Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register. Nov 27, 2009, 5:45am
Welcome to the NorthCoastOregon.comopen forum board! We hope you enjoy your visit, read the comments most recently made, contribute your own.
Click here to choose a topic/article to comment under. If you want to quote a previous comment, go to that post and click on the word "quote" in the right hand corner. A box will open containing the post, type your response underneath. Registered members can edit their own comments and/or delete them. You do not have to register in order to post a comment.
NorthCoastOregon.com is not responsible for the content of the posts/comments. The author(s) of the post/comment(s) assume(s) full responsibility for what they write. Comments/posts may be deleted. Please read NorthCoastOregon.com User Agreement for further information. Use of this forum constitutes agreement to the NorthCoastOregon.com terms of usage.
Re: Kroger Media Releases « Result #1 on Jul 31, 2009, 2:03am »
Thank-you Nanny Kroger for keeping those nasty electronic cigarettes away from us ignorant, culpable, imbeciles. Can't wait to see how soon you get to that part where lack of sleep is dangerous to our health and you mandate an eleven pm across the board statewide curfew.
Re: Ed Frinklea False Premise Dept.: The Unfortun « Result #4 on Jul 18, 2009, 6:14pm »
Lots of interesting stuff w/Sierra Club - Sell outs, shutouts, facists, bringing in hundreds of millions of dollars a year.
google to see where Hank got his quotes and forgot what I was looking for. followed this track instead: Sierra Club sellouts
Quote:
Author and activist Jeffrey St. Clair of CounterPunch is one of Big Green's leading critics. In 2007 he wrote, "The Group of Ten (aka: Gang Green) now manifest all the intensity of an insurance cartel... National environmental policies are now engineered by an Axis of Acronyms: EDF, NRDC, WWF: groups without voting memberships and little responsibility to the wider environmental movement. They are the undisputed mandarins of technotalk and lobbyist logic, who gave us the ecological oxymorons of our time: 'pollution credits,' 're-created wetlands,' 'sustainable development.' In their relativistic milieu, everything can be traded off or dealt away. For them, the tag-end remains of the native ecosystems on our public lands are endlessly divisible and every loss can be recast as a hard-won victory in the advertising copy of their fundraising propaganda."
Quote:
Did the Sierra Club sell out? March 31, 2008
The Clorox Company: chemical company. One of the dangerous dozen(a group that sickens and kill thousands of Californians each year, costing the state $2.6 billion in medical expenses and lost wages), 4 superfund sites, toxic waste dumps in 7 states, and just recently fined $95,000 for violating U.S. pesticide laws. For an alternate view on Clorox see Joel Makower’s post. On balance – there are a lot worse out there, but there are a lot better too.
The Sierra Club: environmental organization Big greenwashing corporation. Allows Clorox to use their name and logo to market a new line of chlorine-free cleaning products called “Green Works.”
The Payoff: Clorox is paying the Sierra Club an undisclosed fee, based partly on product sales. The Sierra Club refuses to disclose the fee amount or any other efforts at transparency. Johanna O’Kelley, the Club’s director of Licensing & Cause-Related Marketing, will say only that the amount of money involved is “substantial.”
The Spin: We’re helping people choose an environmentally friendly product.
Here’s some Food for Thought:
* Are the Green Works products really environmentally friendly? o Two of the ingredients in the new Clorox-Sierra Club line are corn ethanol and coconut oil. Hurray! Bad environmental policy and rainforest destruction. Not horrible overall, but there are better options. * Even if the Green Works products were eco-friendly does that make up for the other harmful products Clorox produces? o Clorox is a major polluter, a consistent violator of environmental laws and produces products that harm people and the environment. This is a no-brainer win-win for them. They get to sell the Sierra Club branded green products as well as their regular chlorine products. * Why not endorse a truly green company (there are lots to choose from)? o Because they aren’t paying you to. Clorox is. * Doesn’t hiding the ball (the money) suggest that whole deal is shady? o The deal is shady. The idea behind environmental organizations is transparency and exposing the dark cloud that surrounds corporations that are harming the environment. The Sierra Club by acting in this manner is itself becoming a front for large corporations.
The environmental movement has matured. While there are still many small, grassroots organizations out there, the big players have been around for a couple decades now and have grown up to be just like the giant, polluting corporations they were born to oppose. Big Green, made up of such groups as the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, WWF, Nature Conservancy, National Wildlife Federation, etc…, today receive 70% of all green funding. But they have become so interested in being mainstream acceptable that they have lost the right to claim the title “environmentalists.”
The Bottomline: The Sierra Club and other members of Big Green sold out a long time ago. They have grown large in size, institutional in nature, bureaucratic in process, and conservative in ideology. Today they lack transparency and are more concerned with maintaining their branding and profit-ability then achieving meaningful results. They beat the environmentalism drum, but are quick to kowtow to business and government interests. If you want to achieve something for the environment today volunteer your time and money to a small, local or regional group. They will fight harder to achieve the results you want with much greater efficiency (90 cents for every dollar, versus 20-30 cents for every dollar at Big Green).
Quote:
Members of Big Green
* Defenders of Wildlife * Environmental Defense Fund * Greenpeace * National Audubon Society * National Wildlife Federation * Natural Resources Defense Council * The Nature Conservancy * Sierra Club * The Wilderness Society * World Wildlife Fund
Quote:
In his landmark book Trashing the Economy, Ron Arnold writes: "Defectors from the environmental movement have told us that Earth First! founder Dave Foreman was approached by the Sierra Club and his employer, the Wilderness Society, in 1979 with an offer to fund a new extremist point group for the movement. It would serve the function of making their own demands look more reasonable … Defectors say that Foreman made the deal by himself in a comfortable Wilderness Society office, and accepted the offer on the condition that funding would be steady and adequate, and that his participation was a limited 10-year deal."
Foreman offers evidence for this story's veracity in a quote he provided to Smithsonian magazine: "We thought it would have been useful to have a group to take a tougher position than the Sierra Club and the Wilderness Society. It could be sort of secretly controlled by the mainstream and trotted out at hearings to make the Sierra Club or Wilderness Society look moderate."
The intermingling between Earth First!ers and the Sierra Club are significant. One example is Jim Flynn, who serves as editor of the Oregon Sierra Club's Conifer newsletter. He is also the sole officer of Daily Planet Publishing, which produces the Earth First! Journal. Mick Garvin, a self-described "long-time Earth First!er," has chaired a local Sierra Club chapter in Oregon and currently serves as Oregon Chapter Executive Committee Delegate.
And Oregon's AG's right hand man for environmental "crimes" was a top dog in the Sierra Club organization??? Isn't this like putting the wolf in the chicken coop to guard the hens???
It is interesting that only two Bradwood Landing supporters offered public testimony at yesterday's CCC hearing, and they were from out of the area. I'm sure that there are some local pro-LNG people, and I respect their interest in economic development, even though I believe that locating an LNG terminal on the Columbia would be a huge mistake. But why didn't even one local Bradwood Landing supporter step forward?
On the other hand, the sincere eloquence of fisherman Jack Marincovich and his wife Georgia was compelling, as were the many voices new to this issue. They all deserve our gratitude for participating in democracy.
Join the debate. This is the future of our region under discussion. Our opinions are taken more seriously if we treat each other with respect and argue the facts.
A major point of the hearing yesterday was whether or not Bradwood Landing LNG is a large project. What do you think?
"Green Mountain Power developed a wind energy project in Searsburg, Vermont. The facility was placed in initial service in August 1997. At one time it was the largest wind-generating project in the eastern U. S. The facility consists of eleven 550-kilowatt turbines, for a total facility rating of 6 megawatts (nominal) and is designed to provide electrical energy sufficient to meet the needs of 2,000 typical Vermont households. Each of the 11 towers is 39 meters (128 feet) in height, with a rotor diameter of 40 meters (131 feet). This results in a built structure that extends 59 meters (195 feet) above the land. In addition, the facility is comprised of approximately 1.5 miles of transmission lines and 1.5 miles of service roads. About 35 acres of forestland was cleared for this facility."
This "tiny" windmill farm barely produces enough energy for 2,000 households. Are you trying to tell me that if a windmill farm big enough to satisfy the energy needs of all of clatsop county was going in at the Bradwood site YOU or your clan would be protesting it because it didn't meet a self imposed imaginary criteria for "small-medium' sized project?
I guarantee you that CRK will not be here for us, or ANYONE in the Pac NW, in SOLVING the energy CRISIS.
Another guarantee I have for you: If you screw this landowner out of being able to use his property on an energy/job/economy stimulating project such as this I, and many like minded, will fight against a windmill farm, a bio-mass energy project, a solar or wave project. We are learning very well from you and VandenHuevel. We will use what we have learned. The Commissioners should be very leery in how they constrain the size of projects in their interpretation of size. This will impact ALL the energy projects and especially the alleged "green" ones that need a lot of SPACE.
Columbia River Keepers won't be so anxious to jump on the band wagon of "size" when it includes counting the transmission lines of the wind turbines, wave turbines, etc...
This point should be a talking point for the commishes. IF they constrain this project to the point that VandenHeuvel and Rohne want them to than ALL energy industries will be constrained in the same way.
VandenHeuvel has the agenda of CRK. CRK=NO growth of any sort for ANY human activity! PERIOD!
Does Rohne have the same agenda? Or, is Rohne looking out for Rohne? His dairy farm would be a target for these people, expecially if he votes in a manner which they disapprove of.
According to the Environmental Protection Agency, a cow produces about 120 pounds of manure a day - about the same amount of waste generated by 20 to 40 people. A dairy with 700 cows generates 84,000 pounds of manure daily.
Dairies, chicken farms and other large operations have storage systems such as lagoons or holding tanks to handle the waste. They apply it as fertilizer on fields or sell it to firms such as Lane Forest Products or Rexius that create compost for gardeners.
But manure is also a significant source of water pollution, said Charlie Tebbutt, an attorney with the Eugene-based Western Environmental Law Center, which filed the suit on behalf of the Oregon Natural Resource Council, the Northwest Environmental Defense Center, the Oregon Toxics Alliance and the Columbia Riverkeepers.
And the direct ties between Columbia RiverKeepers & The Sierra Club are well known & documented. While serving as director of Columbia RiverKeepers Brett Foster was also Secretary of Oregon Chapter of Sierra Club as well as serving as attorney (and being paid handsomely) by both organizations. The Sierra Club is not very fond of Dairy or Beef cattle, either.
Sierra Club: Livestock produce an enormous amount of waste - about 500 million tons of manure a year. But the livestock industry's waste disposal practices - spraying it onto croplands or storing it in open-air waste pits called lagoons - often result in leaks, spills and runoff that pollute ground and surface water and create a health risk to people and wildlife.
*************** The Sierra Club also has expressed concerns about the dairies' eastern migration. Kendra Kimbirauskas, who works on agricultural issues for the environmental organization, said the amount of ammonia from manure produced by a large dairy operation can increase levels of nitrates and phosphates in ground water.
If waste from dairy lagoons is simply sprayed onto the ground, especially in an area as arid as Morrow and Umatilla counties, it can dry up, be carried off and settle on water surfaces, she said. The Sierra Club would like to see dairies not exempted from air pollution laws.
********** Kendra Kimbirauskas, a Sierra Club volunteer who specializes in factory farm issues, said that in addition to ammonia, hydrogen sulfide and the methane gas itself — which are the three toxic materials of most concern — there are another 160 identifiable toxins in cow manure.
“Not only is any of it being regulated — or monitored — but we don’t even know what acceptable levels are,” she said.
“This is not a farm — it is an industry and it should be regulated as an industry,” she said, referring to state laws that classify the dairy complex as agricultural and therefore exempt from state laws governing industrial air pollution. “Today is a rally for clean air. It’s a message to the [Department of Environmental Quality].”
Rohne said "That's why I'm the one that was elected". I am sure that I am not the only one wondering WHAT that meant? Because he would DENY, vote NO, on ALL LNG no matter how legal or logical the permit application was?
Northern Star has a right to demand that Rohne recuse himself if he was elected on the promise that he would ban LNG. Kroger can promise all he wants, he never has to make a ruling on ANYTHING. Rohne is a judge in a quasi-judicial capacity. If he has compromised his ability to be an impartial judge he should recuse himself.
Re: Ed Frinklea False Premise Dept.: The Unfortun « Result #10 on Jul 13, 2009, 7:38pm »
Quote:
BIG shocker: When the redacted testimony of BRETT VANDENHEUVEL, Executive Director of Columbia Riverkeeper, was shown on the big screens: at least 2/3 of it had been blacked out by the county attorney. (Many pages of other testimony were entirely blacked out, as shown on the county's web site.) The attorney went through all 617 pages of testimony and wrote memos about each document identifying parts that needed to be blacked out. On your dime. Not cheap. Think J. Edgar Hoover, the KGB, and nasty dictatorships around the world.
Think LEGAL, think ACCURATE; think TRUTHFUL. Where you saw "redacted" words were words that were either inaccurate, untruthful, or not allowed because they were not information that had been validated or made a part of the record.
The spin on this shows how desperate these people are. I don't understand why they have to paint bad guys, evil demons, and all the other drama. Shows, really, the regard they have for the normal citizen. I asked one of them, a former friendly acquaintance, why the drama, the exaggeration? She said that is the only way to get the "lethargic slugs" off their butts to do anything!
Thats what they think of whoever doesn't think the way they do, care the way they do, react the way they do.
Pretty sterile, homogenized existence they are planning for us.
It is interesting that only two Bradwood Landing supporters offered public testimony at yesterday's CCC hearing, and they were from out of the area. I'm sure that there are some local pro-LNG people, and I respect their interest in economic development, even though I believe that locating an LNG terminal on the Columbia would be a huge mistake. But why didn't even one local Bradwood Landing supporter step forward?
On the other hand, the sincere eloquence of fisherman Jack Marincovich and his wife Georgia was compelling, as were the many voices new to this issue. They all deserve our gratitude for participating in democracy.
Well, Peter, I'm one of the HUNDREDS of local supporters, and I would have loved to have been there. Unfortuntely, I, along with everyone else I know who supports this company HAD TO WORK. I've seen 25 or so of the locals who oppose (the same 25 at every single thing), and the vast majority of them don't work, or are self-employed with flexible hours. (Speaking of writers, artists, you, etc)
Also, you've GOT to be kidding when you call Jack Marincovich and his "cry on demand", blubbering wife eloquent. I hope they realize that getting so emotional doesn't make people respect them, it makes them embarassed for them.
Re: Ed Frinklea False Premise Dept.: The Unfortun « Result #12 on Jul 13, 2009, 8:29am »
and then treat Commissioner John Raichl like he was dirt
How was Commissioner Raichl mistreated? I think that he deserves a lot of respect. He conducted himself well at Wednesday's hearing, and was honest and responsible about asking for more time to review the evidence before rendering a decision.
Re: Ed Frinklea False Premise Dept.: The Unfortun « Result #13 on Jul 13, 2009, 12:18am »
Just read this over on the Register forum, posted by NWPR vice pres, Stephen Wick:
From the Frontline of the LNG battle here’s a taste of what these residents are fighting - the head of the snake. Their efforts are helping defend our county(ies) - and we owe them a big Thank You!:
The July 8th county hearing before the [Clatsop] County Commissioners concerning the LUBA remand was about BIG and PROTECTION. It was a BIG standing- room-only crowd. Were our rights PROTECTED? Kinda. At the end of a long day, around 4:15 p.m., the Commissioners agreed to NOT vote right then and there - thanks to the leadership of Commissioner DIRK ROHNE.
County Commissioner will deliberate and vote at a special meeting NO public testimony will be taken Thursday, July 16, 6:00 PM Guy Boyington Building, Astoria
HEARING HIGHLIGHTS: - - Repeated challenges from the audience about inappropriate and ex parte contacts that Commissioners HAZEN, ROBERTS, and SAMUELSON have been observed having with NorthernStar leaders and other LNG proponents. JEFF HAZEN said he coudn't recall testifying in Salem in favor of HB3058, the LNG pipeline bill sought by NorthernStar, despite numerous people in the audience who were there when he did so. Commissioner SAMUELSON said it's just coincidence and not her fault that she keeps sitting with NorthernStar representatives at social events. If this weren't such outrageous behavior, their excuses might be amusing. They should know better.
- - First BIG audience laugh was when the NorthernStar attorney said that Bradwood Landing would bring "a net environmental benefit to the lower Columbia."
- - BIG shocker: When the redacted testimony of BRETT VANDENHEUVEL, Executive Director of Columbia Riverkeeper, was shown on the big screens: at least 2/3 of it had been blacked out by the county attorney. (Many pages of other testimony were entirely blacked out, as shown on the county's web site.) The attorney went through all 617 pages of testimony and wrote memos about each document identifying parts that needed to be blacked out. On your dime. Not cheap. Think J. Edgar Hoover, the KGB, and nasty dictatorships around the world.
-- BIG confusion about the rules: the commissioners kept changing their minds about who had "standing" and would be allowed to speak, and during the hearing flip-flopped a few more times, and finally everyone who had signed up was allowed to testify.
-- No BIG surprise: the commissioners refused to allow any new evidence, including the BIG significant changes NorthernStar has made in its application, including opting out of a major fish PROTECTION plan. Apparently most of the commissioners don't want to be confused by the facts.
- - Best BIG build-up: BRETT VANDENHEUVEL, showed how there is no legal way to argue that BIG equals small. He quoted from a series of official decisions that Bradwood Landing would be a BIG project, including statements from Clatsop County land use staff, Oregon's Dept. of Environmental Quality, the U.S. Supreme Court, and, last but not least, the county commissioners' own letter to FERC in December, 2007, in which they say that this project would be of "unprecedented scale." Despite NorthernStar's best efforts to narrowly define BIG only in terms of numbers of acres, the opposing testimony repeatedly reminded commissioners that BIG includes size, scope, and scale of use, development, and impact. Very powerful.
- - Speakers tried to help the commissioners understand what BIG means: CAROLYN EADY talked about "any reasonable person's standard." Several people recited synonyms, such as mammoth, immense, enormous, huge, colossal, and whopper. SANDRA LEWIS said Bradwood Landing wouldn't be large - it would be "extra-large.'' AMY LEWIS said that even the 4-year olds where she works know the difference between BIG and small. JOYCE HELLER said the discussion of BIG was straight out of "Alice in Wonderland." STEVE BERK said that twisting the public meanings of words to mean their opposites is a practice of totalitarian states and urged the commissioners to not get caught up in Orwellian Newspeak.
- - Only 2 speakers, both associated with construction unions from Washington, testified in favor of Bradwood Landing.
-- BIG fabulous reminders about the need to protect fishing grounds and the vulnerability of our fragile salmon. JIM SCHELLER pointed out that salmon runs of 20 million salmon are already down to 1 million. PETER HUHTALA, HOBE KYTR, JACK MARINCOVICH, GEORGIA MARINCOVICH, and others spoke about the venerated fishing tradition on the Columbia and about the livelihoods of our fishermen and the likely impacts of the terminal on all fish, especially salmon. As CHERYL JOHNSON pointed out, this and other related hearings have been scheduled exactly when Columbia River fishermen and women are fishing in Alaska, so they haven't been able to bring their stories and expertise to the commissioners.
-- The dozens of NO LNGers waving and showing NO LNG signs to passers- by on Commercial before the hearing were a big hit - drivers honked horns and waved back in BIG support all day! Thanks to the determined NO LNGers who missed the hearing and stayed out in the cold to continue to wave NO LNG signs.
-- The BIG support for our struggle from the NO LNGers outside Clatsop County. Enthusiastic allies from BIG distances also attended, included many who would be affected by the terminal and/or pipelines. They came from Beaverton, Portland, Gales Creek, and Yamhill, Oregon and from Puget Island and Kelso/Longview, Washington. They joined Clatsop folks in demonstrating outside and testifying eloquently. * * *
If their decisions were going to be based on fact and reason and law, the County Commissioners would have to vote 0-5 against the Bradwood application. Will they? Witness their deliberations and voting on Thursday, July 16 at 6 p.m. at 857 Commercial, the Boyington Bldg., Astoria.
I was quite pleased to see Marc Auerbach on the Planning Commission and the Parks & Recreation Land Planning Commission. He always seemed up beat and full of energy. After seeing the lies he constructed and foisted on the public in his advertising scheme against the referndum he drew up (where yes meant no and no meant yes) I lost all the respect I had for him.
Biggest laugh of all "If their decisions were going to be based on fact and reason and law, the County Commissioners would have to vote 0-5 against the Bradwood application. Will they?" These people fill others with lies, expect the county to handle this hearing without a lawyer, expect the board to use up more resources and start the hearing process all over again. Forget to mention that it was a 5-0 vote NOT to accept new evidence (even their "golden boy" Rohn voted against accepting new evidence) and then treat Commissioner John Raichl like he was dirt!
I agree that ballast water is a wider problem, with discharge contributing to invasive species introduction, and intake entraining or impinging aquatic organisms.
The problem would be made worse if 125 tankers per year called at Bradwood. Do the math: If each tanker takes on 10 million gallons that would be 1,250.000,000 per year (Did I get that right?). The magnitude and the location in the estuary add to concerns from scientists and regulators.
Fish screening devices would reduce entrainment, but not impingement of fish on the screens, which are unacceptable to the Coast Guard anyway. If some of those fish are threatened or endangered, that is a "taking" under the Endangered Speies Act. Permits for very limited take are possible, but the level we're looking at is clearly illegal under the federal ESA, as well as state and local statutes.
Those are the rules that any new project in the public's estuary would have to live with. This is the same situation that Bradwood LLC faced five years ago. I pointed this out then. I haven't heard a solution. Maye there isn't one short of changing the laws.
How many millions of "acres" are going to be dredged this year of the columbia river that is also in the "public trust" so that all those tankers and all that industry can by pass us and head on up the river to everyone else? How many acres of "traditional" fishing grounds does that dredging go through? And, since when does any one give a crap when every single one of these greenies have been writing to the Washington and Oregon legislators to throw the gillnetters off the river? AND it is as BLATANT lie to call where Bradwood is going in a "traditional" fishing area when it has been COMPLETELY altered over the last 30-40-50 years with dredge spoils!!! 50 people coming forward to retell a lie doesn't make it the truth. It is a BLATANT lie to say that 1) this is a threatened estuary that development of Bradwood landing would destroy 2) that there is a "tradition" of fishing there.
All that hearing did was identify, for me, people I will never again believe or trust. Too bad for Salmon for All as I have withdrawn all monetary support for them. What is sad is that they have allowed themselves to be manipulated by these people who will turn on them tomorrow. They must have been some rotten people to have this karma coming down on them.
Saddest thing of all is either way CRK or NSNG goes home when this is all over. We are all left here, no longer trusting or believing in one another.
Re: Ed Frinklea False Premise Dept.: The Unfortun « Result #15 on Jul 11, 2009, 10:44pm »
I agree that ballast water is a wider problem, with discharge contributing to invasive species introduction, and intake entraining or impinging aquatic organisms.
The problem would be made worse if 125 tankers per year called at Bradwood. Do the math: If each tanker takes on 10 million gallons that would be 1,250.000,000 per year (Did I get that right?). The magnitude and the location in the estuary add to concerns from scientists and regulators.
Fish screening devices would reduce entrainment, but not impingement of fish on the screens, which are unacceptable to the Coast Guard anyway. If some of those fish are threatened or endangered, that is a "taking" under the Endangered Speies Act. Permits for very limited take are possible, but the level we're looking at is clearly illegal under the federal ESA, as well as state and local statutes.
Those are the rules that any new project in the public's estuary would have to live with. This is the same situation that Bradwood LLC faced five years ago. I pointed this out then. I haven't heard a solution. Maye there isn't one short of changing the laws.
Re: Ed Frinklea False Premise Dept.: The Unfortun « Result #16 on Jul 11, 2009, 3:25pm »
Mitigation I disagree. I'm sure you are protesting the ballast water that comes in with all the oil and gasoline that gets shipped here to run your imported car that also dumped more ballast water when they brought that piece of crap in. You Rivercreepers make me sick. If you are all so against it why aren't you trying to close the river down for all shipping? That would save the river.
Re: Ed Frinklea False Premise Dept.: The Unfortun « Result #17 on Jul 11, 2009, 2:03pm »
58 acres would be deepened and maintained for the turning basin. Additional in-water space doesn't require dredging but would be used to transport the LNG shoreside.
Salmon for All also testified about concerns that traditional fishing would not be protected.
Wind farms have their critics. I'm generally supportive because they produce energy in a renewable manner, rather than for example burning fossil fuels. Same goes for wave and tidal energy farms. But if they're to be located on public trust lands or waters, then other sustainable uses need to be respected and the ecosystem protected.
I've never heard of Columbia Riverkeeper opposing a wind farm, but I guess that it's not inconceivable if there was environmental harm involved...
It would be interesting to see an actual mitigation plan from Bradwood Landing LLC. I'm skeptical of any mitigation being able to offset unscreened ballast water intake (per Coast Guard requirements) or significant hydrology changes, but there are certainly ways to improve salmon habitat in the estuary. Flooding Svensen Island is an interesting idea, but certainly not original. Pretty much everything I've heard from NS was already planned or underway. In fairness, we have yet to see a formal mitigation plan.
First: The Bradwood site is designated as appropriate for small to medium scale development. The County made that determination, with State concurrence years ago.
Second: Over 58 acres of the project is in the Columbia River. This happens to be public property that this company from Houston is trying to expropriate.
For years the County and the applicant have been made aware of the scale requirement and the mandate to protect fishing grounds and endangered fish. Why NSNG chose to move forward, and spend their investor’s money (including taking some hefty salaries) we can only guess. Nonetheless, the project has always been destined for failure.
1) Which 58 acres of the project are "in the river"???? And IF it were 58 acres of windmills would that make a difference to you?
2) why doesn't anyone of the greenies state that the development is so large in total land mass because of the fish hatchery with the Bradwood Landing's Salmon Enhancement Initiative projected to return 1.77 million juvenile salmon back to the Pacific every year. Which we all know is 1.77 million more than are there now since that is a blatant lie that where bradwood is going in at is a "vital nursery" of any sort. It is a sand bar of dredge spoils with islands all around that have been used as dumping sites for all things toxic. At nite the water glows green flowing out of puget island and a few other choice spots in the area. Bradwood should go up at night and take infra red shots of the water and show the real "health" of this "sacred river" and its "pure" salmon habitat. EVERYONE knows that Bradwoods salmon enhancement program would be a huge boon for the fishing industry. The self centered bastard Marincovich is ONLY thinking of his own pleasures and since none of his sons are in the industry he could care less that the greenies are ensuring that there are no salmon in the river and therefore the next industry in the toilet is the gillnetters.
The gillnetters have been told to either support CRK or keep out of the fight or CRK will turn on them. Jokes on the gillnetters. Columbia River Keepers is already working against them and whether or not the gillnetters support bradwood CRK will move against the 'netters either outright or via FLOW, Sierra Club, or one of their other aliases.
If what you say is true, then why did the argument FAIL with LUBA? Shall we review the 21 FAILED points CRK tried to make, along with the EIGHT failed points that CRITFC lost on, much less Dunzers numerous points.
Re: Ed Frinklea False Premise Dept.: The Unfortun « Result #19 on Jul 10, 2009, 2:20am »
First: The Bradwood site is designated as appropriate for small to medium scale development. The County made that determination, with State concurrence years ago.
Second: Over 58 acres of the project is in the Columbia River. This happens to be public property that this company from Houston is trying to expropriate.
For years the County and the applicant have been made aware of the scale requirement and the mandate to protect fishing grounds and endangered fish. Why NSNG chose to move forward, and spend their investor’s money (including taking some hefty salaries) we can only guess. Nonetheless, the project has always been destined for failure.
It is interesting that only two Bradwood Landing supporters offered public testimony at yesterday's CCC hearing, and they were from out of the area. I'm sure that there are some local pro-LNG people, and I respect their interest in economic development, even though I believe that locating an LNG terminal on the Columbia would be a huge mistake. But why didn't even one local Bradwood Landing supporter step forward?
On the other hand, the sincere eloquence of fisherman Jack Marincovich and his wife Georgia was compelling, as were the many voices new to this issue. They all deserve our gratitude for participating in democracy.
Join the debate. This is the future of our region under discussion. Our opinions are taken more seriously if we treat each other with respect and argue the facts.
A major point of the hearing yesterday was whether or not Bradwood Landing LNG is a large project. What do you think?
"Green Mountain Power developed a wind energy project in Searsburg, Vermont. The facility was placed in initial service in August 1997. At one time it was the largest wind-generating project in the eastern U. S. The facility consists of eleven 550-kilowatt turbines, for a total facility rating of 6 megawatts (nominal) and is designed to provide electrical energy sufficient to meet the needs of 2,000 typical Vermont households. Each of the 11 towers is 39 meters (128 feet) in height, with a rotor diameter of 40 meters (131 feet). This results in a built structure that extends 59 meters (195 feet) above the land. In addition, the facility is comprised of approximately 1.5 miles of transmission lines and 1.5 miles of service roads. About 35 acres of forestland was cleared for this facility."
This "tiny" windmill farm barely produces enough energy for 2,000 households. Are you trying to tell me that if a windmill farm big enough to satisfy the energy needs of all of clatsop county was going in at the Bradwood site YOU or your clan would be protesting it because it didn't meet a self imposed imaginary criteria for "small-medium' sized project?
I guarantee you that CRK will not be here for us, or ANYONE in the Pac NW, in SOLVING the energy CRISIS.
Another guarantee I have for you: If you screw this landowner out of being able to use his property on an energy/job/economy stimulating project such as this I, and many like minded, will fight against a windmill farm, a bio-mass energy project, a solar or wave project. We are learning very well from you and VandenHuevel. We will use what we have learned.
The Commissioners should be very leery in how they constrain the size of projects in their interpretation of size. This will impact ALL the energy projects and especially the alleged "green" ones that need a lot of SPACE.
Columbia River Keepers won't be so anxious to jump on the band wagon of "size" when it includes counting the transmission lines of the wind turbines, wave turbines, etc...
Re: Ed Frinklea False Premise Dept.: The Unfortun « Result #22 on Jul 9, 2009, 8:51am »
It is interesting that only two Bradwood Landing supporters offered public testimony at yesterday's CCC hearing, and they were from out of the area. I'm sure that there are some local pro-LNG people, and I respect their interest in economic development, even though I believe that locating an LNG terminal on the Columbia would be a huge mistake. But why didn't even one local Bradwood Landing supporter step forward?
On the other hand, the sincere eloquence of fisherman Jack Marincovich and his wife Georgia was compelling, as were the many voices new to this issue. They all deserve our gratitude for participating in democracy.
Join the debate. This is the future of our region under discussion. Our opinions are taken more seriously if we treat each other with respect and argue the facts.
A major point of the hearing yesterday was whether or not Bradwood Landing LNG is a large project. What do you think?
Until recently, LNG wasn't economically competitive, but technological advances and high gas prices have changed that. The federal Energy Information Administration projects that LNG imports will grow more than eightfold by 2025, and account for a fifth of the nation's gas use.
One LNG terminal could supply 1.5 billion cubic feet a day — enough to meet the entire current demand from the three Northwest states, said Gary Coppedge, vice president of permitting and development for Northern Star Natural Gas. Northern Star is developing the Bradwood LNG terminal... ...By creating a third major gas source for the region, besides Canada and the Rockies, LNG would bring down prices and level out the price peaks and troughs, Coppedge said.
"We will be putting very competitively priced natural gas into the Pacific Northwest," he said
From none other than NSCG's own Gary Coppedge?
Jeeesh!! What the heck would expect this LNG Speculator to say?
From Palomar"“The Palomar East pipeline would provide the NW Natural system [Oregon’s largest distributor of natural gas to homes, businesses, and industry] with benefits in terms of added capacity and options for North American gas, whether or not any of the LNG terminals [proposed for Oregon] were built"
Very GOOD! And how astute! A SPECULATOR is one who sure wouldn't be putting money on a losing deal. First you say that it MUST be a losing deal and when that is refuted you say the only reason that the person is saying is because they are SPECULATORS (such an evil word?)! These people have millions, if not billions, of dollars, and yet they are going to bet it on a losing deal??? In this economy at this time???
Is NSNG in financial difficulties? Have its officers/owners been suspected of being a part of a ponzi scheme or some other nefarious business?
I am tired of Columbia River Keepers using bait and switch tactics. They baited us with NO lng PIPELINES in parks where our kids play, and then they tell the rest of the state, our govenor, our sentors, LUBA and FERC that we overwhelmingly REJECTED all LNG projects!!!
Columbia River Keepers, and people of their ilk like this patrick guy, that peter guy, and the vandenhuevel jerk, think nothing about perpetuating lies. Pathetic that they would do it at all, criminal that they do it to friends and this community.
It's simply becoming more clear, contrary to all the spin, that we just don't need the LNG process in any of these eaquations.
Oh baloney. LNG is good economics
Until recently, LNG wasn't economically competitive, but technological advances and high gas prices have changed that. The federal Energy Information Administration projects that LNG imports will grow more than eightfold by 2025, and account for a fifth of the nation's gas use.
One LNG terminal could supply 1.5 billion cubic feet a day — enough to meet the entire current demand from the three Northwest states, said Gary Coppedge, vice president of permitting and development for Northern Star Natural Gas. Northern Star is developing the Bradwood LNG terminal... ...By creating a third major gas source for the region, besides Canada and the Rockies, LNG would bring down prices and level out the price peaks and troughs, Coppedge said.
"We will be putting very competitively priced natural gas into the Pacific Northwest," he said
From none other than NSCG's own Gary Coppedge?
Jeeesh!! What the heck would expect this LNG Speculator to say?
From Palomar"“The Palomar East pipeline would provide the NW Natural system [Oregon’s largest distributor of natural gas to homes, businesses, and industry] with benefits in terms of added capacity and options for North American gas, whether or not any of the LNG terminals [proposed for Oregon] were built"
It's simply becoming more clear, contrary to all the spin, that we just don't need the LNG process in any of these eaquations.
Oh baloney. LNG is good economics
Until recently, LNG wasn't economically competitive, but technological advances and high gas prices have changed that. The federal Energy Information Administration projects that LNG imports will grow more than eightfold by 2025, and account for a fifth of the nation's gas use.
One LNG terminal could supply 1.5 billion cubic feet a day — enough to meet the entire current demand from the three Northwest states, said Gary Coppedge, vice president of permitting and development for Northern Star Natural Gas. Northern Star is developing the Bradwood LNG terminal... ...By creating a third major gas source for the region, besides Canada and the Rockies, LNG would bring down prices and level out the price peaks and troughs, Coppedge said.
"We will be putting very competitively priced natural gas into the Pacific Northwest," he said
![[Home]](http://s4.images.proboards.com/menu/home.gif)
![[Help]](http://s4.images.proboards.com/menu/help.gif)
![[Search]](http://s4.images.proboards.com/menu/search.gif)
![[Calendar]](http://s4.images.proboards.com/menu/calendar.gif)
![[Login]](http://s4.images.proboards.com/menu/login.gif)
![[Register]](http://s4.images.proboards.com/menu/register.gif)
![[Search This Thread]](http://s4.images.proboards.com/search2.gif)
![[Reply]](http://s4.images.proboards.com/buttons/reply.gif)
![[Send Topic To Friend]](http://s4.images.proboards.com/buttons/sendtopic.gif)
![[Print]](http://s4.images.proboards.com/buttons/print.gif)
Author
![[Quote]](http://s4.images.proboards.com/buttons/quote.gif)
Logged
Author