horizontal
directional drilling, horizontal boring, or areas where side slopes require
more width to safely install the pipeline. Once the pipeline installation is
complete and operational the temporary construction easement, except for a
permanent easement of 50 feet, is no longer needed and can go back into
whatever use the landowner chooses. A permanent easement of 50 feet is
required for the life of the pipeline and it will be monitored and
maintained by Oregon Pipeline. Trees greater than 15 feet in height and
temporary or permanent structures cannot be within the permanent easement.
Some uses of the area within the permanent easement can occur as described
in the next question.
Q. What farming activities are allowed on the easement during pipeline
operation?
A. Farming involving cultivated crops (for example, corn, grass seed) can
resume after the pipeline becomes operational or when construction is
complete in that area. Deep-rooted crops such as filbert orchards, Christmas
trees, and crops that require wooden supports (such as cane berries, hops
and grapes) are not permitted within 15 feet of the pipeline centerline. The
reason for this is that the easement must be easily viewed from the air and
ground by maintenance personnel.
The easement must remain clear of any types of structures or vegetation
(such as large trees) that would prevent Oregon Pipeline from monitoring and
maintaining the pipeline. Should maintenance be required in an area where
crops or supports are in the way, those areas will need to be cleared to
allow maintenance to occur.
---------------------------------
That sounds a lot less intrusive and fare more efficient and "green" than a
highway or railroad. The above should have answered some of Mr. Truax's
questions. As for his question, "do you know how dangerous this fuel is?"
the answer is yes. It's one of the safest fuels we have. That's why we use
it in so many of our homes. Mr. Truax is far more likely to be injured or
killed going to City Hall any one day than he is living next to this
pipeline for a lifetime.
Ron D'Eau Claire
-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
Behalf Of Ed Davie
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 3:55 PM
To: Forest Grove local interests list
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Gas Lines are not fun
Anyone know how much the landowners are reimbursed
for the land taken?
Ed
----- Original Message -----
From: Martha Khoury
To: 'Forest Grove local interests list'
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 3:41 PM
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Gas Lines are not fun
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
_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
More information about the GroveNet
mailing list