|
LNG DEVELOPMENT
PROPOSALS THREATEN OREGON COMMUNITIES AND ENVIRONMENT
Latest News
6.24.09: FLOW files FEIS comments on the Jordan Cove Terminal and Pacific Connector Pipeline LNG proposal! Click here to read the comments.
1.28.09: State Board Overturns LNG Terminal Approval at Bradwood, Columbia River. Click here for more information.
Click here to read FLOW's comments on the Bradwood Environmental Impact Statement
Recent Media
10.18.08: NOAA Fisheries tells FERC that their approval of the Bradwood LNG Site is "ILLEGAL"!
Click here for more information
12.09.08: FLOW files Jordan Cove Cove Draft Environmental Impact Statement comments- Click here to read them...
10.30.08: From the Medford Mail Tribune: LNG Hearing in Medford Draws Protests
Click here for a Energy Current article concerning a proposed LNG terminal at Skipanon Peninsula on the Columbia River (10.15.08)
Click here for article concerning Port of Coos Bay extending land sale agreements with Jordan Cove Energy Project & Weyerhauser (10.1.08)
Click here for a
Medford Mail Tribune article on a public
meeting in Shady Cove regarding the proposed gas pipeline (9.26.08)
Click here for article about Jackson County Commissioners opposition to the southern Oregon LNG projects (7.16.08)
Community Opposition Deals Major Blow to
Southern Oregon LNG Project
North Bend, OR – Opponents of the Jordan Cove liquefied natural gas (LNG) facility and the related Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline welcomed news that Oregon's Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) rejected Coos County's approval of the project yesterday.
Project opponents argued in an appeal to LUBA that the County’s approval in late 2007 violated Oregon's land use laws. On Tuesday, LUBA agreed with some of the opponents “Assignments of Error” and remanded the matter to the County for further work.
“This LUBA decision is a big win for the people of Coos County and Oregon," said Jody McCaffree, leader of Citizens Against LNG in Coos Bay, who supported the appeal. "People came to the hearings and testified ten to one against this project The Coos County Commissioners should have listened to their constituents' legitimate concerns. Instead, the Commissioners deferred to Jordan Cove Energy Partners on issue after issue. LUBA's decision requires the County to reconsider some of its key decisions and to fully engage the public in doing so."
David Lohman, a Medford attorney representing appellant Southern Oregon Pipeline Information Project, said LUBA’s decision was based on more than just narrow legal technicalities: “Correcting the problems with this permit – if Coos County decides to try to do so – will require a lot of new work by Jordan Cove and the County, including public involvement processes that were skipped over before. And we now know of additional problems to bring to LUBA’s attention the next time around.”
James Nicita, the Oregon City-based attorney who successfully argued the case against the environmentally damaging project, looked ahead to the State's role in the project. "This is the first major permit that Jordan Cove has sought, and LUBA’s decision is a huge signal to them that their project has major problems.”
The decision may stall the plans of the California pipeline project, which would connect the LNG terminal in Coos Bay to the California market.
Dan Serres, with FLOW, an environmental group supporting community opposition to the project, said, "This is a big victory for the community activists in Coos County and throughout Southern Oregon who are concerned about the questionable economic impacts of a project that would put homes and schools in a blast zone while utilizing eminent domain to cut a 230-mile clearcut across private property and impacting five major rivers—just to send more polluting natural gas to a state that has rejected these type of projects on five separate occasions."
Click here for a link to an article about
LNG opposition meeting in Southern Oregon
Click here for a link to an article about LNG and Southern Oregon
from the Medford Mail Tribune
Click here for a link to an excellent article on the LNG terminal/pipeline
proposal and a recent public meeting concerning the project held in Coos Bay
Click here to read FLOW's
comments on the Coos Bay North Spit land sale to the Port of Coos Bay proposed
by the BLM (to facilitate LNG terminal development)
Click here to read "LNG
foes give feds both barrels" from the Daily Astorian
Click here to read FLOW's scoping
comments for the Jordan Cove/pipeline proposal
Liquid Natural Gas (LNG): ENERGY FIRMS TARGET OREGON
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, 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)
For
LNG-related questions, please call Dan Serres at 503-890-2441.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Click here to read FLOW's letter to Oregon
U.S. Senator Ron Wyden 1) requesting his sponsorship of a bill that would
re-establish state authority over LNG siting, 2) requesting that he asks FERC
re-open scoping comments in the Northern Star Natural Gas proposal in Bradwood,
Oregon, and (3) requesting that he support that FERC and the U.S. Coast Guard
must clarify minimum safety standards for LNG vessels.
Reasons and Resources for Supporting Energy
Conservation and Renewable Alternatives to LNG in Oregon:
I.
Public Safety (see Background, also).
·
The
Sandia Report indicates that persons living within one mile of an LNG terminal
or vessel face a risk of second degree burns from 30 seconds of exposure to a
LNG pool fire. It uses as the basis of its analysis a 10 percent
release and ignition of a typical LNG cargo, or 3 out of the 30 million gallons
in a typical vessel. This report is used as the basis for risk assessment
for LNG terminals and traffic. Read the Sandia Report here:
http://fossil.energy.gov/programs/oilgas/storage/lng/sandia_lng_1204.pdfor
www.pstrust.org/library/pdf/sandiareport.pdf
·
Dr.
Jerry Havens spoke in Portland and Astoria in mid-August. Dr. Havens is a
professor of chemical engineering at the University of Arkansas, and his
research includes hazards associated with chemical spills. He has supplied
comments to FERC regarding a very controversial proposal in Fall River,
Massachusetts. Read his extensive comments on the Fall River DEIS here:
(on CD) Shockingly, despite the expert testimony of Havens and others
(including Richard Clarke), the Fall River Weaver’s Cove LNG terminal was
approved by FERC. Read our assessment of why Oregonians should be
concerned about FERC’s proclivity for ignoring relevant safety, security, and
quality of life concerns. (Fall River Report – on cd).
·
The
Congressional Research Service also has produced information regarding LNG
safety risks.
II.
Lack of Significant Economic Benefit and Disparity in
Economic Impacts
III.
Direct Negative Impacts to the Integrity of Oregon’s
Waters
Click here to read FLOW's initial comments on the Bradwood Landing LNG
receiving terminal proposal
Click here to view a map of the thermal zone for the Jordan Cove Project
Click here for a link
to an excellent review of the Jordan Cove LNG proposal from a Coos Bay local
Background:
What is LNG?
Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) is natural gas that is generally procured abroad,
chilled to -259oF, and shipped at this cooled temperature in tankers
1000 ft in length (approximately the size of an aircraft carrier). Methane is
the main constituent of LNG, with an additional small amount of other
hydrocarbons. In its liquid state, natural gas is a clear, odorless, nontoxic
and non-corrosive substance.
Is
LNG Safe?
LNG is non-flammable in its
liquid state, but it can rapidly expand into its gaseous form when released from
its holding tanks.
1. Particularly in contact with water, LNG will rapidly transition
from a liquid to a gas, and this can yield a physical explosion without
combustion (California Energy Commission website). Additionally, at
concentrations between 5 % and 15% in air, LNG vapor can burn.
2. LNG is capable of causing freeze burns because of its extremely
cold temperature. Additionally, exposure to the center of a vapor cloud caused
by rapidly re-gasified LNG can cause asphyxiation.
3. Professor James Fay of
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has posited in several studies that,
were an LNG tanker to be ruptured by an accident or terrorist strike, it could
rapidly spread out and float on water, creating a pool with an associated vapor
cloud directly above it: “Once ignited, as is very likely when the spill is
initiated by a chemical explosion, the floating LNG pool will burn vigorously…
Like the attack on the World Trade Center in New York City, there exists no
relevant industrial experience with fires of this scale from which to project
measures for securing public safety.”
4. The shipping and receiving of LNG requires large exclusion zones
for safety in case of accident or terrorist attack. These exclusion zones may
not be adequate, according to Fay, to ensure the safety of nearby communities in
the case of improbable but catastrophic accidents or attacks. The
recently-released report from the Sandia National Laboratories on the risks
associated with a possible large spill of LNG effectively undermine industry
assertions that LNG is completely safe and cannot burn. Indeed, officials were
so worried about the possibility of a terrorist attack on LNG that they shut
down the LNG terminal in Boston after 9/11 and during the Democratic National
Convention, fearing an attack that would devastate downtown Boston. Each tanker
of LNG carries with it an amount of energy comparable to 50 Hiroshima nuclear
bombs. Moreover, models indicate that a major failure in storage could cause a
fire that would result in burns for people up to a mile away.
Other LNG Considerations
1. Projected increases in demand for LNG in the U.S., in combination
with projected declines in domestic natural gas reserves, are prompting the
proposal of new import terminals for LNG in the U.S. Currently, four terminals
are operational and forty-nine are proposed or in planning stages throughout the
United States (http://intelligencepress.com/features/lng/terminals/lng_terminals.html)
2. Exclusion zones are necessary for the safe operation of the
terminals and tankers, and these areas may disrupt the operation of fishermen,
recreationists, and other members of the local community. Thermal exclusion
zones bar activity near LNG terminals because, were an LNG facililty to fail and
spill LNG, the resultant pool fire could threaten human health up to a mile
away. Vapor dispersion exclusion zones are similar, and they regulate activity
in an area where rapidly warming LNG could form a vapor cloud, which could then
drift and combust if it contacted an ignition source. (See sample comment
letter below for current exclusion zone comment period).
Additionally, flight paths may be restricted in and out of nearby
airports to ensure the safety of tankers and receiving terminals. Bridge
closures are also a possibility, a particularly troubling consideration for the
Columbia River proposals.
You can file
Comments on the Bradwood Facility on the FERC website.
Electronic:
http://www.ferc.gov and follow instructions under the “E-Filing” link
Written: Send original and two copies of letter to
Magalie R. Salas, Secretary
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First St., NE., Room 1A
*reference Docket No. PF05-10-000 on original and both copies,
and label one of the copies to the attention of OEP/DG2E/Gas Branch 3 (PJ-11.3).
|