By this time your readers have likely had a stack of NorthernStar's Bradwood Landing propaganda spilling out of their mail boxes. There is no doubt that the mailers are artistically done; that they present factual information about their "salmon mitigation plan" is another matter. These Texas energy speculators behind this LNG project are very good at public spin and they want our Columbia River. They don't want us to perceive at what cost, however.

There are two sides to every story. They call their side a "Salmon Enhancement Initiative," and they use the terms "preservation and protection." They are attempting to purchase the 170-acre Svensen Island for salmon habitat. If you only know their half of the story, then their restoration claims don't sound bad. The other half of the story, however, is that Columbia Land Trust was already negotiating to buy the island for conservation long before LNG developers suddenly moved in and pushed them aside with a higher bid.

NorthernStar's half of the story touts the fact that their project will "protect" 57 acres of habitat with a "conservation easement." The other half of the story is that it is currently illegal to build on most of this property anyway, so the value of a conservation easement is minimal.

It is interesting to note that this flurry of propaganda has occurred soon after NorthernStar had to publicly admit that its "project" could adversely affect salmon and other species of fish now present in the Columbia Estuary and the extended river. "Enhancement and preservation" are the buzz words used to replace "destruction of" and "replacement of" salmon that has already cost us millions of dollars to maintain and enhance to protect these species and our commercial and sport fishing industries.

And further, despite the significant water quality and added salmon habitat impacts that will result from the pipeline crossings over and under numerous rivers, streams and wetlands in Cowlitz County, NorthernStar's "mitigation plan" assumes that there will be no impact from most of these crossings. They choose to ignore just such water quality and residential water supply impacts in the Coos Bay, Ore., area from an LNG project there, due to the drilling muds used to bore pipelines under streams.

This project would put our Lower Columbia communities at a real risk of catastrophic accident or terrorist incident, damage our local and regional economy, decrease property values and result in the forced condemnation of hundreds of citizens' properties, all for the benefit of this private company's LNG import terminal and a 34-mile, high-pressure gas pipeline.

That would be bad enough, but since the whole point of this project is to send gas to California, our communities would experience all of the impacts with no projected benefit. Mike Smith resides in Longview.

By Tony Lystra

 

On a recent evening, Bill Castle opened a brochure mailed to his home from Northern Star Natural Gas, the Houston company that wants to build a liquid natural gas import terminal on the banks of the Columbia River.

He flipped through page after colorful page, each assuring the public that salmon stocks would be preserved if the terminal is built. Then, he said, as he turned to an artistically rendered map, he shook his head.

Absent was Puget Island, as well as a scattershot of sand bars and other land masses. From the illustration, Castle said, you'd think the large, fuel-hauling tankers headed for the terminal would have a wide-open path.

"It's not as simple as what that map shows," said Castle, who lives in Longview. "They do not reflect the dangers of the sandbars and islands in the river that these ships have to negotiate."

Northern Star executives, who want to build the terminal in Bradwood Landing, Ore., and run a pipeline through Cowlitz County, said this month that they never intended to mislead anyone.

But the question of the brochure and map, which has been discussed at public meetings and in e-mails circulated among activists, is a sure sign of just how distrustful opponents are of the company. It is also an indication of how closely they are paying attention to its message.

"It's certainly got some people ... rattled pretty good," said Kent Martin of Skamokawa, who has commercially fished salmon on the Columbia for more than four decades. There's all these soothing noises -- 'We're really part of the community; you're a neighbor' -- and then they send a map that doesn't have Puget Island on it." Joe Desmond, Northern Star's senior vice president of external affairs, said the map is based on a Lewis-and-Clark-era chart. It "was not designed as an engineering document," Desmond said.

Rather, he said, it was intended to "illustrate and evoke the importance of salmon to the Pacific Northwest and the community."

Still, opponents, who fear the terminal will cause damage to the environment and pose safety risks to the public, say the company played a sly trick when it illustrated a shipping channel far different from the current-day river.

"This is really smoke and mirrors," said Vonda Brock, another opponent, who lives in Longview. She called the map "an acutely excellent psychological manipulation."

A letter, circulated by Astoria dentist and Northern Star opponent Tom Duncan, said the map is "clearly meant to confuse" and is an example of the company's "unadulterated, shameless mendacity."

"Artistic license is one thing, but that assumes an innocent artistic purpose," Duncan wrote. "In this case, the purpose is simply deception, not art."

Many people responded online to the article announcing NorthernStar's desire to support the Wahkiakum Community Foundation. Some of the responses expressed concern and others support.

Some of the authors seemed unwilling to accept we no longer live in a world where we can accept past safety records, or are willing to place safety and the economy on the back burner for temporary construction jobs and the promise of donations that won't cover what it will cost the community to respond to an emergency. Therefore, I hope to shed some light.

I have spent over a year reading every report and article I can find in support of and against siting LNG facilities in an area such as the Columbia River. When I speak to people about the proposal, I encourage them to research both sides in order to make an informed decision. And, I worked at the booth with the "doctored" picture at the Cowlitz County Fair.

I am not an "enviro," but would probably be considered a "NIMBY" because the pipeline will destroy the dream my husband and I have scrimped and saved for 16 years to achieve. I'm sure many of you feel sorry for those who may have their land condemned, but what if it happened to you, like it might to us?
We also never dreamed the federal building in Oklahoma would be bombed killing dozens, but it was. We never dreamed commercial jet liners would be flown into the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon killing tens of hundreds, but they were. We never envisioned a small boat loaded with explosives would disregard exclusion zones and blow a hole in the side of the double-hulled USS Cole, killing several sailors, but it happened. And that didn't happen just to the USS Cole, but also to the French tanker Limburg at Ash Shirh, Yemen.

Why, then, is it wrong to consider the possibilities of what could happen if 200,000 cubic meter liquefied natural gas tankers that are three to four football fields long travel 38 miles up the Columbia River three times each week in a channel that is 600 feet wide? Why is it wrong to read and publicize the Coast Guard's letter with questions and demands for answers from NorthernStar regarding the safety of the citizens, the economy of the ports, the "up to 7-hour delays" of all ships in transit on the river and the very fact that no safety studies have been conducted for the proposed 200,000 cubic meter ships?

Is it wrong, deceitful or "hype" to believe 300 temporary jobs are worth the potential loss of our recreational and commercial fishing industry (over $100 million per year)? Or the potential loss of jobs at the ports of Kalama, Vancouver, Portland and Longview because shipping companies will become impatient with the delays on the river and take their business elsewhere? Who will pay the costs for security? Who will compensate businesses for lost revenue due to decreased tourist trade along the river? What about the success of other businesses that rely on the affected workers?

What are supporters going to say when a tanker sits sideways in the river totally shutting it down or the Williams pipeline ruptures again and the resulting disaster impacts all of us? What's all of this worth -- $100,000 per year, $500,000 per year? How do you determine the cost? What is Southwest Washington worth? Is it truly worth 40 to 60 permanent jobs, which are highly specialized and will mainly go to people from out of the area?

Before calling me an "enviro," "environmental extremist," "liar" or "Chicken Little," remember, I've supported this community for over 30 years and don't intend to let it down.

Marjie Castle lives in Longview.

 

It also examines the characteristics of the area and its available resources and space to provide those zones, and the overall "footprint" of the liquefied gas operation.

Northern Star plans to build a terminal on the Columbia River at Bradwood Landing, and then ship the super-chilled natural gas to Bradwood, where the company hopes to build a $580 million import facility.

Scheirman said the required risk assessment is "aimed at identifying vulnerabilities so the Coast Guard and other state and local agencies can take the appropriate precautions to minimize any risks." Northern Star is one of four companies seeking to build LNG terminals on the river, with two proposed in Warrenton, one at Port Westward and another in Coos Bay.

All have sparked local opposition, but Northern Star's recent request to keep the records secret has raised new concerns about transparency and the public's rights.

The Houston-based company requested that the Coast Guard keep the risk assessment secret as "confidential commercial, financial and proprietary business information exempt from Freedom of Information Act disclosure."

But Coast Guard officials are withholding the document because they say its release could compromise national security.

Instead, the agency will incorporate parts of the assessment -- if it is accepted -- into the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's draft environmental impact statement, which Scheirman said would be available in about four months.

The commission is expected to decide whether to approve the Bradwood facility within about 10 months.

But some local residents say that's too long to wait.

"As citizens of Oregon and Washington, we are the ones who will be directly impacted," said Cheryl Johnson, a local school librarian and an LNG opponent.

"We have a right to know what their plans are ... how they are going to ensure our security and what kind of impact it will have," Johnson said. "If we can't read it, then we can't question it and we can't criticize it."

In October 2005, she asked to see portions of the preliminary assessment not related to national security as they were submitted to the Coast Guard. Gary Coppedge, Northern Star's vice president for development, told her she'd have to wait for the final document.

Copyright 2006 Associated Press.

 

In an 11th-hour maneuver, the Cowlitz County Board of Commissioners on Wednesday decided to pitch itself into the fight over a proposed liquid natural gas terminal in Oregon and a pipeline that would run through Cowlitz County.

After an impassioned public hearing, the commissioners voted 2-1 to formally intervene on behalf of the county as federal officials review Northern Star Natural Gas' application to build the facilities.

The firm wants to place a terminal in Bradwood, Ore., where it would unload liquified natural gas from tankers on the Columbia River. The company also hopes to install a pipeline that would cross private property in the Mill Creek area of Cowlitz County and connect with existing pipelines near Ostrander.

For more than an hour Wednesday, nearly 30 opponents of the project stepped to a podium and told horror stories of exploding pipelines and unfathomable blast radiuses. They said the terminal, pipeline and gas-laden ships inbound from the Pacific Rim might prove an alluring target for terrorists, creating security hassles that could clog the Columbia shipping channel. Some also said installing the pipeline on private property amounts to a federal abuse of eminent domain law.
Bill Castle, whose Mill Creek property would be used to drill the pipeline under the Columbia River, said some of his neighbors are so opposed to the project, "they are willing to shed blood for this."

"It's being crammed down our throats," he said. "It's a very personal issue for us."

Gary Coppedge, a vice president at Northern Star, dismissed the complaints Wednesday as "absolutely untrue." "The opponents of the project feel that's the best way to stir people up," he said in a telephone interview.

County officials said they learned last week that they have until 2 p.m. today to officially involve themselves with the project. The notice sent Ron Marshall, the county's legal counsel, scrambling. And on Wednesday he presented what he acknowledged was a cursory report on federal and state laws governing Northern Star's application.

In deciding to become a so-called "intervener" in the process, the county can file briefs and participate in hearings before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which has the final say in the proposal. The county will also have legal standing in a court of appeals should it choose to challenge the commission's decision on the matter.

County officials stressed that, in formally involving themselves in the process, they were not necessarily taking a stand for or against the project. Rather, Commissioner Jeff Rasmussen said the move involves the county as tightly as possible and is important to safeguarding the county's residents and its commerce. Commissioner Kathleen Johnson also supported the intervention.

Commissioner George Raiter voted against intervening. He said he too worries about safety and business interests, but questioned whether the official status would be too much of a burden and whether it would pay off.

"That will stretch our resources," he said.

The official involvement in the federal process means county officials will have to sort through a mountain of documents as briefs and reports pour in.

Already, the county faces having to oversee environmental studies involving the pipeline after the Washington state Department of Ecology bowed out of the project. In addition, the county will probably have to consider a number of permits before the pipeline is installed.

Marshall told the board Wednesday that county officials don't have the staffing or the expertise to handle the project.

County officials, he said, plan to hire consultants to handle the environmental reports, then send the bill to Northern Star.

Think of the fishing, boating, and sight seeing. The beauty we have now is great we don't need this to look at.

 

  I am a property owner living on the projected location for the LNG pipeline. The impact this is going to make on our life and livelihood is immense. Travel and recreation on the Columbia River will change drastically.

   Living so close to a potential disaster is always on our minds. If terrorism or an accident occurs, our home and our business will be wiped off the earth. The LNG project has to be stopped.

Judy Nelson

Longview

 

As a resident of Longview and a citizen who values the Columbia River, I am amazed at the slick ad campaign that NorthernStar is mailing out.

   Has anyone counted the times NorthernStar, a.k.a. Bradwood Landing LNG, uses the words "restore," "rehabilitate," "recover," "reshape" and "rebuild?" Restore is to put back in its original state. Rehabilitate is to restore to a condition of health and usefulness. Recover is to bring back to a normal condition. Reshape is to give a new form to. Rebuild is to make extensive repairs or changes to.

   If NorthernStar needs to use these words to reassure us that their LNG project is only for the good of the area, then it sounds like the destruction of, repositioning of, removal of, the taking of, and the control of our Columbia River and our property are not for anyone's benefit except NorthernStar's.

Robert Davis

Longview

 

 

I've really tried to be good this year, so I hope you can bring me just one gift. What I would really like this year is the peacefulness that comes with the truth.

   We have been lied to about everything from elections to war. How many hundreds of thousands of people have given their lives because we were lied to? Here at home, we are being lied to by an energy company, Northernstar, which would like us to believe the propaganda they have been peddling in the mail and newspaper ads. I have to admit, the artwork is very nice. So why no accreditation to the artist? Maybe he didn't want his name on this stuff. I think they all deserve coal in their stockings, but that's your call.

   Please give everyone who would be affected by "Bradwood Landing" the courage to stand up to these snake-oil salesmen. If we all work together, like your reindeer, we can win this battle.

   Please help me keep on believing.

Gayle Kiser

Kelso

 Bribery is defined as "money or favor bestowed on a person" to pervert his judgment. That's exactly what NorthernStar is attempting to do with their slick advertising and their promises to aid salmon habitat. The real story from this consortium is that it misleads the public with promises it is unlikely to keep and, if kept, can't even begin to compensate for the damage done to the Columbia River, to salmon, the wetlands nearby and a way of life in this magnificent part of the world.

   You've seen the ads. They're designed to make the so-called "Bradwood Landing" look like a nice, new condominium development.

   What you really get is a huge increase in Columbia River traffic from ships that will need Coast Guard escort because they are potential terrorist targets.

   What you really get is pipelines under the Columbia and through private property and near residential areas filled with odorless gas. What you really get is a few jobs (maybe) in trade for a fundamental change in way of life for all the lower Columbia region.

   Contact the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Ask Gov. Chris Gregoire to come down solidly against this issue. Write to members of Congress. Let's continue to say no to LNG on the Columbia River.

Howard Meharg

Longview

 

 Myself and thousands of others have been receiving beautiful art work in the mail; watercolor on pen and ink. Why I thought I was on the mailing list of one those expensive art galleries in Seattle or Portland.

   Then I began reading and the words such as "guiding principle" "community," "legacy," "harmony," "enhance" and "nurture"made me think a dear friend had signed me up for a gift subscription to one of those inspirational magazines. But the silver lining started fading quick and a chill settled in my bones as I realized the flammable truth: NorthernStar Natural Gas was the sender. Sorry, I forgot they go by, Bradwood Landing now, sounds better.

   I can understand the practicality of becoming Bradwood Landing. You see, it's supposed to make us feel as if "they" are "we" and that they are already here so we might as well just hope for the best and get used to it.

   Right now they're fishing and they're hoping their finely painted hook will reel them in some suckers, and I ain't talkin about the fish, though that's all "they" can talk about, salmon.

   There is good work underway on the Columbia River to restore the salmon runs and the future will bring more. We don't need a Fairy Godfather, thank you very much.

   Learn the truth about LNG plants. On the Internet I found that a LNG tankers' explosive energy is equivalent to about 55 Hiroshima bombs and that LNG plants are on the top of terrorists' shopping lists.

Caroline Wood Longview

 

 If you have noticed the "media blitz" NorthernStar Corp. is using to buy public acceptance for a liquid natural gas (LNG) facility at Bradwood Landing in Oregon, don't be fooled by corporate manipulation. In all these mailings that they refer to themselves as Bradwood Landing, the corporation is really NorthernStar Corp.

   The amount of money NorthernStar is offering for salmon restoration ($40 million) and community gifts is only a drop in the bucket to the damage they will do to our quality of life, environment, fishing and recreation, along with loss of fishing, shipping, and dock jobs. Large corporations don't pay for these "olive branch" hand-outs, the public does. It comes in the form of higher gas prices, quality of life, jobs, higher taxes and confiscation of private property.

   Corporations are in the business of making money. Any dollars spent on public relations mailings, advertisements and gifts are costs of doing business and paid for by charging higher prices or spending less money on safeguards.

   We should be aware "there is no free lunch" with corporations trying to buy their way into our community with an unsafe and dangerous business venture.

Richard J. Peters

Longview

 

Recently, I have received in the mail and seen in the media a lot of PR about salmon recovery. My response is "that's nice."

   I would rather see and hear about safety precautions and procedures relating to the facility. Or how about a fund that guarantees to directly purchase or make up any shortfall to landowners who cannot sell because of the LNG facility, and to do so at fair market value prior to the LNG facility being built.

   Helping salmon and the environment is good. Helping families impacted by the LNG facility is vital.

Ben Elkinton

Cathlamet

 

Questions were raised in the article concerning the Williams pipeline falling into the Toutle River. The Williams spokeswoman is quoted as saying that natural gas is not explosive on its own; a spark is needed to cause an explosion. No kidding. Hence, the 300-foot exclusion zone.

   Does anyone question the decision-making process that allowed the pipeline to be installed in an area where erosion would expose it to the river? The pipeline that would carry gas from the proposed NorthernStar LNG plant at Bradwood, Ore., to the Williams gas line will traverse even more dangerous territory. At the Cowlitz River crossing there is a liquefaction zone in excess of 100 feet deep. The pipeline would be essentially "floating" in unstable soil. This site is also affected by flooding and changing river channels.

   There are 7,200 people living in Lexington, all within a short distance of the proposed pipeline. We must demand better protection from the prospect of a pipeline disaster. Join us at a public meeting on Dec. 7 at 6:30 p.m. at the Cowlitz PUD building for information on how to fight this project.

Gayle Kiser

Kelso

 

I recently received a color brochure from NorthernStar touting a $40 million plan for a Salmon Enhancement Initiative. This is the latest offer of bribery from NorthernStar to placate the local community for the development of a liquid natural gas terminal at Bradwood Landing.

   What they don't talk about is the dredging of 55 acres of estuary used as prime salmon habitat. There is also nothing in the brochure about ship disruption, tanker ballast issues, odorless gas, the illegal use of eminent domain or potential terrorist attacks.

   NorthernStar wants to develop and endanger a pristine portion of the Lower Columbia River and thinks it is justifiable by throwing us a few bones (i.e., salmon). Don't be fooled by these Third World tactics. LNG is not a good option for Oregon or Washington.

Gary Marzolino

Cathlamet

  Joe Desmond, the senior vice president of NorthernStar Natural Gas, has not convinced me that his company did not intentionally try to mislead the Lower Columbia community about plans for Puget Island and the Columbia River.

   The mailings were "smoke," and you know what smoke brings. Help stop the LNG pipeline.

Todd Bratton

Longview

How would the LNG tankers affect river traffic on the Columbia? We don't know, as the response by the Coast Guard to NorthernStar's proposal at Bradwood is classified for national security reasons. All we can do is look at what is required when LNG tankers enter rivers and ports elsewhere in the United States.

   After 9/11, extensive safety "exclusion zones" have been required around all LNG tankers traveling to all four facilities in our country. The "exclusion zones" are different for all four sites and shipping channels. The smallest exclusion zone applied is 1,500 feet. This would effectively shut down the Columbia River to river traffic whenever an LNG tanker came into port.

   There are more questions than answers. What would the captain of the port require of our existing or future commercial transport vessels? Would companies hesitate to do business at our ports knowing they may be delayed? How about our commercial fishermen, or for that matter, private fishing vessels? What would happen at the mouth of the Columbia during the fall salmon fishing?

   Are we really willing to give up our security and way of life on the Columbia? I'm not.

Robert Kiser

Kelso

 

 

John Wilson's Dec. 17 letter about salmon is indicative of an ignorance associated with much that is important to the Lower Columbia basin. Is he referring to our governor, the Pacific Coast Federation of Fisherman's Association or the Departments of Fish and Wildlife in Washington and Oregon, when he names "small, loud-mouth groups" who are concerned about Columbia River salmon?

   Gov. Chris Gregoire has stated, "Salmon are icons of our Northwest culture. If salmon are not doing well, neither are we." In a report to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Glen Spain, a spokesperson for PCFFA ,stated, "Our members provide this country with one of its most important and high-quality resources as well as major exports. Our efforts provide tens of thousands of jobs in coastal communities supported by the bounty of the sea."

   He also warns, "Wild salmon runs in the Columbia Basin are now less than 2 percent of their historical run size." As to dredging, that has been going on since 2005 at River Mile 3 and will end in approximately 2008 at River Mile 106.5. The Port of Longview has already benefited due to anticipation of a deepened channel.

   Dredging 45 to 50 acres outside of the navigation channel in rich smelt habitat for an LNG tanker turn-around is another matter.

Vonda Kay Brock

Longview