|
Post by NCO staff on Jun 13, 2009 20:51:57 GMT -5
The two squared off on KGW saturday night, how do you think it went?
|
|
|
Post by Peter on Jun 14, 2009 3:27:21 GMT -5
The two squared off on KGW saturday night, how do you think it went? Pretty good debate. VandenHueval was strong on the landowner issues and the concept that Oregon faces a crossroads in moving to renewable energy (and conservation and efficiency) versus getting further enmeshed in importing foreign fossil fuel. Finklea was somewhat effective in steering the discussion toward the merits of natural gas, and away from LNG. Proponents would be wise to continue such obfuscation. It draws attention from the central issues of LNG import harming the environment, risking public safety, damaging local economies, and degrading the quality of life. Finklea used a presumption of need for natural gas to suggest that more pipeline would be needed to tap domestic supplies. VandenHueval effectively countered that independent sources show that Oregon doesn’t need LNG and the proposed pipelines would serve California. All-in-all this was well-balanced, but not comprehensive. VandenHueval won the debate because he clearly believes what he says. Finklea is a bit too obvious as the industry’s hired gun.
|
|
|
Post by Anonym on Jun 14, 2009 9:33:27 GMT -5
Peter, you are blinded by your total lack of objectivity. You are a one issue candidate who is so invested in this anti LNG that you refuse to see the benefits. Your friends and associates are the reason that natural gas is in such demand. Guess how the Cannery Pier Hotel is heated.
|
|
|
Post by Peter on Jun 14, 2009 10:10:39 GMT -5
Peter, you are blinded by your total lack of objectivity. It is difficult to score a debate when you are aware of the facts. I'm curious how others thought these two performed.
|
|
|
Post by ... on Jun 14, 2009 11:09:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Yosemite Sam on Jun 14, 2009 12:57:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Tony on Jun 14, 2009 18:41:18 GMT -5
It was a dismal failure all around. I watched it with someone who knows very little about the issue and at the end they said "huh"? Questions that were raised and went unanswered: 1) VandenHuevel says we don't need "foreign" LNG because we have "so much US natural gas, however opposes the laying of any and all pipeline, so how is Oregon supposed to get any of that US natural gas? 2) People say they are terrified of the crop production they will lose. The FERC website says that IF any land is used in the laying of pipeline that the company MUST compensate the landowner for crops they would have otherwise been able to use the land for. So how is the farmer or the vineyard person out any money??? 3) The supposed "nursery" EVERYONE knows the cesspool that surrounds Puget Island. To pretend that this is pristine waters is asinine. Whatever Bradwood does there to clean it up, via dredging and adding a sanctuary, will be a 100% improvement. Boardmembers have QUIT salmon for all because it is too cowardly to stand up to the inviromentalitists and speak the truth. Fingerlings are not in the deep waters where ballast water is exchanged, the feeding grounds of the fingerlings will be enhanced by the activity of dredging as EVERY firshermen knows! So, who are the liars that are saying different? 4) They are real real careful bringing up the dredging issue when it could benefit us on the lower end of the river because they have already approved BILLIONS of dollars for dredging projects so that the Portland and Longview ports can continue to receiv3e the commerce they need. Where's the hallibaloo and outcry when it is these ports bringing in all of those "foreign" ships with their ballasts doing God knows what in our precious river? Nobody is demanding that they guarantee their foreign ships are adhering to any specific rules mandated specifically for their industry when importing. Why? We WANT those cars and the cheap phones and flat screens. 5) VandenHuevel quotes ODE but neglected to tell people that it only holds true IF additional pipelines are allowed to be build, the very pipelines his group is fight8ing to keep OUT. 6) VandenHuevel said that ALL we had to do in Oregon was conserve and invest in Green technology. IF this as true, why hasn't a SINGLE SOLID green technology stepped up to the plate and validated VandenHuevel's proclamation by stating that if people will conserve a little bit more they guarantee that they can fill in with their technology??? The reason is because they can't. There isn't a single solid "green" technology capable of taking on our energy needs for another 25 years and then they will only be able to take on 25%!!!What will be taking on the other 75% ? That is what Finklea should have DEMANDED VandenHuevel explain to the people.
|
|
|
Post by Peter on Jun 15, 2009 2:50:06 GMT -5
It was a dismal failure all around. I watched it with someone who knows very little about the issue and at the end they said "huh"? Questions that were raised and went unanswered: 1) VandenHuevel says we don't need "foreign" LNG because we have "so much US natural gas, however opposes the laying of any and all pipeline, so how is Oregon supposed to get any of that US natural gas? 2) People say they are terrified of the crop production they will lose. The FERC website says that IF any land is used in the laying of pipeline that the company MUST compensate the landowner for crops they would have otherwise been able to use the land for. So how is the farmer or the vineyard person out any money??? 3) The supposed "nursery" 4) ... Nobody is demanding that they guarantee their foreign ships are adhering to any specific rules mandated specifically for their industry when importing. 5) VandenHuevel quotes ODE but neglected to tell people that it only holds true IF additional pipelines are allowed to be build, the very pipelines his group is fight8ing to keep OUT. 6) ... why hasn't a SINGLE SOLID green technology stepped up to the plate and validated VandenHuevel's proclamation by stating that if people will conserve a little bit more they guarantee that they can fill in with their technology??? I think that you're right; that some of these questions might have been better clarified. These are my quick thoughts. 1) I don't think that anyone has opposed any and all pipelines. I could be wrong. To me it's case by case. 2) Farmers have said that they prefer using their productive farmland rather than taking compensation. That seems fair, especially since the intent of the Palomar is primarily to send gas to California. 3) The National Marine Fisheries Service or the courts will have the final say whether digging a turning basin would jeopardize endangered salmon. The changes to hydrology and forcing fingerlings to the margins, where they are more vulnerable to predators, seem to me to be real issues. I believe that FERC acted illegally by issuing a conditional approval without a NMFS biological opinion. I also believe that fishermen and tribal knowledge should help to shape Columbia River salmon policy. 4) I and others have long advocated for at-sea ballast wate exchange to reduce introduction of invasive species. 5) Again, every pipeline project should be considered on its own costs and benefits. 6) We need to confront global climate change head on. That means hard work and investment in renewables, efficiency and conservation. Put the billions proposed for these LNG supply chains into renewable energy. Government needs to provide the incentives. We provide the determination. The alternative is to fail future generations. Percentages be d**ned. We can and we must do better.
|
|
|
Post by ... on Jun 15, 2009 10:15:27 GMT -5
What Finklea coveniently skirts are the numerous existing and proposed Natural Gas Pipeline projects that will get that 60% Natural Gas Supply to us through Canada(Alberta) thereby and again, negating the need for any LNG Scheme in Oregon or anyplace else in the western U.S. Finklea is simply, as it appears, trying to justify the need for Union Jobs in what are quite possibly unnecessary and unfounded projects and the end results and few end jobs be d**ned. Vandenheuvel should have countered with this fact. It isn't all about environment and tree hugging as legitimate reasons for LNG development as a bad investment in our future energy needs. Look at the pipeline projects below www.arcticgaspipeline.com/Maps.htm
|
|
|
Post by Tony on Jun 15, 2009 18:39:29 GMT -5
It was a dismal failure all around. I watched it with someone who knows very little about the issue and at the end they said "huh"? Questions that were raised and went unanswered: 1) VandenHuevel says we don't need "foreign" LNG because we have "so much US natural gas, however opposes the laying of any and all pipeline, so how is Oregon supposed to get any of that US natural gas? 2) People say they are terrified of the crop production they will lose. The FERC website says that IF any land is used in the laying of pipeline that the company MUST compensate the landowner for crops they would have otherwise been able to use the land for. So how is the farmer or the vineyard person out any money??? 3) The supposed "nursery" 4) ... Nobody is demanding that they guarantee their foreign ships are adhering to any specific rules mandated specifically for their industry when importing. 5) VandenHuevel quotes ODE but neglected to tell people that it only holds true IF additional pipelines are allowed to be build, the very pipelines his group is fight8ing to keep OUT. 6) ... why hasn't a SINGLE SOLID green technology stepped up to the plate and validated VandenHuevel's proclamation by stating that if people will conserve a little bit more they guarantee that they can fill in with their technology??? I think that you're right; that some of these questions might have been better clarified. These are my quick thoughts. 1) I don't think that anyone has opposed any and all pipelines. I could be wrong. To me it's case by case. 2) Farmers have said that they prefer using their productive farmland rather than taking compensation. That seems fair, especially since the intent of the Palomar is primarily to send gas to California. 3) The National Marine Fisheries Service or the courts will have the final say whether digging a turning basin would jeopardize endangered salmon. The changes to hydrology and forcing fingerlings to the margins, where they are more vulnerable to predators, seem to me to be real issues. I believe that FERC acted illegally by issuing a conditional approval without a NMFS biological opinion. I also believe that fishermen and tribal knowledge should help to shape Columbia River salmon policy. 4) I and others have long advocated for at-sea ballast wate exchange to reduce introduction of invasive species. 5) Again, every pipeline project should be considered on its own costs and benefits. 6) We need to confront global climate change head on. That means hard work and investment in renewables, efficiency and conservation. Put the billions proposed for these LNG supply chains into renewable energy. Government needs to provide the incentives. We provide the determination. The alternative is to fail future generations. Percentages be d**ned. We can and we must do better. 1) To you its case by case? Name ONE that they didn't oppose. 2) It seems "fair" that Leahy should be able to use his land and he chooses, too, and that those who wish to invest in gas should be allowed to. Why does "fairness" only go to one side? At least the farmers would be compensated. Who is compensating Leahy for years upon years he is waiting for this deal to go through? No one. Yet, the farmer will be compensated the minute his land becomes unusable. AND his land is once again usable the next year. 3) FORCING fingerlings to the margins??? This freaks me out that YOU consider yourself an advocate for the fishermen or the fish. Where do you think the fingerlings ARE? EGADS man, have you ever done anything except read a book about fish??? 4) So, why aren't you closing down the industries bringing in the foreign ships that are allegedly causing the problems? Can you please name us the ships that are causing the problems? 5) It SHOULD but they don't. If a bunch of Peters and Patricks get together in every state between Oregon and wyoming (or anywhere else that the gas could be coming from) and chant the mantra that they don't want to become the pipeline for Oregon, WE WON'T GET THAT GAS!!! 6) This FREAKS me out. Take pseudo science, force an answer that isnt in evidence, yet, and then force an imagined solution. For all we know the planet MUST heat up to remain "normal", in a natural cycle! We DON'T KNOW. Yet, we pretend to, because we can't stand the FACT that we DON'T KNOW. And the answers may be what kills us.
|
|
|
Post by ... on Jun 15, 2009 19:01:57 GMT -5
I think that you're right; that some of these questions might have been better clarified. These are my quick thoughts. 1) I don't think that anyone has opposed any and all pipelines. I could be wrong. To me it's case by case. 2) Farmers have said that they prefer using their productive farmland rather than taking compensation. That seems fair, especially since the intent of the Palomar is primarily to send gas to California. 3) The National Marine Fisheries Service or the courts will have the final say whether digging a turning basin would jeopardize endangered salmon. The changes to hydrology and forcing fingerlings to the margins, where they are more vulnerable to predators, seem to me to be real issues. I believe that FERC acted illegally by issuing a conditional approval without a NMFS biological opinion. I also believe that fishermen and tribal knowledge should help to shape Columbia River salmon policy. 4) I and others have long advocated for at-sea ballast wate exchange to reduce introduction of invasive species. 5) Again, every pipeline project should be considered on its own costs and benefits. 6) We need to confront global climate change head on. That means hard work and investment in renewables, efficiency and conservation. Put the billions proposed for these LNG supply chains into renewable energy. Government needs to provide the incentives. We provide the determination. The alternative is to fail future generations. Percentages be d**ned. We can and we must do better. 1) To you its case by case? Name ONE that they didn't oppose. 2) It seems "fair" that Leahy should be able to use his land and he chooses, too, and that those who wish to invest in gas should be allowed to. Why does "fairness" only go to one side? At least the farmers would be compensated. Who is compensating Leahy for years upon years he is waiting for this deal to go through? No one. Yet, the farmer will be compensated the minute his land becomes unusable. AND his land is once again usable the next year. 3) FORCING fingerlings to the margins??? This freaks me out that YOU consider yourself an advocate for the fishermen or the fish. Where do you think the fingerlings ARE? EGADS man, have you ever done anything except read a book about fish??? 4) So, why aren't you closing down the industries bringing in the foreign ships that are allegedly causing the problems? Can you please name us the ships that are causing the problems? 5) It SHOULD but they don't. If a bunch of Peters and Patricks get together in every state between Oregon and wyoming (or anywhere else that the gas could be coming from) and chant the mantra that they don't want to become the pipeline for Oregon, WE WON'T GET THAT GAS!!! 6) This FREAKS me out. Take pseudo science, force an answer that isnt in evidence, yet, and then force an imagined solution. For all we know the planet MUST heat up to remain "normal", in a natural cycle! We DON'T KNOW. Yet, we pretend to, because we can't stand the FACT that we DON'T KNOW. And the answers may be what kills us. The Natural Gas is not the issue genius as Finklea and his ilk are trying to get you to swallow, it's whether we, for the long run, need LNG facilities importing alien Natrual Gas to our shores when we do not need it and "NO", contrary to Finklea's analogy, if we indeed do not need LNG Import Terminals do we need it shipped to Oregon via LNG Tankers from Alaska as their plan is to pipie it overland, through Alberta, for one and likely through many existing pipelines, rights of way and infrastructure to the States as well as Canada and even that dreaded State, California. Like I said, Finklea's pimping front end construction jobs in that potential union feeding frenzy and to hell with the end result and it's only natural for him, in his interests, to do so but, do we really need it?
|
|
|
Post by Felix on Jun 16, 2009 0:56:14 GMT -5
1) To you its case by case? Name ONE that they didn't oppose. 2) It seems "fair" that Leahy should be able to use his land and he chooses, too, and that those who wish to invest in gas should be allowed to. Why does "fairness" only go to one side? At least the farmers would be compensated. Who is compensating Leahy for years upon years he is waiting for this deal to go through? No one. Yet, the farmer will be compensated the minute his land becomes unusable. AND his land is once again usable the next year. 3) FORCING fingerlings to the margins??? This freaks me out that YOU consider yourself an advocate for the fishermen or the fish. Where do you think the fingerlings ARE? EGADS man, have you ever done anything except read a book about fish??? 4) So, why aren't you closing down the industries bringing in the foreign ships that are allegedly causing the problems? Can you please name us the ships that are causing the problems? 5) It SHOULD but they don't. If a bunch of Peters and Patricks get together in every state between Oregon and wyoming (or anywhere else that the gas could be coming from) and chant the mantra that they don't want to become the pipeline for Oregon, WE WON'T GET THAT GAS!!! 6) This FREAKS me out. Take pseudo science, force an answer that isnt in evidence, yet, and then force an imagined solution. For all we know the planet MUST heat up to remain "normal", in a natural cycle! We DON'T KNOW. Yet, we pretend to, because we can't stand the FACT that we DON'T KNOW. And the answers may be what kills us. The Natural Gas is not the issue genius as Finklea and his ilk are trying to get you to swallow, it's whether we, for the long run, need LNG facilities importing alien Natrual Gas to our shores when we do not need it and "NO", contrary to Finklea's analogy, if we indeed do not need LNG Import Terminals do we need it shipped to Oregon via LNG Tankers from Alaska as their plan is to pipie it overland, through Alberta, for one and likely through many existing pipelines, rights of way and infrastructure to the States as well as Canada and even that dreaded State, California. Like I said, Finklea's pimping front end construction jobs in that potential union feeding frenzy and to hell with the end result and it's only natural for him, in his interests, to do so but, do we really need it? Tony is RIGHT ON TARGET! We didn't REALLY need the Columbia River Inn, that monstrosity that was built ON the river with a gas pipeline running out to it but someone WANTED to stick their money into it and was WILLING to GAMBLE with their own money on it. That is a FREE MARKET, that is AMERICAN, that is DEMOCRATIC, that is CAPITALISM!!! In the LONG RUN we don't NEED any ONE thing. We will survive. We have proven that a certain amount of us will survive Hitlers, Stalins, Roosevelts and Regans. Saying STUPID things like, "whether we for the long run need blah, blah, blah ..." einstien doesn't solve anything, nor does it prove you know a d**n thing about energy, our needs, or how they will be answered.
|
|
|
Post by Peter on Jun 16, 2009 3:06:23 GMT -5
3) FORCING fingerlings to the margins??? . I guess that I didn't adequately explain. After dredging a turning basin, the margins would be narrower, so there would be less real estate where the fingerlings tend to travel. Therefore predators would have an easier time preying upon the congregated salmon. You seem to agree that the fingerlings in general prefer the margins. Is there a fault in this logic? It also seems that the near constant disturbance from maintaining the turning basin, moving ships in and out with tugs, and the standby tugs and security vessels - along with ballast intake - would have negative impacts on salmon rearing or passing through. NMFS has numerous other concerns, some shared by the Coast Guard. NMFS has a major say, I don't. Still, it's interesting to try to understand your ideas. Global warming should be factored into the salmon evaluation. If you don't believe in the science pointing toward human contributions to the atmosphere and GB, I can't help but encourage you to continue to speak on behalf of the LNG industry. Thy should hire you.
|
|
|
Post by ... on Jun 16, 2009 9:51:35 GMT -5
Tony is RIGHT ON TARGET!
We didn't REALLY need the Columbia River Inn, that monstrosity that was built ON the river with a gas pipeline running out to it but someone WANTED to stick their money into it and was WILLING to GAMBLE with their own money on it. That is a FREE MARKET, that is AMERICAN, that is DEMOCRATIC, that is CAPITALISM!!!
In the LONG RUN we don't NEED any ONE thing. We will survive. We have proven that a certain amount of us will survive Hitlers, Stalins, Roosevelts and Regans.
Saying STUPID things like, "whether we for the long run need blah, blah, blah ..." einstien doesn't solve anything, nor does it prove you know a d**n thing about energy, our needs, or how they will be answered.
Is that the Columbia River Inn at Cascade Locks or The Columbia Inn Bed and Breakfast in Astoria and what the heck analogy does this have to do with the need for LNG Speculation on the lower Columbia and Coos Bay along with new pipelines to accomodate them when they are not needed?
Stupid things?
Don't think so unless you are chastising your own comments.
|
|
|
Post by Anonym on Jun 16, 2009 10:41:20 GMT -5
They probably were talking about the Cannery Pier Hotel, a major natural gas consumer and anti LNG advocate. Yet another hypocrite in the anti LNG movement. They are against LNG but are doing nothing to not use the gas they are against. Show me an anti LNG activist that doesn't use natural gas and that is an activist with some honor. So far I haven't met a single one.
|
|