Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Coos Bay, OR; Community Action Against LNG Terminal!
Community action meeting 8/25 to prepare for a public hearing in Coos Bay, OR on 8/28. Speak out to prevent an ecological disaster from entering coastal Oregon's Coos Bay in the form of a supercooled liquified natural gas (LNG) terminal and pipeline with hundreds of miles of linear clearcuts across Oregon's mountains..
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT:
LNG COMMUNITY ACTION MEETING August 25, 2007
6.00-9.00 PM
Hales Performing Arts Center
SW Oregon Community College, Coos Bay, OR
Experts will discuss what we've accomplished , what we are doing and how we can work together to defeat the LNG terminal and pipeline project. Click here for the full meeting announcement.
more details @;
http://www.oregonwaters.org/LNG.htm
Land Use Hearings;
8/28 and 9/17;
4:00 pm
Coquille Community Building
115 N. Birch
Coquille
Since late 2004, multiple energy companies have proposed large, controversial liquefied natural gas (LNG) developments along the Lower Columbia River and in Coos Bay. Currently, five proposals exist in Oregon, each of them generating concern among people who live, work, and recreate in their vicinity. Here is a brief update on each of the five proposals:
1. Bradwood Landing LNG (Northern Star Natural Gas). Bradwood, OR. Northern Star Natural Gas is expected to file its formal application with FERC very soon. FLOW and many other citizen groups, environmental organizations, and concerned citizens will file to be intervenors in the FERC process, reserving the right to appeal FERC decisions, if necessary. FERC continues to accept preliminary comments on Northern Star’s proposal, its resource reports (available on the FERC website, http://www.ferc.gov), and the possible impacts of the project.
2. Jordan Cove LNG (Fort Chicago and EPD, LLC). North Spit, Coos Bay, OR. The project, now majority owned by a Canadian energy company, Fort Chicago, is being pushed forward and promoted heavily by the Port of Coos Bay. The Port is proposing to purchase a tract of Weyerhauser land on the North Spit and lease part of the property to the Jordan Cove LNG project. The site occupies the area directly opposite the town of North Bend, and it resides close to the North Bend Airport. The Jordan Cove Energy Project is expected to file with FERC soon, although it will be beginning the pre-filing process, which takes a minimum of 6 months.
3. Skipanon LNG LLC (Calpine Corp.). Warrenton, OR. This proposal on the Skipanon Peninsula at the mouth of the Columbia River is moving forward through local land use proceedings. The City of Warrenton tentatively approved rezoning the Skipanon Peninsula on behalf of Calpine’s Skipanon LNG LLC. Their decision, once final, will likely be appealed to the Land Use Board of Appeals by local LNG opponents. FLOW filed comments (click here to read) supporting opponents of the Skipanon proposal. Recently, Calpine has filed for bankruptcy. Their Skipanon LNG LLC asset may be sold as part of the bankruptcy proceedings, and FLOW will continue to monitor these developments at the mouth of the Columbia River.
4. Port Westward LNG LLC. St Helens, OR. This proposal may file with FERC once the developer gains full control of the property required in the area. The developer has heavily pressured a local landowner (whose family has owned land in St. Helens for over 100 years), under threat of condemnation by the Port of St. Helens, to sell.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
FLOW’s Position on LNG:
All of the current LNG proposals are extremely problematic from a public safety, economic and environmental perspective. Consistent with our mission to promote the health of Oregon’s Waters, we are concerned with the environmental impacts implied by the heavy dredging needed to maintain safe passage for LNG tankers, habitat disturbance in sensitive waterways, and loss of public use and enjoyment of these areas. Additionally, in the cases of these large LNG developments, concerns for public safety constitute our paramount reason for opposing the projects. Members of communities targeted for LNG development may be unknowingly or unwillingly subjected to risks associated with a possible accidental or intentional LNG spill and fire. Because the best available information indicates that LNG should be sited remotely from human populations and because all of the sites will bring LNG vessels close to local populations, we oppose the Oregon LNG proposals as being inconsistent with the public interest.
Furthermore, the measures necessary to lessen the risk to the public of LNG storage and traffic—particularly closing rivers and bays to non-LNG vessels and securing these areas—constitute an additional burden on residents and visitors. The economic benefits of LNG are minimal and short-term, and locally the impact of LNG may, in fact, be negative on the economies of the Lower Columbia and Coos Bay. Our research indicates that, in these areas, introduction of LNG could create a high-risk, heavily secured area that will be unattractive to residents, tourists, and other business. Regardless of the nation’s alleged “need” for natural gas, LNG development is inequitable due to the disparity in costs and benefits for those who live near proposed sites versus the relatively remote end-users of the energy.
Indeed, the impacts of Oregon’s flirtation with LNG may extend far beyond our coastline and the Lower Columbia River. As with other types of fossil fuel development, many members of the source communities for LNG may not benefit from exporting this resource to Oregon. Oregonians, by accepting LNG development, will deepen the state’s dependence on fossil fuel resources that are often exploitatively extracted to the severe detriment of local people and environments that do not receive adequate protection. The LNG issue transcends NIMBYism (Not in My Back Yard), as these projects not only impact Oregonians negatively, but they also support negative impacts that occur in distant, upstream locations in the LNG supply chain.
(adopted unanimously by FLOW Executive Committee, 12/31/05)
For LNG-related questions, please call Dan Serres at 541-251-3569.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
"Why Does This Concern the Local Coos Bay Area?
On November 22, 2004, a newly formed Colorado based company, Energy Products Development LLC, doing business in Oregon as the "Jordan Cove Energy Project", submitted a Notice of Intent (NOI) to the Oregon Department of Energy to build a LNG facility on the North Spit across from the North Bend Airport. Current plans include Jordan Cove Energy acquiring property from the Port, who is purchasing land from Weyerhaeuser for this project.
In July 2005, Fort Chicago Energy Partners LP, of Canada, acquired a majority stake in the Jordan Cove Energy Project. - http://www.fortchicago.com
The Jordan Cove Energy Project includes two storage tanks, each with the capacity to hold up to 160,000 cubic meters or
42 million gallons each of LNG.
This LNG facility will be across from our local airport and would not likely survive a 9/11 type attack or accident.
A large LNG spill, vapor cloud, & fire caused by accident, earthquake, or terrorist attack would have devastating impacts on our Bay Area.
"For a nominal intentional (LNG) spill the hazard range could extend to 2500 m (1.553 miles). The actual hazard distances will depend on breach and spill size, site specific conditions, and environmental conditions." Sandia National Laboratories Report for the U.S. Government - December 2004
"We have a one to three mile range here that are credible hazard distances based on a tanker spill of one half of one tank or 3 to 4 million gallons of LNG. There are no real disagreements about this. If more is spilled it could be worse, obviously."
Portland OR - August 16, 2005 - Professor Jerry Havens - LNG Expert/Chemical Engineer/Director- Chemical Hazard Research Center at Univ of Arkansas
more info @;
http://citizensagainstlng.com/default.aspx
Building a LNG terminal along the coast is the same bad idea that was attempted by Calpine in Humboldt Bay! The people of Humboldt came out in great numbers to oppose this project, and Calpine retreated. There are several other reasons that this project is undesirable for the coastal ecosystem..
The dredging required to accomodate the megatankers that transport the LNG to the terminal would destroy beds of eelgrass and the entire ecosystem of species that thrives therein..
"Eelgrass cannot survive in murky water. “Its need for light is its Achilles heel,” Shaughnessy said. This is why water quality issues are so important in conserving eelgrass beds."
article @;
http://www-csgc.ucsd.edu/STORIES/Eelgrass2007.html
In other news, the LNG corporations may be heading on a downwards spiral, let's not allow our coastal communities to be dragged under with them!!
"Mr. Lawrence Izzo, who worked at Enron before Calpine, testified that because "Calpine is experiencing financial difficulties," he could not "say definitively that an LNG facility will...be built." He went further to say there is only a 50% chance it will be constructed. This testimony was in an administrative law proceeding before the Federal Trade Commission in March 2003.
Calpine's financial situation has worsened since that time. In October 2003, Moody's Investors Service downgraded its debt rating due to a weak operating cash flow relative to its substantial debt and the belief that its financial performance will continue to be weak. The company carries a debt of $16 billion, while its capitalization is only $1.63 billion."
article @;
http://www.wildcalifornia.org/pressreleases/number-45
LNG COMMUNITY ACTION MEETING August 25, 2007
6.00-9.00 PM
Hales Performing Arts Center
SW Oregon Community College, Coos Bay, OR
Experts will discuss what we've accomplished , what we are doing and how we can work together to defeat the LNG terminal and pipeline project. Click here for the full meeting announcement.
more details @;
http://www.oregonwaters.org/LNG.htm
Land Use Hearings;
8/28 and 9/17;
4:00 pm
Coquille Community Building
115 N. Birch
Coquille
Since late 2004, multiple energy companies have proposed large, controversial liquefied natural gas (LNG) developments along the Lower Columbia River and in Coos Bay. Currently, five proposals exist in Oregon, each of them generating concern among people who live, work, and recreate in their vicinity. Here is a brief update on each of the five proposals:
1. Bradwood Landing LNG (Northern Star Natural Gas). Bradwood, OR. Northern Star Natural Gas is expected to file its formal application with FERC very soon. FLOW and many other citizen groups, environmental organizations, and concerned citizens will file to be intervenors in the FERC process, reserving the right to appeal FERC decisions, if necessary. FERC continues to accept preliminary comments on Northern Star’s proposal, its resource reports (available on the FERC website, http://www.ferc.gov), and the possible impacts of the project.
2. Jordan Cove LNG (Fort Chicago and EPD, LLC). North Spit, Coos Bay, OR. The project, now majority owned by a Canadian energy company, Fort Chicago, is being pushed forward and promoted heavily by the Port of Coos Bay. The Port is proposing to purchase a tract of Weyerhauser land on the North Spit and lease part of the property to the Jordan Cove LNG project. The site occupies the area directly opposite the town of North Bend, and it resides close to the North Bend Airport. The Jordan Cove Energy Project is expected to file with FERC soon, although it will be beginning the pre-filing process, which takes a minimum of 6 months.
3. Skipanon LNG LLC (Calpine Corp.). Warrenton, OR. This proposal on the Skipanon Peninsula at the mouth of the Columbia River is moving forward through local land use proceedings. The City of Warrenton tentatively approved rezoning the Skipanon Peninsula on behalf of Calpine’s Skipanon LNG LLC. Their decision, once final, will likely be appealed to the Land Use Board of Appeals by local LNG opponents. FLOW filed comments (click here to read) supporting opponents of the Skipanon proposal. Recently, Calpine has filed for bankruptcy. Their Skipanon LNG LLC asset may be sold as part of the bankruptcy proceedings, and FLOW will continue to monitor these developments at the mouth of the Columbia River.
4. Port Westward LNG LLC. St Helens, OR. This proposal may file with FERC once the developer gains full control of the property required in the area. The developer has heavily pressured a local landowner (whose family has owned land in St. Helens for over 100 years), under threat of condemnation by the Port of St. Helens, to sell.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
FLOW’s Position on LNG:
All of the current LNG proposals are extremely problematic from a public safety, economic and environmental perspective. Consistent with our mission to promote the health of Oregon’s Waters, we are concerned with the environmental impacts implied by the heavy dredging needed to maintain safe passage for LNG tankers, habitat disturbance in sensitive waterways, and loss of public use and enjoyment of these areas. Additionally, in the cases of these large LNG developments, concerns for public safety constitute our paramount reason for opposing the projects. Members of communities targeted for LNG development may be unknowingly or unwillingly subjected to risks associated with a possible accidental or intentional LNG spill and fire. Because the best available information indicates that LNG should be sited remotely from human populations and because all of the sites will bring LNG vessels close to local populations, we oppose the Oregon LNG proposals as being inconsistent with the public interest.
Furthermore, the measures necessary to lessen the risk to the public of LNG storage and traffic—particularly closing rivers and bays to non-LNG vessels and securing these areas—constitute an additional burden on residents and visitors. The economic benefits of LNG are minimal and short-term, and locally the impact of LNG may, in fact, be negative on the economies of the Lower Columbia and Coos Bay. Our research indicates that, in these areas, introduction of LNG could create a high-risk, heavily secured area that will be unattractive to residents, tourists, and other business. Regardless of the nation’s alleged “need” for natural gas, LNG development is inequitable due to the disparity in costs and benefits for those who live near proposed sites versus the relatively remote end-users of the energy.
Indeed, the impacts of Oregon’s flirtation with LNG may extend far beyond our coastline and the Lower Columbia River. As with other types of fossil fuel development, many members of the source communities for LNG may not benefit from exporting this resource to Oregon. Oregonians, by accepting LNG development, will deepen the state’s dependence on fossil fuel resources that are often exploitatively extracted to the severe detriment of local people and environments that do not receive adequate protection. The LNG issue transcends NIMBYism (Not in My Back Yard), as these projects not only impact Oregonians negatively, but they also support negative impacts that occur in distant, upstream locations in the LNG supply chain.
(adopted unanimously by FLOW Executive Committee, 12/31/05)
For LNG-related questions, please call Dan Serres at 541-251-3569.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
"Why Does This Concern the Local Coos Bay Area?
On November 22, 2004, a newly formed Colorado based company, Energy Products Development LLC, doing business in Oregon as the "Jordan Cove Energy Project", submitted a Notice of Intent (NOI) to the Oregon Department of Energy to build a LNG facility on the North Spit across from the North Bend Airport. Current plans include Jordan Cove Energy acquiring property from the Port, who is purchasing land from Weyerhaeuser for this project.
In July 2005, Fort Chicago Energy Partners LP, of Canada, acquired a majority stake in the Jordan Cove Energy Project. - http://www.fortchicago.com
The Jordan Cove Energy Project includes two storage tanks, each with the capacity to hold up to 160,000 cubic meters or
42 million gallons each of LNG.
This LNG facility will be across from our local airport and would not likely survive a 9/11 type attack or accident.
A large LNG spill, vapor cloud, & fire caused by accident, earthquake, or terrorist attack would have devastating impacts on our Bay Area.
"For a nominal intentional (LNG) spill the hazard range could extend to 2500 m (1.553 miles). The actual hazard distances will depend on breach and spill size, site specific conditions, and environmental conditions." Sandia National Laboratories Report for the U.S. Government - December 2004
"We have a one to three mile range here that are credible hazard distances based on a tanker spill of one half of one tank or 3 to 4 million gallons of LNG. There are no real disagreements about this. If more is spilled it could be worse, obviously."
Portland OR - August 16, 2005 - Professor Jerry Havens - LNG Expert/Chemical Engineer/Director- Chemical Hazard Research Center at Univ of Arkansas
more info @;
http://citizensagainstlng.com/default.aspx
Building a LNG terminal along the coast is the same bad idea that was attempted by Calpine in Humboldt Bay! The people of Humboldt came out in great numbers to oppose this project, and Calpine retreated. There are several other reasons that this project is undesirable for the coastal ecosystem..
The dredging required to accomodate the megatankers that transport the LNG to the terminal would destroy beds of eelgrass and the entire ecosystem of species that thrives therein..
"Eelgrass cannot survive in murky water. “Its need for light is its Achilles heel,” Shaughnessy said. This is why water quality issues are so important in conserving eelgrass beds."
article @;
http://www-csgc.ucsd.edu/STORIES/Eelgrass2007.html
In other news, the LNG corporations may be heading on a downwards spiral, let's not allow our coastal communities to be dragged under with them!!
"Mr. Lawrence Izzo, who worked at Enron before Calpine, testified that because "Calpine is experiencing financial difficulties," he could not "say definitively that an LNG facility will...be built." He went further to say there is only a 50% chance it will be constructed. This testimony was in an administrative law proceeding before the Federal Trade Commission in March 2003.
Calpine's financial situation has worsened since that time. In October 2003, Moody's Investors Service downgraded its debt rating due to a weak operating cash flow relative to its substantial debt and the belief that its financial performance will continue to be weak. The company carries a debt of $16 billion, while its capitalization is only $1.63 billion."
article @;
http://www.wildcalifornia.org/pressreleases/number-45
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
The importance of eelgrass beds in coastal river estuaries cannot be understated, especially for a community like Coos Bay that wishes to maintain their fisheries economy. One of the principles of the food pyramid is that if eelgrass beds remain undisturbed by dredging, then throughout the season they will provide habitat for smaller biota, that are in turn food for larger fishes, crustaceans, etc..
Since the majority of the Pac NW coastline is either rugged rocky cliffs or wave influenced sandy beaches, the muddy flats of river estuaries are the only remaining suitable habitat for eelgrass beds. Excessive dredging as would be required to accomodate the LNG tankers would destroy the eelgrass beds from the Coos River (or any other) estuary, and the decline in fisheries would occur soon thereafter..
"Salt marshes and eelgrass beds are widely recognized as indicators of coastal ecosystem health, contributing to fundamental ecological processes including the production and decomposition of organic matter, cycling of organic and inorganic nutrients, alteration of hydrologic flow patterns, and improvement of estuarine water quality. In addition, emergent tidal marshes and eelgrass beds provide essential habitat for populations of fish and shellfish, and offer resting and forage areas for migratory and resident shorebirds and waterfowl."
article @;
http://www.oregon.gov/DSL/SSNERR/researchpriorities.shtml
also;
http://www.oregon.gov/DSL/SSNERR/docs/EFS/EFS24geoCB.pdf
If seafood or the health of the coastal ecosystem isn't of concern to the local Coos city/county councilmembers who appear so eager to welcome the LNG terminal to the bay, maybe the protection provided by eelgrass in the form of stabilizing the mudflats and preventing erosion is a concern..
"Across the broad tide flats, eelgrass meadows provide sheltered habitat and act as a nursery for a variety of fish, crabs, and other creatures. Its rhizomes are buried in the mud and so stabilize sediments and prevent erosion. Eelgrass grows rapidly in sunlight, fixes nutrients from mud and water, and generates detritus which releases nutrients to the food web as it decays. Eelgrass growth is adversely affected by turbidity."
article @;
http://www.inforain.org/mapsatwork/oregonestuary/oregonestuary_page2.htm
What is gained by the community if an entire fisheries ecosystem collapses? A few imported jobs at a highly unstable LNG terminal? Sounds like another ENRON scam of future energy shares without regards to the long term viability of the coastal communities effected. Plenty of other failed corporate energy projects resulted in rusting shells of abandoned superfund sites with no clean-up in sight. Don't even get me started on the ecological disasters we'll face from an LNG pipeline that crosses several mountain ranges towards CA borderlands (Malin, OR)..
"Running through the mudflats are the open channels that always contain water, even at low tides (photograph above). In some areas, this water supports the growth of eelgrass (Zostera) and a variety of organisms that inhabit its blades or the soil held by its roots. Despite its appearance and name, eelgrass is not a true grass, but, like grasses, it is a flowering plant. Eelgrass distributes its pollen and seeds in the currents; however, its most effective method of reproduction is through its rhizomes. The principal human threat to eelgrass beds is the dredging activity intended to keep deeper channels open. Eelgrass is largely indigestible, so the primary means through which its nutrients are passed through the food web is by decomposition. Animals that consume decomposing bits of eelgrass actually derive most of their nutrients by digesting the fungi and bacteria living on the dead plant material. The eelgrass is largely returned to the ecosystem, where bacteria and fungi again colonize and further decompose the plant material (summary by Schultz, 1990:163-165). Thus, the high productivity of the estuary is driven by the critical ecological process of decomposition of organic materials (as in the temperate rain forest), along with the regular inputs and mixing of nutrients by saline tidal flows and freshwater streams."
article @;
http://www.fhsu.edu/biology/Eberle/PacificNW/SouthSlough.html
Decomposition of eelgrass is itself a source of energy for the estuary ecosystem. What could humans learn from eelgrass? How about each community harness their own natural gas (ie., methane) by collecting any offgassing from decomposing biomass, compost, manure, etc..
Simply contain the decomposing biomatter, supply anaerobic microbes and collect the emmissions of methane, divert CO2 into a greenhouse. Why doesn't this occur yet? Like solar, no multinational energy corporation has devised a sure way to gain profits from this method, it would be a decentralized and community operated facility..
"Unlike composting AD is carried out in an oxygen-free environment (known as anaerobic conditions) to allow the presence of bacteria adjusted to these conditions which then multiply and grow, and by so doing achieve the process aims of:
* sanitisation of the feed material and of any liquid discharged;
* a net positive surplus generation of energy as a biofuel to allow power production from methane gas (biogas) produced by the organisms."
http://www.anaerobic-digestion.com/html/introduction-to-anaerobic-dige.html
What it comes down to is the community taking their energy production into their own hands, not depending on energy corporations to import an expensive and unstable fuel in the form of LNG. The community retains a functional estuary and fisheries ecosystem and uses our biomass waste products for our own electricity consumption. Basically, everyone wins except the CEO of the energy corporation, one of the main reasons this seems more like fantasy than reality. It will take a community grassroots effort to make this become reality..
"By-products of anaerobic digestion
There are three principal by-products of anaerobic digestion.
· Biogas, a gaseous mixture comprising mostly of methane and carbon dioxide, but also containing a small amount hydrogen and occasionally trace levels of hydrogen sulphide. Biogas can be burned to produce electricity, usually with a reciprocating engine or microturbine. The gas is often used in a cogeneration arrangement, to generate electricity and use waste heat to warm the digesters or to heat buildings. Excess electricity can be sold to electricity suppliers. Electricity produced by anaerobic digesters is considered to be green energy and may attract subsidies such as Renewables Obligation Certificates.
Since the gas is not released directly into the atmosphere and the carbon dioxide comes from an organic source with a short carbon cycle biogas does not contribute to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations; because of this, it is considered to be an environmentally friendly energy source. The production of biogas is not a steady stream; it is highest during the middle of the reaction. In the early stages of the reaction, little gas is produced because the number of bacteria is still small in size. Toward the end of the reaction, only the hardest to digest materials remain, leading to a decrease in the amount of biogas produced."
article @;
http://www.whatisgreen.biz/toppage1.htm
The same country where Fort Chicago energy is from has innovated the biogas methane harnessing system;
"Intro: When electricity rates skyrocketed in Alberta, rural residents started looking for alternative power sources. One of the most successful experiments so far has been a biogas operation established at the Iron Creek Hutterite Colony near Viking, east of Edmonton.
The system runs off methane produced by the stockpiles of hog manure on the colony. In a short period of time, The colony’s nightmare has turned into a dream come true. Gone is the $250,000 power bill and the $100,000 it cost to truck the manure for landspreading. Now the Colony makes money selling its electricity onto the grid. And soon it will recycle purified water and even make protein supplements as by-products of the operation."
other info @;
http://www.innovationalberta.com/article.php?articleid=247
Since the majority of the Pac NW coastline is either rugged rocky cliffs or wave influenced sandy beaches, the muddy flats of river estuaries are the only remaining suitable habitat for eelgrass beds. Excessive dredging as would be required to accomodate the LNG tankers would destroy the eelgrass beds from the Coos River (or any other) estuary, and the decline in fisheries would occur soon thereafter..
"Salt marshes and eelgrass beds are widely recognized as indicators of coastal ecosystem health, contributing to fundamental ecological processes including the production and decomposition of organic matter, cycling of organic and inorganic nutrients, alteration of hydrologic flow patterns, and improvement of estuarine water quality. In addition, emergent tidal marshes and eelgrass beds provide essential habitat for populations of fish and shellfish, and offer resting and forage areas for migratory and resident shorebirds and waterfowl."
article @;
http://www.oregon.gov/DSL/SSNERR/researchpriorities.shtml
also;
http://www.oregon.gov/DSL/SSNERR/docs/EFS/EFS24geoCB.pdf
If seafood or the health of the coastal ecosystem isn't of concern to the local Coos city/county councilmembers who appear so eager to welcome the LNG terminal to the bay, maybe the protection provided by eelgrass in the form of stabilizing the mudflats and preventing erosion is a concern..
"Across the broad tide flats, eelgrass meadows provide sheltered habitat and act as a nursery for a variety of fish, crabs, and other creatures. Its rhizomes are buried in the mud and so stabilize sediments and prevent erosion. Eelgrass grows rapidly in sunlight, fixes nutrients from mud and water, and generates detritus which releases nutrients to the food web as it decays. Eelgrass growth is adversely affected by turbidity."
article @;
http://www.inforain.org/mapsatwork/oregonestuary/oregonestuary_page2.htm
What is gained by the community if an entire fisheries ecosystem collapses? A few imported jobs at a highly unstable LNG terminal? Sounds like another ENRON scam of future energy shares without regards to the long term viability of the coastal communities effected. Plenty of other failed corporate energy projects resulted in rusting shells of abandoned superfund sites with no clean-up in sight. Don't even get me started on the ecological disasters we'll face from an LNG pipeline that crosses several mountain ranges towards CA borderlands (Malin, OR)..
"Running through the mudflats are the open channels that always contain water, even at low tides (photograph above). In some areas, this water supports the growth of eelgrass (Zostera) and a variety of organisms that inhabit its blades or the soil held by its roots. Despite its appearance and name, eelgrass is not a true grass, but, like grasses, it is a flowering plant. Eelgrass distributes its pollen and seeds in the currents; however, its most effective method of reproduction is through its rhizomes. The principal human threat to eelgrass beds is the dredging activity intended to keep deeper channels open. Eelgrass is largely indigestible, so the primary means through which its nutrients are passed through the food web is by decomposition. Animals that consume decomposing bits of eelgrass actually derive most of their nutrients by digesting the fungi and bacteria living on the dead plant material. The eelgrass is largely returned to the ecosystem, where bacteria and fungi again colonize and further decompose the plant material (summary by Schultz, 1990:163-165). Thus, the high productivity of the estuary is driven by the critical ecological process of decomposition of organic materials (as in the temperate rain forest), along with the regular inputs and mixing of nutrients by saline tidal flows and freshwater streams."
article @;
http://www.fhsu.edu/biology/Eberle/PacificNW/SouthSlough.html
Decomposition of eelgrass is itself a source of energy for the estuary ecosystem. What could humans learn from eelgrass? How about each community harness their own natural gas (ie., methane) by collecting any offgassing from decomposing biomass, compost, manure, etc..
Simply contain the decomposing biomatter, supply anaerobic microbes and collect the emmissions of methane, divert CO2 into a greenhouse. Why doesn't this occur yet? Like solar, no multinational energy corporation has devised a sure way to gain profits from this method, it would be a decentralized and community operated facility..
"Unlike composting AD is carried out in an oxygen-free environment (known as anaerobic conditions) to allow the presence of bacteria adjusted to these conditions which then multiply and grow, and by so doing achieve the process aims of:
* sanitisation of the feed material and of any liquid discharged;
* a net positive surplus generation of energy as a biofuel to allow power production from methane gas (biogas) produced by the organisms."
http://www.anaerobic-digestion.com/html/introduction-to-anaerobic-dige.html
What it comes down to is the community taking their energy production into their own hands, not depending on energy corporations to import an expensive and unstable fuel in the form of LNG. The community retains a functional estuary and fisheries ecosystem and uses our biomass waste products for our own electricity consumption. Basically, everyone wins except the CEO of the energy corporation, one of the main reasons this seems more like fantasy than reality. It will take a community grassroots effort to make this become reality..
"By-products of anaerobic digestion
There are three principal by-products of anaerobic digestion.
· Biogas, a gaseous mixture comprising mostly of methane and carbon dioxide, but also containing a small amount hydrogen and occasionally trace levels of hydrogen sulphide. Biogas can be burned to produce electricity, usually with a reciprocating engine or microturbine. The gas is often used in a cogeneration arrangement, to generate electricity and use waste heat to warm the digesters or to heat buildings. Excess electricity can be sold to electricity suppliers. Electricity produced by anaerobic digesters is considered to be green energy and may attract subsidies such as Renewables Obligation Certificates.
Since the gas is not released directly into the atmosphere and the carbon dioxide comes from an organic source with a short carbon cycle biogas does not contribute to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations; because of this, it is considered to be an environmentally friendly energy source. The production of biogas is not a steady stream; it is highest during the middle of the reaction. In the early stages of the reaction, little gas is produced because the number of bacteria is still small in size. Toward the end of the reaction, only the hardest to digest materials remain, leading to a decrease in the amount of biogas produced."
article @;
http://www.whatisgreen.biz/toppage1.htm
The same country where Fort Chicago energy is from has innovated the biogas methane harnessing system;
"Intro: When electricity rates skyrocketed in Alberta, rural residents started looking for alternative power sources. One of the most successful experiments so far has been a biogas operation established at the Iron Creek Hutterite Colony near Viking, east of Edmonton.
The system runs off methane produced by the stockpiles of hog manure on the colony. In a short period of time, The colony’s nightmare has turned into a dream come true. Gone is the $250,000 power bill and the $100,000 it cost to truck the manure for landspreading. Now the Colony makes money selling its electricity onto the grid. And soon it will recycle purified water and even make protein supplements as by-products of the operation."
other info @;
http://www.innovationalberta.com/article.php?articleid=247
"High Noon" implies the beginning of the end of the day, the peak and steady decline. The movie "High Noon" represents the arrival of the noon train bringing "trouble" into town. In this case, trouble has set its sights on the lies, propaganda and deceit of the LNG corporations..
This book, "High Noon for Natural Gas" should be required reading for all county council members who will be voting on the fate of the entire coastal community when approving the highly unstable and explosive future in LNG;
"Book overview:
Blackouts, rising gas prices, changes to the Clean Air Act, proposals to open wilderness and protected offshore areas to gas drilling, and increasing dependence on natural gas for electricity generation. What do all these developments have in common, and why should we care?
In this timely expose, author Julian Darley takes a hard-hitting look at natural gas as an energy source that rapidly went from nuisance to crutch. Darley outlines the implications of our increased dependence on this energy source and why it has the potential to cause serious environmental, political, and economic consequences. In High Noon for Natural Gas readers can expect to find a critical analysis of government policy on energy, as well as a meticulously researched warning about our next potentially catastrophic energy crisis.
Did you know that:
* Natural Gas (NG) is the second most important energy source after oil;
* In the U.S. alone, NG is used to supply 20% of all electricity and 60% of all home heating;
* NG is absolutely critical to the manufacture of agricultural fertilizers;
* In the U.S. the NG supply is at critically low levels, and early in 2003 we came within days of blackouts and heating shutdowns;
* Matt Simmons, the world�s foremost private energy banker, is now warning that economic growth in the U.S. is under threat due to the looming NG crisis?
"While much is known about the growing pressures on peteroleum supplies, far less is known about natural gas. As Julian Darley convincingly demonstrates in this important book, the long-range future for gas is equally bleak as that for oil. This invaluable book arrives at a critical juncture." --Michael Klare, author of Resource Wars
About the Author
Julian Darley is a British environmental researcher who writes about nonmarket and non-technology-based responses to global environmental degradation. Julain is the founder fo Post Carbon Institute. He also runs an Internet broadcasting station (GlobalPublicMedia.com) and is currently writing a book on how and why we need �global relocalization� of the economy, society and culture. Julian lives in Vancouver, Canada. For more information on Julian Darley, please visit his personal website."
visit Julian @;
http://www.highnoon.ws/
The more research we discover about LNG, the greater the opposition becomes, truly a one way street. For those of us in Eureka, CA who defeated Calpine's LNG proposal with widespread popular oppositon, would we wish this cruel fate of LNG terminal instabilitiy on our neighbors in Oregon? Mexico?
This becomes another case on environmental racism/classism when the burdens of an LNG regasification terminal are placed on the shoulders of communities that may be experiencing greater economic hardships and thus are more vulnerable to the appeals of the LNG corporations false promises of jobs and economic growth potential..
In reality the potential for LNG is even less stable than our petroleum economy, currently mired in the U.S. military occupation of Iraq..
CA does not want this intrusion of LNG terminals & pipelines into the lives of Oregonians on our conscience. We demand a clean and ethical source of renewable energy, and won't rest until this goal is realized..
Ratepayers for Affordable, Clean Energy clears up the myths on LNG;
"This controversial plan is a giant step in the wrong direction for California. Concerned people in Eureka, Vallejo and Tijuana have already rejected attempts to site LNG terminals in their area, sending a clear message that LNG is the wrong choice not only for their own communities, but for our state.
The negative reception LNG is receving in California has forced the energy industry to spend millions trying to clean up LNG’s image. Not suprisingly, the industry is spreading misinformation about LNG--myths that mask the threat LNG poses to the environment, to community safety and to our state’s desire for energy independence. These are a few of these myths and the reality behind them.
Myth: There is a domestic natural gas shortage, and LNG will make up for the shortfall.
Reality: The California Energy Commission is predicting adequate natural gas supplies without importing LNG. California’s gas demand is currently declining from its 2002 peak, and is not expected to rebound to that level until 2014 at the earliest. The 2014 rebound assumes a “business as usual” level of energy conservation and renewable energy development, but does not account for more ambitious efficiency and renewable that have already been proposed. To read an independent study conducted by Synapse Energy Economics on future supply/demand scenarios for California, click here.
Myth: LNG is safe.
Reality: California’s 1977 LNG legislation required a 4-mile buffer zone around LNG terminals. LNG is highly flammable, and its leakage can create a vapor cloud that is easily ignited. According to a 2004 study by Sandia National Laboratories, a terrorist attack on a liquefied natural gas tanker would cause ‘’major injuries and significant damage to structures” a third of a mile away and could cause second-degree burns on people more than a mile away. An accident at an LNG liquefaction facility in Algeria in 2004 created a huge fireball that killed 27 people in the vicinity of the plant, and shattered windows up to five miles away. To read more, click here.
Myth: LNG is a clean energy source.
Reality: LNG extraction has resulted in some of the world’s most environmentally devastating projects. On Sakhalin Island, Russia, Shell and ExxonMobil are extracting oil and gas in a pristine marine environment that is home to the critically endangered Western Pacific Gray Whale. The Sakhalin project has been mired in problems, including massive fish die-offs, two significant oil spills, and contamination of the local water supply. It has led to widespread protests by local residents, as well as blockades led by indigenous peoples who have seen their subsistence economy erode from these projects. In the Camisea gas fields in Peru, a gas project is opening up one of the most pristine rainforest valleys in the Amazon, threathening the livelihoods of riverine indigenous communities and the physical survival of isolated indigenous populations.
Myth: LNG is cheap, and will lower power bills.
Reality: The U.S. Department of Energy estimates the cost to produce North American gas at less than $3 per thousand cubic feet, while citing the cost to get LNG to California at more than $4 per thousand cubic feet. Its hard to figure how substituting higher-priced imported LNG for lower-cost domestic natural gas will lower natural gas prices in California. Demand for natural gas has been relatively flat in the U.S. for the last few years, and currently natural gas storage levels are at historic highs. It is true that between 2002 and 2004 the price of natural gas doubled. However, many consumer advocates and large industrial gas consumers believe market manipulation is behind this, not the laws of supply and demand.
To read more, click here.
Myth: Developing LNG will create jobs.
Reality: The construction of an LNG facility will create a few hundred short-term construction jobs, and only a few dozen long-term, highly specialized positions. Most of the other jobs associated with LNG are located abroad, in the locations where the gas is extracted. Renewable energy, however, creates many more permanent jobs here in the U.S. According to a 2002 study by Cal-PIRG, the wind power industry provides seven times more domestic jobs than the gas industry per mega-watt, solar technologies twice as many, and geothermal 11 times as many. Download the complete Cal-PIRG report by clicking here.
Myth: LNG has a minimal impact on global warming.
Reality: While it’s true that natural gas power plants emit about half as much carbon dioxide as coal plants, the natural gas combustion required to produce and transport LNG to the plants adds 20 to 40 percent more carbon dioxide than burning natural gas alone. This includes extracting the gas from the earth, proecessing the gas to meet U.S. standards, transporting it through pipelines (many of which leak), chilling it, shipping it overseas, and then converting it back to natural gas. In the end, LNG is a major source of greenhouse gasses, and investing in LNG infrastructure increases our dependence on climate destabilizing fossil fuels.
In short, don’t be fooled, LNG is a major source of greenhouse gasses.
Download the RACE - Global Warming.pdf by clicking here
Myth: LNG is a “bridge fuel” to renewable energy.
Reality: Importing LNG into California will be a huge setback to our renewable energy initiatives. The fossil fuels industry is spending billions to extract natural gas from far corners of the globe, and will spend billions more to build the necessary infrastructure for LNG. No financial institution would invest billions in something that’s only a temporary fix.
There simply isn’t the demand for both LNG and the renewable energy that Governor Schwarzenegger and other state leaders have promised. If LNG is allowed to flood into our energy grid, it will undercut the renewable industry. This is because LNG would be subsidized by ratepayers and favored by the big utilities, so it will get preferential treatment. While renewable energy technology is ready to go, and we are slowly increasing our renewable capacity, it isn’t getting the support or the subsidies provided to fossil fuels like LNG.
Myth: LNG will help ensure against rolling blackouts.
Reality: The blackouts of 2000 – 2001 were NOT caused by gas shortages. They WERE caused by manipulation of price and supply by some of the very companies who stand to gain by importing LNG, especially Sempra Energy. In fact, Sempra is now being sued for lost revenues by several California counties as a result of their “gaming” the gas supply in 2000 – 2001. If Sempra moves ahead with their LNG import facility near Ensenada, Mexico, they will have even more control over Southern California’s gas supply.
In addition, LNG would put our gas supply at the mercy of global politics and local conditions we have no control over. Environmental and human rights abuses associated with gas production in Indonesia, Peru, and Russia have led to widespread discontent in the areas around the projects. It’s entirely possible that these conditions will lead to the projects being shut down, or taken over by the host governments. On the receiving end, if an accident or an attack shut down an LNG import terminal, gas supplies would be stopped until the facility was rebuilt. Because LNG concentrates supply through a single import point, and because LNG comes from places we have no control over, it actually puts our energy grid at increased risk of future blackouts.
Myth: LNG will help clean the air by replacing gasoline used in cars.
Reality: The principal justification for LNG as a vehicle fuel is as a clean alternative to diesel. However, beginning in 2007, new LNG and diesel vehicles will be subject to the same emission and nitrogen oxide standards. There is no significant difference in the toxicity of the fine particulate emissions from heavy duty diesel and LNG vehicles. By the time LNG receiving terminals would be coming on-line in the 2008-2010 timeline, there will be little or no air quality justification for it.
Myth: LNG is politically popular.
Reality: The residents in Vallejo, Eureka and Tijuana all gave a resounding ‘thumbs down’ to proposed LNG facilities in their communities. Other towns on the east coast and in Texas have also wholeheartedly rejected LNG. Yet the Schwarzenegger Administration and other state agencies continue to push for LNG imports. Perhaps that is because the LNG industry is spending a lot of money to buy their favor. For instance, Sempra spent over $800,000 lobbying the California Public Utilities Commission in 2004, in the months before the CPUC gave them a very favorable ruling for their Baja project. According to an Associated Press expose, Chevron-Texaco had significant influence over Governor Schwarzenegger’s “California Performance Review,” making contributions in exchange for favors in energy policy, including LNG terminal approval.
Because LNG has turned out to be such a PR problem, the industry has hired a top-flight PR firm, Navigators, to sell LNG to California. This is the same firm that ran the Gray Davis recall campaign, and they are infamous for launching personal attacks on political candidates in local races. If LNG is such a good idea, why does it require a PR hit team to sell it?
Myth: California’s political leadership is considering all of the alternatives before committing our state to LNG.
Reality: Our coalition has urged the California Public Utilities Commission to hold open, evidentiary hearings to determine the need for LNG before we sign our future over to it. Our request has been echoed in letters sent by 24 members of Congress including Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, 20 members of the State Legislature, and several other political leaders. These lawmakers agree with us that as a matter of good government, the state should consider all of the impacts and the alternatives to LNG before we sign our energy future away to it.
Despite these requests, the CPUC has denied our requests for public hearings. Instead, they are basing their energy policies largely on written requests made by big energy companies and utilities. And policies that have come from the relevant agencies and from Sacramento have largely favored the energy industry, and have greased the skids for LNG. The state has yet to produce any conclusive proof from an independent source that we need LNG."
article @;
http://lngwatch.com/race/truth.htm
Today, 8/28 the people will rally at 3pm in Coquille, OR to say;
"NO to LNG!"
Protest location;
115 N. Birch St.
Coquille OR
Public comments needed at hearing for Coos County planning commission begins at above address at 4pm..
or call;
John Griffith (541) 396-3121 or (541) 756-2020 ext. 248
Nikki Whitty (541) 396-3121 or (541) 756-2020 ext. 247
Kevin Stufflebeam (541) 396-3121 or (541) 756-2020 ext. 281
& visit;
http://www.citizensagainstlng.com/
This book, "High Noon for Natural Gas" should be required reading for all county council members who will be voting on the fate of the entire coastal community when approving the highly unstable and explosive future in LNG;
"Book overview:
Blackouts, rising gas prices, changes to the Clean Air Act, proposals to open wilderness and protected offshore areas to gas drilling, and increasing dependence on natural gas for electricity generation. What do all these developments have in common, and why should we care?
In this timely expose, author Julian Darley takes a hard-hitting look at natural gas as an energy source that rapidly went from nuisance to crutch. Darley outlines the implications of our increased dependence on this energy source and why it has the potential to cause serious environmental, political, and economic consequences. In High Noon for Natural Gas readers can expect to find a critical analysis of government policy on energy, as well as a meticulously researched warning about our next potentially catastrophic energy crisis.
Did you know that:
* Natural Gas (NG) is the second most important energy source after oil;
* In the U.S. alone, NG is used to supply 20% of all electricity and 60% of all home heating;
* NG is absolutely critical to the manufacture of agricultural fertilizers;
* In the U.S. the NG supply is at critically low levels, and early in 2003 we came within days of blackouts and heating shutdowns;
* Matt Simmons, the world�s foremost private energy banker, is now warning that economic growth in the U.S. is under threat due to the looming NG crisis?
"While much is known about the growing pressures on peteroleum supplies, far less is known about natural gas. As Julian Darley convincingly demonstrates in this important book, the long-range future for gas is equally bleak as that for oil. This invaluable book arrives at a critical juncture." --Michael Klare, author of Resource Wars
About the Author
Julian Darley is a British environmental researcher who writes about nonmarket and non-technology-based responses to global environmental degradation. Julain is the founder fo Post Carbon Institute. He also runs an Internet broadcasting station (GlobalPublicMedia.com) and is currently writing a book on how and why we need �global relocalization� of the economy, society and culture. Julian lives in Vancouver, Canada. For more information on Julian Darley, please visit his personal website."
visit Julian @;
http://www.highnoon.ws/
The more research we discover about LNG, the greater the opposition becomes, truly a one way street. For those of us in Eureka, CA who defeated Calpine's LNG proposal with widespread popular oppositon, would we wish this cruel fate of LNG terminal instabilitiy on our neighbors in Oregon? Mexico?
This becomes another case on environmental racism/classism when the burdens of an LNG regasification terminal are placed on the shoulders of communities that may be experiencing greater economic hardships and thus are more vulnerable to the appeals of the LNG corporations false promises of jobs and economic growth potential..
In reality the potential for LNG is even less stable than our petroleum economy, currently mired in the U.S. military occupation of Iraq..
CA does not want this intrusion of LNG terminals & pipelines into the lives of Oregonians on our conscience. We demand a clean and ethical source of renewable energy, and won't rest until this goal is realized..
Ratepayers for Affordable, Clean Energy clears up the myths on LNG;
"This controversial plan is a giant step in the wrong direction for California. Concerned people in Eureka, Vallejo and Tijuana have already rejected attempts to site LNG terminals in their area, sending a clear message that LNG is the wrong choice not only for their own communities, but for our state.
The negative reception LNG is receving in California has forced the energy industry to spend millions trying to clean up LNG’s image. Not suprisingly, the industry is spreading misinformation about LNG--myths that mask the threat LNG poses to the environment, to community safety and to our state’s desire for energy independence. These are a few of these myths and the reality behind them.
Myth: There is a domestic natural gas shortage, and LNG will make up for the shortfall.
Reality: The California Energy Commission is predicting adequate natural gas supplies without importing LNG. California’s gas demand is currently declining from its 2002 peak, and is not expected to rebound to that level until 2014 at the earliest. The 2014 rebound assumes a “business as usual” level of energy conservation and renewable energy development, but does not account for more ambitious efficiency and renewable that have already been proposed. To read an independent study conducted by Synapse Energy Economics on future supply/demand scenarios for California, click here.
Myth: LNG is safe.
Reality: California’s 1977 LNG legislation required a 4-mile buffer zone around LNG terminals. LNG is highly flammable, and its leakage can create a vapor cloud that is easily ignited. According to a 2004 study by Sandia National Laboratories, a terrorist attack on a liquefied natural gas tanker would cause ‘’major injuries and significant damage to structures” a third of a mile away and could cause second-degree burns on people more than a mile away. An accident at an LNG liquefaction facility in Algeria in 2004 created a huge fireball that killed 27 people in the vicinity of the plant, and shattered windows up to five miles away. To read more, click here.
Myth: LNG is a clean energy source.
Reality: LNG extraction has resulted in some of the world’s most environmentally devastating projects. On Sakhalin Island, Russia, Shell and ExxonMobil are extracting oil and gas in a pristine marine environment that is home to the critically endangered Western Pacific Gray Whale. The Sakhalin project has been mired in problems, including massive fish die-offs, two significant oil spills, and contamination of the local water supply. It has led to widespread protests by local residents, as well as blockades led by indigenous peoples who have seen their subsistence economy erode from these projects. In the Camisea gas fields in Peru, a gas project is opening up one of the most pristine rainforest valleys in the Amazon, threathening the livelihoods of riverine indigenous communities and the physical survival of isolated indigenous populations.
Myth: LNG is cheap, and will lower power bills.
Reality: The U.S. Department of Energy estimates the cost to produce North American gas at less than $3 per thousand cubic feet, while citing the cost to get LNG to California at more than $4 per thousand cubic feet. Its hard to figure how substituting higher-priced imported LNG for lower-cost domestic natural gas will lower natural gas prices in California. Demand for natural gas has been relatively flat in the U.S. for the last few years, and currently natural gas storage levels are at historic highs. It is true that between 2002 and 2004 the price of natural gas doubled. However, many consumer advocates and large industrial gas consumers believe market manipulation is behind this, not the laws of supply and demand.
To read more, click here.
Myth: Developing LNG will create jobs.
Reality: The construction of an LNG facility will create a few hundred short-term construction jobs, and only a few dozen long-term, highly specialized positions. Most of the other jobs associated with LNG are located abroad, in the locations where the gas is extracted. Renewable energy, however, creates many more permanent jobs here in the U.S. According to a 2002 study by Cal-PIRG, the wind power industry provides seven times more domestic jobs than the gas industry per mega-watt, solar technologies twice as many, and geothermal 11 times as many. Download the complete Cal-PIRG report by clicking here.
Myth: LNG has a minimal impact on global warming.
Reality: While it’s true that natural gas power plants emit about half as much carbon dioxide as coal plants, the natural gas combustion required to produce and transport LNG to the plants adds 20 to 40 percent more carbon dioxide than burning natural gas alone. This includes extracting the gas from the earth, proecessing the gas to meet U.S. standards, transporting it through pipelines (many of which leak), chilling it, shipping it overseas, and then converting it back to natural gas. In the end, LNG is a major source of greenhouse gasses, and investing in LNG infrastructure increases our dependence on climate destabilizing fossil fuels.
In short, don’t be fooled, LNG is a major source of greenhouse gasses.
Download the RACE - Global Warming.pdf by clicking here
Myth: LNG is a “bridge fuel” to renewable energy.
Reality: Importing LNG into California will be a huge setback to our renewable energy initiatives. The fossil fuels industry is spending billions to extract natural gas from far corners of the globe, and will spend billions more to build the necessary infrastructure for LNG. No financial institution would invest billions in something that’s only a temporary fix.
There simply isn’t the demand for both LNG and the renewable energy that Governor Schwarzenegger and other state leaders have promised. If LNG is allowed to flood into our energy grid, it will undercut the renewable industry. This is because LNG would be subsidized by ratepayers and favored by the big utilities, so it will get preferential treatment. While renewable energy technology is ready to go, and we are slowly increasing our renewable capacity, it isn’t getting the support or the subsidies provided to fossil fuels like LNG.
Myth: LNG will help ensure against rolling blackouts.
Reality: The blackouts of 2000 – 2001 were NOT caused by gas shortages. They WERE caused by manipulation of price and supply by some of the very companies who stand to gain by importing LNG, especially Sempra Energy. In fact, Sempra is now being sued for lost revenues by several California counties as a result of their “gaming” the gas supply in 2000 – 2001. If Sempra moves ahead with their LNG import facility near Ensenada, Mexico, they will have even more control over Southern California’s gas supply.
In addition, LNG would put our gas supply at the mercy of global politics and local conditions we have no control over. Environmental and human rights abuses associated with gas production in Indonesia, Peru, and Russia have led to widespread discontent in the areas around the projects. It’s entirely possible that these conditions will lead to the projects being shut down, or taken over by the host governments. On the receiving end, if an accident or an attack shut down an LNG import terminal, gas supplies would be stopped until the facility was rebuilt. Because LNG concentrates supply through a single import point, and because LNG comes from places we have no control over, it actually puts our energy grid at increased risk of future blackouts.
Myth: LNG will help clean the air by replacing gasoline used in cars.
Reality: The principal justification for LNG as a vehicle fuel is as a clean alternative to diesel. However, beginning in 2007, new LNG and diesel vehicles will be subject to the same emission and nitrogen oxide standards. There is no significant difference in the toxicity of the fine particulate emissions from heavy duty diesel and LNG vehicles. By the time LNG receiving terminals would be coming on-line in the 2008-2010 timeline, there will be little or no air quality justification for it.
Myth: LNG is politically popular.
Reality: The residents in Vallejo, Eureka and Tijuana all gave a resounding ‘thumbs down’ to proposed LNG facilities in their communities. Other towns on the east coast and in Texas have also wholeheartedly rejected LNG. Yet the Schwarzenegger Administration and other state agencies continue to push for LNG imports. Perhaps that is because the LNG industry is spending a lot of money to buy their favor. For instance, Sempra spent over $800,000 lobbying the California Public Utilities Commission in 2004, in the months before the CPUC gave them a very favorable ruling for their Baja project. According to an Associated Press expose, Chevron-Texaco had significant influence over Governor Schwarzenegger’s “California Performance Review,” making contributions in exchange for favors in energy policy, including LNG terminal approval.
Because LNG has turned out to be such a PR problem, the industry has hired a top-flight PR firm, Navigators, to sell LNG to California. This is the same firm that ran the Gray Davis recall campaign, and they are infamous for launching personal attacks on political candidates in local races. If LNG is such a good idea, why does it require a PR hit team to sell it?
Myth: California’s political leadership is considering all of the alternatives before committing our state to LNG.
Reality: Our coalition has urged the California Public Utilities Commission to hold open, evidentiary hearings to determine the need for LNG before we sign our future over to it. Our request has been echoed in letters sent by 24 members of Congress including Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, 20 members of the State Legislature, and several other political leaders. These lawmakers agree with us that as a matter of good government, the state should consider all of the impacts and the alternatives to LNG before we sign our energy future away to it.
Despite these requests, the CPUC has denied our requests for public hearings. Instead, they are basing their energy policies largely on written requests made by big energy companies and utilities. And policies that have come from the relevant agencies and from Sacramento have largely favored the energy industry, and have greased the skids for LNG. The state has yet to produce any conclusive proof from an independent source that we need LNG."
article @;
http://lngwatch.com/race/truth.htm
Today, 8/28 the people will rally at 3pm in Coquille, OR to say;
"NO to LNG!"
Protest location;
115 N. Birch St.
Coquille OR
Public comments needed at hearing for Coos County planning commission begins at above address at 4pm..
or call;
John Griffith (541) 396-3121 or (541) 756-2020 ext. 248
Nikki Whitty (541) 396-3121 or (541) 756-2020 ext. 247
Kevin Stufflebeam (541) 396-3121 or (541) 756-2020 ext. 281
& visit;
http://www.citizensagainstlng.com/
The public comment hearing in Coquille on 8/28 was well attended by the public, the overwhelming majority 95% were oppossed to the LNG facility proposed by Jordan Cove Energy Project (Fort Chicago) for the North Spit of Coos Bay. Many people addressed significant concerns that there was a risk to the community's safety and the estuary ecosystem of Coos Bay if said LNG terminal is constructed..
Some additional info came recently, the tsunami of 1700, "nicknamed" the "orphan" tsunami in Japan due to it's faraway point of origin, the Cascadia subduction zone earthquake. This actually applies to any of the near sea level LNG proposals along the Cascadia subduction zone of the Pac NW..
Some quick responses to the claims by JCEP officials that an increased
elevation of their LNG terminal will prevent an accidental spill and/or
explosion in the event of a Cascadian subduction earthquake and resulting tsunami..
The book mentioned below (found at Coquille public library) is an
excellent reference guide for the resulting subsidence (sinking) of the
land, (the edge of the north american plate) in the event of a Cascadian subduction quake. The pressure increased from the 1700 Cascadia quake until today. Combine the subsidence of land with the tsunami's wall of water and you'll get the idea, the tankers and the LNG facility will most likely become partially or even totally submerged, with resulting damage and/or leakage entering the Coos Bay ecosystem..
Here's the entire document, minus the pics;
http://sthjournal.org/241/orphan.pdf
Here's an example of evidence collected by the authors of the "Orphan
Tsunami of 1700" that explains subsidence;
"Ghost Forest - Copalis River, WA
This "ghost forest" of red cedar trunks is thought to be the result of the
land's subsidence following a great Cascadia earthquake, which turned a well established forest into a salt marsh. A series of photos, stitched
together into this panorama, was taken during an excursion led by Bob
Butler (University of Portland) and Brian Atwater (USGS). The trip also
included David Yamaguchi (co-author, with Brian, of The Orphan Tsunami of 1700), several TOTLE teachers, and other guests.
For more information about Cascadia earthquakes and Pacifc tsunamis, check out: The Orphan Tsunami of 1700, by Brain Atwater, et. al. (USGS and University of Washington Press, 2005)"
above found @;
http://www.nwnature.net/earthscope/copalis.htm
Needless to say, the near sea level location of the LNG site on the north spit combined with destabilization of dunes and eelgrass in the estuary will result in a serious disaster in the event of a Cascaidan subduction quake (estimated 1 in 10 chance in the next 50 years). We cannot gamble the future of this ecosystem and the surrounding Coos Bay community on temporary profits by some severly delusional corporate "scientists" who are in the employ of JCEP (Fort Chicago). Again, we're better off leaving the magic tricks to our cinematic friend Harry Potter and sticking with evidence based scientific research..
People in CA can also express their views to the Coos County council, as we don't want this intrusion into our neighbors in Oregon on our consciousness. We also have the right to obtain energy in ways that do NOT adversely effect our neighbors on Oregon (or Mexico for that matter!)
Public comment by writing has also been extended to Sept. 11th by Coos County..
CA residents could send comments opposing LNG to;
Citizens Against LNG
PO Box 1113
North Bend, OR 97459
(541) 260-2000
or visit online @;
http://citizensagainstlng.googlepages.com/
or call;
John Griffith (541) 396-3121 or (541) 756-2020 ext. 248
Nikki Whitty (541) 396-3121 or (541) 756-2020 ext. 247
Kevin Stufflebeam (541) 396-3121 or (541) 756-2020 ext. 281
Some additional info came recently, the tsunami of 1700, "nicknamed" the "orphan" tsunami in Japan due to it's faraway point of origin, the Cascadia subduction zone earthquake. This actually applies to any of the near sea level LNG proposals along the Cascadia subduction zone of the Pac NW..
Some quick responses to the claims by JCEP officials that an increased
elevation of their LNG terminal will prevent an accidental spill and/or
explosion in the event of a Cascadian subduction earthquake and resulting tsunami..
The book mentioned below (found at Coquille public library) is an
excellent reference guide for the resulting subsidence (sinking) of the
land, (the edge of the north american plate) in the event of a Cascadian subduction quake. The pressure increased from the 1700 Cascadia quake until today. Combine the subsidence of land with the tsunami's wall of water and you'll get the idea, the tankers and the LNG facility will most likely become partially or even totally submerged, with resulting damage and/or leakage entering the Coos Bay ecosystem..
Here's the entire document, minus the pics;
http://sthjournal.org/241/orphan.pdf
Here's an example of evidence collected by the authors of the "Orphan
Tsunami of 1700" that explains subsidence;
"Ghost Forest - Copalis River, WA
This "ghost forest" of red cedar trunks is thought to be the result of the
land's subsidence following a great Cascadia earthquake, which turned a well established forest into a salt marsh. A series of photos, stitched
together into this panorama, was taken during an excursion led by Bob
Butler (University of Portland) and Brian Atwater (USGS). The trip also
included David Yamaguchi (co-author, with Brian, of The Orphan Tsunami of 1700), several TOTLE teachers, and other guests.
For more information about Cascadia earthquakes and Pacifc tsunamis, check out: The Orphan Tsunami of 1700, by Brain Atwater, et. al. (USGS and University of Washington Press, 2005)"
above found @;
http://www.nwnature.net/earthscope/copalis.htm
Needless to say, the near sea level location of the LNG site on the north spit combined with destabilization of dunes and eelgrass in the estuary will result in a serious disaster in the event of a Cascaidan subduction quake (estimated 1 in 10 chance in the next 50 years). We cannot gamble the future of this ecosystem and the surrounding Coos Bay community on temporary profits by some severly delusional corporate "scientists" who are in the employ of JCEP (Fort Chicago). Again, we're better off leaving the magic tricks to our cinematic friend Harry Potter and sticking with evidence based scientific research..
People in CA can also express their views to the Coos County council, as we don't want this intrusion into our neighbors in Oregon on our consciousness. We also have the right to obtain energy in ways that do NOT adversely effect our neighbors on Oregon (or Mexico for that matter!)
Public comment by writing has also been extended to Sept. 11th by Coos County..
CA residents could send comments opposing LNG to;
Citizens Against LNG
PO Box 1113
North Bend, OR 97459
(541) 260-2000
or visit online @;
http://citizensagainstlng.googlepages.com/
or call;
John Griffith (541) 396-3121 or (541) 756-2020 ext. 248
Nikki Whitty (541) 396-3121 or (541) 756-2020 ext. 247
Kevin Stufflebeam (541) 396-3121 or (541) 756-2020 ext. 281
Sorry, the first link i posted is not the actual book, it is a critical response to the authors of "The Orphan Tsunami" by another geologist. This critical analysis neglects to mention evidence exisits that tsunamis have occurred following Cascadian quakes, only whether or not the Japanese tsunami of 1700 was actually linked to the Cascadian quake.
Am in a hurry, so i made an error. Probably a good reason NOT to be in a hurry approving this LNG plant! More scientific info on Cascadia subduction quakes and tsunamis is needed!
However, the second link shows the authors and may have some extra info. Nothing can replace reading the book itself, as that is where the
illustrations are!!
Of course scientists in the employ of the capitalist ruling class (ie., GW bush regime) will attempt to discredit any other scientists who present evidence that disables their plans for future coastal development..
This review is more descriptive and fair to the authors;
"Based on geologic evidence, scientists think that a massive magnitude-9.0 earthquake rocked the region sometime between 1680 and 1720. The quake must have lasted for several minutes because it caused parts of coastal Washington to plummet by as much as 5 feet (1.5 meters) relative to coastal waters.
In 1997, analysis of tree-rings from the Cascadia region narrowed the time of the natural disaster to a 10-month window, from August 1699 to May 1700."
read on @;
http://www.livescience.com/environment/051220_orphan_tsunami.html
Am in a hurry, so i made an error. Probably a good reason NOT to be in a hurry approving this LNG plant! More scientific info on Cascadia subduction quakes and tsunamis is needed!
However, the second link shows the authors and may have some extra info. Nothing can replace reading the book itself, as that is where the
illustrations are!!
Of course scientists in the employ of the capitalist ruling class (ie., GW bush regime) will attempt to discredit any other scientists who present evidence that disables their plans for future coastal development..
This review is more descriptive and fair to the authors;
"Based on geologic evidence, scientists think that a massive magnitude-9.0 earthquake rocked the region sometime between 1680 and 1720. The quake must have lasted for several minutes because it caused parts of coastal Washington to plummet by as much as 5 feet (1.5 meters) relative to coastal waters.
In 1997, analysis of tree-rings from the Cascadia region narrowed the time of the natural disaster to a 10-month window, from August 1699 to May 1700."
read on @;
http://www.livescience.com/environment/051220_orphan_tsunami.html
PLEASE NOTE: Timeline for additional testimony on the Port's Marine Terminal for the LNG ships is as follows:
Oct 8th - Deadline for additional testimony for the Sept 17th Hearing on Oregon Gateway (LNG) Marine Terminal
Oct 15th - Deadline for applicants rebuttal
Oct 22nd - Deadline for responses by public to applicants rebuttal (Must be based on existing record)
Oct 29th - Deadline for applicants final testimony - (Must be based on existing record)
Nov 27th - Anne Corcoran Briggs submits her recommendation to the Coos County Commissioners
Dec 4th - Deliberations by the Coos County Commissioners
http://www.theworldlink.com/articles/2007/09/18/breaking/doc46f0172c6bf50932136600.txt
LNG yields another lengthy meeting
By Alexander Rich, Staff Writer
Tuesday, September 18, 2007 2:34 PM PDT
COQUILLE - For a good part of its presentation at Monday's land use hearing, the Oregon International Port of Coos Bay argued its proposed marine terminal on the North Spit has nothing to do with liquefied natural gas.
During much of the following almost six hours, opponents of the project took pains to prove there is a link.
Some raised concerns about the potential environmental impacts of dredging a large area of Coos Bay shorelands to create a ship berth on the North Spit. But many fell back on the familiar arguments against the LNG import terminal.
As such, much was similar to the land use hearing on Aug. 28, when Jordan Cove Energy Project presented its case for building an LNG import terminal. Coos County hearings officer Anne Corcoran Briggs was again on the stage of the Coquille Community Building, listening to testimony before she writes a recommendation to the Board of Commissioners.
Those opposing the project greatly outnumbered proponents, by about 3-1. And the county was asked once more to rely on the expertise of state and federal agencies to ensure the project meets the county zoning and land development ordinance.
But a number of differences were readily evident. Most obvious was a much smaller audience than at the previous gathering. With fewer warm bodies, the energy that pervaded the previous meeting was diminished, along with the temperature. The smaller crowd did not speed up proceedings, however, as the hearing did not end
until about 9:45 p.m., nearly six hours after it started.
The port spent about an hour detailing its project. Executive Director Jeffrey Bishop spoke about how the project would provide economic stimulus, whether or not the LNG terminal winds up as the primary tenant.
Susan Tonkin, an engineering consultant, explained that about 5.6 million cubic yards of dredge materials would be removed to create the ship berth. Nearly all of it will be sand, which will potentially be deposited along the North Spit beaches facing the Pacific Ocean as well as at a site on former Weyerhaeuser Co. property.
Dredging will eliminate about 12 acres of intertidal area, though nothing will be removed from the existing deep-water channel as part of this project. About 31 acres of former pastureland, now tidal, would be protected as mitigation. Additional maintenance dredging of about 350,000 cubic yards would need to take place every three to four years at the ship berth, Tonkin said.
Frank Flynn, an attorney representing the port, completed the presentation by explaining how Indian artifacts would be protected during dredging and impacts to the environment would be minimized.
He noted that the original width of the slip dock was reduced by 87 feet to ensure a 50-foot setback to Henderson Marsh would be maintained. He also noted that the area of eel grass slated to be damaged had been lowered from 1.5 acres to 1.1. Finally,
he addressed the issue of Jordan Cove head on.
"Although Jordan Cove is dependent on the marine terminal for its project, the port is not dependent on Jordan Cove to build its marine terminal," he said. "They are the first group on the list to use the slip and it will be tailored to meet their needs. If the project falls through, then there would be another large consumer that
would step into Jordan Cove's shoes."
After three supporters of the project spoke about more jobs and greater shipping traffic, the opposition took its turn. Although Corcoran Briggs repeatedly encouraged brevity, speakers often spoke for more than 10 minutes - some as long as 20. Topics ranged from the prospect of idled fishing fleets waiting for LNG tankers
to pass, to a tsunami toppling the LNG container terminal, to school children and medical staff suffering injury following an accident.
Many complained about how the ship berth and LNG terminal applications were separated, requiring many people to travel long distances to attend both meetings.
In addition to having fewer numbers, opponents generally were from Coos County, with only four offering out-of-county addresses.
There also were several suggestions that the port and Jordan Cove were not being truthful about the size of ships that will come to port and how much dredging will occur.
Jody McCaffree, of North Bend, said the port's slip dock is unnecessary for the proposed cargo terminal or any other industry, except an LNG terminal.
"To say they aren't linked - follow the money. They are linked," she said. "The port is already functional without tearing up more tidelands.
Ruby Starr, of Coos Bay, took exception to the prospect of a Canadian-based company building an LNG terminal on land she claimed was at risk to erosion.
"Sand is sand. Tsunamis are tsunamis and liquefaction is liquefaction," she said, her voice rising with each point. "Nature is stronger than Canadian money. You are playing God and it will not work."
A commercial fisherman, Donald Conn of Coos Bay, played off the repeated mentions of the marine terminal as being a water-dependent industry, while expressing skepticism that the dredging would be effective.
"I am a surfer and we are very water dependent," he said. "The ocean doesn't like to be told what to do. It will do what it wants to do."
Coos Bay pediatrician Brian Gumbs said another industry that would suffer would be the medical field. Noting there are already problems recruiting and retaining physicians in rural areas, this task would be even harder in Coos Bay with an LNG terminal, he said.
"Physicians don't want to live in areas where their lives are in danger," he said. "It's the antithesis of health care."
Following the submission of testimony, attorneys for the port echoed those of Jordan Cove by suggesting most of the opponents' comments were off topic.
Corcoran Briggs did have some questions about the project, asking what would happen if the port were not allowed to put its dredgings on the North Spit beaches.
Attorneys responded by saying they would look at alternative sites, and if they needed to site it somewhere in county, they might need to come back with another application.
The hearings officer also inquired what purpose the county had when it seems most of the oversight will come from the state and federal level.
"The county will be an air traffic control operator and coordinate on the state and federal level," said attorney Mark Whitlow, who also represented Jordan Cove.
Corcoran Briggs also wanted to know about concerns raised by some that they would not be able to clam or use the area around the North Spit recreationally because of the dredging.
Flynn said there would still be opportunities to pursue these activities in the area, though he said use of that land was not an absolute right.
Following these comments, Corcoran Briggs said she would continue to accept written evidence, by way of the county's Planning Department, through Oct. 8. She said she would have a recommendation for the Board of Commissioners by Nov. 27. The board is tentatively scheduled to conduct deliberations on the matter Tuesday, Dec. 4.
http://www.theworldlink.com/articles/2007/09/18/breaking/doc46f0170a897a6699654110.txt
Written statements accepted
Tuesday, September 18, 2007 11:48 AM PDT
Written testimony will be accepted by the Coos County Planning Department until 5 p.m. on Monday, Oct. 8.
Those interested can submit testimony by mailing seven copies either to the Planning Department, Coos County Courthouse, Coquille, OR 97423; delivering it to;
Planning Deptartment
290 N. Central Ave.
Coquille, OR
or e-mailing to;
plansec [at] co.coos.or.us.
If e-mailing, the Planning Department will make seven copies
of the document at a cost of 50 cents per page billed to the person submitting the testimony. Planning staff also recommends calling to confirm the receipt of e-mails.
For more information, those interested can call the Planning Department at 396-3121
ext. 210. (or 756-2020 ext 210)
background info @;
http://citizensagainstlng.googlepages.com/
Oct 8th - Deadline for additional testimony for the Sept 17th Hearing on Oregon Gateway (LNG) Marine Terminal
Oct 15th - Deadline for applicants rebuttal
Oct 22nd - Deadline for responses by public to applicants rebuttal (Must be based on existing record)
Oct 29th - Deadline for applicants final testimony - (Must be based on existing record)
Nov 27th - Anne Corcoran Briggs submits her recommendation to the Coos County Commissioners
Dec 4th - Deliberations by the Coos County Commissioners
http://www.theworldlink.com/articles/2007/09/18/breaking/doc46f0172c6bf50932136600.txt
LNG yields another lengthy meeting
By Alexander Rich, Staff Writer
Tuesday, September 18, 2007 2:34 PM PDT
COQUILLE - For a good part of its presentation at Monday's land use hearing, the Oregon International Port of Coos Bay argued its proposed marine terminal on the North Spit has nothing to do with liquefied natural gas.
During much of the following almost six hours, opponents of the project took pains to prove there is a link.
Some raised concerns about the potential environmental impacts of dredging a large area of Coos Bay shorelands to create a ship berth on the North Spit. But many fell back on the familiar arguments against the LNG import terminal.
As such, much was similar to the land use hearing on Aug. 28, when Jordan Cove Energy Project presented its case for building an LNG import terminal. Coos County hearings officer Anne Corcoran Briggs was again on the stage of the Coquille Community Building, listening to testimony before she writes a recommendation to the Board of Commissioners.
Those opposing the project greatly outnumbered proponents, by about 3-1. And the county was asked once more to rely on the expertise of state and federal agencies to ensure the project meets the county zoning and land development ordinance.
But a number of differences were readily evident. Most obvious was a much smaller audience than at the previous gathering. With fewer warm bodies, the energy that pervaded the previous meeting was diminished, along with the temperature. The smaller crowd did not speed up proceedings, however, as the hearing did not end
until about 9:45 p.m., nearly six hours after it started.
The port spent about an hour detailing its project. Executive Director Jeffrey Bishop spoke about how the project would provide economic stimulus, whether or not the LNG terminal winds up as the primary tenant.
Susan Tonkin, an engineering consultant, explained that about 5.6 million cubic yards of dredge materials would be removed to create the ship berth. Nearly all of it will be sand, which will potentially be deposited along the North Spit beaches facing the Pacific Ocean as well as at a site on former Weyerhaeuser Co. property.
Dredging will eliminate about 12 acres of intertidal area, though nothing will be removed from the existing deep-water channel as part of this project. About 31 acres of former pastureland, now tidal, would be protected as mitigation. Additional maintenance dredging of about 350,000 cubic yards would need to take place every three to four years at the ship berth, Tonkin said.
Frank Flynn, an attorney representing the port, completed the presentation by explaining how Indian artifacts would be protected during dredging and impacts to the environment would be minimized.
He noted that the original width of the slip dock was reduced by 87 feet to ensure a 50-foot setback to Henderson Marsh would be maintained. He also noted that the area of eel grass slated to be damaged had been lowered from 1.5 acres to 1.1. Finally,
he addressed the issue of Jordan Cove head on.
"Although Jordan Cove is dependent on the marine terminal for its project, the port is not dependent on Jordan Cove to build its marine terminal," he said. "They are the first group on the list to use the slip and it will be tailored to meet their needs. If the project falls through, then there would be another large consumer that
would step into Jordan Cove's shoes."
After three supporters of the project spoke about more jobs and greater shipping traffic, the opposition took its turn. Although Corcoran Briggs repeatedly encouraged brevity, speakers often spoke for more than 10 minutes - some as long as 20. Topics ranged from the prospect of idled fishing fleets waiting for LNG tankers
to pass, to a tsunami toppling the LNG container terminal, to school children and medical staff suffering injury following an accident.
Many complained about how the ship berth and LNG terminal applications were separated, requiring many people to travel long distances to attend both meetings.
In addition to having fewer numbers, opponents generally were from Coos County, with only four offering out-of-county addresses.
There also were several suggestions that the port and Jordan Cove were not being truthful about the size of ships that will come to port and how much dredging will occur.
Jody McCaffree, of North Bend, said the port's slip dock is unnecessary for the proposed cargo terminal or any other industry, except an LNG terminal.
"To say they aren't linked - follow the money. They are linked," she said. "The port is already functional without tearing up more tidelands.
Ruby Starr, of Coos Bay, took exception to the prospect of a Canadian-based company building an LNG terminal on land she claimed was at risk to erosion.
"Sand is sand. Tsunamis are tsunamis and liquefaction is liquefaction," she said, her voice rising with each point. "Nature is stronger than Canadian money. You are playing God and it will not work."
A commercial fisherman, Donald Conn of Coos Bay, played off the repeated mentions of the marine terminal as being a water-dependent industry, while expressing skepticism that the dredging would be effective.
"I am a surfer and we are very water dependent," he said. "The ocean doesn't like to be told what to do. It will do what it wants to do."
Coos Bay pediatrician Brian Gumbs said another industry that would suffer would be the medical field. Noting there are already problems recruiting and retaining physicians in rural areas, this task would be even harder in Coos Bay with an LNG terminal, he said.
"Physicians don't want to live in areas where their lives are in danger," he said. "It's the antithesis of health care."
Following the submission of testimony, attorneys for the port echoed those of Jordan Cove by suggesting most of the opponents' comments were off topic.
Corcoran Briggs did have some questions about the project, asking what would happen if the port were not allowed to put its dredgings on the North Spit beaches.
Attorneys responded by saying they would look at alternative sites, and if they needed to site it somewhere in county, they might need to come back with another application.
The hearings officer also inquired what purpose the county had when it seems most of the oversight will come from the state and federal level.
"The county will be an air traffic control operator and coordinate on the state and federal level," said attorney Mark Whitlow, who also represented Jordan Cove.
Corcoran Briggs also wanted to know about concerns raised by some that they would not be able to clam or use the area around the North Spit recreationally because of the dredging.
Flynn said there would still be opportunities to pursue these activities in the area, though he said use of that land was not an absolute right.
Following these comments, Corcoran Briggs said she would continue to accept written evidence, by way of the county's Planning Department, through Oct. 8. She said she would have a recommendation for the Board of Commissioners by Nov. 27. The board is tentatively scheduled to conduct deliberations on the matter Tuesday, Dec. 4.
http://www.theworldlink.com/articles/2007/09/18/breaking/doc46f0170a897a6699654110.txt
Written statements accepted
Tuesday, September 18, 2007 11:48 AM PDT
Written testimony will be accepted by the Coos County Planning Department until 5 p.m. on Monday, Oct. 8.
Those interested can submit testimony by mailing seven copies either to the Planning Department, Coos County Courthouse, Coquille, OR 97423; delivering it to;
Planning Deptartment
290 N. Central Ave.
Coquille, OR
or e-mailing to;
plansec [at] co.coos.or.us.
If e-mailing, the Planning Department will make seven copies
of the document at a cost of 50 cents per page billed to the person submitting the testimony. Planning staff also recommends calling to confirm the receipt of e-mails.
For more information, those interested can call the Planning Department at 396-3121
ext. 210. (or 756-2020 ext 210)
background info @;
http://citizensagainstlng.googlepages.com/
Here's an example of a public comment for Coos County Council to the Jordan Cove Energy Project's marine slip dock hearings (9/17), specific to the risks of a Cascadia subduction seismic event, and the effects of dredging on eelgrass..
Dear Coos County Council, 10/04/07
Am writing this public comment from out of state (CA) out of concern for
the safety of the residents of North Bend and Coos Bay, Oregon. My concern
is about the risks involved with the construction of a proposed Jordan
Cove Energy Project's LNG terminal slip dock on the north spit of Coos
Bay. After having visited the north spit of Coos Bay and the neighboring
Henderson marsh, my research finds this site to be unsuitable for several
reasons as listed below;
1) Slip dock is unsafe due to the tendency of sand dune terrain to shift
and subside in the event of an earthquake and/or tsunami following seismic
activity. Of specific concern is a Cascadia subduction seismic event, one
which the offshore Juan de Fuca oceanic plate subducts under the North
American continental plate and causes a potential magnitude 9 tsunami
offshore with less than an hour warning time before the wave makes
landfall (Atwater, et. al.). If an LNG ship was either entering or exiting
the terminal from the slip dock during this time, there would be a
possible and probable explosion if the ship's hull and/or LNG tanks are
compromised in their ability to keep the natural gas liquified at -260
degrees Fahrenheit.
2) The 50 feet above sea level elevation (+50) proposed by the Jordan Cove
Project planners is unsuitable in the event of land subsidence following
an offshore seismic subduction event. Fossil records indicate land
subsidence following Cascadian subduction events have occurred greater
than 20 ft. (-20) with waves of 30 feet above high tide (+6) norms (total
of +36) resulting in a total water depth of 56 feet above the north spit
surface (Kelsey, et. al.) Combining subsidence with the tsunami wave of
unknown height cancels out the +50 feet above sea level safety zone and
leaves the LNG facility vulnerable to flooding with unknown consequences
to the stored natural gas.
3) Henderson marsh is a unique tidal ecosystem that combines freshwater
marshlands with some tidally influenced sloughs, creating a mixed
freshwater and saltwater brackish habitat that is a needed rest stop for
migratory birds and resident birds, fish, mammals, etc.. Jordan Cove
Project planners forget that removal of Henderson marsh habitat requires
mitigation of replacement, and no other suitable site exists on the north
spit. In addition, the displacement of water from filling in the Henderson
marsh will only result in a greater tendency for flooding events as the
water can no longer percolate into the sand below.
4) Routine dredging operation needed to maintain entry to the slip dock
will adversely effect the eelgrass beds found throughout the Coos Bay
estuary. According to University of Washington estuary ecologist Charles
Simenstad, "Eelgrass [is] the [shallow-water] equivalent of the tropical
rainforest in terms of biodiversity." Eelgrass beds are vital ecosystem
habitats and form the base layer of the food pyramid that supports the top
predators valued by the fisheries industry (Solomon). Any potential jobs
provided by the LNG facility will be twice negated by jobs lost in the
fishing industry if the eelgrass beds disappear from excess dredging for
the slip dock. Coos Bay's future is more stable if they maintain a healthy
eelgrass based fisheries ecosystem than if they sacrifice their eelgrass
and fisheries for the instability of the Jordan Cove Energy Project's LNG
facility.
In addition, it is essential for the Coos County council and planning
commision to read the following articles provided below before making any
further decisions about the proposed JCEP LNG terminal. The book "Orphan
Tsunami of 1700" is also available to the public at the Coquille public
library.
Additional references;
website;
http://www.livescience.com/environment/051220_orphan_tsunami.html
refers to book;
"The Orphan Tsunami of 1700" by Brian Atwater et. al. 2006, University of
Washington Press
website;
http://www.oregongeology.com/sub/earthquakes/Coastal/OrGeoEqNTsu.htm
and
http://www.geosociety.org/news/pr/05-20.htm
refers to articles;
"Geological Society of America Bulletin" March 2002 (v. 114 no.3 pg.
298-314) DOI: 10.1130/0016-7606
article title;
"Plate-boundary earthquakes and tsunamis of the past 5500 yr, Sixes River
estuary, southern Oregon"
by;
Harvey M. Kelsey, Robert C. Witter, and Eileen Hemphill-Haley
"Geological Society of America Bulletin" July 2005 (v. 117 no. pg.
1009-1032 DOI: 10.1130/B254
article title; "Tsunami history of an Oregon coastal lake reveals a 4600
yr record of great earthquakes on the Cascadia subduction zone"
by;
Harvey M. Kelsey (1), Alan R. Nelson (2), Eileen Hemphill-Haley (3) and
Robert C. Witter (4)
1 Department of Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, California
95521, USA
2 U.S. Geological Survey, M.S. 966, P.O. Box 25046, Denver, Colorado
80225-0046, USA
3 Department of Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, California
95521, USA
4 William Lettis and Assoc., Inc., Suite 262, 1777 Botelho Drive, Walnut
Creek, California 94596, USA
website;
http://audubonmagazine.org/truenature/truenature.0309.html
refers to article;
Audubon 9/2003 "An Underwater Ark" by Christopher Solomon
Dear Coos County Council, 10/04/07
Am writing this public comment from out of state (CA) out of concern for
the safety of the residents of North Bend and Coos Bay, Oregon. My concern
is about the risks involved with the construction of a proposed Jordan
Cove Energy Project's LNG terminal slip dock on the north spit of Coos
Bay. After having visited the north spit of Coos Bay and the neighboring
Henderson marsh, my research finds this site to be unsuitable for several
reasons as listed below;
1) Slip dock is unsafe due to the tendency of sand dune terrain to shift
and subside in the event of an earthquake and/or tsunami following seismic
activity. Of specific concern is a Cascadia subduction seismic event, one
which the offshore Juan de Fuca oceanic plate subducts under the North
American continental plate and causes a potential magnitude 9 tsunami
offshore with less than an hour warning time before the wave makes
landfall (Atwater, et. al.). If an LNG ship was either entering or exiting
the terminal from the slip dock during this time, there would be a
possible and probable explosion if the ship's hull and/or LNG tanks are
compromised in their ability to keep the natural gas liquified at -260
degrees Fahrenheit.
2) The 50 feet above sea level elevation (+50) proposed by the Jordan Cove
Project planners is unsuitable in the event of land subsidence following
an offshore seismic subduction event. Fossil records indicate land
subsidence following Cascadian subduction events have occurred greater
than 20 ft. (-20) with waves of 30 feet above high tide (+6) norms (total
of +36) resulting in a total water depth of 56 feet above the north spit
surface (Kelsey, et. al.) Combining subsidence with the tsunami wave of
unknown height cancels out the +50 feet above sea level safety zone and
leaves the LNG facility vulnerable to flooding with unknown consequences
to the stored natural gas.
3) Henderson marsh is a unique tidal ecosystem that combines freshwater
marshlands with some tidally influenced sloughs, creating a mixed
freshwater and saltwater brackish habitat that is a needed rest stop for
migratory birds and resident birds, fish, mammals, etc.. Jordan Cove
Project planners forget that removal of Henderson marsh habitat requires
mitigation of replacement, and no other suitable site exists on the north
spit. In addition, the displacement of water from filling in the Henderson
marsh will only result in a greater tendency for flooding events as the
water can no longer percolate into the sand below.
4) Routine dredging operation needed to maintain entry to the slip dock
will adversely effect the eelgrass beds found throughout the Coos Bay
estuary. According to University of Washington estuary ecologist Charles
Simenstad, "Eelgrass [is] the [shallow-water] equivalent of the tropical
rainforest in terms of biodiversity." Eelgrass beds are vital ecosystem
habitats and form the base layer of the food pyramid that supports the top
predators valued by the fisheries industry (Solomon). Any potential jobs
provided by the LNG facility will be twice negated by jobs lost in the
fishing industry if the eelgrass beds disappear from excess dredging for
the slip dock. Coos Bay's future is more stable if they maintain a healthy
eelgrass based fisheries ecosystem than if they sacrifice their eelgrass
and fisheries for the instability of the Jordan Cove Energy Project's LNG
facility.
In addition, it is essential for the Coos County council and planning
commision to read the following articles provided below before making any
further decisions about the proposed JCEP LNG terminal. The book "Orphan
Tsunami of 1700" is also available to the public at the Coquille public
library.
Additional references;
website;
http://www.livescience.com/environment/051220_orphan_tsunami.html
refers to book;
"The Orphan Tsunami of 1700" by Brian Atwater et. al. 2006, University of
Washington Press
website;
http://www.oregongeology.com/sub/earthquakes/Coastal/OrGeoEqNTsu.htm
and
http://www.geosociety.org/news/pr/05-20.htm
refers to articles;
"Geological Society of America Bulletin" March 2002 (v. 114 no.3 pg.
298-314) DOI: 10.1130/0016-7606
article title;
"Plate-boundary earthquakes and tsunamis of the past 5500 yr, Sixes River
estuary, southern Oregon"
by;
Harvey M. Kelsey, Robert C. Witter, and Eileen Hemphill-Haley
"Geological Society of America Bulletin" July 2005 (v. 117 no. pg.
1009-1032 DOI: 10.1130/B254
article title; "Tsunami history of an Oregon coastal lake reveals a 4600
yr record of great earthquakes on the Cascadia subduction zone"
by;
Harvey M. Kelsey (1), Alan R. Nelson (2), Eileen Hemphill-Haley (3) and
Robert C. Witter (4)
1 Department of Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, California
95521, USA
2 U.S. Geological Survey, M.S. 966, P.O. Box 25046, Denver, Colorado
80225-0046, USA
3 Department of Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, California
95521, USA
4 William Lettis and Assoc., Inc., Suite 262, 1777 Botelho Drive, Walnut
Creek, California 94596, USA
website;
http://audubonmagazine.org/truenature/truenature.0309.html
refers to article;
Audubon 9/2003 "An Underwater Ark" by Christopher Solomon
The following link is the best LNG video I've seen. It's about 7 minutes.
For more information:
http://biblek12.org/lng
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$155.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network