|
Vonda's Corner
Landowners and Citizens for a Safe Community, and all of our associated
groups have done a stupendous job of using sling shots against a money giant this last year.
Members of every political affiliation have worked together diligently for
a common cause, “ NO LNG ANYWHERE IN THE LOWER COLUMBIA BASIN!” It is well known that the best defense is a good offense and we have certainly utilized that strategy with good results.
It is now time for all of us to utilize that tactic with our legislators. We need to remind them of their obligations to all
of the citizens of Washington State, not just the groups in the more heavily populated areas with the most influence or voting power.
We also need to accept
the fact that what ever our political inclination we have to look to those legislators
who are now in office to protect Washington Citizen’s best interests and to consider
the ramifications of their representation
on a long term basis.
Columbia River Salmon is one very important issue that needs the
full attention of our legislators from the Governor on down to county and city
officials. The recent flurry of propaganda from Northern Star in regard to the Lower Columbia Basin Salmon habitat should be a wake up call to all those in office. Propaganda is a strategists tool. It helped us win the Second World War and it sure
sells a lot of cereal. It can be a good thing , it can be a bad thing…Legislators know how to use propaganda too. I recall the recent TV opportunity utilized
by Congressman Brian Baird during mid term elections, in regard to shooting the sea lions and seals who are attacking the
salmon runs. There is more to salmon protection than that. Brian Baird agrees and has previously said in a joint statement issued by himself, Congressman Norm Dicks (D- WA) and Congressman Greg Walden (R-OR), and I quote, “ All of us in the
Pacific Northwest want to preserve wild salmon. Whether motivated by economic,
recreational, or conservational concerns. We all recognize Pacific Northwest
Salmon as a national treasure and appreciate that salmon are critical to our economy, environment, and culture.”
These three legislators further state- … “in recent
years 11 federal agencies spent
almost $ 1.5 billion of our tax dollars ANUALLY, to recover salmon and steelhead in the Columbia River Basin alone” they also state that BPA is currently spending
between $600 t0 $700 million each year - dollars that come from Northwest
electric ratepayers- to help fish and wild life, most of which goes towards salmon recovery.
There is much more in this report by this Northwest Congressional delegation but suffice it to say that Congressman
Brian Baird is fully aware of the tenuous condition of Columbia River Salmon
Habitat. As the people he represents we need to demand that he get off the fence
and take a position favoring the preservation and protection of the salmon and all the human elements connected to that. There is no doubt that any
LNG project slated for the Columbia River will further perpetrate, incapacitate, and
decimate any positive results from the monies already spent on this endeavor
and some $50,000.00 Northern Star pittance, doled out over a long period
of time will do not one thing to reverse the further destruction of this “critical” bounty.
Finally in a recent statement
Governor Chris Gregoire stated. “ I love my state. I love it’s
people. They deserve a government that responds to their priorities and their
values.” As I recall, not one of us who have written Governor Gregoire in regard to
Northern Star, Bradwood, LNG tankers etc, have gotten any response other than a
doublespeak form letter that does not indicate that she will respond to our priorities and values. Those values are primary!
The safety of our citizens, the protection of our environment and the continuing health and welfare of our economy.
Please click on the GETTING ENVOLVED link on this web site
to obtain the addresses of your legislators and write each and everyone of them a
letter that lets them know that
we expect them to put their money where their mouth is. Constituent input is imperative now or we will one day be fishing for
Pike minnow on the
Columbia and many of us will have high pressure natural gas pipelines running
through our property.
Vonda Kay Brock
Passed Newsletters
Landowners and
Citizens for a Safe Community Pipeline Newsletter
Much
has happened since the last newsletter, including a switch in responsibilities here at the Landowners and Citizens Board of
Directors. Marjie Castle stepped down as our president
and has been replaced by Gayle Kiser. Mike Smith was elected vice-president, and Sandra Davis continues as our secretary/treasurer.
Vonda Brock and Dick Peters were elected to the Board, bringing our number back to nine.
The deadline
for accepting comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement was Dec. 26, 2007. FERC is in the process of reviewing
the comments and deciding whether to issue the Final EIS. Several agencies and many individuals asked that FERC issue a new
DEIS, based on the many errors and lack of information in the original. Cowlitz
County was among the agencies; they filed a lengthy comment, including
many of our testimonies.
Controversy
continues in Clatsop County, Oregon.
Despite the recommendations of the professional staff, the Planning Commission voted to amend the Comprehensive Plan to allow
Bradwood to construct their facility in an area that had been zoned for “small-to-medium” industry. The final
decision from the County Commission
is expected to come on March 20, 2008. In the midst of this is the recall election of the former head of the County Commission, Richard Lee. Among the charges
in the recall petition is the fact that he loaded the Planning Commission with members who were known to be in favor of Bradwood
Landing. It remains to be seen if his recall will have any impact on decisions that have been made.
Closer
to home, we have been urging our Cowlitz County Commissioners to insist that Bradwood file for every applicable permit. There
has been no consideration given to the disruption to our public roads if this pipeline is constructed here. Who will be left
holding the bag for the cost of the repairs? What about water systems? If you can go to the FERC website, do a docket search
of gas projects across this nation. You will see what our fellow citizens are experiencing. There are some truly nightmare
scenarios out there, and we certainly should do everything we can to protect our communities from the problems being inflicted
on others.
Our coalition
has grown by leaps and bounds with the inclusion of the people identified as being affected by the Palomar and OR LNG pipelines
running through NW Oregon to Molalla and across the Cascades to Maupin. They have formed their own groups, all under the umbrella
of OCAP, Oregon Citizens Against Pipelines, and thanks to their pressure they have brought the Oregon Congressional delegation onto our side. Gov. Kulongoski has asked FERC to stop all
LNG processes until an independent needs assessment is done. It is very clear that the majority of this gas will be used in
California, and at least three new pipelines are being proposed to bring Rocky
Mt. natural gas to the California
market.
News from Clatsop County
Lots of happy news - very briefly:
We
turned in 1255 signatures today to the county election office
- more than double what was required. It was a lovely
thick
stack of petitions! thanks to all of you who signed and those
who collected signatures! Wheeeeee!
Court went well. DA Josh Marquis and CRK attorney Brett
VandenHeuvel, and Thane Thiensen(?), another attorney
argued the
case well. the DA writes the language for all referendums that
appear on the ballot. The poor
attorney from Stoel Reeves
representing NoStar was unbelievable snotty to Judge Matyas from
the getgo, repeated the
same arguements over and over, etc. The
ballot title, question, and descriptive language of the
referendum were
modified slightly by Judge Matyas in a reasoned
explanation. I like the new ballot language better - less
confusing
to voters, which was the judge's stated goal in her
decision. We'll send out the wording in the next day or so after
I
get the final copy from Brett.
Thanks to all referendum supporters! Let's keep huge gas
pipelines out
of parks, open space, and recreation lands! NoStar
is hugely behind schedule, spending tons of money on lawyers,
not
making the big bucks they've been counting on from Bradwood.
Best of all, they're really getting
annoyed with us!
All in all, a very nice day!
Remember, it takes a county to win a referendum!
Onward,
Laurie
|
For
Immediate Release
March 5, 2007 |
|
|
|
|
Congressman Baird Opposes LNG Terminal Project |
|
|
|
Washington, D.C. - After careful and thoughtful review of the Waterway Suitability Report (WSR)
for the Bradwood Landing Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) terminal project, released last week, Congressman Brian Baird (WA-03)
has come out in opposition to the plan. Below is his statement:
“After reviewing the WSR, I believe there is enough
compelling evidence to oppose the proposed LNG project. While there may be local benefits to the project, including
job creation and additional gas production, the overall negative impacts on the entire river system are too great for me to
support. There are three main areas of great concern to me: the safety and security measures that would
need to be implemented to make the Columbia River suitable for LNG and the associated negative impacts on existing river commerce; the
impact on the environment; and, the effect the project would have on private property owners.
“In order for the Columbia River
to suitably accommodate this project, a number of measures will need to be implemented to manage navigation, safety, and security
risks. Among these are: increased navigational aids, security boardings, and changes to emergency communications
systems. The report does not outline what the impact of these new security measures will be on the Coast Guard or local
law enforcement agencies, but, the burden for paying will fall on the likely fall on the local taxpayers.
"While we are still awaiting the results of the Environmental
Impact Study, I have a number of concerns about the project’s impact on the environment. Even if all of the safety
and security measures are taken, the impact on the environment and economy remains unknown. Both commercial and recreational
fishing industries could be adversely affected, the long-term impact of dredging and tunneling on endangered and threatened
fish species, including salmon, is unknown, and there could be significant ramifications if a leak or spill occurred.
“Finally, I am concerned about the project’s
impact on private property owners. I have repeatedly met with the people whose property would be affected by the terminal
or pipeline construction and I respect their position. For those living on Puget
Island, or who may have a gas line running through their property, ensuring
a safety and security must be the highest priority.
“The WSR did identify current security concerns and
resource gaps, but the costs economically, to the environment, to those living in the community, and to the river itself are
just too much to justify moving forward on this one project. After thoughtful consideration of all these issues, I oppose
the proposed Bradwood Landing LNG site.”
Congressman Baird recognizes the final decision remains
up to state agencies and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, however, at this time he feels it is important to state
his position publicly to best serve his constituents on this matter. Copies of the Congressman’s position statement
are being sent to FERC, the U.S. Coast
Guard, and other interested parties and officials. |
Letters to the Editor from the Past
Vonda Kay wrote on June 19, 2006 12:05 PM:"Not
releasing this risk assement report to the public for fear of "telling the terrorists where the dangerous areas are" is ludicrous!
Anyone with a camera,a car ,a rented plane, a boat, a computer, and half a brain can assess the vulnerablility of such sites
for themselves. In the meantime the information which might help us determine whether we ,the tax paying citizens of Washington,
and Oregon, want this project or not seems to be controlled by an "eyes only, or need to know" attitude by whom ever is most
likely to profit from this purposed project.I find that threatning!"
Christian Bock wrote on June 19, 2006 10:05 AM:"The Supertankers and the unloading dock with 2 or 3 hughe storage tanks are a risk to the population
in the area as well as a target for terrorists. The planned 36 inch diameter high pressure pipeline of 34 miles length seems
to be a much easier target for terrorists. It is well marked and goes thru areas offering easy access and plenty of cover.
I have no idea how much or how little explosive power it takes to punch a hole into it, but reading the world-wide reports
it seems to happen quite often with the results of fire that will last until the contents is burned up. Until it is repaired
no more ships can be unloaded, the terrorist reached their goal of creating chaos. Bottom line is that the Liquid Natural
Gas destined for California should not put us in jeopardy. Would it not be safer to unload it at the abandoned oil platforms
off the California Coast? Why do companies like Northern Star or Calpine put so much risk and hardship on us who do not benefit
from it. "
Pipeline will have impact
I
recently went to a meeting for property owners about the LNG pipeline going through our property. It was held by the
Columbia River Clean Energy Coalition, a group of people interested in helping the environment.
When
I was first approached about using my land
for this project, I thought if it is good for the community, I could live with the 30- to 36-inch pipe going through my property.
It could have a negative impact
on ship traffic up and down the river, commercial and sports fishing, salmon migration, tourism, property values and residential construction, and it could block the Astoria-Megler Bridge when LNG
tankers pass.
I
think it is everyone's decision on whether the pipe line
is allowed to go through our community, much
less the LNG plant being built in the first place. The way I understood it, this was something that California didn't want (but needed for energy). They protested and drove them out of the area. Washington
wouldn't have it, so give it to Oregon; they
will take it. Even though Oregon has it, this
will impact us just as much.
Mike
Smith Longview
LNG plan raises questions
Mike Smith's recent letter in regard to a purposed LNG terminal and pipeline at Bradwood, Ore., is timely. Why?
Because the impact of that project will surely affect the citizens of this area one way or another. Our local economy could
be threatened by the ingress of these massive tankers to the proposed port at mile 38 on the Columbia River. This portage
would, by law, stop the flow of all river and/or bridge traffic during entrance and/or docking, and downloading of LNG.
At
a January 2006 seminar, the American Association of Port Authorities was advised that LNG tankers require an exclusion zone
"typically two miles forward, one mile aft and 1,500 feet each side." This "exclusion zone" will require enforcement by Coast
Guard and first-responder agencies. Causal use of deadly force will be allowed.
How will such "blockade"
enforcement affect commercial, sport and private use of the Columbia? What are the potential hazards to landowners forced
to allow the pipeline through their properties? How many well-paying, long-term jobs will Bradwood generate in comparison
to existing job loss as a result of restricted port traffic?
These and many more legitimate inquiries
are not being satisfactorily addressed by pro LNG officials.
Vonda Kay Brock
Longview
LNG facilities pose a danger
It appears there is the general public, media, government and port officials apathetic toward the proposed Liquid
Natural Gas (LNG) facility at Bradwood Landing near Knappa, Ore., on the Columbia River. This is being built to import and
ship natural gas to California. Californians don't want these facilities in their state.
The residents
of Washington and Oregon should be up in arms about having these LNG terminals and pipelines in their backyard because:
n
These ships and ports are likely targets of terrorist attacks, due to their explosive potential reported to be that of "a
small nuclear explosion." (The Daily News, June 19)
n These huge LNG tankers can virtually shut down
river traffic, fishing and boating, while they are transporting to and unloading LNG at Bradwood Landing.
n
The 30- and 36-inch pipeline under the river and 33 miles across Cowlitz County can create a high-risk explosion blast zone
area reported to be 800 feet or more. This will reduce property values along this pipeline and in the proximity of the off-loading
and storage location.
n It has been reported the money for building this facility is being provided
from Middle East sources. Now, not only will they have control of our oil and gasoline, but also natural gas.
Richard
J. Peters Longview
Time to speak up
Thanks to Mike Smith and Vonda Kay Black, June 25, "LNG plan raises questions,"
for writing about the down side of LNG.
There is a point that is being ignored: the Canadian natural
gas fields are running low and may run out before this expensive and life-disrupting infrastructure could be put into place.
The LNG project is probably not going to give anyone more power, but what it is designed to do is make some speculators very
rich. If you are not one of those speculators, why allow this travesty happen?
If everyone who stands
to lose from this boondoggle (almost everyone in Southwest Washington and Northwest Oregon) would speak up, the LNG plan could
be defeated. Call Brian Baird at (202) 225-3536.
Iva Oshaunesy
Kelso
Pipeline would have big impact
I attended the meeting on the proposed liquid natural gas project
on the Columbia River and the pipeline crossing Cowlitz County. I'm against the project, basically, because of the impact
it will have on the Columbia River.
Where the pipeline crosses 17 miles of Cowlitz County, an area of
trees and other vegetation will be cleared, 200 feet wide and in some places more. This is a big impact on property owners
value and on their safety.
If the federal Energy Commission approves the permit for Northern Star Liquid
Natural Gas Company, I have suggestions for the commissioners, based on a previous experience with 16-inch pipeline laid by
KB Gas Company for PGE from Portland. As they crossed my property and others, I observed several things:
n
There was a total disregard for survey markers. One marker destroyed was a government survey done in the 1800s.
n
They crossed streams without laying down culverts.
n Buried debris, stumps, limbs and oil cans. Now black
ooze draining into the streams.
n Use of drugs by some of the workers.
My suggestion
for the commissioners is to get a copy of Pearl Wanamaker's book published in the 1950s, describing the county employees.
Bring it up to date and make sure that everyone is doing their job.
William G. Dragich
Longview
Issue is not just navigational
"For nearly 50 years now, all discussion of the
risk and probabilities in LNG transport have focused on how to account for human errors. The new reality is that we must now
consider malicious acts as well," Dr. Jerry Havens stated that in his letter printed in the 2003 issue of "Bulletin of the
Atomic Scientist."
Havens, a chemical engineering professor at the University of Arkansas and a leading
expert on the hazards regarding LNG storage and shipment, spent a years sabbatical serving as the advisor to the U.S. Coast
Guard Office of Marine Safety in Washington, D.C.
Capt. Phillip A. Massey, in his response of July 2,
to my earlier letter in regard to the "exclusion zones, and blockade" of our Columbia River during LNG tanker portage is correct
in that there is advanced technology utilized by the maritime industry these days to optimize the safe and secure passage
of our deep-draft vessels. The problem with his premise is that the issue is not simply navigational but, because of 9-11,
these huge LNG tankers are considered by the Department of Homeland Security as grave terrorist risks.
That
is why the LNG ports and terminals that now exist in the northeastern United States have greater degrees of port and starboard
exclusion zones than those I mentioned in my letter.
Vonda Kay Brock
Longview
In response to Capt. Massey's letter titled, "LNG concerns are premature," ship captains believe anything increasing
shipping is good, retired or not.
Ironically, liquefied natural gas (LNG) may reduce shipping. The
Coast Guard gunboat escort of the highly dangerous tanker has a wide and very long zone that may cause shippers to move due
to the significant delays. Clearly, the captain is unaware of the government-dictated time frame to have any impact regarding
LNG projects.
Gas pipeline negligence "accidents" kill people and are not so "infrequent." Unless
LNG promoters volunteer to pay for any and all damages to our well drinking water, health, property, businesses, jobs, environment
and recreation that the LNG pipeline, tanker and facilities cause, their opinions aren't worth reading nor listening to.
Do
we need this gas? Northwest demand hasn't been increasing significantly. California wants it without tanker and facility risk.
Why accept their risk? Are huge LNG tankers and off-loading tanks in a confined river valley, which could kill for miles,
wise? Should we welcome these Trojan horses of foreign energy that drain our economy, when American farmers could be producing
ethanol and biodiesel to increase our economy?
Vance Fraser
Clatskanie
Ports should be leery
Some people consider me a sensible person, but I guess if you are opposed to the industrial destruction of the Lower
Columbia then you are also considered an enviro or a NIMBY. Well, I have 37 years of involvement in the maritime industry,
both sailing and in consulting. The upriver ports should be leery of the proposed LNG project.
While
Northern Star has tried to down play the significance of the exclusion zones, the zones on the four existing terminals in
the U.S. show that LNG would impact upriver port operation. The smallest exclusion zone is 1,500 feet on either side of an
LNG tanker and two miles in front and one mile astern while in transit. With an 800-foot shipping channel, even if Northern
Star can convince the USCG to reduce below the existing criteria, vessel traffic will be affected.
Gary
Coppedge of Northern Star claims that LNG tankers will be delayed so as not to interfere with other vessels. Northern Star
will not own the tankers delivering LNG to them. Will the owner/operator of the tanker agree to the expense of waiting for
other vessel traffic? To dock at Bradwood, LNG tankers will require specific tide requirements. If you miss one tide, the
tanker will have to wait for the next high tide. That is an expensive wait.
George Exum
Cathlamet
Shipments pose a danger
The letter by Iva Oshaunesy correctly describes the consequences
of Liquid Natural Gas Terminals as a misguided plan without mentioning the remote but, nevertheless, existing grave danger
of these incredibly large concentrations of flammable material in the ships and in the storage tanks, as well as in the planned
pipeline going through our neighborhood where many landowners face condemnation of their property.
There
is one correction to Iva's letter: the gas will not come from Canada. At first, we were misled that it would come from Alaska.
That is untrue, because they are apparently still haggling over the permits for the 800-mile pipeline from the North Slope
to the Port of Valdez.
Bringing the LNG down from there is also impossible, due to the Jones Act of 1920,
which was created to protect American labor by allowing inter-American shipping only by U.S. flag ships, built in the U.S.,
with 75 percent American crews. However, none of the LNG ships are built in the U.S. So the gas would have to come from other
places, such as Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, Venezuela or the Middle East, most of them ruled by semi-dictatorships considered
by many as unfriendly to the United States.
Christian Bock
Longview
Reasons to oppose LNG plant
Northern
Star's plans for a LNG facility at Bradwood have few advantages for local residents. I oppose liquid natural gas for the following
reasons:
n These large tankers need a 1,500-foot "exclusion zone" for safety. This will affect shipping,
fishing and recreational traffic on the Columbia River. Northern Star requested the Coast Guard keep the risk assessment a
secret.
n The 33-mile, 3-foot pipeline will cross under the river and cross 200 property owners' land.
This is the second pipeline in our area, cutting up many properties and making them unusable.
n This
will make us more dependent on foreign oil.
n There is some danger of exploding pipelines.
n
Much of this gas will be sent down the Williams' pipeline to California.
n The land owners who do not
cooperate will have their land condemned.
n Who will benefit? Not Cowlitz County residents. California
will gain needed energy, and private enterprise will benefit financially.
Sandra Kramer
Longview
This is in response to Capt. Phillip Massey's July 2 letter titled, "Concerns are premature."
Premature?
I think not. We have a lot to consider here: the Department of Homeland Security has identified such Liquefied Natural Gas
tankers, facilities and pipelines as prime terrorist targets. In relation to that, whenever these large LNG tankers come into
port, they have an armed Coast Guard escort.
The security buffer zones that are now being observed at the four existing LNG facilities in the U.S.
are wider than the shipping channel in the Columbia River, meaning river traffic would be stopped and the river would be cleared
every time a tanker came in, which has been estimated at 125 times a year.
The Coast Guard is withholding
the Waterway Suitability Assessment report, citing national security. What would this do to tourism, boating, fishing and
shipping on the Columbia River? There are many more concerns to be considered.
For more information,
visit our Web site at http://safecommunity.us.
Premature? I think our concerns are not soon enough and 100 percent valid. The government only
allows a certain period of time to respond. After that, everyone loses.
Michael E. Smith
Longview
Sound bite was inappropriate
Don Jenkins' July 16 article titled, "Ports leery
of LNG project," was actually an important little part of the "LNG on the Columbia" issue. It is regrettable, however, that
he chose to insult the intelligence of local readers and the motivation of those seeking to educate local residents about
this critical issue. He just had to open with an inappropriate sound bite: "The enviros and NIMBYs doggedly fighting a Houston
company's plan ..."
As I stated in written testimony to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)
in October of last year, "This is not even a 'not in my backyard' issue, this is a 'not on any major shipping channel like
the Columbia' issue."
If Northern Star (the applicant for this proposed facility) gets its foot in the
door, other speculators will have a precedent for locating such hazardous facilities in Puget Sound, San Francisco Bay and
other major shipping ways where existing commercial and recreational interests, as well as the wildlife (enviros?), will have
to take a subservient role to LNG shipments.
Craig L. Brown
Longview
Assurance isn't convincing
In the July 16 article titled, "Ports leery of LNG project," Northern Star vice president Gary Coppedge is quoted as
saying, "We're not going to schedule traffic going upriver when other traffic is coming down."
I
urge all interested in this promise, especially ports and fishermen, to read the executive summary of the Vessel Maneuvering
Simulation Study dated Nov. 4, 2005, and submitted to FERC by Northern Star Feb. 16. As with much of the background information,
the public is not allowed to see the entire study; however, according to the summary it is recommended that ships arrive at
Bradwood near high slack water.
It's hard to imagine how two to three LNG tankers each week can arrive
at Bradwood at high slack water and still adhere to Coppedge's statements about scheduling.
I am
proud to be an enviro and a NIMBY of this proposal. It is a bad idea to plan an LNG terminal 36 miles up a river, 1/2 mile
from where people are living. The country may need some LNG terminals, but if so, they should be sited miles away from residences
with short, straightforward sea access.
Carol Carver
Puget Island
Generosity has strings
Aug 23, 2006
This letter is in reference to NorthernStar/Bradwood Landing's recent intended act of community generosity and the "huge
legacy this will leave."
Oh, give me a break! This generosity has strings attached.
Here
is my experience with NorthernStar and Vice President Gary Coppedge's supposed "Community Outreach." Last August, I was approached
by NorthernStar and asked permission to do a land study on my property for a proposed natural gas pipeline. When I expressed
my displeasure at their proposal, I was told that if approved, this pipeline would go in whether I wanted it or not.
Since
then, I have received various aerial photos of proposed pipeline routes through my property and brochures outlining eminent
domain procedures. I can also expect the decreased use of my land and decreased property value, not to mention the safety
issues involved. The complete arrogance of NorthernStar toward property owners and communities near the proposed terminal
and pipeline is outrageous.
I encourage everyone in our community to educate themselves to NorthernStar's
proposed LNG terminal and pipeline. Find out why other communities around the nation are fighting these projects. The safety
and environmental implications makes the Lower Columbia region a bad choice for this proposed project.
Gary Schauble
Longview
Take care in siting LNG plant
Aug 09, 2006
Energy is important to our growth as a nation. The location of the LNG transfer/storage facilities should be carefully
selected to provide security without impacting existing commercial activities.
Existing military
reservations would better serve this purpose. They are all over the country. They have a higher level of security and, if
there's a problem, they have the personnel.
We have trusted our gold reserves to Fort Knoxx for years.
Why not our high risk LNG plants?
Virgil Warden
Longview
Marjie Castle wrote on June 19, 2006 3:02 PM:"It is important for everyone in Southwest Washington and Northwest Oregon to sit up and pay attention
to all of this. Commerce along the Columbia from the mouth all the way to the headwaters will be greatly impacted as the Coast
Guard shuts the river down in order to allow these LNG tankers up the river. Fishermen, skiers, and boating enthusiasts will
not be allowed on the the water and there exists the possibilty some people will have to evacuate their homes while the tankers
are on the river. Add to that, Northern Star nor any of the LNG companies ever tell you about their pipelines and how safe
they are from leaks let alone terrorists. It's never a matter of "if" a pipeline will explode but "when". This pipeline will
make Kalama and Castle Rock look like campfires."
Gayle wrote on June 19, 2006 1:13 PM:"Did
you ever play the game "Running through the Forest" when you were a kid? You stand face to face and wave your hands on either
side of the other player's face, then you tell him to close his eyes. When he does, smack him in the forehead and tell him,
"Never close your eyes when running through the forest, you'll hit a tree." That is exactly what is being done to us here....KEEP
YOUR EYES OPEN. This is just a variation on that bad old joke, "I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.""
Group opposing LNG terminal plans protest walk Saturday
Landowners and Citizens for a Safe Community, a local group opposed a proposed liquefied natural gas terminal on the
lower Columbia River, will hold a protest walk across the Lewis and Clark Bridge Saturday.
Marchers will meet at the
covered picnic area at Lake Sacajawea near Tennant Way and 15th Avenue and caravan to the Oregon end of the Lewis and Clark
bridge at 10 a.m. From there, they will walk across the bridge and return to the lake for a potluck picnic.
Kelso's
Gayle Kiser, one of the organizers, said protestors plan remain on the shoulder of the roadway. "We will be very careful not
to disrupt traffic," she said.
NorthernStar Natural Gas wants to build a liquified natural gas distribution terminal
in Bradwood, Ore., and transport the gas to existing pipelines near Longview by building a new pipeline underneath the Columbia
River into Washington.
Listen to the NIMBYs
In reference to Jim Kerr's recent letter on LNG transportation safety, which is not based on fact or history, we are
not only talking about transporting the "Liquid Natural Gas" but also moving it in the "gas form" to the end user.
There
have been many incidents worldwide of rupture, fire and death from pipeline and facilities explosions. Pipelines wear and
corrode over time. Kerr would do well to get himself educated by his so-called "NIMBYs" on the history and dangers of LNG.
The
NIMBYs in this issue stand to gain by selling their right-of-ways and property, but don't think it is worth it. This time
they are right in trying to educate the public on the downside of LNG and what it will do to the safety, economics, recreation
and beauty of our area. Go NIMBYs.
Dick Peters
Longview
Questionable 'generosity'
I question NorthernStar's (the Texas energy corporation)
"generosity" to Wahkiakum County to make it easier to get approval of a Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) unloading facility at Bradwood
Landing in Oregon. Is this is a bribe to a few residents? In fact, all residents of Oregon and Washington 100 miles up the
Columbia will be affected if this facility is approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Is
Northern Star going to pay the cost of security and emergency management, Coast Guard escorts, pipeline safety inspections,
loss of shipping and port jobs, etc., or will the residents and taxpayers be burdened with these ongoing costs?
Before
we sell our beautiful land and rivers, recreation, tree farms, jobs, shipping, fishing, safety, etc., we should ask ourselves,
can we be bought for a few dollars "promised" by a private corporation that has no "track record" and that is trying to put
LNG projects here that other states don't want? We don't want LNG, either. It is not in our best interest.
Judi Peters
Longview
A few comments from concerned citizens
Selling out to NorthernStar
Aug 27, 2006
I see that NorthernStar LNG has decided our Columbia River is for sale after all. I wonder what percent of the
billions in profits the $20 million offered to Wahkiakum County is. Well, if we are going to sell our river and our soul to
a Texas energy corporation, we should at least get the highest price for our bribe. Why should our friends across the river
get it all, just because some of their homes are only 800 yards from the re-gasification plant?
The
$20 million over 40 years is just an opening bid. What about the communities on the Oregon side. What are they worth? What
about homes that will lose their value because backyards will be crossed by high-pressure gas lines?
And
what about the river itself? I wonder how much 50-plus acres of dredged estuary, destroyed gill net drifts, further decline
of salmon habitat and runs are worth.
Since NorthernStar has suggested everything is now for sale,
think of the advertising possibilities on the sides of the LNG tankers passing a couple of hundred feet from the windows of
Astoria! And once they own the river, they can change the name to Columbia Landing.
So come on everyone,
put in your bids. Let's sell our river, our communities and our very soul for the highest priced bribe we can, because NorthernStar
loves "the joy of giving."
Ted Messing
Astoria
Promises mean nothing
Aug 27, 2006
I was approached by NorthernStar about permission to do land studies on my property for the LNG pipeline in Cowlitz
County. After receiving maps where the route was planned, I asked if the location could be changed closer to property lines.
They said it could, since this route was only laid out by aerial photos.
When I received their "Right
of Entry" document to sign, my changes were not included as discussed. I also was threatened with "Eminent Domain," telling
me they could put it where they want.
I question NorthernStar's integrity and arrogance. They will
promise anything for permission to get on your land. When asked at one of our county commissioners' meetings about "land slippage,"
Gary Coppedge of NorthernStar responded, "I have walked most of that pipeline." If he has walked the proposed pipeline, NorthernStar
has been trespassing, since many landowners have not given "Right of Entry." I, myself, have encountered their representatives
trying to trespass on my property twice, telling me they had permission.
I also question NorthernStar's
"generosity" to Wahkiakum County. Are they spending money they don't have? I understand they are still trying to raise money
to finance the LNG project. It's easy to promise money you don't have.
Richard Peters
Longview
|
