[Grovenet] LNG

Thu Jan 31 12:35:07 PST 2008

Linda, you said "check it out" so I did. And the sources you refer to, such
as the US Coast Guard, contradict what you wrote.

1) The facility at Bradwood 38 miles up the Columbia is only one of three
planned. Another is in Warrenton, which avoids sending tankers up the
Columbia at all. (I believe that's the facility that would feed the pipeline
going by Forest Grove). The third is in Coos Bay.

2) The article below specifically does NOT suggest that the Coast Guard
would shut down Columbia river for shipping for LNG tankers, not even the
cruise ships. There is an exclusion zone enforced to avoid injury in the
event of a leak that is ignited and burns. That's true of LNG tanks on land,
such as the one in Portland and the one down the road a bit from me in
Newport. 

Coast Guard approves Columbia River for LNG site
 http://www.theworldlink.com/articles/2007/03/03/news/news08030307.txt

In their own official documents, the Coast Guard does not require any
special limitations on LNG tankers that don't apply to ALL fuel tankers:
safety zones through which passing ships are carefully monitored, standby
tugboats to ensure the ship can be handled safely in the event of an
equipment failure, etc. These considerations are exactly how an endless
stream of tankers carrying both crude and refined petroleum products move
into and out of the San Francisco Bay and many other US ports every day. 

You can see the details in the links provided here: 

http://www.oregon.gov/ENERGY/SITING/LNGTerminals.shtml#Public_Safety

As I pointed out before, those facilities do not impact real estate
desirability or values. Indeed, the LNG in Newport is quite close to brand
new million dollar homes!

Unlike the old fashioned gas tanks we used to see - the ones that slowly
rose and collapsed with the gas pressure inside that used to occupy a part
of any city skyline - LNG tanks do not leak or smell. LNG tanks are used
because the overall process is more economical and safer, according to the
companies who have them. These are private companies who are striving to
make a profit. I find it hard to believe they'd spend those profits on a
technology that didn't work. 

There's a wealth of other factual information here:  

http://www.oregonlng.com/projectstatus.htm

I completely agree that we need to reduce if not eliminate our large scale
use of fossil fuels, and the way to do that is to develop alternatives. It
takes time to bring those technologies up to the level needed. I also agree
that our dependence upon the middle east for oil is a terrible situation. We
vowed (with the French) to drastically curtail or end that dependency back
in the 1970's after the gas crisis crippled us all. 

The French have done so. We haven't. 

I believe it's essential for our long term survival as a nation, and perhaps
the survival of human kind, that we use the time we have left with fossil
fuels in developing and implementing those solutions. In the meantime, I
support ways maintain our fuel supplies at minimum cost while we work on
those options. 

Ron D'Eau Claire

-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
Behalf Of Linda Martin
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 11:04 AM
To: grovenet at rdrop.com
Subject: [Grovenet] LNG

First of all, the gas is only in a liquefied state in the terminals and
ships. One need only to Google "LNG + FERC" or "LNG + Oregon" or "LNG" in
Google News to find out first hand the dangers of natural gas in a liquefied
state. The energy and costs used in supercooling and transporting this
"natural gas" (it is no longer such in a liquefied state) exceeds any
savings that may have been gained. It is still a fossil fuel. There's no
getting around it. The terminals will employ approximately 15 to 20 each
high-tech jobs some of which are already scheduled to come from other
states--not Oregon. The new solar plant in Hillsboro is already employing
five to six times that number.  Initially, there may be some construction
jobs that include dynamiting and digging the approximately seven-foot trench
(this is on the parts that are level) required for the pipeline. They will
also be involved in drilling under the streams, and also dredging the
Columbia of its 800 million cubic feet of dirt that will allow the tankers
to enter the Columbia. These jobs will not exceed the loss of revenues for
the fishing industry the organic farms (our neighbor's farm will have to be
shut down; she employs five legal workers), from shipping that is limited
some 150 days out of the year because the Coast Guard almost always (this is
documented; check it out), shuts down all shipping lanes as it escorts these
tankers down the river. Columbia River pilots will have to be retrained to
handle these monster tankers. Howell's tree farm (amongst the hundreds of
others) will have two pipelines and a compressor station set on their
property (read the FERC documents; it's all  there). 
If one chooses to deny the results of having not-your-ordinary-8 inch-or
16-inch natural gas--but a 36" line--running along the landslide areas,
under streams, across the Coast Range, through septic systems and wells,
over the Gales Creek fault line, through the Forest Grove watershed, and on
and on and on, one need only read the testimony of those who have gone
before us and experienced what these private investors have done to their
lands that are found in the documents in the FERC's e-library--the ones that
were not classified before Dec. 7 when people started to protest, so they
were reclassified as CEII. This is not a conspiracy theory; this is fact.
Witnesses that testified at the FERC hearing were not making up what
happened when the pipeline exploded in 1993 and literally melted the rocks
on the bank of the River and one Coast Guard officer was killed; it also
shut down I-5. There are photos available. 
While you are checking out those photos, check out the 2007 pipeline attacks
in Mexico where the flames rose over 200 feet, and the ambient heat was so
intense, it melted skin from a distance of approximately one-half mile.
These aren't from some lawyer making a case; these are AP photos. When I
asked Peter Hansen where the natural gas is coming from, he told me and
several others flat out that most of it comes from the Middle East and some
from Russia. I'm a science writer--not a rocket scientist--but I don't
believe it takes one (I worked with many of them when I was employed at
NASA), to know that this imported natural gas STILL MAKES US DEPENDENT UPON
THE MIDDLE EAST to fuel vehicles, plants, furnaces, etc. I don't believe Mr.
D' Eau Claire wishes to investigate all this with an open mind as I began to
do early in 2007 by reading the FERC documents, the reports of opposition
that are world wide, the SEC documents of Leucadia and NorthernStar, and
even Broadwater, the U.S. government reports that list the costs of pipeline
breaks state-by-state, the FERC filings by the National Forest Service, the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Department, the Department of Interior, the coastal
protection agencies, and 99.9% of those polled by FERC and the LNG companies
that clearly state the dangers of LNG and the two pipelines in Oregon. All
those people who are protesting are not idiots; most have done their
homework (one tends to do a lot of homework when one's property is
threatened). All these agencies in making their assessments aren't idiots. 
As for those in our non-partisan group, we are not idiots; we are the people
who support and supply timber, fish, vegetables, fruits, wine, nursery
stock, grass seeds, hay for livestock, livestock--to name a few.
Collectively, we make up a lot of the economy of Oregon. We are doctors,
researchers, veterinarians, scientists, judges, loggers, teachers, school
principals, newspaper reporters, tree farmers, nursery owners, information
architects, artists, attorneys, farmers, retirees, writers, carpenters,
longshoremen, vintners, quality management consultants, meat packagers for
game, grocery providers, federal, state, and local government workers,
timber managers (help me out group; whom have I missed?). Our lands and our
livelihoods are threatened; we are not over-reacting. We have done our
homework. We invite those for whom it is easy to stand on the sidelines and
chastise us as uninformed to step up and ask that the terminals and
pipelines be situated near their properties.  In the end, when they do their
own homework, we would fight for their rights as well. If you aren't going
to be open minded, then admit that and don't waste our time by philosophical
arguments that aren't based on study. Thanks, LCM

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