|
Post by General Comment on Jun 16, 2009 11:19:53 GMT -5
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? If you don't feel you personally need an LNG facililty then by all means don't invest your money in one --and don't be a customer when and if one does go online-Like you're always spouting off telling people during your bogus net based political campaigns "go with your conscience".
|
|
|
Post by ... on Jun 16, 2009 13:05:50 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. Probably? Once again you are confusing Natural Gas and its use with a very expensive and questionable process, LNG and the writer confusing a utility line with a "High Pressure Natural Gas Transmission Pipeline". How is it you know that Cannery Pier Hotel is doing nothing to conserve energy? The building, itself being new construction, has to comply with "The Oregon Energy Code", along with other stringent codes right off the top or it would not be allowed to be constructed and considering it is is place, it would appear that they have met those requirements. They likely chose to use Natural Gas for its efficiency as opposed to an all electric system which has been proven to be extremely expensive and a devastating consumer of fossil fuels. Do you know the efficiency ratings of there hvac and water heating systems? And you say they are doing nothing? I would say they are doing quite a bit already to maximize the use of the Natural Gas they do use.
|
|
|
Post by Tony on Jun 16, 2009 14:25:16 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. And the anti LNG should hire you. I love it. When nothing else works hint that the person is being PAID to have an opinion. I have an OPINION, not being paid a cent for it. I dont even get to have a moniker behind my name nor free trips to Washington DC to tout a lame theory that I read out of a book somewhere. You aren't trying hard to hear me. You never tried hard in school, you haven't tried hard in the half century or so since school, why start now? You give a good show of APPEARING to try to hear the other side. But for you there just really another side to any issue. You have never changed your mind on any issue.
|
|
|
Post by Anonym on Jun 16, 2009 15:07:13 GMT -5
Natural gas is natural gas regardless if it has been liquified or not. The greenies are tearing hydroelectric dams out left and right, so natural gas is the way to go. There is no such thing as clean burning coal and greenies are against wind mills. For someone that uses natural gas and is against LNG at the same time is like someone with thousands of dollars in credit card debt saying that they don't approve of credit cards. If you don't like credit cards cut them up and pay off and cancel your accounts. If you don't like LNG you should disconnect your gas lines and use something else. If not STFU!
|
|
|
Post by Tony on Jun 16, 2009 16:09:24 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. Probably? Once again you are confusing Natural Gas and its use with a very expensive and questionable process, LNG and the writer confusing a utility line with a "High Pressure Natural Gas Transmission Pipeline". How is it you know that Cannery Pier Hotel is doing nothing to conserve energy? The building, itself being new construction, has to comply with "The Oregon Energy Code", along with other stringent codes right off the top or it would not be allowed to be constructed and considering it is is place, it would appear that they have met those requirements. They likely chose to use Natural Gas for its efficiency as opposed to an all electric system which has been proven to be extremely expensive and a devastating consumer of fossil fuels. Do you know the efficiency ratings of there hvac and water heating systems? And you say they are doing nothing? I would say they are doing quite a bit already to maximize the use of the Natural Gas they do use. Very expensive and questionable process? You are NUTS. 1) It isn't YOUR money! IF it was sooooo expensive why would they do it??? NO ONE WOULD BUY IT! This is where you are being asinine. Everyone will say, "No thank-you, we will continue being customers of the Canadian companies, thank-you very much!" WHO brings in a product that will cost MORE ? WHO invests in a product that won't sell??? You can scream SPECULATORS all you want but the fact of the matter is they are speculating that the LNG will BE CHEAPER and therefore there will BE clients! 2) Questionable??? LNG has been around for over half a century! What the he** is questionable aboiut that? That's like calling solar a "questionable" energy industry! Its actually WORSE since solar's record for sustainable power at an affordable price is so dismal. How come no one's answering the golden question? If "green" energy is the only "smart" way to go why hasn't a single "green" technology guaranteed us that they can and will take on the grid within a certain amount of time??? Their "best guess" is maybe 25% in 25 years!!! You would think the leaders of that technology would know what they're talking about but apparently they don't know as much as a bunch of yahoo environmentalists who read in a book that "if you build it" it will magically take on the industries' of Oregon's energy needs!
|
|
|
Post by ... on Jun 16, 2009 18:44:08 GMT -5
Probably? Once again you are confusing Natural Gas and its use with a very expensive and questionable process, LNG and the writer confusing a utility line with a "High Pressure Natural Gas Transmission Pipeline". How is it you know that Cannery Pier Hotel is doing nothing to conserve energy? The building, itself being new construction, has to comply with "The Oregon Energy Code", along with other stringent codes right off the top or it would not be allowed to be constructed and considering it is is place, it would appear that they have met those requirements. They likely chose to use Natural Gas for its efficiency as opposed to an all electric system which has been proven to be extremely expensive and a devastating consumer of fossil fuels. Do you know the efficiency ratings of there hvac and water heating systems? And you say they are doing nothing? I would say they are doing quite a bit already to maximize the use of the Natural Gas they do use. Very expensive and questionable process? You are NUTS. 1) It isn't YOUR money! IF it was sooooo expensive why would they do it??? NO ONE WOULD BUY IT! This is where you are being asinine. Everyone will say, "No thank-you, we will continue being customers of the Canadian companies, thank-you very much!" WHO brings in a product that will cost MORE ? WHO invests in a product that won't sell??? You can scream SPECULATORS all you want but the fact of the matter is they are speculating that the LNG will BE CHEAPER and therefore there will BE clients! 2) Questionable??? LNG has been around for over half a century! What the he** is questionable aboiut that? That's like calling solar a "questionable" energy industry! Its actually WORSE since solar's record for sustainable power at an affordable price is so dismal. How come no one's answering the golden question? If "green" energy is the only "smart" way to go why hasn't a single "green" technology guaranteed us that they can and will take on the grid within a certain amount of time??? Their "best guess" is maybe 25% in 25 years!!! You would think the leaders of that technology would know what they're talking about but apparently they don't know as much as a bunch of yahoo environmentalists who read in a book that "if you build it" it will magically take on the industries' of Oregon's energy needs! Just set both side's hooey aside and give us one justifiable and factual reason as to why we need any LNG Transfer/Storage Facility on the Lower Columbia River or Coos Bay, for that matter, when there's is a pipeline from Alaska(Palin's recent announcement) planned across Canada to the US and the west coast NG market needs one pipeline link from the Rockies east to the TransCanada pipeline to service our West Coast NG needs for years to come without import of any foreign NG at all? I'll listen.
|
|
|
Post by nemo on Jun 16, 2009 21:20:19 GMT -5
why we need any LNG Transfer/Storage Facility on the Lower Columbia River or Coos Bay, for that matter, when there's is a pipeline from Alaska(Palin's recent announcement) planned across Canada to the US and the west coast NG market needs one pipeline link from the Rockies east to the TransCanada pipeline to service our West Coast NG needs for years to come without import of any foreign NG at all? You're starting to get it, ......ya don't carry coals to Newcastle and Im sure you'll agree that any importing or exporting, at the Columbia River, is good for Oregon and the Northwest. Not to mention the fact that the $800 million construction cost borne by private investors will greatly energize the lower river economy by putting a lot of people and machinery to work for a couple of years.
|
|
|
Post by Tony on Jun 17, 2009 0:26:21 GMT -5
Very expensive and questionable process? You are NUTS. 1) It isn't YOUR money! IF it was sooooo expensive why would they do it??? NO ONE WOULD BUY IT! This is where you are being asinine. Everyone will say, "No thank-you, we will continue being customers of the Canadian companies, thank-you very much!" WHO brings in a product that will cost MORE ? WHO invests in a product that won't sell??? You can scream SPECULATORS all you want but the fact of the matter is they are speculating that the LNG will BE CHEAPER and therefore there will BE clients! 2) Questionable??? LNG has been around for over half a century! What the he** is questionable aboiut that? That's like calling solar a "questionable" energy industry! Its actually WORSE since solar's record for sustainable power at an affordable price is so dismal. How come no one's answering the golden question? If "green" energy is the only "smart" way to go why hasn't a single "green" technology guaranteed us that they can and will take on the grid within a certain amount of time??? Their "best guess" is maybe 25% in 25 years!!! You would think the leaders of that technology would know what they're talking about but apparently they don't know as much as a bunch of yahoo environmentalists who read in a book that "if you build it" it will magically take on the industries' of Oregon's energy needs! Just set both side's hooey aside and give us one justifiable and factual reason as to why we need any LNG Transfer/Storage Facility on the Lower Columbia River or Coos Bay, for that matter, when there's is a pipeline from Alaska(Palin's recent announcement) planned across Canada to the US and the west coast NG market needs one pipeline link from the Rockies east to the TransCanada pipeline to service our West Coast NG needs for years to come without import of any foreign NG at all? I'll listen. YOU give ME one justifiable reason why we need to wait: 1) for the permission of a foreign country to build a pipeline through, thereby cutting off a huge chunk of revenue for one of their own nat gas companies, just so their country can supply the gluttons of the USA? 2) to wait for the pipeline to finally be built (after paying off Canada and all those deposed landowners) when we could have an LNG facility built in half the time and let Alaska decide if shipping it down to us or fighting with a foreign country and paying their taxes and fees and the cost of building the pipeline would be cheaper? The illogic of the self consumed continues to astound me. YOU use the arguement that Oregon shouldn't be the conduit for California's natural gas need but without batting an eye you demand that all the states between Oregon and the US' gas supply shouldn't bat an eye at being Oregon's conduit! and now a whole f**king country should turn over its land to be the conduit for our pipeline! UNF**KING REAL! How dare you ask a foreign country to do for us what YOU are unwilling to do for a sister state???
|
|
|
Post by ... on Jun 17, 2009 10:15:35 GMT -5
Just set both side's hooey aside and give us one justifiable and factual reason as to why we need any LNG Transfer/Storage Facility on the Lower Columbia River or Coos Bay, for that matter, when there's is a pipeline from Alaska(Palin's recent announcement) planned across Canada to the US and the west coast NG market needs one pipeline link from the Rockies east to the TransCanada pipeline to service our West Coast NG needs for years to come without import of any foreign NG at all? I'll listen. YOU give ME one justifiable reason why we need to wait: 1) for the permission of a foreign country to build a pipeline through, thereby cutting off a huge chunk of revenue for one of their own nat gas companies, just so their country can supply the gluttons of the USA? 2) to wait for the pipeline to finally be built (after paying off Canada and all those deposed landowners) when we could have an LNG facility built in half the time and let Alaska decide if shipping it down to us or fighting with a foreign country and paying their taxes and fees and the cost of building the pipeline would be cheaper? The illogic of the self consumed continues to astound me. YOU use the arguement that Oregon shouldn't be the conduit for California's natural gas need but without batting an eye you demand that all the states between Oregon and the US' gas supply shouldn't bat an eye at being Oregon's conduit! and now a whole f**king country should turn over its land to be the conduit for our pipeline! UNF**KING REAL! How dare you ask a foreign country to do for us what YOU are unwilling to do for a sister state??? What "Foreign Country" would that be? Surely you are not referring to Canada as a "Foreign Country" As this fellow North American nation has been our staunch ally for the last couple hundred years or so, it will continue to be so in finding answers to our future energy needs as well and you may as well set that "us versus them thinking" aside on this one. Have you noticed the existing NG pipeline infrastucture in just Alberta alone and the big ole pipeline coming out of there down our own west coast and has been there for some time called, 'The TransCanada Pipeline and pretty much parallels "The Williams Pipeline"?
|
|
|
Post by Anonym on Jun 17, 2009 10:35:32 GMT -5
If it's not a "Foreign Country" try going up there without a passport.
|
|
|
Post by ... on Jun 17, 2009 11:04:34 GMT -5
If it's not a "Foreign Country" try going up there without a passport. I've never had an issue with getting in and out of Canada and the people I have dealt with have always been quite friendly and receptive but as always and in every nation there's always the exception and do you think Alberta or any other provincial pipeline owner would balk at the revenue from that Alaskan NG running through their system in cooperation with "The U.S." NG supply industry?
|
|
|
Post by Joe The Bummer on Jun 17, 2009 17:39:03 GMT -5
I've never had an issue with getting in and out of Canada and the people I have dealt with have always been quite friendly and receptive Well, we all can't be instantly recognized adored international celebrity powerplayers like you, Mr. ..., who gets waved through borders with a cheery smile. Guys like you, Kissenger, The Dali Lama, Bill Clinton and others really mess it up for us plain old people who have to have passports to go to foreign countries
|
|
|
Post by ... on Jun 17, 2009 19:53:44 GMT -5
I've never had an issue with getting in and out of Canada and the people I have dealt with have always been quite friendly and receptive Well, we all can't be instantly recognized adored international celebrity powerplayers like you, Mr. ..., who gets waved through borders with a cheery smile. Guys like you, Kissenger, The Dali Lama, Bill Clinton and others really mess it up for us plain old people who have to have passports to go to foreign countries And as usual, the discussion goes to hell....See ya!
|
|
|
Post by Tony on Jun 17, 2009 20:45:06 GMT -5
Well, we all can't be instantly recognized adored international celebrity powerplayers like you, Mr. ..., who gets waved through borders with a cheery smile. Guys like you, Kissenger, The Dali Lama, Bill Clinton and others really mess it up for us plain old people who have to have passports to go to foreign countries And as usual, the discussion goes to hell....See ya! Of course it was "see ya'" as he couldn't answer me. What could be friendlier than two sister states, right next to one another, yet there are those among us who "refuse to allow Oregon to be the conduit for a pipeline to California" yet they demand a foreign (yes, even if its friendly, as is Australia and our number one supporter and ally in the mid east and the country that is predicted to be the nmber one exporter of LNG -QATAR) county to open up their lands to a pipeline to supply us. HE** yeah, PARTS of Canada will love to have OUR MONEY (hey, I thought we were tired of giving our money to foreigners???) but other parts will be pretty pissed that we quit buying their nat gas and their own country turned on them and helped the USA bypass them. Yeah, that will go over well. Lucky for those politicians running for elections up there that nat gas companies don't have much to do with donating to elections. Totally self absorbed these "environmentalitists" are down here. Oregon WILL NOT BE the conduit for California's natural gas supply but by DAM* Canada better be Oregon's, Idaho better be Oregon's, Colorado, Wyoming, etc, so forth and so on, better be Oregon's conduit because then that way Oregon can show the rest of the Nation how it is the LEADER when it comes to whining the loudest to get its way and LOOOOOK the GREENEST! Bunch of lying hypocrits. Run Patty, run, this discussion was asking for too much transparency and forethought for you, anyhow. Surprised you stuck it out without calling it quits a few frames back.
|
|
|
Post by Mr ... Fan on Jun 17, 2009 23:38:59 GMT -5
Just set both side's hooey aside and give us one justifiable and factual reason as to why we need any LNG Transfer/Storage Facility on the Lower Columbia River or Coos Bay, for that matter, when there's is a pipeline from Alaska(Palin's recent announcement) planned across Canada to the US and the west coast NG market needs one pipeline link from the Rockies east to the TransCanada pipeline to service our West Coast NG needs for years to come without import of any foreign NG at all? I'll listen. YOU give ME one justifiable reason why we need to wait: 1) for the permission of a foreign country to build a pipeline through, thereby cutting off a huge chunk of revenue for one of their own nat gas companies, just so their country can supply the gluttons of the USA? 2) to wait for the pipeline to finally be built (after paying off Canada and all those deposed landowners) when we could have an LNG facility built in half the time and let Alaska decide if shipping it down to us or fighting with a foreign country and paying their taxes and fees and the cost of building the pipeline would be cheaper? The illogic of the self consumed continues to astound me. YOU use the arguement that Oregon shouldn't be the conduit for California's natural gas need but without batting an eye you demand that all the states between Oregon and the US' gas supply shouldn't bat an eye at being Oregon's conduit! and now a whole f**king country should turn over its land to be the conduit for our pipeline! UNF**KING REAL! How dare you ask a foreign country to do for us what YOU are unwilling to do for a sister state??? He got you again, McGoo. When are you ever going to learn?
|
|