|
|
Post by NCO Staff on Jun 11, 2009 19:09:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by ... on Jun 24, 2009 22:40:40 GMT -5
And the simple counter to Finklea's plaint about Natural Gas infrastructure and adequate supply is that we can and without any need whatsoever for LNG Speculation and Profiteering to accomplish it. |
|
|
|
Post by Frank on Jun 25, 2009 14:49:22 GMT -5
And the simple counter to Finklea's plaint about Natural Gas infrastructure and adequate supply is that we can and without any need whatsoever for LNG Speculation and Profiteering to accomplish it. We have ONE pipeline headed west. EVERY single pipeline being proposed is being vigilantly blocked by the multi-million dollar eco dough train. It doesn't matter what the US supposedly MIGHT have the capacity to produce the FACT is OREGON at the PRESENT has NO ACCESS to it and the FUTURE LOOKS DIM. THAT is what is most aggravating about dealing with orgs like Columbia RiverKeepers and Sierra Club. They tell people that the US has its OWN supply of Natural Gas and needs to be using it instead of "dirty foreign" while giving the impression that they agree that some form of natural gas is needed while waiting for the "green" technology to mature. CRK and SC don't tell the public that they have FOUGHT every single natural gas development and pipeline proposal in the USA. FACT: Oregon has NO access to increased level of natural gas. Oregon is reliant on ONE source of natural gas, that source controls the market in Oregon and it is FOREIGN. FACT: An LNG terminal strengthens Oregon's position with energy options, strengthens its position on the West Coast as an energy distribution point. Oregon's energy infrastructure will be forced to be up-to-date technology, ready for co-habitation with green technology. FACT: Not one single solitary "green" technology is ready, nor claims to be ready, to take on the energy needs of Oregon's industries much less households. Not 2025 will they be able to take n 25% and that still leaves 75% of our energy needs being supplied by something else. |
|
|
|
Post by Patrick ... on Jul 5, 2009 11:26:50 GMT -5
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.
|
|
|
|
Post by General Opinion on Jul 5, 2009 16:06:55 GMT -5
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 |
|
|
|
Post by ... on Jul 6, 2009 22:48:04 GMT -5
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" |
|
|
|
Post by Hank on Jul 9, 2009 3:06:44 GMT -5
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"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. |
|
|
|
Post by Peter on Jul 9, 2009 11:51:34 GMT -5
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?
|
|
|
|
Post by guest on Jul 9, 2009 13:57:08 GMT -5
Not big enough.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hank on Jul 10, 2009 4:39:50 GMT -5
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... |
|
|
|
Post by Peter on Jul 10, 2009 5:20:18 GMT -5
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.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hank on Jul 10, 2009 18:46:37 GMT -5
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. |
|
|
|
Post by Peter on Jul 11, 2009 17:03:30 GMT -5
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.
|
|
|
|
Post by Xman on Jul 11, 2009 18:25:42 GMT -5
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.
|
|
|
|
Post by Peter on Jul 12, 2009 1:44:39 GMT -5
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.
|
|
? And IF it were 58 acres of windmills would that make a difference to you?