[Grovenet] Gas Lines are not fun

[Ron D'Eau Claire]

I've been sifting thorough some of the stuff Mr. Zaleski linked in his post
on this subject and would like to recommend a link that was embedded within
the links he sent me for the review of anyone interested in this issue.

The link below will take you to a video of a typical TV "news story" based
on Mr. Riley's objections about the "dangers" to Los Angeles, particularly
LAX, of an LNG terminal there. Note that the terminal would be 27 miles off
shore, and that, if terrorists did manage to blow it up, it would create a
floating area of burning gas perhaps 20 miles around. Still, that did not
prevent the report of suggesting that such a fire would wipe out that part
of Los Angeles.

Secondly, the concern is of terrorists managing to hijack an LNG tanker and
running it aground, then making the gas release in a way that would fill up
areas of Los Angeles and burn. 

We should be concerned with terrorist attacks. I have no illusion that we
are any safer now that on the morning of 9/11. Partly because we simply
haven't given it that much priority and partly because the very basis of a
free society such as ours leaves open the door to such attacks. 

Still, if you remember your high school science class, you'll know that a
tanker full of LNG cannot blow up. An explosion takes three things: fuel,
air and confinement. LNG can create an explosion if it's confined, mixed in
the right proportion with air, then ignited. That's why current regulations
go to great lengths to ensure that the LNG is not allowed near areas where
it can be confined, such as in a building. That's why when natural gas is
allowed to build up within a building an explosion often occurs.

When the LNG is full of gas, no explosion is possible. There's no air in the
tanks to allow the LNG to burn, just as there's no air in a gas pipeline to
allow the gas to burn. That's why your house doesn't blow up every time your
furnace or stove lights. 

What LNG will do that's different from natural gas in gaseous state is
"pool" briefly, just like Propane. LNG is very cold, so if a tank is
ruptured it'll flow out but, being so cold, it'll form a cloud on the ground
briefly until it warms enough to float away and disperse. In that time the
danger of fire, not explosion, is very great. That's why the promoters
agreed to put the LNG terminal well offshore of LAX. Such a fire would,
indeed, burn until the gas is consumed. It would release a large amount of
heat that could set things around it on fire. Note that it would NOT
explode, but would burn, perhaps very fiercely. 

That's another reason why the proposed pipeline will NOT carry LNG, but
instead ordinary natural gas just like the stuff that flows into your stove
or furnace. 

With those points in mind, and remembering this is a typical "news" program
intended to excite and concern viewers to they'll be there to watch the ads,
I suggest this video to anyone wanting to see all sides of the issue:

http://video.knbc.com/player/?id=189010

The horrific pictures featured on Mr. Riley's web site are from the disaster
at the very FIRST LNG facility in the USA in 1941: 56 years ago! Safety
rules and developments in technology have completely reshaped the situation,
as evidenced by the fact that there have been NO further problems. 131
people died in that inferno. That's terrible. That's also about how many
people have died on our nations highways since you started reading this
note. Shouldn't we ban automobiles? After all, another 100 people will die
in the next few minutes in automobile crashes, but not in gas fires. 

Other comments on Mr. Riley's site say things like: "Huge explosive LNG
natural gas pipelines, projected to carry billions of cubic feet of  gas
through our residential communities ..." which anyone who got a High School
diploma worth the paper it was written on knows is nonsense. Gas pipelines
cannot explode. There's no explosive mixture of anything inside. Just
natural gas. The gas will burn if the line is ruptured and the gas is
allowed to escape and then it is ignited in just the right way. The burn
area is a place quite close to the leak where the mixture is exactly right.
It can be spectacular, like a gigantic gas fireplace. That's why the large
pipelines such as the proposed line run through easements purchased with the
stipulation that no buildings be placed on top of it! 

I can't really figure out VP Al Gore's relationship to all of this. It seems
they used his picture because he is opposed to continued reliance on fossil
fuels. I agree! But we don't have alternative that can fully replace fossil
fuels that can support current demands, nor does Mr. Riley offer one. So,
using my original definition, that makes him a "nay-sayer" - someone who
screams NO, NO, NO! with no alternative plan to fulfill our needs.  

There are those who say we should live in earthen hovels and dig for grubs
until we get those alternatives. I don't agree. I believe we need to pursue
renewable energy with all the vigor our technology allows, and that process
demands energy NOW. LNG is one such source. It's not my favorite (that's
Nuclear) but it's a proven, safe means of keeping our society working as we
pursue those alternatives that uses what's already around us: natural gas in
pipelines. Like oil, the day will come when we have no significant natural
gas resources. We must find alternatives before then or we're in very
serious trouble: we will likely loose much of our technology and find
ourselves in a new "dark ages". 

So, in the short term, I can find no credible arguments for not using LNG to
hold down America's energy costs. 

In that respect I fully agree with VP Gore. Of course, the way his photo was
used seems to imply he has something against LNG as a danger, but I can't
find anything that says so, nor would I. LNG is NOT a danger. 

OREGON FIRST is nowhere near as misleading or manipulative as Mr. Riley's
site. I congratulate Oregon First on that. I do not agree with their
conclusions that we should not care about or support the needs of the USA or
that providing industry and jobs for Oregon is not important. 

For your own look at their position, go to http://www.oregonfirst.net/
And scroll down to "Why Are We Concerned About This?" 


Ron D'Eau Claire 





-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
Behalf Of Ron D'Eau Claire
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 5:08 PM
To: 'Forest Grove local interests list'
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Gas Lines are not fun


I think it's pretty clear that I was speaking of the naysayers that were
quoted in the earlier posts. 

If you want to be considered one of them, that's entirely your choice.
You've made a good start ignoring the wealth of safety data I provided.

Natural gas has been used throughout the USA for many, many years with an
excellent safety record. If you want to believe some gigantic conspiracy has
hidden real dangers from us all, you're free to do so.

As for OregonFirst and Mr Riley, I have no interest in their loose,
unfounded innuendo that there's some sinister plan at work under the table
that fails to support the needs of Oregonians or that there's an imminent
danger to people from gas lines. The facts do not support that claim. 

If there's a conspiracy to mislead the people of Oregon, it's coming from
the heads of those organizations, not "big business". 

Just look at the photos on Mr Riley's site! Only someone with the mentality
of a two-year-old would believe them or the message implicit in their use. 

Ron D'Eau Claire 



-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
Behalf Of Jim Zaleski
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 4:25 PM
To: Forest Grove local interests list
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Gas Lines are not fun


Ron,

=================================================

On Jan. 29th, you said with regard to those who oppose the production and
distribution of foreign LNG in Oregon,

"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.

=================================================

As a member of a group of local citizens fighting the proposed LNG projects
in Oregon, and as one of an large number of learned, intelligent and
responsible people who have studied the pros and cons of these projects in
great detail, I'm offended by your misguided reference that LNG nay-sayers
are "idiots".

By reputation, you are an intelligent and articulate man capable of
expressing yourself eloquently on any topic you choose, and for the most
part, your dissertations to this list are reasonably sound, sometimes
amusing, and usually noteworthy. In this case however, your clever ruse to
use your command of the language to make yourself sound like an expert (when
you are not) has failed. In a matter of days, you've transformed yourself
from someone who knew little about LNG, into an opinionated authority on the
subject. A pretty far reach by any stretch of the imagination. You suddenly
profess to know enough about the matter that you can call the nay-sayers
"idiots," and do so with an intellectual snobbishness that's more telling of
your personality than your intellect. In my opinion, you've done an
injustice to those of us who know the issues and passionately oppose these
projects on sound, intellectual grounds.

First of all, you have no idea who the nay-sayers are, let alone the issues
we are facing. So how do you justify jumping to such an opinionated
conclusion when you've only heard one side of the story? As they say, there
are always two sides to a story. Did you forget that? I believe you must
have, since you seem to have taken sides with a disquieting recklessness,
and now feel justified espousing the information gleaned from the biased,
corporate sites you listed, as if it were gospel. I find it irresponsible to
base your arguments (in part) on information gathered from sources most
likely to earn billions in profit from these ventures. Do you really think
they'd say anything bad about LNG? Since when did you start believing in
corporate honesty (especially in the cut-throat oil industry)? Hardly a
credible source don't you think? If you believe them, then you must also
believe there is truth in politics.

FYI: the naysayers you call "idiots" are your fellow Oregonians who come
from all walks of life, all levels of education, and who contribute a
staggering range of expertise to this cause in fields covering every aspect
of life and technology in our beautiful State. Certainly they collectively
represent a more learned opinion than you give them credit for. Among the
"Idiots" you've labeled are Energy Professionals, Environmentalists,
Engineers of every discipline (including a former pipeline engineer),
Geologists, Biologists, Doctors, Lawyers, Farmers, Wildlife Experts,
University Professors, Elected Officials, and thousands of well informed,
and compassionate landowners who have come to see these projects as they
really are, an environmental disaster waiting to happen.

I will respond to some of your individual comments in a later post, but
would like you to consider taking the time to look at the other side of this
issue before continuing to promote LNG without regard to the negative
environmental impact it will have on Oregon. I invite you to visit the
following sites and see for yourself that the issue is not cut and dry nor
favorable to Oregon. Much of what you've said is just regurgitated spin out
of the mouths of the corporate pariahs that have lain siege to Oregon (and
who care nothing about it's people and our way of life). When huge profits
lay in the balance, people come second. You ought to understand this simple
corporate principal. The planned exploitation of our lands for profit is
merely part of their corporate game plan, a game many of us will not allow
them to win.

http://www.oregonfirst.net (a local site), and
http://timrileylaw.com/LNG.htm (a site that puts the dangers of LNG into
perspective). There are many others of course, but this will perhaps
enlighten you to the fact that these projects are not as safe and beneficial
as they seem.

Thank you,
Jim Zaleski
Oregon Citizens Against the Pipelines


On Jan 29, 2008 3:14 PM, Ron D'Eau Claire <ron at cobi.biz> wrote:

> 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_
> Securi
>
ty.pdf<http://www.beg.utexas.edu/energyecon/lng/documents/CEE_LNG_Safety_and
_Security.pdf>
>
>
> http://www.energy.ca.gov/2005publications/CEC-600-2005-002/CEC-600-200
> 5-002.
> PDF
>
>
> http://www.energy.ca.gov/lng/documents/2004-05_FERC_CONSEQUENCES_ASSES
> SMENT.
>
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_ANALYSI
> S.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/f61
> 86bef2
>
dc356b0<http://groups.google.com/group/cascadeclimate/browse_thread/thread/f
6186bef2dc356b0>
> "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