As the proud owner of a gas furnace, I really don't care where the gas comes from, as long as I stay warm. If you are LNG opponents, can I assume you will support the construction of gas lines coming into Oregon from the North and East so that we can connect to the Sarah Palin Pipeline?

I still don't understand why we would not want LNG as an option, so that if pricing and supply changes - and it almost certainly will over the next twenty years - we will have options? A billion wind turbines in Eastern Oregon (which my Audibon Society friends hate) won't keep my gas furnace running.

Jeff did the bidding of the pr firm representing Bradwood Landing, as he himself acknowledged in response to someone's question in the comments. Timing the greenwashing of LNG to coincide with the rubber stamping by FERC was a bit on the obvious side, if you ask me.

The Eminent Domain Argument: With over 500 miles of proposed pipeline infrastructure intended to deliver LNG sourced Natural Gas to the market (mostly in California)there are thousands of landowners facing condemnation on their lands for the sake of providing profit to the fossil fuel industry. In October of 2007 the Oregon Dept. of Agriculture expressed it's concern to FERC that the Oregon LNG Pipeline "would cross high-value agricultural land in four Oregon counties: Washington, Yamhill, Marion and Clackamas… Together, these counties accounted for nearly $1,577,994,000 in farm sales in 2006. This represents 35% of the total value of all Oregon’s gross farm and ranch sales." The Dept. of Agriculture's concern touches on the potential impact to Oregon's economy due to the 50 ft zone of crop restrictions that would accompany these proposed pipelines. This could spell economic ruin for nurserymen, vintners, foresters and orchardists all over Oregon and Southern Washington. In addition to prohibiting deep rooted crops over a 50 ft permanent right-of-way anywhere the pipeline were laid, the landowner would be responsible to continue to pay taxes on that right-of-way and would only be reimbursed at 15-25% of the market value of that easement (a value that is based on undeveloped land -- not productive, developed land as most of it actually is).

The Renewable Energy Argument:

We really need to focus on Oregon's energy future. By continuing to dump money into foreign fossil fuel energy, we severely undermine Oregon and the Pacific NW's ability to move towards renewable energy. There are many more jobs to be gained from building out as much renewable energy as possible, as opposed to throwing $ towards the NorthernStar-backed foreign fossil fuel scheme.

Solar Energy representatives were present at Ron Wyden's Forum for Energy Independence two months ago, and they strongly urged Wyden and the rest of our delegation to commit to long-term incentives for the solar industry. Several of them also commented to Wyden and to FERC that the solar industry will suffer if LNG is approved. LNG will raise energy prices, in all likelihood, and this glut of high-priced fuel will dampen the region's push towards renewable energy.

There is no time to waste. Canadian LNG producers are now considering a move to send gas to Asian markets as LNG. That's right - LNG is going to be EXPORTED from N America, meaning we'll be competing with high-priced Asian markets for gas very soon. Solar power will be highly competitive with high-priced gas-fired electricity, particularly if we are going to be seeing gas prices like those that are being paid in Korea and Japan for LNG.

By the way - the people of Clatsop County agree. They voted 67-33 to oppose the Bradwood project and its pipeline. That vote began as a referendum on the pipeline, but it quickly became a referendum on the Bradwood project when Bradwood started doing push-polling, radio ads, and sued twice to keep the referendum from going on the ballot. All told, they spent well over the $60,000 they reported to the Secretary of State.

At the FERC Commission, Bradwood got 4 votes. In Clatsop County, LNG opponents got 8,000 or so - over 67 percent of the vote.

There is grassroots support for renewable energy NOW, and we need to get past this LNG debacle in order to make it happen.

Scoreboard: 67-33.

In response to Greg D- "As the proud owner of a gas furnace, I really don't care where the gas comes from, as long as I stay warm."

Well you may not care about where we get our energy from, but after spending close to a half trillion dollars in Iraq, over 4,000 dead U.S. troops, and tens of thousands of Iraqis including many kids I think the U.S. should care. For the last 50 years we've tried the "we don't care where it comes from" energy strategy and I think our current situation highlights the need to start thinking about local renewables, conservaation and increasing efficiency. Impossible? Just try the math on how many solar power systems you could install with the $700 billion bailout for the chief architects of our laissez-faire.

Why not just build $2 billion in LNG infrastrucutre for the off chance we can't make do with our 118 years of domestic natural gas? Two local fiscal reasons would be Trojan Nuclear Power plant and the WHOOPS nuclear power projects which cost ratepayers and bond holders billions when these ambitious energy projects failed.

Not to mention that the idea of trashing the Columbia River, ripping a 40-mile clearcut across Mt. Hood, and damaging countless farms and forestlands to keep a bad option option doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Greg D.,

Chances are your gas furnace will not last 20 years. Your next heating system may well be a high-efficiency heat pump powered by wind, wave, or solar power. The reasons we would not want the LNG option are laid out well in Poisner's post. Try reading it again.

Jeff,

Much of the increase in natural gas reserves is in the east. As that gas comes to market, it will decrease demand there for gas from the west, which will be available to fill Oregon's need.

Since the greatest economic growth looks to be in India and China for the foreseeable future, it would seen that competition for gas coming from the Middle East will be sharper than competition in North America for domestic gas. An increase in LNG infrastructure may eventually lead to export FROM North America, increasing the price of domestic gas. Ships and pipelines can take gas in either direction.

How is it that Alworth feels that BlueOregon is not safe? He presented an opinion based on NorthernStar's point of view which he happens to agree with. And he clearly is not persuaded by the overwhelming case made by those who have contributed. This is based on his deep and unalterable fear of burning coal. Not the coal that is being burned in China which has a more direct impact on Oregon than the coal burned in Montana. Fear that there were weapons of mass destruction allowed some to justify a vote to invade Iraq. Reaon did not apply there or here and Mr. Alworth is allowed to be terrified of coal and at the same time ignore all of the evidence that argues that there is nothing green about LNG. Accept for those who are personally invested in it.

Mike, I googled BlueOregon's four editors and found this tidbit on one of them, Charlie Burr, from a prior article:

[Full disclosure: I work as a senior account executive with Edelman, the world's largest independent public relations firm. Although I don't work on the Boeing account, Edelman represents Boeing. My last post about the 787 Dreamliner is here: Better planes, cleaner skies.]

I believe Edelman has your LNG project's public relations account in Oregon.

Jonathan and Brent,

Thank you for working together on this post. I was glad to see you included the financial case beside the environmental case. I agree that we need to make investments for our future; wind and solar infrastructure. Otherwise, my generation will be stuck with these same questions of energy independence- how to wean ourselves from dirty energies- even 5 or 6 decades from now.

If we had a carbon tax and LNG emerged as a cost-effective transition energy that replaced coal, it would align with my argument.

Jeff, you would be interested to know that many of us (CUB, EMO,RNP, NWEC) have successfully argued in front of the OPUC that the upstream carbon impacts of LNG should be accounted for in planning for electricity facilities. The Order (a first in the nation) in docket UM-1302 explicitly orders utilities to use expected CO2 taxes or regulations applied to life-cycle CO2 impacts of LNG. Read the Order from a couple months ago if you want. But it will be quite unlikely that with the transportation costs plus the CO2 costs (which are only about 30% less than coal) that LNG will ever be used to generate electricity in Oregon.

LNG is NOT a substitute for coal. If you have ANY evidence to the contrary, please present it.

Greg D. wrote: As the proud owner of a gas furnace, I really don't care where the gas comes from, as long as I stay warm.

Hey Greg, I too own a gas furnace, and since NW Natural has seen fit to use my money to force LNG down my throat I've been moving as deliberately as I can to find a new heating system. It looks like I'm going to go with a electric heat pump which may, in the short term, be less efficient, but once I put my solar panels up and lay out some district geoheating, I'll be just as warm as you, and my conscience will be much clearer.

While wind will be part of the solution, I would much rather see a million PV panels bloom. In addition to empowering (pardon the pun) the individual household, by distributing power generation throughout the country, we decrease the ability of "bad guys" to knock out our power supply (as they can with centralized power production).

Thanks to Chris Lowe for a very nice synopsis of the issues regarding coal vs. natural gas as contributors to greenhouse-gas emissions and environmental toxins!!!!

I'm seriously put off by the nonsensical, pseudonymous attacks on Jeff Alworth as a "shill". It is certainly possible to argue with his points without attacking him personally.

I actually want to give Jeff credit for keeping an open mind on the LNG issue. Many a fine progressive - from Robert Kennedy Jr. to Carl Pope- have at one point thought LNG was an attractive alternative to coal. It's only once you get into some of the nitty gritty that LNG looses its gloss. My guess is had our first discussion about LNG been over beers instead of on-line during a high pressure time in the LNG debate we would probably have quickly found our areas of agreement overshadow our disagreements.

Jeff- on the question of domestic gas supplies, the Navigant study which is linked to in paragraph # 3 of our original post, is really the most current and comprehensive document that looks at where the U.S. has gas supplies. Since this study was realeased in July natural gas prices have almost dropped in half on news of such large supplies.

Supplies locally. NorthernStar and NW Natural have argued we need LNG because our gas supplies from the Rockies are being sent east and Canadian supplies are dropping. The new Rockies Express pipeline will be sending some Rockies gas east, but the claim this would drain Oregon of gas is completely undermined by the fact major gas pipeline companies are still proposing 3 new pipelines to Oregon each of which would import about the same amount of gas as would an LNG terminal and significantly more than Oregon currently uses.

Similarly, the claim that there's not enough Canadian gas to go around is undermined by the fact Canada's only west coast approved LNG import terminal just applied last week to become an LNG export terminal. Two U.S. LNG import terminals (Freeport and Cheniere) also just applied to export LNG since the price is so high they can't find buyers for LNG they already brought in.

The high price of LNG and current low price of domestic gas actually has some of us concerned that the proposed LNG terminals in Oregon are more likely to become LNG export terminals than import terminals. If Rockies producers can get $20 plus per mmbtu in Japan, why not take that $7.80 mmbtu rockies gas and send it to Japan as LNG? If this actually happened it could cause a serious price spike in the west coast gas prices as we would effectively be forced to compete on the global LNG market for our own domestic gas. This is a real IF, but with the newest U.S. LNG terminal on the verge of bankruptcy and price projections for LNG seriously exceeding domestic gas into the future you have to wonder why are the LNG investors in Oregon still in the game?

This thread, like the last thread, is really lacking in the facts department. First off, do we need more energy? If so, what is the most economical way to supply that energy? If people don't like the most economical way to supply the energy are they willing to pay more for "cleaner" energy?

Instead of working thru the facts people are just calling each other names and throwing political talking points around.

I'm going to assume that there is an actual need for a LNG facility since people who have money are spending it to proceed forward with the project. They wouldn't be making the investment if there wasn't some projected return. If someone has a better idea on how that potential investment should be made they should prepare a business plan and get it in front of the money team.

No facts? Geez you could spend a good week reading the key reports we linked to in our original post. For starters have you read through Oregon DOE's report that we cite to in paragraph # 1 that concludes that while there is a need there is not a need for LNG because its more expensive and comes with a higher global warming impact than available domestic gas?

Have you already read through the Navigant study linked to in paragraph # 3 which says we have over 100 years of domestic gas supply?

Have you read through the project specific LNG fact sheets on CRK's website about what the LNG projects would do in terms of local impacts?

There's plenty of facts to show that LNG doesn't make sense for Oregon, but few that support it does.

I think local history should teach us that just because there is an entity that thinks they can make money from a given energy project doesn't mean we should embrace or even allow it to go forward. Lessons like Trojan, WHOOPS nuke plants that cost bond holders over $5 billion and of course Enron make clear that just because they think they can built it doesn't mean we should let them.

I consider myself a progressive leftie, but on the LNG issue I remain very skeptical. What if ARCO decided to build a gasoline refinery at Bradford - similar to the Cherry Point facility in WA. Can I assume that the LNG opponents would NOT oppose a gasoline refinery, because regardless of the debate about need vs. no-need re LNG, we definitely need more West Coast gasoline refining capacity. I think not.

I suspect that the same folks who oppose LNG would suddenly become opponents of a gasoline refinery. Maybe I am wrong, but I strongly suspect that the anti-LNG folks are just another form of NIMBY's.

Refreshing to hear some good sense about this issue from Brent Foster and Jonathan Poisner. Talk of LNG as a "bridge fuel" is nonsense, and the ability of people to confuse LNG with ordinary domestic natural gas never ceases to amaze me.