Does being green mean rolling over property rights? When I was in high school, our home was sold to the state because there was a planned freeway through our house. I understand there are people upset about pipeline going through parkland or farmland.

Even if LNG or any other form of natural gas is the greenest fuel available, do landowners have any right to say if they want pipeline under their property? Or is the pipeline right of way just condemned?

OIA, the M. 37 folks, were screaming PROPERTY RIGHTS over Measure 37. Do they have an opinion on pipeline siting, or was that just all about property development?

Details always matter when it comes to this sort of issue.

It's my understanding that the LNG will not be for Oregon at all, but instead will be sent to California. California, BTW, won't allow LNG facilities on their coast.

Link: http://www.onwardoregon.org/siteapps/advocacy/ActionItem.aspx?c=ffIOIRMEG&b=3136209

The greenwashing of Bradwood on BlueOregon. Those Edelman pr guys are trying to earn their money, I take it.

Curious timing for your post. We could see the decision today, and FERC will certainly approve the project.

You may be right -- I doubt it -- but your opinion puts you at odds with every reputable environmental group in the state, as well as our presidential nominee. And Ted and his people have said that the environmental analysis conducted for the project is a joke.

Well nuclear power is cleaner and safer than LNG, and I don't see people lining up to have a nuclear plant in their backyard, either.

"but your opinion puts you at odds with every reputable environmental group in the state, our presidential nominee, And Ted and his people."

How can they be reputable when they misrepresent every aspect of this proposed project? Their opposition to this responsible, worthy and benefitial project is blind obstruction, pure and simple.

Obstruction which essentially calls Jeff a liar about everything he wrote.

You see there is no reasoning with these obstructionists. Despite the fact that many of their own, now Jeff too, see this as a needed, safe and beneficial in many ways project. It doesn't matter how or what that the revenue, jobs, safety, environmental care and needs line up. It's no, no, no.

Nice work Jeff. I think Marc Abrahms sees it that way too.

A "green" argument for something that could detonate with the explosive force of a nuclear weapon?

"April 21, 2005

Text from US Congressional Record House Floor Arguments over Energy Bill H.R.6 Energy Policy Act of 2005 SEC. 320. LIQUEFACTION OR GASIFICATION NATURAL GAS TERMINALS at page H2344:

 Mr. KENNEDY (D., RI)

“I will tell my colleagues, in Rhode Island we would welcome the chance to have our gas piped in from some other country because the fact of the matter is, our State knows, as every other State that has an LNG facility knows, that if we were to ever have that explode, it would decimate a 50-mile radius.

We will take our lives over our jobs, over our taxes, over our security.”

You go right ahead and tell Rep. Kennedy the risk facing those living anywhere near a LNG facility is low. I don't think he's gonna believe you though.

I don't think there is a single "green" argument that can be made for something that blows up like a nuclear weapon. Did you see the end of the movie Syriana? Where the anti-tank weapon George Clooney's character sells at the beginning of the movie is used to blow up a LNG tanker at the end? Robert Baer, the former highly-decorated CIA agent that wrote the books the movie Syriana was based on was the person who conceived the "blow up LNG tanker with anti-tank round" terrorist threat scenario in the movie. As Robert Baer showed, all it takes to make one of those LNG tankers detonate is your basic Mark 1, Mod 1 TOW missile-style (shaped charge) infantry carried anti-tank weapon somehow arranged to strike the hull... maybe by missile, maybe at the front end of a speedboat. Boom.

<hr/>

Nuclear Power? More nonsense.

You know what the REAL total cost we're already going to have to pay for decommissioning the nuclear reactor we already have in the US? Over ONE TRILLION DOLLARS. Like every other corporate dominated industry around right now, the US nuclear power industry lies, and leaves out the cost of decommissioning reactors when they make cost estimates. That's a real big problem when the cost to decommission reactors is about 20 TIMES what it costs to build them in the first place. Fortunately, at least the UK is reasonable truthful about the real costs of reactor decommissioning. You do the math and the total costs of decommissioning currently operating nuclear reactors in the US well over a trillion dollars based on the UK projections for decommissioning reactors in the UK.

"if we were to ever have that explode, it would decimate a 50-mile radius".

Well then riddle me this. There already is a LNG terminal in Portland.

So is a LNG terminal safe enough for Portland but too dangerous for Bradford landing?

No. But the obstructionists don't care about anything that is brought up. Nothing. It's no, no no.

Hal said...

"Well then riddle me this. There already is a LNG terminal in Portland.

So is a LNG terminal safe enough for Portland but too dangerous for Bradford landing?"

Hal, whatever you think you might be talking about, it's not something the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission defines as a "LNG Terminal"

Here's FERC's map of existing LNG Terminals.

http://www.ferc.gov/industries/lng/indus-act/terminals/exist-term.asp

"Terminal Locations:

» Cove Point, MD » Elba Island, GA » Everett, MA » Kenai, AK » Lake Charles, LA » Peñuelas, PR » Sabine, LA » Freeport, TX"

Guess what's not on that list, Hal? Portland.

There already is a LNG terminal in Portland.

Really? Can you provide a link or some data? My cursory google search didn't locate any doc on this. It seems strange that the pro-LNG folks haven't made more mention of this.

Thanks, -tl

The source of the LNG has not been mentioned. We invaded Afghanistan to build the pipeline that the Taliban did not want. Are the proponents of this pipeline that the voters in California stopped aware of where this LNG is coming from?

Thanks, Frank for the quicker answer to my slower question. -tl

Oh come on. There are huge natural gas storage facilities in Portland.

LNG is natural gas cooled until it turns to liquid so it can be shipped across the ocean in special tankers. Once it arrives it is turned back into gas and stored.

As a liquid, LNG cannot explode and is not flammable. If released, it becomes a colorless, odorless vapor that can catch fire. It will explode only if in a confined area. Which is exactly the same scenario as the large storage facility in NW Portland and many other location.

There are also exisiting natural gas pipelines through populated areas all over the state.

Let's try and be straight about the oppostion to LNG terminals.

The safety is handled, every cost is covered, revenue will be provided for envrionmental work and tax revenue for local juridictions will be a huge boost. The oppostion is at best misguided.

Jeff - good post, but either you don't know or don't think one part of the gas fired "new technology" plants are important. They use lots of water.

Back about 8 years ago, Cogentrix proposed one of these plants in southern Jefferson Co, just north of the Crook County line, at an intersection of a gas pipeline from Canada and a BPA power transmission line. The power line goes on south to Las Vegas. Seemed like a reasonable thing until you got into the details.

It would have required several billion (with a B) gallons of water a year that would have been vented through a cooling tower into the air. The amount of water this plant would have consumed per year was equal to the amount it would take to fill a box running from Prineville to Redmond, 1 mile wide, and 10 feet deep. Even in wet western Oregon, that's a lot of water. Over here, they proposed wells near the Crooked River that would have taken the water from the river aquifer affecting downstream sensitive areas. They abandoned work on the proposal for the plant when the price of natural gas went up.

Furthermore, in the environmental impact statements, they clearly stated that they did not guarantee that any vegetative life would survive within a half mile of the plant. While natural gas is cleaner than other fossil fuels, it surely isn't perfect. The problem is that the use of the fuel is so concentrated at the plant that the pollution at that location is intense. Again, while there is less air pollution, this one plant would have increased hazyness in the atmosphere to the point where the view of the Cascade Mountains would have been negatively impacted for the three-County Central Oregon region.

And lastly, please remember that a relatively small plant near Boardman is creating so much pollution that the Columbia River Gorge area is seeing acid rain and negative consequences.

So Jeff, gas plants sound really good - until you get into the details.

There already is a LNG terminal in Portland.

Really? Can you provide a link or some data? My cursory google search didn't locate any doc on this. It seems strange that the pro-LNG folks haven't made more mention of this.

Thanks, -tl

It is the big round tank just upriver from the St. Johns bridge, on the west side of the river. -- My brother works next door.

When Bill Bradburry called LNG "180 degrees away from the direction we need to be going" in Oregon, he was right-on. Personally, I think the "bridge fuel" argument is a pretty weak one; does anyone out there seriously beleive that after pusing through major LNG companies in this state, the energy giants are just going to sit back and let the "transition" to cleaner wind, solar, and other renewable technologies take place? By allowing LNG in Oregon, we will lock ourselves into years more of fossil fuel dependence, in the process derailing initiative for the REAL clean projects that we need so badly to clean up our environment and provide good-paying jobs. Transition fuel? Oh please.

Jeff,

ALL of your economic and safety arguments were made in favor of the WPPSS nuclear farm decades ago -- and even included unequivocal union support. They couldn't have been MORE wrong in every category.

Your "reduced carbon emissions" view could just as easily be used to resurrect WPPSS today -- and it would be just as inane as the pro-LNG case.

If this is your green argument, I'd hate to see your Save Oregon argument.

"a relatively small plant near Boardman is creating so much pollution that the Columbia River Gorge area is seeing acid rain and negative consequences."

Clarity please.

The coal fired plant? How much acid rain? Negative consequences?

FERC has in fact now approved the bradford Landing LNG site, according to Friday morning's news on OPB.

I'm disinclined to get into the particulars of the LNG argument, but I'm most definitely wondering about Hal's claim regarding the technical aspects. Liquified natural gas has a density of about six hundred times that of the gas itself. Put another way, if you take that tankerful of LNG and let it warm up such that it turns back into a gas, it will take up a volume of about 600 tankers. So consider me skeptical that the fuel stored in those onshore tanks is in a gaseous rather than liquified state....

I think it is important for those of us concerned about environmental quality to recognize that there will always be tradeoffs. Mr. Alworth refers to hydropower as "green", but of course hydropower has trashed the salmon fisheries and had other unintended consequences.

I would like to see us be far more receptive to wind power near the Columbia River.

There aren't really any real alternatives in the short term. Conservation on a massive scale is about the only possible solution but it doesn't appear reasonable. People seem to enjoy their warm houses in the winter and their AC in the summer.

Nuke is probably the best solution but there is a lot of opposition from the "greens" so the alternative is less green energy source. That is ironic of course but the greens don't seem to understand irony.

Wind, Solar, etc are too expensive to deploy full scale and the transmission lines aren't in place anyway. The greens will block any new transmission lines just like they'll want to block any new gas lines.

The situation would be funny if we weren't living in the middle of it.

Jeff,

Funny you should mention "waste." WPPSS was a waste in every imaginable use of the word. It was a FIASCO -- a house of cards built on an energy firm's projected need and unions' rose-tinted thinking.

LNG isn't safe nor is it needed. Not even close.

And yes, Edelman certainly has made the most of the same union/enviro split as back then.

I'll bet Columbia Riverkeepers is all wrapped up with William Ayers and Jeremiah Wright as well.

I'm hoping that Mr. Kremer will be equally as concerned with the Cuban exiles in south Florida who've been given a free pass for, say, blowing up airplanes.

I haven't been following this issue real closely, but I can't recall reading anywhere that the gas is intended to displace coal, so that's kind of a bogus argument, isn't it?

» Cove Point, MD » Elba Island, GA » Everett, MA » Kenai, AK » Lake Charles, LA » Peñuelas, PR » Sabine, LA » Freeport, TX"

Imagine if those four hijacked planes had flown into four of these LNG facilities on 9/11. Our oil import infrastructure is similarly concentrated. I read in a defense-related publication once that less than 10 well-placed nuclear weapons targeted at our energy-import terminals would effectively destroy our country. Thank god the terrorists really don't know what they're doing, eh?

Hmmm... I'm not 100% convinced on LNG myself, but I'd rather hear folks talk about alternatives than just beat up on LNG.

Fair enough. May I suggest conservation? Conservation can save more and sooner than it takes for new energy sources to be developed and brought online.

The example in Juneau, AK is extreme but shows how dramatic energy savings can be made. I'm not suggesting we need to mimic the drastic and sometimes draconian lengths circumstances there required folks to go, but we could learn a lot from them.

http://www.juneau.org/energy/ http://www.lbl.gov/publicinfo/newscenter/features/2008/EETD-alaska.html

-tl

Jeff: You can't actually be claiming that Europe's Greens support nuclear power or LNG?!?

Their slogan is "Nuclear is a problem -- Not a solution!"

Hal says...

"Oh come on. There are huge natural gas storage facilities in Portland."

No there are not, Hal.

Your standard assortment of natural gas facilities are not the same thing as LNG facilities. That why the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission makes it very very clear they treat LNG facilities completely differently than than they treat standard natural gas storage facilities.

This is originally from what I guess you guys will call, "that far left wing socialist consorting with eco-terrorist rag," The Christian Science Monitor, in 2004...

"In the hours after the Sept. 11 attacks, Richard Clarke, then America's top counterterrorism official, rushed to get the US Coast Guard to close Boston Harbor. His main fear: Al Qaeda might attack a huge liquid natural gas tanker as it glided past downtown buildings.

Mr. Clarke professes to know what few did: that Al Qaeda had used LNG tankers to smuggle agents into Boston from Algeria. He also knew that each ship held as much energy as a nuclear weapon. "Had one of the giant tankers blown up..., it would have wiped out downtown Boston," Clarke said in his book "Against All Enemies."

His assertions add a grave new concern to a push to triple the number of LNG terminals in North America. An explosion of just one bulbous tank on an LNG ship could produce a fire half a mile wide, experts say. Along a densely populated shoreline, they add, such an inferno could be disastrous.

http://www.mindfully.org/Energy/2004/LNG-Terror-Target6apr04.htm

Repeat that... the FIRST threat Richard Clarke that about right after the Twin Towers were attacked was an LNG tanker facility in Boston Harbor.

Again...what terrorist attack scenario did CIA veteran field operative Robert Baer create in Syriana? An attack of an LNG tanker by terrorists.

Veterans of national security infrastructure like Richard Clarke and Robert Baer seem to think claims that LNG facilities are safe are basically so much hogwash.

Nick makes an important point above. Based on past experience, the availability of increased natural gas supply will greatly slow the development of sustainable energy sources.

Also, I have not seen a persuasive argument for siting LNG terminals in Oregon when most of the gas will be used in California. Pipelines are environmentally destructive. Shorter is better.

"a relatively small plant near Boardman is creating so much pollution that the Columbia River Gorge area is seeing acid rain and negative consequences."

Clarity please.

The coal fired plant? How much acid rain? Negative consequences?

I'm going from memory here, because its a workday and I don't have time to do all that nice research that some of the under-employed people who are on Blue Oregon have time for.

The plant in Broadman was a gas plant from what I recall. It was another Cogentrix project that was in line just before the one in Jefferson Co. that was stopped due to the price of gas going up. -- It might be coal, if it is, then I'm incorrect regarding that one aspect.

The Oregonian newspaper covered the acid rain and pollution in the Columbia River Gorge from the Boardman Plant about 1 to 2 years ago. The other negative consequences if I recall the articles correctly had to do with not just plant life, but wildlife. The pollution was harming the entire ecology of the gorge.

"Columbia Riverkeepers DOES consort with terrorists."

And you cite My Space "friends" as your evidence?

That's just precious, Robbie.

Republicans consort with terrorists, too. You probably know them as Dick Cheney and George W. Bush.

Thank you, Jeff Alworth, for a thoughtful post.

I think what we're dealing with re: environmental organizations opposed to this project are individuals who think we have to destroy our economy and livelihoods to protect the planet. They long for return to a pre-industrial state of being.

Such millenial, utopian thinking is similar in scope to communism, fascism, and radical Islam.

Bjorn Lonborg, noted environmental skeptic, said it best - let's make sure the solution to global warming doesn't leave us in an even worse position than if we had done nothing.

And, last time I checked, Oregon was part of the United States. And we're one big energy market. So stop the "but it's not for us Oregonians" crybaby nonsense.

There have been some inaccurate statements made in the post and in the comments from both sides:

• The Cleveland LNG disaster was at a storage facility, not a terminal.
• LNG is stored in tanks on land as LNG, being revaporized only when injecting it into the pipeline taking it off site. At locations remote from the terminal or gas well, some natrual gas is liquefied into LNG for storage, to be used during times of peak demand. Also, some natural gas is liquefied and stored for use as vehicle fuel, where LNG vehicles operate.
• The comparison of LNG aboard ship to Hiroshima bombs is false logic -- one could have the same amount of energy (BTUs) equivalent to any number of Hiroshima bombs in a pile of toothpicks, but toothpicks don't burn like an Hiroshima bomb. The same is true of LNG. LNG would re-vaporize, could burn, and under some conditions explode, and the resulting heat from burning would be intense up to a certain distance away (some distance over one mile, but nothing even close to 50 miles), creating a serious or fatal hazard to humans and surroundings, but it would never approximate anything close to an atomic bomb.
• The world's foremost expert on LNG hazards, Jerry Havens, who developed the LNG vapor hazard model used by industry and government, indicates that FERC's standards regarding terminal placement near people are too lax.
• The proposed LNG project sites in Oregon violate the world LNG industry's wisdom and advice on terminal siting. The Society of International Gas Terminal and Tanker Operators (SIGTTO, whose membership includes 95% of the world's LNG industry), in their publication, "Site Selection and Design for LNG Ports and Jetties," specifically warns not to locate LNG terminals or shipping routes where vapors from an LNG release could affect civilians; thus, something over three or more miles between terminal or ship becomes the actual safe distance from civilians in most cases. Not following the industry's advice, if a catastrophe were to occur, would likely shut down the LNG industry entirely -- something that would not be in the industry's best interests. FERC ignores the industry's own advice -- perhaps making LNG the only federally-regulated industry where government standards are less stringent than the industry's.
• The natural gas market has recently turned the need for LNG on its head. According to some industry participants, there is enough domestic natural gas (in over a score of shale fields) to supply the US with enough natural gas to last 100 years. The US Department of Energy's Energy Information Agency (EIA) has expressed concern over a natural gas glut in this country. There are now four proposals to export LNG from the US to Asian and European markets, instead of importing it. Two of those proposals are from Freeport LNG and Sabine Pass, both new LNG import terminals that can't find markets for their LNG-source natural gas. Chesapeake Energy is also proposing to construct an LNG export terminal. The fourth project is being proposed for Valdez, Alaska, for some of the gas from that state. There simply is too much domestic natural gas to make new LNG import-terminal construction economically viable.

The LNG bubble has burst, just as it did in the 1970s.

Each LNG transport will require the escort of a Coast Guard gunship. Doubtless this will become a new venture for a privatized military at cost plus. The above ground three foot diameter pipeline will equally be at risk. So there is further opportunity for billions more for a security system. All of these costs are to be carried by the rate payer; so, alternative energy sources and conservation will be displaced by a high risk high cost pipeline to California. This is not good for Oregon.

Mike Austin hits the nail on the head about the straw horse argument that Alworth sets up.

I haven't been following this issue real closely, but I can't recall reading anywhere that the gas is intended to displace coal, so that's kind of a bogus argument, isn't it?

The imported LNG will not displace current coal generation, and the capital committed to the LNG will take away from the capital available for clean alternatives. There is simply little likelihood that NEW COAL can or will be built to serve Oregon load.

So, 1. The LNG is not needed to supply Oregon demand. 2. More expensive LNG brought into the mix may actually increase the average cost of gas. 3. LNG increases dependence on foreign sources of energy. 4. At best, LNG provides a modest decrease in life-cycle CO2 over coal in generating electricity- but it really will be displacing domestic gas and renewables - so it will INCREASE CO2 emission copmpared to the non-LNG case. 5. Only the most naive would believe that the developers are doing this to benefit Oregon - they would go elsewhere, but us (and Sonora) are the only ones they have a chance to roll with their LNG myths.

Hello Jeff,

As someone who closely analyzed (and helped to defeat) the BHP Billiton LNG project proposed for offshore of Oxnard and Malibu, I should point out one thing.

The Environmental Defense Center, Santa Barbara, studied the carbon footprint of the whole production cycle, from extraction of the gas to transoceanic shipping and re-conversion to gas at this end. They found it would have been 67 times more carbon-intensive than just the end-use burning of the gas. That would make it one of the least efficient, least clean energy options known. Counter-intuitively, it can be worse than coal. If it's a "bridge fuel," it's a bridge to the 20th century.

Sequestration is a separate matter; I'm not sure how you're convolving it with LNG vs. coal emissions.

If the LNG were to be used to shut down Boardman, great. But no, it's intended to add TO Boardman, so it's a net loss.

What we need is to shut down Boardman as fast as possible -- the plan to put some scrubbers on it means it will burn even more coal and produce even more CO2 for the same power output.

(Oh, and while we're on the subject of dumb energy moves, let's don't forget the proposed new "Snake River Ethanol" plant in Nyssa -- intended to use imported diesel oil to import both coal and corn and burn them here in Oregon.)

Jeff, did you or did you not consult with anyone associated with the LNG project before writing this post? (I would include among the "associated" anyone working for a labor union in support of the project, or anyone working for one of the lobbying/public affairs firms representing the project, Gallatin or Edelman Worldwide).

Do we actually believe that Rob Kremer would be advocating for an environmentally-sound project? What about Chuck Deister?

Go ask the people of Galveston how they are enjoying their toxic soup right about now.

At the moment the Boardman plant is considered a back up for the wind farms under construction. Conservation and the implementation of developing technology would be a preference. Incidentally, on a related issue, I am sure that everyone is aware that Ford is distributing a 65mpg diesel in Europe. Engines are built in England although a 350 million dollar plant is being planned for Mexico to build them. Yet, the car will not come to the U.S. the story in Business Week indicates that the taxes on diesel are the reason. The five passenger rig would be a nice alternative to the 22mpg Subaru or any of the other cars that get similar mileage. Oh yes and Senator Reid has just said that they are going to adjourn early because they do not know what to do.

this warrants a longer response not written on a phone. For now let's just note that LNG has a 21 to 30 percent larger carbon footprint than domestic gas because it is energy intensive to liquefy and ship. So if you care about reducing global warming pollution LNG is not the way to go.

Well, I looked at the photo, Kari, and it is a remarkable post. Insofar as LNG requires storge at -163 degrees C (-260degrees F the tank seems to be exposed to direct sunlight. Must be a fantastic insulation that can keep it that cold. However, if we are (Jeff that is) advocating for LNG to avoid methane isn't that what happens when LNG mixes with air? Don't intend to be dense. LNG is dense at 600 times the expanded version. So that tank in the picture must be quite strong and capable of withstanding a pretty severe attack. Yet, it looks so ordinary. Truly remarkable.

there is no "green" argument for LNG and it's not destined for Oregon or Washington, it is destined for the markets in California. So, why do the people of Oregon have to go through this? Much cheaper to site the pipelines and terminals in poorer Oregon which is relatively desparate for some jobs (any jobs) compared to siting in more expensive California. So, Oregonians suffer the potential harm effects while realizing very marginal benefits (a couple temporary jobs). No on LNG in Oregon.

Thank you ordem. Green does have other connotations and one would wonder why this was presented with the inference that it is beneficial to the environment when it is so clearly not. Oregon has been used as a test market for a good many bogus right wing plans and this is evidently one more bad idea that no reasonable person can defend. One might wonder why Jeff did not consult with the folks who have thoroughly vetted this topic on KBOO instead of taking the LNG proponents point of view.

Jeff, thank you for your candor about consulting with one of the entities seeking to benefit from the placement of LNG in Clatsop Co. prior to writing your piece. That was the brave, and proper thing to do.

Do you mind identifying which of the interested parties you consulted with before posting?

Has anyone else noticed that Rob Kremer and Jack Roberts are giving the biggest kudos to Jeff's article here? Good company with Chuck Deister who is heading up the persuasion effort (Deister, formerly Karen Minnis' Karl Rove), but not with progressive ideas and progressive values. Whether done sincerely or out of loyalty to a friend of BlueOregon, Jeff has participated in an attempted Greenwhashing of Bradwood.

Jeff: Name me the disaster.

Is this our yardstick? If hundreds of thousands haven't suffered a crisis, then it's safe and green? Maybe last month's scare qualifies, when the Oskarshamn nuclear power plant in Sweden confirmed that traces of explosives were found in a "contractor's" bag.

LNG terminals and pipelines are laughably soft targets.

Nothing about your argument for LNG is green, Jeff -- but maybe that's your favorite color of lipstick?

This is a disaster waiting to happen. We do not want the huge boats and the danger to our residents in the area...including my in-laws.

Regardless of how one might feel about this exchange it may have added some information to a few. In that light I would like the next advocacy to be for the Transcanada Pipeline that Sarah Palin credited herself with as if it has already been built despite the fact that it may be 18 years if ever. A number of lawsuits are alreay attached because it is a companion to building a pipeline from Alberta to Port Arthur, Texas. The purpose is to deliver the hideously polluting tarsand derived oil from north of Fort MacMurray. It will use billions of cubic feet of natural gas to cook this mess up. That is of course if the lawsuit brought by the Native tribes fails. But hey this has lots of green in it. One half billion up front courtesty of Sarah Palin goes to Transcanada. But of course that pipeline in Oregon went through with the many blessings of the progressives with a stamp of approval that called it green. So why not?

"The fact is, Columbia RiverKeepers is bein exposed for the extremists that they are. About time."

Gee Rob, it's not like they tried to covertly fund government death squads in El Salvador or anything. That was Ronald Reagan. Oops. I give him too much credit. He was just a cipher for the Republicans. So yeah, Republicans consort with terrorists who have actual blood on their hands.

And you want to talk about internet links. You're silly.

One definition is the following: The dissemination of misleading information by an organization to conceal its abuse of the environment in order to present a positive public image.

My argument is clear, transparent, and straightforward: the amount of carbon we put into the atmosphere would go down if we switched from coal to LNG. I may be wrong, but I'm not a stooge or a half-wit. And if I am wrong, I'd like to know it, and have the data to prove it.

Jeff, you are not a stooge. You are just plain wrong.

1. Carnegie Mellon does prove (very conservatively) that LNG has at least a 28% higher CO2 impact than domestic gas. This all neatly laid out in OR Dept of Energy comments.

2. If the gas is shipped over from Indonesia, or Russia, there is clearly an impact in the source markets that will drive toward more use of coal (or even worse, tropical forests) for energy production.

3. Show me ONE credible source that demonstrates inmporting LNG will decrease the use of coal. Frankly, as I wrote, Oregon WILL NOT be permitting coal plants, or allowing the IOUs to rate base coal plants. And it is against the law in both CA and WA to build new coal plants (w/o sequestration, which is a pipedream), or to sign new contract for electricity generated by coal.

4. The big growth in demand for natural gas is in Alberta for the Tar Sands to Oil environmental holocaust. Bringing more natural gas onto the continent feeds that monstrosity.

Jeff, you are wrong about the environmental impact of LNG on the climate. And I do not know if you have been duped, but some of your arguments about the benefits of LNG do lack a basis in reality. I would highly recommend that you read the critique of this proposal I cited above from those RADICAL enviros in the Governor's office and departments.

So, if we're trying to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, we need to prefer domestic natural gas to dirty LNG and to coal. The green argument for LNG is only if you set up the strawman of coal. That's a strawman.

Kari and Jeff, I hope you understand Evan's statement. The dirty LNG proponents have set up a strawman to knock down. Please do more research before you buy these sham arguments.

There ARE alternatives to dirty LNG - domestic and Canadian gas is one. Clean gas, and efficiency and renewables, is where our capital should be going. Believe me, if they build it and NW Natural buys it, Oregonians' capital will be diverted to supporting dirty LNG.

Cold, shivering, in the dark. That's where the most rabid Greenies want us.

And the bait-and-switch by Evan Manvel is stunning -- LNG may be better than coal, but he says domestic natural gas is even better... so we should not embrace the LNG option and instead keep burning coal while the theoretical savior of domestic natural gas goes unused.

Evan, why isn't that domestic natural gas available? Why would LNG even get a foothold if domestic natural gas is ready and waiting to be used? Who would buy LNG and why?

Hot, parched with poisoned air, water and earth. That's where the most rabid pro-business, "let the market decide", head in the sand anti-environmentalists want us.

One or two people mentioned conservation. That's it. Do people not realize that the possible energy savings from even small changes or investments (insulation, increased CAFE standards, more energy efficient lighting, etc.) can reap savings much greater than the effort, time and money required to bring in yet another C02 producing, non-renewable resource.

Rather than assuming our energy demands must continue to grow, can't we at least examine the possibility of proven ways to reduce our energy consumption? That'll do a heck of a lot more than shipping LNG in from overseas. And whereas non-renewable energy resources dry up (or get prohibitively expensive to continue extracting and utilizing), conservation can start helping NOW and can continue indefinitely.

Marv writes, "Well, I looked at the photo, Kari, and it is a remarkable post. Insofar as LNG requires storge at -163 degrees C (-260degrees F the tank seems to be exposed to direct sunlight. Must be a fantastic insulation that can keep it that cold. However, if we are (Jeff that is) advocating for LNG to avoid methane isn't that what happens when LNG mixes with air? Don't intend to be dense. LNG is dense at 600 times the expanded version. So that tank in the picture must be quite strong and capable of withstanding a pretty severe attack. Yet, it looks so ordinary. Truly remarkable."

I find the level of denial interesting - but then I used to work with alcoholic/addicts, and juvenile delinquents.

I recall that sometime ago, perhaps 10 to 18 years, the Oregonian ran a story on this facility. It was prior to 9/11/01. They showed how if this facility blew up, it would take out nearly all of NW Portland out along the river, St. Johns, Swan Island, the U of P, and half of downtown. I recall this strongly because at that time and to this day my brother worked next door at the old Natural Gas / coke plant location where oil is recycled. I have visited him at his work - back before the new security from 9/11 prohibited it, and have seen first hand this big (really big) round tank.

So Marv, perhaps you ought to visit Eqypt, where de Nile is a river.

I grew up in the Oklahoma-Texas area where natural gas is and has been pumped from the ground for years. I get royalty checks every month from gas companies. My brother has worked for gas companies for his entire life. A few points:

1)Natural gas prices economically have no relationship to oil/gasoline prices however when oil goes up in price natural gas does.

2)There is no current shortage of natural gas. In fact a huge amount of drilling for natural gas is going on right now. Land is frequently leased for drilling and active drilling is happening with a lot of gas coming on line.

3)Natural gas pipelines run all over the area down there, the land is still used for farming or what-have-you without any pipeline issues to speak of. I know, it's not seismically active like it is here.

4)Natural gas prices are not a result of shortages and when gas is high more drilling is done because gas companies can afford to search.

5)As natural gas prices fall-overseas natural gas will actually cost more and may all ready be more expensive then the terminal will sit unused.

Personally I would support a pipeline linking the west coast pipeline system to the central states system which has been discussed. There is great supply and we don't become dependent on foreign gas like we have oil.

Anybody still believe Blue Oregon is a place for intelligent or enlightened analysis?

Folks, some of the Wikipedia entry about LNG: These may help understand the technical issues. No advocacy here.

<hr/>

"Modern LNG storage tanks are typically the full containment type, which is a double-wall construction with reinforced concrete outer wall and a high-nickel steel inner tank, with extremely efficient insulation between the walls. Large tanks are low aspect ratio (height to width) and cylindrical in design with a domed roof. Storage pressures in these tanks are very low, less than 50 kPa (7 psig). Sometimes more expensive frozen-earth, underground storage is used. Pre-stressed concrete backed up with suitable thermal insulation, are designed to be both under and above ground to suit sites conditions and local safety regulations and requirements. Smaller quantities (say 700 m³ (190,000 US gallons) and less), may be stored in horizontal or vertical, vacuum-jacketed, pressure vessels. These tanks may be at pressures anywhere from less than 50 kPa to over 1,700 kPa (7 psig to 250 psig)."

"LNG must be kept cold to remain a liquid, independent of pressure. Despite efficient insulation, there will inevitably be some heat leakage into the LNG, resulting in vapourisation of the LNG. This boil-off gas acts to keep the LNG cold. The boil-off gas is typically compressed and exported as natural gas, or is reliquefied and returned to storage."

"In its liquid state, LNG is not explosive and can not burn. For LNG to burn, it must first vaporize, then mix with air in the proper proportions (the flammable range is 5% to 15%), and then be ignited. In the case of a leak, LNG vaporizes rapidly, turning into a gas (methane plus trace gases), and mixing with air. While this mixture is within the flammable range, there is risk of ignition which would create fire and thermal radiation hazards. Note that since 1944, only one serious accident at a regasification facility has taken place."

According to Speaker Pelosi, natural gas is not a fossil fuel. I guess that's why they call it "natural".

Now all we need is organic fair trade Oregon tilth natural gas, and they can sell it at Whole Foods.

How do people of such mediocre intellect rise to positions of power and influence?

Jeff,

The reason I address this to Kari, too, is that he twice said dirty LNG opponents propose keeping Oregon on "41% coal". He just does not know what he is talking about. The alternatives are clean gas, efficiency, geothermal,wind, baseload solar...

To your question about the need for the dirty LNG, I simply give you the conclusion of ODOE link above

Conclusion Natural gas use in Oregon is likely to rise over the next twenty years. New sources of natural gas will be needed to meet this demand. However, natural gas supplied by LNG terminals proposed in Oregon are likely to cost more than natural gas produced in North America, including gas delivered by new pipelines proposed from the Rocky Mountains to serve the West Coast. In addition, the life cycle CO2 costs of LNG would likely be substantially higher than natural gas produced in North America

Or perhaps the most respected overall analysis from the NW Power Planning Council

I do not know why you again cited the GHG comparison of dirty LNG and coal. That is a false issue. Availability of LNG will not displace coal plants in the next five to ten years (see the council report cited above). If there is a potentially strong enough GHG price signal some time around 2020, it will be necessary for all of our capital to be going to non-fossil energy, not marginally less dirty LNG. For analysis of these regulatory scenarios , many models have been run for OR, CA, the US, etc...

In fact, Al Gore has called for the elimination of all fossil generated electricity by 2020. Do you still think our energy capital should be committed to freezing-shipping-thawing a trade-deficit-busting, foreign-dependence-increasing source of dirty fossil energy?

Wow! Oh, and thanks, Jeff for responding to my earlier comment. I still believe any Oregon LNG terminals built will be simply be used as transfer points to out of state destinations. Only time will tell. I'm stunned, though, by the vitriol in the comments by some. Especially those who conflate sincere concern about our stewardship of the environment with the boogeyman ... err, sorry, I meant "terrorists". Kind of makes you wonder why their panties are all knotted up over this. Regardless, the tone and tenor of their comments is totally consistent with that of the current "leadership" in this country, and everyone with at least two brain cells to rub together can see how well that's been working. My guess is none in the troll chorus live anywhere near where the proposed terminal(s) or pipeline(s) will be placed, but I will bet that they all have some sort of a vested financial interest. Just sayin …

Frank wrote, quoting Hal:

"Oh come on. There are huge natural gas storage facilities in Portland."

No there are not, Hal. Your standard assortment of natural gas facilities are not the same thing as LNG facilities.

Kari wrote...

"Frank, would you care to address my comment above - noting that there is, in fact, an LNG storage facility in Northwest Portland? Damn, I even posted a map and a photo."

Kari, the difference in fixed LNG storage tanks and LNG tankers and pipelines is literally multiple feet of concrete.

http://www.arup.com/energy/skill.cfm?pageid=2882

It's probably more an convenient accident than a planned feature, but fixed LNG storage tanks have outer walls that are made of concrete that's a couple of feet thick. It's an accident of science that thick concrete construction is the most cost effective way to keep that LNG cold.

You find a way to fortify the LNG tankers and LNG pipelines with Maginot Line bunker thick concrete around LNG tankers and pipelines, I'll be willing to consider them safe to be around, too. Unfortunately, tankers and pipelines aren't built that that way.

Jeff Alworth's original post saddens me.

His arguments for an imported natural gas terminal near us are

1. "the NW gets 41% of our energy from coal" [assuming he means electricity]
2. Burning natural gas to produce electricity produces 40% less CO2 than coal
3. Lifecycle CO2 energy costs of natural gas burned to make electricity are less than that of coal
4. Then he makes various arguments that environmental and safety arguments are wrong, thus discountable.

The post saddens me because it assumes the plant should be built then carefully frames arguments to justify it and dismiss critics. Pick a value (green) of importance to the target audience (Blue Oregon readers). Set up a straw man (coal) and knock it down with your false solution (LNG). It is pure public relations, whether intended or not.

There is only one coal plant in all of WA, OR and ID, at Boardman, and it is very small, 560MW. The Dalles hydro plant is three times that size alone. That calls into serious question the factuality of a 41% [electric] energy from coal number. That is a nice way of saying it's false. Check plants by capacity and fuel

The Northwest has adequate gas supplies via pipelines from Canadian sources. In fact, the reason for siting the LNG plant here is to feed even more gas into pipelines that run through here from Canada to Oregon. Canada has a 22 year projected gas supply for the Northwest. (BPA)

The argument is really over the next plant, not shutting down existing plants. Wind is being brought on line right here faster than any LNG terminal, pipeline or turbine can be brought on line.

The NW has tremendous geothermal potential and geothermal electric plants are available now. See map of geothermal potential. Generators are available today to tap all the areas shaded red and much of the area shaded orange. In fact, even private companies are rushing to do so like this one. Public utilities too.

A future carbon tax will further disadvantage gas turbine electricity generators.

And of course, conservation is the quickest and most cost effective source of capacity.

I expect much more of Blue Oregon.

Frank,

First you claimed there were no existing LNG terminals in Portland, now you're claiming the pipelines would be LNG? Wrong. The LNG would be converted to gas at the Bradwood landing terminal before being piped.

There's no excuse for the constant misinformsation surrounding this and other topics. We should at least be able to establish and accept a basic framework of facts. Not so. Literally every aspect of this project is being perpetually mirepresented as means to stop it.

The safety factor is no different than many existing circumstances with the hanlding of nat gas. The environmental impact will be a net gain as the developers of this project have comitted to extensive environmental work far beyond midigation.
All of the costs are completely covered, many jobs and enormous revenue will come into the local community and government agencies. There's no comparison to WPPSS, no comparison to the Boardman coal fired plant and no case that more natural gas is not needed.

no case that more natural gas is not needed

Hal, how fast can you construct a strawman? Quicker than we can knock them down?

I will grant that Oregon may need more natural gas. But, there is NO case that demonstrates that the supplies in North America are not adequate to supply Oregon's needs.

I wish the dirty LNG proponents would at least use honest arguments. Let's keep the focus of this debate on the need for dirty LNG to supply Oregon's energy future. The need for clean natural gas is different than the debate for dirty LNG.

"dirty LNG"

Well there it is folks. Not any of the aspects, circumstances or tremendous benefits matter at all. They can all be dismissed because LNG is "dirty".

Or it's a nuclear bomb?

It's so mindboggling that one could think there is no need for this terminal and LNG when the company is putting millions into it's creation.

I guess there must be some multi-million dollar scam underway?

This perpetual presumption that there is some evildoing going on while all of the facts and benfits mean nothing is irrational.
This is good eneregy, needed energy, cleaner than some other alternatives and it pays for itself while delivering huge beneifts for the communities and the environment.

Someone earlier in this thread (Mr. Alworth?) was wondering out loud about the business of eminent domain being used to condemn land for pipelines. If anyone here attended Hillary Clinton's rally in Hillsboro back in the spring, you will recall that she invited onto the stage a woman, a farmer, who said she was at risk of condemnation should a certain LNG terminal and pipeline go ahead. I believe she was referring to the Boardman LNG facility.

No advocacy here, just repeating what was said at that event.

Hal said...

"Frank, First you claimed there were no existing LNG terminals in Portland, now you're claiming the pipelines would be LNG? Wrong. The LNG would be converted to gas at the Bradwood landing terminal before being piped...."

Hal, How does the LNG get from the LNG tankers to permanent concrete storage tank?

Vulnerable unprotected pipelines that run from out where the tankers deliver the LNG to the permanent concrete LNG tanks on shore.

http://www.ferc.gov/images/photogallery/lng_norman_lady.jpg

http://www.ferc.gov/images/photogallery/lng_oman.jpg

Look at the tankers in the photos. What's running between the tankers in the photo and the storage tanks. A big long unprotected target.

I do not think Jeff intentionally used coal as a strawman, but it is one. LNG will not replace coal in an unregulated environment because coal is much cheaper. Also:

LNG requires substantial infrastructure on both ends, infrastructure that would not be funded if LNG will be a "bridge" energy source.

If we are going to pretend we can control how energy sources will be utilized, then rather than using LNG in the US to replace coal, we should will that natural gas is used close to it's source. This maximizes it's greenness and means infrastructure will be abandoned when the "bridge" is burned.

Capital that would be used to build LNG infrastructure would be much more wisely used building wind generators. Proper tax structure can see to that. The electricity from wind generation can be used directly, or it can produce hydrogen, a truly green fuel. We have the technology for this. We need the infrastructure. That is where capital should be directed.

What needs to be be done first is to break the stranglehold that fossil fuel interests hold on government policy and regulation. Without that step, we are all whistling in the wind and producing nothing but hot gas.

Jeff Alworth wrote:

But we consume way too much energy to shift to a non-carbon energy grid in the short term. Meantime, we're still charging our iPods and typing on our computers and so on. So the question is, what's the lowest carbon alternative?

This, I believe, is a fundamental mistake of reason. It is true that we cannot eliminate carbon emissions in the short term, but that is not a good reason to invest capital in LNG that could be invested in sustainable energy that would bring us closer to a non-carbon releasing energy future. Not only would new LNG infrastructure use capital that could build wind generators, it will inhibit sustainable development by increasing supply of competitive sources.

If we are ready to use regulation and incentive to build a sane energy future, let's move toward the target whenever that is possible. Wind is doable now. LNG is a stopgap detour.

Jeff, Please cite your source with a reference for the 41% of Oregon electricity from coal. I would love to see an unbiased analysis of NW grid flows supporting your thesis.

If PGE-Enron decides to buy energy from Wyoming and Montana coal plants, they can change their mind anytime. In fact, if we had public power, like Eugene and the Dalles (which recently got a Google server farm as a result), we would have preferential access to BPA hydro by law.

Readers may find some interesting references in the findings of dissenting FERC commissioner Wellinghoff.

http://www.ferc.gov/news/statements-speeches/wellinghoff/2008/09-18-08-wellinghoff-C-1.pdf

This is simple. All of the FERC commissioners were appointed by Bush. Houston energy company applies to build 3 West coast imported LNG terminals, benefiting their management and hedge funds supporting them. Local gas company signs on because LNG is about 2x the cost of domestic, so the higher cost mix will allow them to raise prices. FERC votes 4-1 to support LNG terminal on the Columbia River based on selective reading of industry-funded studies. Houston energy company hires highly skilled PR firm to shape the public debate. Which is working. Unfortunately.

Can someone explain why we need to import a commodity that we as a country export? The US currently sells natural gas to foreign markets, and then we in turn are going to import it from a different foreign market?

This just doesn't add up.

For information regarding projected 20 year demand for LNG as compared to domestic gas supplies, check out pages 77 - 79 in the following:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/pdf/trend_4.pdf

It appears there are many variables which will affect whether or not LNG will be needed or make economic sense, including whether or not the "Sarah Palin Pipeline" is built quickly enough to allow Alaskan gas to offset declining sources in Canada and the lower 48. I think it is possible to argue that the negative environmental consequences of the Palin Pipeline will be worse than an LNG terminal on the river. Who knows.

After working on LNG issues in Oregon for the last three years, it was disappointing to see Jeff’s post since it regurgitated almost verbatim arguments that NorthernStar and Edleman have made for the last several years as to why building a multi-billion dollar infrastructure for importing more foreign fossil-fuel from the Middle East would be “green.” While I appreciate the repeated caveats in Jeff’s posts that others “probably know a lot more about the issue” and that “if I am wrong, I’d like to know it,” I’m not sure this justifies failing to do even a basic level of research to independently evaluate NorthernStar’s claims which you echoed.

While I don’t think this was timed to create a platform for the pathetic smear PR blitz being lead by NorthernStar and FreedomWorks (right-wing attack arm for industrial interests as directed in Oregon by Republican Party vice-chair Russ Walker), the uninformed proclamations about LNG being “green” played right into it. When faced with things like Tuesday’s 67% vote in Clatsop County against NorthernStar’s LNG pipeline plans, the LNG speculators from Texas and their hired guns have had to stoop to charging that everyone against LNG is an “eco-terrorist” or “environmental extremist” and that “reasonable” environmentalists support LNG. Tell that to the county farm bureaus, the Cowlitz County Republican Party, Oregon and Washington Democratic Parties or the City of Forest Grove, who are just a few of the groups that have joined Riverkeeper, Sierra Club and so many others in opposing LNG in Oregon. When Mr. Kremer and others can wave around a volunteer-created My Space page overloaded with over 300 “friends” as evidence for charges of being linked to “eco-terrorism” you know things are getting pretty desperate at Team Fossil Fuel.

I have submitted a column that includes links to the state, federal and other key documents and sources that undermine the NorthernStar LNG arguments that Jeff raises so hopefully it will get published but its too long for a response here.

Thanks Jeff for the civil discussion. But also thanks to Brent for the informed addition.

It may be useful to remember who is behind Freedom Works' pro-LNG and anti-climate regulation campaign that has helped finance these talking points (as well as their previous campaign to support privatization of Social Security. Here goes:

Founders: Dick Armey, C Boyden Grey, and Jack Kemp Current Board: Armey, Steve Forbes and buddies Senior Fellow: William Bennett

Nice Company!

Does it really matter if the 41% figure is accurate in the context of an America where more than 50% of our national electricity is supplied by coal fired plants?

Who cares if the LNG is imported here and then consumed beyond Oregon's borders: we should be Americans first and Oregonians second. More suppliers of LNG (and points of delivery) is better: who can predict where those "imports" may be coming from (Canada, Texas, etc.) in the future?

Alert: tangled reason follows - but central concern is germane.

Jeff: way to punch a fellow in the nose, but in most civil fashion. You did not just call him lazy, but gentlemanly, cloaked it in wads of civilly-reactive verbiage.

It is concerning to me that eminent domain might condemn many land owners and un-watched swaths of our public holdings to service this un-green option. Perhaps the power source is somewhat green, but the infrastructure related to it is NOT when we consider the impacts to people, ecosystems and terrain inevitably ripped up to service this tertiary fix.

Who will be watching over our wide open back countries? I am alarmed at how much of our public domain is being sold off to developers by the BLM - Harney County is home to historic sites related to the Indian Wars as well as White historical wagon train roads, homesteads and delicate ecosystems. Huge parcels were put up on the block this past year, with no Metro-area notice that I could discern.

Friends of mine rallied to put in a counter-bid to rescue a butte that had been used by the Pauites to safeguard herds and Families against enemies. No luck. Developers won the bid for that and the surrounding lands. I do not recall that this was considered a news-worthy item.

Who is going to keep an eye on our collective riches in the body of publicly-held lands should we go the LNG route? WE've seen how poorly the department of the Interior "managed" Indian lands - indeed, over fifteen years ago a supreme court decision came down to take that management away from the BIA... but was never effectuated. The BLM does not seem to be the very best friend of the electorate, and if we are not careful, we'll be seeing a thread up here woeing about the loss of public lands under our noses.

I appreciate learning that advocates for LNG also see the virtue of privatization of social security. Perhaps this is also a position that Jeff holds. What means of disposal for all the useless bread goblers is preferred? No doubt it will be green.

Jeff you'll have to excuse my "lazy" post but I’ll confess that blogging against an argument that is an almost verbatim lift from Edleman's press spin for NorthernStar for the last two years hasn’t been my highest priority. But now that it’s Saturday lets deal with a few of the basics about natural gas and LNG starting with 1. Need, and 2. Price.

1. There is no need for LNG. Jeff- you said "Evan, I have found no evidence that natural gas is in abundance, so I await your links for that. Obviously, domestic natural gas is a better resource if it's available."

As reported in the Oregonian and every other major paper this July, new natural gas discoveries have doubled estimates of U.S. natural gas reserves to 118 years of supply. For ex- “Study Raises Estimates of U.S. Natural Gas,” USA Today, 7/31/08. You can see the actual gas reserve study at www.cleanskies.org/printpage.aspx?page_id=%7B55B3B34E-E7AA-442C-95B9-634112CB0542%7D.

Since this news, domestic natural gas prices dropped 50%. The Wall Street Journal’s Aug. 11th article talked about the new U.S. “natural gas glut” and what gas producers would do with all the new gas they’ve found.

1. Price. The only thing that’s green about LNG is the price. While domestic gas prices were $7.82 per mmBTU last week, LNG is running $20 per mmBTU or more. See “Surge in Natural-Gas Price Stoked by New Global Trade”, Wall Street Journal, 18 April 2008. As a result, LNG imports into the U.S. have slowed to a crawl and the newest LNG import terminal just asked FERC to allow it to start exporting LNG.

So with over 100 years of our own gas and middle east LNG running twice the price Oregon should be able to say no to LNG before even getting into the other facts about the project.

"there is an Lng terminal in Portland"

Somewhere back up on this thread this has become a discussion so I have some info on that. there is a LNG "peak shaving plant" in Portland, and another "peak shaving plant" on the coast around Newport. However, these are not LNG "terminals." They are storage tanks facilitated by domestic natural gas pipelines and utilized as back ups for peak demand seasons. No tanker plys the Willamette river, or ventures off of the Pacific into the bay at Newport to facilitate these tanks at a complex and envasive LNG pier. Domestic gas in Domestic gas out. And for the time being those of us who live on this continent should be looking to our own abilities to develope and maintain our independancee with domestic cleaner natural gas and clean green power, rather than encouraging foreign sources to bind us to a less clean fossil fuel like the British once bound China to Opium.. It is all about money and power. Here's to Oregon Power!

Kari wrote:

The folks who are worried about a new tank of LNG exploding or whatever should, perhaps, be worried about the current tank.

Size matters.

Jeff,

Not sure if you're still reading this older post but if you are one thing that might be interesting to discuss is how exactly progressives or greens are supposed to make decisions. As one can see by reading this thread, the progressive community doesn't appear to have a method for decision making on issues that require trade offs. It just appears to be a bunch of people making statements with no real way to actually decide on a course of action. Any MBA can quickly tell you how to make a decision in a business setting. Alternatives are ranked according to ROI, IRR, payback period, etc. That kind of analysis can be complicated by tax rates, growth assumptions, etc but it is at least a method of evaluating and deciding on alternatives. The progress community apparently just argues about stuff and has no coherent method of actually deciding how to do something. How would progressives add another GWH of energy to the grid over the next 10 years? Nuke, LNG, coal, hydro, etc? Can anyone in the progressive community even lay out a method for making a decision like that or is everyone just going to argue about each others data and whine about how it is all Bush's fault?

andy,

There is not and cannot be "a progressive community" that can make decisions for its members. People who call themselves progressive are a heterogeneous population with a wide variety of nuanced values and opinions. Many have vested interests in some sector of the economy.

I would rejoice when progressives engage in dialog. Don't expect miracles, though.

Kari.. Unless my eyes decieved me there was indeed a statement made by Hal on Sept 18,2008 , at 8:14:25 AM that there is an LNG terminal in Portland. I don't know how many times and how many meetings I have attended contesting LNG that Pro LNG people have stated that Oregon already has LNG and has had for decades.. That is rather a deceptive and insinuating statement when combined with the argument for LNG terminals on the columbia river. Just wanted to clear that up. And those two tanks are but two of hundreds, if not thousands of storage facilities in this area which contain combustable product. The key point here is that they store , condensed to 260 degrees below zero, DOMESTIC FOSSIL FUEL. No ball and chain there. We do not need to continue to grovel to foreign interest,and pay billions of American dollors to foreign powers which hate us. We do need to tap every domestic resource we have , or can manufacture, to declare our independance from psudo friendly powers.

Tom,

I understand that there isn't a progressive community per se, but what I was poking at is that there doesn't seem to be any accepted grounds for making decisions on these threads.

If this was a MBA blog there would be a general acceptance that the project with the greatest IRR should be selected. There might be significant differences on the assumptions that go into calculating the IRR but nobody really argues that a business should select poor investments over good investments.

On this thread though there doesn't seem to be any agreement on even how to agree. If we need more energy (some argue that we don't) then how to decide? Some don't like hydro, some don't like wind, some don't like coal, etc. So while it is easy for everyone to just take pot shots at different alternatives nobody seems to have the ability to actually list the alternatives and rank them so a recommendation could be passed on to the decision makers.

Andy: did I miss it? I was unaware that decision-making was a functional focus of this organ? It's for scuffling, discussing, researching (occassionally). And for sometimes providing the action-link needed for an individual to take an action.

Tom: yes, size matters. Waiting for intelligent comment, now. Anyone got stats?

andy,

OCN, a consortium of Oregon environmental orgs opposes LNG in Oregon. That is probably as close to progressive consensus as you will find.

intelligent comment:

The project includes three storage tanks, each about the height of a 17-story building and nearly as wide as a football field is long.

... and that would make this week's Al Quaida run at the Ramada look like... a fingerpainting party.

Thanks, Thomas. The visual helps us Neanderthalensis members!

Intelligent comment = liklihool and hx of explosions or leaks on such containments? Blast per foot? Emergency response impact? Who pays for it WHEN it happens?

That's kinda what I was fishing for.

If ,as the scientific consensus dictates, we're going to make substantive progress on global climate change via CO2 reduction, we need to rapidly phase out the use of non-atmospheric carbon--that is, carbon that is currently permanently sequestered below the ocean, within coal, shale, tar sands, AND IN NATURAL GAS, liquid or no.

Since it would be impossible to cease using all of these at once, it would behoove us to analyze which fuels are doing the most damage and prioritize the elimination of the most dangerous and polluting fuels first. This analysis should take into account the entire life cycle of the product, from exploration to end use.

As others have stated before, when extracted, cooled, transported , unloaded, rewarmed and delivered, LNG’s energy footprint is a loser. Perhaps not as big a loser as coal, oil and tar sands, but a loser nonetheless.

Recognizing that some uses (aviation fuel for instance) cannot be easily shifted to renewables or electric power, we should save our remaining petroleum and natural gas for those critical industries for which no workable substitute is on the horizon, while shifting almost everything else to over to renewables (solar, wind, wave and biomass).

The question we should be asking is: with the limited time and fiscal resources available to us, what is the best way to leverage increased conservation and large scale development of non-polluting renewable energy.

For my money, Oregon is slowly beginning to move in the right direction, even as corporate “citizens” like NW Natural and PGE drag their feet. But unless the state and federal governments are willing to roll the utilities and impose a federal mandate like the Germans did (see http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2007/jul/23/germany.greenbusiness), then we’re going to see other states (California, NJ), countries(China) and regions (Europe, Asia) create that demand and attract the start-up businesses that will drive their economies and the solution to the planet’s problems.

It’s really pretty simple-Put more money and resources into: a) something that makes the problem worse or b) into something that helps solve the problem while creating long term jobs and growth.

I choose B

I get the last word.

There is no "green argument" for LNG. Period. 'Nuff said.