PFRP lng

LA. LNG terminal OK'd by feds

2007-01-07T06:06:00.000-08:00

Associated Press
NEW ORLEANS - Petroleum producer McMoRan Exploration Co. has received final approval for a $1 billion liquefied natural gas project off Louisiana's coast, including storage caverns in an offshore salt dome, the company announced Thursday.

"This will be the only facility we know of that will have regasification and on-site storage like that," company spokesman William L. Collier said.

The go-ahead from the U.S. Maritime Administration was the last needed for the Main Pass Energy Hub, Collier said. The record accompanying the decision was 46 pages long and outlines requirements that will be put into the license.

"It's a significant milestone for our company. We've been working for nearly three years to get this approval," Collier said.

He did not know when construction will begin, but said it's expected to be completed in about three years.

"At this point, we'll focus on contracting for gas supplying and putting together the financing," he said.

Natural gas is liquified so that it can take up less space and be more easily transported by tankers. The natural gas is chilled to -256 degrees Fahrenheit, turning it from a gas to a liquid, and moved into heavily insulated storage tanks. From those, reinforced, usually double-hulled tankers with insulated cargo tanks will bring it to the terminal. There, it will be stored and heated to turn it back from a liquid to a gas.

Collier said the terminal will be built on the offshore salt dome in which its storage caverns will be leached. The terminal will cost about $500 million, and pipelines - already approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission - another $500 million.

Gov. Kathleen Blanco vetoed the project last year because McMoRan intended to use an open-loop system using water from the Gulf of Mexico to warm the supercooled liquefied gas. Environmentalists said that would kill an unknown amount of sea life, including fish and fish larvae.

The company changed the design to the more expensive closed-loop technology, which uses some of the gas it imports, rather than seawater, to warm the liquefied gas. The modifications will cost about $30 million, plus $25 million a year in revenue lost from the natural gas used in the closed-loop system, Collier said at the time.

The conditions required by MARAD include demonstration of financial responsibility, compliance with applicable laws and regulations, environmental monitoring and other customary conditions.

McMoRan said the facility will be able to store 28 billion cubic feet of LNG in salt caverns, to regasify up to 1.6 billion cubic feet of liquid natural gas a day, and to deliver up to 3.1 billion cubic feet of natural gas to the U.S. market daily.

Peter Huhtala--Letter to the Editor

2006-12-25T05:53:00.000-08:00

To the editor:

On a Tuesday before Christmas, citizens of the Columbia River Estuary gave up their evening to attend two meetings regarding decisions that will have a significant impact on future generations.

There was yet another important meeting on Thursday. As I write this, I don’t know what the Port of Astoria Commission decided on last night. I don’t know whether the port is ready to allow yet another limited liability corporation play their cards in the LNG game – where a winning hand leaves the quality of our life the loser.

I’m sure that there was a big turnout for last night’s port meeting, but I want to talk about Tuesday. Tuesday night, citizens filled the port chambers, nearly all to demand an end to the Commission’s complacency with these LNG pirates. From the talk in the hall, most did not have high hopes.

There were of course other issues raised at the port meeting. The Port of Astoria seems to have become a magnet for controversy in recent years, but I’ll leave that as an understatement.

Meanwhile, just down the way and over the water, another meeting was underway. Robert “Jake” Jacob had summoned business owners and citizens to the fabulous Cannery Pier Hotel to discuss how to keep our area safe from the proliferation of LNG. This was probably the more significant meeting.

Those packing the Union Fish Meeting Room at the Cannery Pier included health care professionals, retail merchants, landowners facing a taking of their property by eminent domain for a huge high-pressure gas pipeline, residents of Puget Island that live in the shadow of the proposed LNG development at Bradwood, and numerous other concerned members of our communities.

The attendees were treated to excellent presentations by environmental professionals Brent Foster of Columbia Riverkeeper, and Dan Serres of Friends of Oregon Living Waters. Numerous knowledgeable people in the room contributed to a lively discussion.

However, it was Jake himself who provided the real leadership for this meeting, and the drive to get done what needs to get done. He clearly sees that the prosperity of our area is inexorably tied to our environment, to our quality of life. Like many others, though, he held back in expressing his views publicly, partly in deference to friends who saw things differently. He is quiet no longer.

Jake’s courage in standing up and expressing his convictions is likely to be contagious. He is calling for business owners and community leaders to join him in demanding that local, state and federal government decision makers reject any LNG proposal on the Columbia River.

As these new voices join with the grassroots activists, the regional conservation groups, the tribes, and all those whose lives and livelihoods depend on this river, I believe that success is possible. It will take tenacity, but now we have fresh inspiration. Kudos to Jake!

Astoria Port Commissioner meeting on transfer of lease

2006-12-25T05:50:00.000-08:00

The commissioners voted unanimously to ask both Calpine and the Court for an extension. Attorneys for the NGOs, including RiverVision, provided excellent rationale for both an extention and an objection (which could come later). These attorneys may actually work with the Port on the extention.

The room was full, the testimony to the point. the point was get out of the lease or at least don't succomb to this New York rush to let Peter Hansen go to work for Leucadia (as he told me was his intention if they get the lease).

There was no disclosure of any commissioner to Leucadia (or any other company in contention) contact, nor the possibility of Mr. Hansen's continued involvement. I suggested that Leucadia would have been wise to grease the skids by getting together with the commissioners. Perhaps the Daily A got the straight story after the meeting.

It was an acceptable and reasonable outcome in any event. (I can't believe I'm saying that.)

This report does not do justice to the many wise and thoughtful statements made by the public, nor to the behind the scenes efforts of Columbia Riverkeeper and the Columbia River Clean Energy Coalition, as well as many long-time allies and some newcomers to this cause.

Dan Serres from the Coalition wondered about a bit dazed at the close, muttering, "We won." Well, it's true we won a skirmish and made advances in cooperation with the port commissioners, but this is far from over.

LNG fails to impress Mass. fishermen

2006-12-19T05:03:00.000-08:00

LNG cash offer fails to sway fishermen
Industry opposes offshore terminal

By John Laidler, Globe Correspondent | December 17, 2006

A promise of millions of dollars for the local fishing industry has not swayed fishermen and Gloucester city leaders to drop their opposition to two proposed liquefied natural gas ports off the city's coast.

The developers of the projects -- Excelerate Energy and Neptune LLG -- have each committed $23.5 million to compensate for impacts to marine resources and human uses of Massachusetts Bay, according to state officials. The local fishing industry will receive a portion of that -- $6.3 million from each developer.

"This doesn't change anything we've been concerned about," said Gloucester fisherman Joseph Orlando, referring to fears that the ports would disrupt commercial fishing and pose a safety hazard. "I've been fishing there all my life. All of a sudden, I'm getting kicked out so these guys can come in."

But Orlando and other opponents say they welcome having the money on the table if the projects do go forward.

"If it's a done deal . . . you've got to compensate the people who use that area," said Orlando, who fishes for groundfish with a dragger .

The state's Executive Office of Environmental Affairs secretary, Robert W. Golledge Jr., included the mitigation agreement in an approval he granted Dec. 1 to the Excelerate project, confirming that the firm's environmental impact report complies with state law. He included a similar mitigation package in an approval he granted to Neptune last week.

Both projects still require additional state and federal permits and approval by the governor, who has power under federal law to veto the plans. Outgoing Governor Mitt Romney has until Dec. 26 to decide on the Northeast Gateway project, and Jan. 2 to decide on the Neptune project.

In a statement included with the earlier approval, Golledge said the Northeast Gateway project, "with the mitigation that has been required, strikes a good balance between the need for reliable energy and minimizing impacts to the environment.

"The $23.5 million mitigation package includes a number of different components that will ensure that we have critical data to improve ocean and fisheries management in the future, as well as significant mitigation for impacts to fishing interests and the general public," he said.

Other local mitigation measures included in the Excelerate package are $150,000 for the Gloucester Maritime Heritage Center, and $150,000 for Salem Sound Coastwatch to support public access and environmental programs in Salem Sound. The Neptune package includes $150,000 for the Peabody Essex Museum to support activities related to maritime exhibitions and heritage, and $150,000 for the Essex National Heritage Area.

"We always knew there would be a mitigation package," said Excelerate spokesman Doug Pizzi . "That's something that's been negotiated for many months. . . . There were a lot of public policy goals we were asked to participate in, and we did."

Each port would consist of two large mooring markers attached to underwater buoys . Ships carrying liquefied natural gas would moor there. The gas would be vaporized aboard the ships and then pumped through the buoys into new pipelines that would connect to an existing underwater pipeline that extends from Beverly Harbor to Weymouth. Access would be limited for four square miles around each deep-water port.

Gloucester Mayor John Bell said that both ports would be located in an ocean area known as Block 125, which continues to be an active fishing ground.

"It's very productive for groundfish, and in terms of lobster habitat. And it's also a prime area for right whales. . . . So clearly, if we were given a choice, we prefer that there be no deep-water ports out there," said Bell, adding that regional planning is needed to site LNG terminals.

"I can't even fathom how bad it's going to be trying to get out to the harbor to where we work, to circumvent where they're going to be," said fisherman Al Cottone. "It's going to make it impossible to make a living out there."

Pizzi said the four square miles around Excelerate's port would represent less than 1 percent of the Block 125 area, which he said is just over 400 square miles. But fishermen said the area surrounding the proposed port sites is particularly productive.

Fishermen also fear their dragging gear could become damaged by rocks and other debris churned up by construction of the pipelines. And there are concerns about safety.

"People on the North Shore are never going to be able to sleep in the way they have the last 400 years," said Gloucester Fishermen's Wives Association president Angela Sanfilippo .

"The place to have a facility like this is offshore . . . away from populated areas," Pizzi said. As for the construction, he said, "once the pipeline is in, the plow back-fills it. So it's not changing the topography of the ocean bottom."

Vito Giacalone, president of the Gloucester Fishermen's Association, said that Excelerate's environmental report significantly understates the project's impact on the fishing industry. The firm put the figure at $2.5 million over the 20- to 25-year life of the project. Fishermen estimate $3 million to $9 million a year.

Pizzi said Excelerate believes the $2.5 million figure is accurate, noting that it came from a Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute study. He said the firm agreed to a $6.3 million compensation figure to help with impacts on the fishing industry that go beyond the project, including federal fishing limits.

The Excelerate plan calls for creation of a nonprofit that will use the $6.3 million to purchase permits and allotted fishing days from fishermen who opt to leave the business. Those permits and fishing days can then be leased to other fishermen.

"The money will help an industry that has endured severe cuts over the past 10 years" due to fishing regulations, Bell said. "It will help keep our fishing community whole and keep our permits in the city of Gloucester."

But, he added, "if given the choice between the money and the deep-water ports being eliminated, we clearly are in favor of no LNG in Block 125."

What we have to look forward to?

2006-12-07T04:55:00.000-08:00

Hundreds evacuated after China LNG spill

BEIJING

http://www.business week.com/ ap/financialnews /D8LQQMA00. htm

Hundreds of households were evacuated after a liquefied natural gas (LNG) spill in a city in northeastern China, state media reported Tuesday.

Xinhua News Agency said the spill in Fushun city in Liaoning province on Monday also forced evacuation of workers from 15 factories and students from two primary schools.

Evacuations were ordered when about 100 tons of LNG leaked from a tank belonging to Fushun LNG Company Ltd, Xinhua quoted Jiang Yonghe, director of the Fushun Firefighting Bureau, as saying.

"The LNG combined with the air to form a...cloud of poisonous white fumes shrouding the area," Jiang said, adding the surrounding buildings would have been flattened in an explosion.

An official from the firefighting bureau, who would not give his name, said the situation had returned to normal by Tuesday.

Xinhua said a leaking valve that caused the spill was closed after about 90 minutes.

It said more than 300 firefighters and policemen were needed to control the leak and evacuate residents in Fushun.

Industrial accidents are common in China and have resulted in protests throughout the country because of lax government controls and companies often ignoring proper safety procedures.
--

Marissa Rosati
Program Assistant

Pipeline Safety Trust
1155 North State, Suite 609
Bellingham, WA 98225
Phone: 360-543-5686
marissa@pstrust. org
www.pstrust. org

Norther Star LNG plant will "adversely affect" Salmon

2006-10-21T05:05:00.000-07:00

Bradwood LNG will 'adversely affect' salmon species, habitat
200-page report spells out potential impacts on fishery

By CASSANDRA PROFITA
The Daily Astorian

Northern Star Natural Gas Co. delivered the news by way of a 200-page public document: Its proposed liquefied natural gas terminal at Bradwood Landing is "likely to adversely affect" endangered species of chinook, chum and steelhead salmon and their habitat.

Potential impacts on salmon from the LNG facility and its associated pipeline make up the lion's share of the company's biological assessment, a required environmental review filed last week with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

The project is proposed for a site on the Columbia River about 20 miles east of Astoria. It is one of five LNG terminals being considered in Oregon and the furthest along in the process of receiving federal approval. Three others are on the Columbia River and a fifth is in Coos Bay. The terminals would receive superchilled natural gas liquid from ships and convert it back to gas for pipeline distribution.

Construction plans involve dredging the river to make way for LNG vessels, building a berth, filling wetlands on the terminal site and installing 36 miles of pipeline, all of which could have negative effects on salmon populations and estuary habitat, according to the filing.

To make up for it, Northern Star will secure and preserve comparable fish habitat and wetlands elsewhere on the Columbia River, as required by law, but the company also proposes putting "significant funding" into a Salmon Enhancement Initiative that would support recovery efforts beyond federal mandates.

Company officials want to work with watershed and estuary restoration groups, tribes and agencies in forming a steering committee that would decide how to allocate the funds.

Still, opponents reviewing the document say the river would be better off without the project, which they think will have more severe impacts than the company reported.

"This is a report you shouldn't be surprised to see coming from people who want to build a project," said Brent Foster, director of Columbia Riverkeeper. "It says they're going to minimize the impacts, but from a legal or biological perspective, it's somewhat laughable how it completely glosses over the seriousness of the impacts."

Another milestone
The release of the document marks a milestone in the LNG terminal approval process, headed by FERC.

"FERC has all the information now that they need to complete the draft Environmental Impact Statement," said Northern Star Natural Gas senior vice president of development Gary Coppedge. "It's a significant step."

Tamara Young-Allen, spokeswoman for FERC, said her agency can still request additional information from the company as it reviews the biological assessment and the rest of the Bradwood Landing application. FERC staff have begun working on their environmental evaluation of the project, which will be opened to public comment before a final EIS is drawn up. When the EIS is complete, the Commission of five presidential appointed members will rule on the project. Typically, LNG projects take 10 to 18 months from the time they file an application to when they reach the Commission, said FERC spokeswoman Tamara Young-Allen. Bradwood submitted its application in June.

"The biological assessment is our assessment of our impacts," said Coppedge. "It's not a document that concludes anything. The agencies will go out and add their own research, write their biological opinion based on our information and what they think about impacts of our facility."

Report includes design change
Based on some early input from federal agencies, the company made two design changes to its original project proposal and included them in the biological assessment.

The changes include a new berth design to reduce negative effects on fish and aquatic organisms and a device on the wharf that would screen salmonids out of the river water before it is taken into LNG vessels to cool the engine and fill the ballast.

The document also evaluates the project's impacts on a long list of threatened and endangered fish and wildlife species using a range of criteria from "no impact" to "likely to adversely impact."

Most of the adversely impacted species listed are salmon.

Julie Carter, policy analyst for the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, said her group employs about a dozen scientists who study the hydrology, biology, genetics and engineering of recovering salmon populations.

She said the Commission's fishery scientists who study the area around Cathlamet Bay and Clifton Channel, near the Bradwood Landing site, have found it to be vital rearing habitat for endangered fall chinook.

"We are not anti-LNG per se, but we think this particular site at Bradwood Landing is so inappropriate," she said. "It's right next to basically the nursery for fall chinook. It's absolutely critical to the fall chinook life cycle ... The site is just poorly thought-out."

Although the Commission could benefit from the company's proposed Salmon Enhancement Initiative, Carter said the tribes would rather the terminal not be built.

"The tribes are interested in mitigation and interested in projects if it's approved, but if we had our druthers it would be keeping it the way it is right now," she said.

Many steps remain
Coppedge said Bradwood has yet to file a comprehensive plan for mitigating the negative impacts of LNG.

"We will actually benefit salmon by the time this plan is done," he said. "We have to list everything that may happen, but in the end there will be a net benefit to salmon."

Foster said he is worried about another impact not listed in the filing.

"Something they totally ignored is all the other projects that this project triggers," he said. "If you've got the largest source of LNG on the West Coast and largest river, or water source, on West Coast, you've just created what could be one of the most sought after industrial sites in the Western U.S."

Coppedge said the company is still negotiating to acquire land for the 36-mile pipeline that would run through Clatsop and Columbia counties, under the Columbia River near Clatskanie and connect to the Williams Interstate Pipeline northeast of Ostrander, Wash., near Interstate 5. The project would also need air and water permits from the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, and a land-use approval from Clatsop County before it could begin construction.

The company has yet to apply to Clatsop County for zone changes required for terminal plans. The site contains wetlands that will need to be rezoned, and the dredging for the LNG vessels' turning basin also requires local approval.

Natural Gas Explosion

2006-10-13T12:46:00.000-07:00

CYPREMORT POINT, Louisiana (AP) -- Searchers found the body of a fourth victim Friday near the site of a natural gas explosion off the Louisiana coast as they braved choppy waters and the danger of a second blast in attempt to locate two people still missing.

The blast occurred when a tugboat pushing two barges hit the pipeline Thursday in West Cote Blanche Bay, about two miles from shore and 100 miles southwest of New Orleans, the Coast Guard said.

Three bodies were found within hours of the accident. The fourth was pulled from the water about two miles from the site Friday morning, Iberia Parish Sheriff Sid Hebert said.

Gas flow was shut off to the pipeline, but Coast Guard Lt. Rick Foster said there was still concern of another explosion if some gas remained in the line. Divers were to examine the site to determine whether a "spud" from one of the barges -- a metal extension used to halt the vessel -- might have pinched the pipeline, Foster said. The barge was still in place at the site.

Family members of the missing gathered at a marina at Cypremort Point, a community of shoreline residences and fishing camps.

Choppy waters hampered the search, but the water in the area was only about 5 feet or 6 feet deep, and there was some hope that survivors might have reached one of the many offshore oil and gas platforms that dot the horizon, said Maj. Tim Cossey of the St. Mary Parish Sheriff's Office.

"They can survive for a long time out there," Cossey said.

Authorities were alerted to the explosion Thursday by a man on a nearby beach who saw flames shooting about 100 feet into the sky, said Coast Guard Petty Officer 2nd Class Nyx Cangemi.

Coast Guard rescue crews on Thursday found two survivors, one hospitalized with severe burns and the other uninjured, said Coast Guard spokeswoman Veronica Bandrowsky.

Gulfport Energy Corp. said the accident involved two contracted vessels working for the company in a large energy field. The company said all its own employees were accounted for but it was still trying to get information on its contract workers.

"We are deeply concerned for all those involved," Gulfport CEO Jim Palm said in a statement.

Two of the dead were identified Friday morning by the St. Mary Parish Sheriff's Office as Kennith J. Rink, 51, of Berwick, and John J. Mire Jr., 59, of Patterson.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

California LNG bill?

2006-08-29T05:57:00.000-07:00

Bill Will Mandate Public Discussion of Liquefied Natural Gas and Coordination With California Clean Energy Measures
California Progress Report
August 26th, 2006

By Rory Cox
A bill which will require a comprehensive review of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) terminals in California will likely be reviewed by the Assembly Utilities and Commerce Committee early this week, perhaps as early as Monday, and despite heavy lobbying against it, may move to a floor vote before the end of the legislative session on Thursday. Nearly 60 organizations representing business, labor, environment and consumer interests have endorsed the law.

The measure, SB426 authored by Senator Joe Simitian and Assemblymember Fran Pavley) would require the need for LNG be evaluated, given California’s current clean energy initiatives and North America’s natural gas supply. The law would also require the state to conduct an evaluation of six proposed coastal terminals where LNG would be offloaded, regasified, and sent into the state’s existing natural gas grid. Each proposed LNG project would be scrutinized for its impact on safety, the environment, and the economy.

Currently, California is handling LNG proposals through a lot of backroom dealing by high-paid lobbyists. This law will mandate something that the state has never done: a public conversation about this new source of imported fossil fuel.

LNG is natural gas that has been super-cooled to -260 degrees Fahrenheit so it can fit aboard large tankers and shipped abroad. It enables oil multinationals such as Mitsubishi and Shell to import natural gas extracted in Russia, Indonesia, and Australia into California. LNG is highly combustible, can travel for miles if it leaks from its storage tank, and when it ignites can create a highly destructive fireball. A 2004 LNG accident in Algeria resulted in a conflagration that killed at least 27, and shattered windows up to five miles away. LNG tankers are known terrorist targets.

Due to community safety concerns, as well as the implications of increased fossil fuel dependence, LNG is highly controversial. According to Steve Taber, Chairman of the Princeton Development Corporation, a California-based clean energy corporation: "LNG should be subject to the same scrutiny as our other energy choices. If that scrutiny concludes that LNG is not our best choice, then investment in LNG would create a big economic dead weight. By instead making smart choices in renewables and efficiency, California can become energy independent and filthy rich.”

Other supporters of SB426 include Phil Angelides, Steve Westly, the California Apollo Alliance (a coalition of labor unions and environmental groups), the Sierra Club of California, the Utility Consumers Action Network, and California League of Conservation Voters and over 50 other organizations.

Both the San Francisco Chronicle and the Los Angeles Times published editorials supporting the law.

Rory Cox is California Program Director at Pacific Environment. He leads the organization’s “Keeping California’s Clean Energy Promise” campaign. Pacific Environment protects the living environment of the Pacific Rim by promoting grassroots activism, strengthening communities and reforming international policies.
A complete list of endorsers is below.
Amazon Watch
American Biodiesel Inc (dba Community Fuels)
Apollo Alliance (California)
Beacon Foundation
Bluewater Network – A Division of Friends of the Earth
Border Power Plant Working Group
CalCoast Planning and Conservation League
California Coastal Protection Network
California League of Conservation Voters
Californians for Renewable Energy – CARE
Carol Misseldine, Sustainability Director, City of Oakland
Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies (CEERT)
Center for Biological Diversity
Central Coast Alliance United for A Sustainable Economy (CAUSE)
City of Malibu
Communities for a Better Environment
Communities for a Safe Environment
Community Environmental Council
Divers’ Environmental Conservation Organization
Environment California
Environment in the Public Interest
Environmental Defense Center
Environmental Health Coalition
Global Exchange
Greenpeace
International Forum on Globalization
Kyoto USA
League for Coastal Protection
LNG Danger.com
Los Angeles Times
Local Power
Long Beach for Citizens for Utility Reform
Malibu Coastal Land Conservancy
Marin County Board of Supervisors
Murray Rosenbluth (Port Hueneme City Council)
No LNG Community Alliance (Oxnard)
Oceana
Orange County Coastkeeper
Pacific Environment
Physicians for Social Responsibility/Sacramento
Princeton Development Corporation
ProPeninsula
San Diego Baykeeper
San Francisco Chronicle
San Luis Obispo County Coastkeeper
Santa Barbara Channelkeeper
Santa Monica Baykeeper
Sara Nichols
Saviers Road Design Team
Sierra Club California
Southern California Watershed Alliance
Surfrider Foundation
Sustainable Fairfax
The Ocean Conservancy
Utility Consumers Action Network (UCAN)
Vote Solar
Vote the Coast
Wildcoast/ Baja Coastkeeper
Women’s Energy Matters

LNG terminal applications "deficient"

2006-07-28T05:45:00.000-07:00

Expert calls LNG terminal applications 'deficient'
By Tony Lystra
Jul 25, 2006 - 11:23:52 pm PDT

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A former petroleum industry executive said Tuesday that documents submitted by a Houston company hoping to build a liquified natural gas terminal on the Columbia River are "deficient in technical information" and do not adequately address questions about safety, river traffic or even the company's business plan.

"Frankly, if I could get away with it in foreign countries, I'd do exactly what they've done," said James Reed, who has worked for Marathon Oil Co. and Texaco and inspected natural gas facilities across Asia. "This proposal would not pass muster within a major oil company."

Northern Star Natural Gas wants to put an LNG terminal in Bradwood, Ore., where it would unload liquified natural gas from tankers on the Columbia, then pump it through a pipeline that would cross the Mill Creek area of Cowlitz County and connect with an existing line near Ostrander.

Reed spoke Tuesday night at a Cathlamet meeting sponsored by Wahkiakum Friends of the River, which opposes the project. Roughly 60 attended the meeting, including Cowlitz County Commissioner Jeff Rasmussen, state legislators Brian Blake and Dean Takko and a representative from U.S. Sen. Maria Cantwell's office.

Reed, who has negotiated petroleum deals with foreign governments and overseen natural gas operations in Tunisia, also said Northern Star's applications do not describe how the company will keep the terminal from corroding or how its computer-controlled safety system would shut the plant down in case of an emergency.

"The studies you do that determine what's going to go wrong and what you're going to do about it --- you need to have that," he told the crowd. "There's nothing in the submissions that suggest how they're going to go about it."

Based on documents filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which will consider the project, "this proposal looks to me something like what we might have done in-house to determine whether we wanted to go forward on a project."

Reed acknowledged that he has not read all of the documents and said he was more familiar with foreign regulations than domestic energy policies.

Still, he said of the documents, "It's so vague. Things that I would have expected to be tied down don't seem to be tied down in the submissions I've read."

Asked how many of the documents he's pored through, Reed held his hands about 3 inches apart.

"I've read a lot," he said.

Reed said that he has not "seen the silver bullet that kills the project." But he speculated that if Northern Star continues to submit what he considers substandard technical documents, federal regulators might become "fed up" and declare the project "a waste of FERC's time."

Reed, now retired, moved to Cathlamet in January. He said he would prefer the company didn't build the plant. But, with a shrug, he added, "I can live with it."

Defeating States rights on LNG?

2006-07-20T05:23:00.000-07:00

Action Alert! Stop Congress From Undermining Local Control Over LNG

Contact Your Member of Congress and Urge Them to Strike the Provision from H.R. 4818

On November 19, Congress passed H.R. 4818, the massive, multi-agency appropriations bill allocating billions of dollars for basic federal program funding and extra "pork" projects to many powerful members of Congress. Buried on page H10560 in the conference language for the bill (http://thomas.loc.gov/home/omni2005/index.htm) is a provision - inserted without a vote - that may undermine states' ability to adequately regulate the permitting and siting of proposed Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) facilities.

The language seeks to influence California's pending lawsuit against the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) - legal action that has implications for other states dealing with proposed LNG marine facilities. The July lawsuit filed by the California Public Utility Commission claims that FERC illegally ruled in March that states have limited jurisdiction over the permitting and siting of LNG facilities inside their borders. The lawsuit is being closely watched by other states, where officials have expressed alarm about the inability of state and local governments to have adequate input into these projects. Without adequate local control over this process, these LNG facilities may be forced upon America's coastal communities. The projects are particularly controversial because LNG is extremely volatile and dangerous, necessitating adequate community input.

But it's not too late to stop this underhanded attempt to muzzle citizens. The legislation has been held on being sent to President Bush until next week (probably December 6 or 7), when Congress will vote on language to strike another controversial amendment also buried in H.R. 4818.

So now is an opportunity to demand that Congress approve a second, special amendment to strike this LNG language. Contact your member of Congress and urge them to strike this LNG language from H.R. 4818.

TAKE ACTION:

For more information, seeEnergy Activist.org

Background

The new language is troubling because companies are proposing to build at least 25 new LNG marine terminal facilities, affecting at least 14 states (Alabama, California, Delaware, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas) in the next few years. Currently there are just four LNG marine terminals in the United States.

http://www.ferc.gov/industries/gas/gen-info/horizon-lng.pdf

Communities are leery of LNG facilities because of security and environmental reasons. LNG tankers and marine terminals make significant terrorist targets because of the enormous quantities of fuel carried by the tankers (up to 10 times the amount of fuel of a typical crude oil ship), the risk of fires and the hazards associated with the heating of the LNG at the marine terminals. States officials have raised serious questions about the adequacy of FERC’s security assessments.

This concern is particularly important given assertions by the United States’ former deputy counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke that Al Qaeda operatives came to the United States by sneaking aboard Algerian LNG tankers. With the boat bombings of the U.S.S. Cole in 2000 and the oil tanker Limburg in 2002, Al Qaeda has demonstrated the capacity to strike at sea. FERC’s safety regulations are inadequate, in part because they deal only with LNG terminals, not tankers.

Increasing U.S. reliance on liquefied natural gas also increases our dependence on the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). We obtain most of our natural gas from domestic production, with a small percentage coming from LNG imports. A quarter of those imports are from OPEC nations (Algeria, Qatar and Nigeria). Boosting U.S. reliance on LNG – as called for in the appropriations bill and envisioned by the companies that want to build new terminals – will result in the United States becoming more dependent on OPEC.

Further, LNG is not environmentally sustainable. Natural gas used as fuel for electricity pollutes, and the exploration and drilling for natural gas can cause environmental damage.

The offending language in H.R. 4818 now states,

"On March 24, 2004, FERC issued a declaratory order asserting exclusive jurisdiction over the approval and siting of liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals. FERC concluded that LNG terminals are engaged in foreign commerce and, as such, fall clearly within the authority granted to the FERC under Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act of 1938. The conferees agree on this point and disagree with the position of at least one State government agency that it should be the authority responsible for LNG terminal siting within its boundaries, rather than the FERC."

"The Natural Gas Act clearly preempts States on matters of approving and siting natural gas infrastructure associated with interstate and foreign commerce. These facilities need one clear process for review, approval, and siting decisions. Because LNG terminals affect both interstate and foreign commerce, LNG facility development requires a process that also looks at the national public interest, and not just the interests of one State."

"The conferees recognize that, as a matter of energy supply, the nation will need to expand its LNG infrastructure over the decades to come to satisfy natural gas demand. Any dispute of LNG siting jurisdictional authority now will be counterproductive to meeting our natural gas needs in the future

Costs, Benefits of LNG in Passamaquoddy Bay, ME

2006-06-26T06:13:00.000-07:00

Study: Impacts of LNG costly, benefit limited

by Edward French

A study of the potential impacts of liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals in Passamaquoddy Bay concludes that the economic stimulus provided to the region by one or more LNG import terminals would be limited. An LNG terminal would have significant economic consequences throughout the region, with costs for public safety, staffing and infrastructure running into the millions of dollars for host communities, while the loss in property values along the U.S. side is estimated at $3 million to $8 million. Benefits would be less than expected, as the study concludes that each LNG terminal would provide only 27 construction jobs and 8 operations jobs to local people.

The study, by Yellow Wood Associates Inc. of St. Albans, Vt., was commissioned by Save Passamaquoddy Bay, which opposes the siting of LNG terminals in the bay. The report, which cost $50,000, is the first section of a two-part effort and does not address in detail the economic impacts on fisheries, aquaculture or tourism. Because the Canadian government is conducting a study of those issues, which is expected to be released soon, Save Passamaquoddy Bay may not seek to have the second part done by Yellow Wood.

Save Passamaquoddy Bay representatives first met with members of Maine's LNG Technical Working Group on June 22 to discuss the results and then held press conferences in Perry and St. Andrews the next day to release the study. It will be available at libraries in the Passamaquoddy Bay area, on Save Passamaquoddy Bay's website, www.savepassamaquoddybay.org, and at the group's office in Eastport. In addition, the organization has retained the legal services of Ronald Shems of Burlington, Vt.

Costs and impacts

The study points out that a town's decision to become a host community for an LNG import terminal would have significant economic consequences throughout the region because of shipping routes and piers, pipelines, changes to regional character, and risk factors. It notes that while millions of dollars are being offered in support to host communities, residents should be aware of the trade-offs in accepting such support. Once a single corporation comprises most of the tax base, communities rapidly lose the ability to make independent decisions regarding local services and investments.

The study observes that many local officials and residents are assuming that the developers would pay for all costs associated with LNG development. However, it is noted that there are no signed, enforceable contractual agreements in place, and constructing such an agreement will not be simple. There is no guarantee that any of the municipal, county and state expenditures related to an LNG terminal would be paid by the companies.

A two-mile radius of concern around shipping lanes, because of the hazardous nature of LNG, and piers larger than any that currently exist on Maine's coast that would result in narrowed shipping channels would affect all traffic in Western Passage. Costs of addressing security issues associated with LNG shipping, import terminals and additional pipelines would be spread throughout the region since communities along the entire transit route would need to be able to communicate with each other and respond effectively in the event of an emergency.

The study found that any of the communities that hosts an LNG import terminal would face increased costs of local emergency planning, police protection, fire protection and emergency medical services. The cost of an Emergency Medical Services base for a host community has been estimated at $700,000. The local cost of public safety for LNG tanker arrivals and departures is estimated at $12,500 for every tanker and $1.76 million for 141 ships per year. Communities without police boats would have to invest in them.

At least five schools on the U.S. side and two schools on the Canadian side are within two miles of a potential terminal site or LNG vessel route. Towns would want to consider relocating schools and fire stations to ensure public safety in the event of an accident or attack on LNG facilities or vessels.

A town that hosts an LNG facility would experience a significant increase in both revenues and costs, which would require additional staff to manage. Staffing requirements would likely include a finance director, assessor, emergency planner, police protection and overtime pay for maintaining security during construction and shipping, full-time firefighters and emergency medical technicians trained and equipped to deal with LNG and related substances. Smaller communities that currently lack town managers might need to add this position as well. Previous studies and the experiences of other LNG terminal host communities suggest these costs would run around $3-$5 million. Approximately $1.5 million would be annual recurring staff-related costs. In some communities, these costs alone would more than double annual municipal expenditures.

The study states that generally towns that experience an increase in industrial development also experience an increase in population with a net result of increases in tax rates despite a larger tax base. For example, with the exception of Calais, Pleasant Point, Eastport and Lubec, most Passamaquoddy Bay communities in the U.S. do not have centralized water and sewer systems. These systems might be required to accommodate construction workers who choose to live locally during the construction period.

In Passamaquoddy Bay, an effective local response would depend on well-developed regional resources. Areas that would require substantial additional regional investment include county emergency planning and bi-national emergency planning. A coordinated marine-based firefighting capacity, including equipment and training, would have to be developed, though some of the pieces exist.

The cost of achieving the capacity for secure emergency communications in real time between two countries, two counties and multiple towns' police, fire and emergency services personnel might be in the millions of dollars. The backbone for a network for the State of Maine is expected to cost $50 million with additional spending by counties and localities, and this does not take the international dimension into consideration.

According to the study, police protection would also need to expand during construction when hundreds of additional people arrive. Additional police would be needed to provide protection for ships on land and on water. The annual cost for additional police protection is estimated at $655,200 to $2.6 million. Additional professional firefighters would cost the region an estimated $378,000 to $793,000 a year, while 4-6 new fire trucks would run $900,000 to $1.35 million. Training would cost at least $25,000. This does not include the cost of relocating the seven fire departments currently located near the shore in the path of LNG shipping.

Unless there is a signed contractual agreement with a developer specifying exactly what costs the developer would cover and under what conditions, towns should not assume that developers would "pay for everything." In particular, developers are not likely to pay for any costs associated with pre-existing conditions, such as inadequate roads, water systems or town office space, nor are they likely to pay the full cost of improvements that yield benefits beyond those required by LNG. Even once an agreement is in place, towns would need to set aside sufficient resources for effective enforcement of any agreement.

Cost increases in the host community might be partially offset by an increase in local property tax revenues; cost increases in other communities in the region would not. As costs go up, property tax burdens could rise.

Effect on property values

The study states that the presence of LNG terminals would likely reduce the value of lands within a two-mile radius. In addition, by decreasing perceived safety and real access to the waterfront and waterways, LNG terminals would reduce the value of shoreland along the shipping route. The value of inland properties crossed by natural gas pipelines also might be affected.

There are 186 properties in Calais that would be affected at an estimated reduction in property values between $480,000 and $1.26 million. There are 573 properties in Robbinston that would be affected at an estimated reduction in property values between $1.89 million and $4.86 million. There are 375 properties in Eastport that would be affected at an estimated reduction in property values of between $820,000 and $2.36 million. These figures are based on a 20-35% reduction in the value of properties right next to the site, a 10-25% reduction in the value of properties within a mile of the site, and a 5-15% reduction in the value of properties within two miles of the site.

The value of up to 1,912 U.S. properties would be affected by the shipping route for LNG tankers. That number falls to 1,428 properties if the LNG terminal is located near Eastport instead of farther north. Reductions in property value associated with the shipping route range from $3.9 million to $7.88 million for the northernmost site and from $2.87 million to $5.75 million for the southernmost site. Canadian properties within two miles of the shipping route would also experience similar effects.

Property owners whose property is crossed by a natural gas pipeline typically give up the use of a 50-foot right-of-way after construction. Property owners continue to pay taxes on property crossed by a natural gas pipeline despite restrictions on its use. It's estimated that between 103 and 184 acres would be affected by pipeline-related land use restrictions, depending on the location of the LNG terminal.

Jobs estimates

LNG facilities are generally built by large, highly experienced contractors who specialize in projects in the $500 million range. There is only one firm in Maine listed in the oil and gas pipeline and related structures category of the North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) construction category that has more than 20 employees. The largest project totals reported by the one heavy and civil engineering construction firm in Maine with dock and oil drilling rig construction experience was in the $70 million to $150 million range. This firm has no LNG terminal construction experience. Similarly, Maine firms experienced in dock and pier construction are mostly small firms with fewer than five workers.

Given these conditions, the study estimates that $92 million would be spent to bring construction workers in from out of state, $24.2 million would be spent on workers within Maine but outside Washington County, $19.1 million on workers within Washington County but outside the study region, and $3.3 million on workers within the study region. The construction jobs most likely to be available to local and regional firms would be in providing non-specialized electricity, heating and plumbing to support buildings and warehouses or in access or interior road construction or site preparation. Assuming local workers earn an average of $40,000 a year, each LNG terminal could provide approximately 27 jobs per year to current residents, the study estimates.

As in construction, the skills required to operate an LNG import terminal are highly specialized. For example, an LNG tank engineer requires 15 years of experience as a mechanical engineer with tank design experience in the LNG industry and commands $110,000 plus a 50% bonus. Most of the approximately 40 permanent staff positions estimated for operation of a generic LNG import terminal with a $500 million construction budget would go to people who do not currently live in the Passamaquoddy Bay region. The study estimates there would be approximately 8 jobs in administration, personnel, security and maintenance available for local residents at pay levels ranging from $30,000 to $40,000 a year. In addition, there might be some jobs for local tugboat operators.

The estimate of 27 construction and 8 operations jobs likely to be available to local people does not take into account jobs lost in fisheries, tourism and real estate.

Effect on other economic options

Experts on both sides of the international border identify the natural resource base of the Passamaquoddy Bay region as its greatest asset, according to the study. Strategies to build on this asset include encouraging tourism, retirees and second home owners; small to medium scale manufacturers that add value to local resources, particularly fish and forest products; local businesses to support the local population; and developing indigenous energy resources.

The infrastructure and operations of an LNG terminal could undermine assets identified as keys to strengthening the local economy, the study states. For example, safety and security is one of the key attractions for retirees and second home owners. Because of the safety risks associated with [liquified] natural gas and natural gas pipelines, an LNG terminal in the region would reduce the perceived safety of the area, and make it more difficult to attract retiree/second home owners.

It has been estimated that increased tourism could bring an additional $4.9 million annually into the Downeast region. An LNG terminal is a large-scale industrial facility that would change the perceived rural character of the region. In addition, any degradation of the environment would undermine the region's appeal to tourists. Shipping associated with an LNG import terminal would interfere with access to fishing grounds and aquaculture sites.

Natural gas is already available to industry through the Maritimes and Northeast pipeline. Thus far, the economics of its use have not proved favorable for local businesses, including the Domtar mill in Baileyville. An LNG terminal would not, by itself, change that equation, the study states.

Security Report held back by USCG

2006-06-18T08:42:00.000-07:00

LNG security report to be held back
Coast Guard agrees to safeguard information; public will have to wait months to discover what safety risks tankers pose

By KARA HANSEN - The Daily Astorian

North Coast residents will have to wait months to discover what safety risks LNG tankers could pose and how Northern Star Natural Gas would solve them if a liquefied natural gas terminal is built on the Columbia River at Bradwood Landing.

The U.S. Coast Guard has agreed to withhold the company’s recently submitted Waterway Suitability Assessment from the public as an issue of national security.

“The WSA is largely a risk assessment aimed at identifying vulnerabilities so the Coast Guard and other state and local agencies can take the appropriate precautions to minimize any risks,” said Coast Guard Lt. Shadrack Scheirman, chief of port operations in Portland. He cited the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002. “We don’t want to be telling the terrorists where the dangerous areas are.”

The required waterway assessment outlines safety and security issues – such as accidental spill scenarios, zones to protect the public in the event of a fire or gas leak and to protect ships from possible terrorism, characteristics of the local area and its available resources and space to provide those zones, the overall “footprint” of the LNG operation and more – of shipping the super-chilled natural gas to Bradwood, more than 30 miles east of Astoria on the Columbia River, where Northern Star hopes to build a $580 million import facility.

The Coast Guard then performs a “reality check” on the document, checking how the company intends to manage those risks and what impact those measures would have on local stakeholders.

Northern Star is one of four companies seeking to build LNG terminals on the river, with two proposed in Warrenton, one at Port Westward and another in Coos Bay.

All have sparked local opposition, but Northern Star’s recent request to keep the records secret has raised new concerns about transparency and the public’s rights.

The Houston-based company requested that the Coast Guard keep the WSA secret as “confidential commercial, financial and proprietary business information exempt from Freedom of Information Act disclosure… and that it not be disclosed to third parties without our prior written consent.”

But Coast Guard officials are withholding the document for a different reason. They say releasing it could compromise national security. Instead, the agency will incorporate parts of the assessment – if it’s deemed valid – into the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s draft environmental impact statement, which Scheirman said would be available in about four months. The commission is expected to decide whether to site the Bradwood facility within about 10 months.

Some people think that’s too long to wait.

“As citizens of Oregon and Washington, we are the ones who will be directly impacted,” said Cheryl Johnson, a local school librarian and an LNG opponent. “We have a right to know what their plans are ... how they are going to ensure our security and what kind of impact it will have. If we can’t read it, then we can’t question it and we can’t criticize it.”

In October 2005, she requested to see portions of the preliminary WSA not related to national security as they were submitted to the Coast Guard. She e-mailed Gary Coppedge, Northern Star’s vice president for development, and copied it to the Coast Guard’s Scheirman. Coppedge called her back, she said, but told her she’d have to wait for the final document.

“Before, we were asking too early,” Johnson said. “Now we’re asking and it’s too late.

“This is exceedingly frustrating to the people who live, work and recreate on the Columbia River because we can’t get the information that will directly impact our lives.”

Other concerns have been raised that under pressure to site the terminal, agencies might buckle to stakeholders’ economic needs and security zones might be shortened at their expense.

The national standard for the Coast Guard’s “exclusion zones” around tankers has been two miles ahead of the bow, one mile behind the stern and 1,500 feet to either side. The Columbia River is 2,640 feet wide at its mouth, which decreases to 600 feet wide five miles upriver, according to the Port of Portland.

“The Columbia river isn’t 3,000 feet wide,” said Johnson. “That would mean shutting down the channel. It will have a huge impact.” It’s one reason she wants to see the report.

Scott Peterson, who works in public relations for Northern Star, told The Daily Astorian this morning that he doesn’t know why the company requested the information be kept confidential for business reasons, but that they’re just following the law. He said he is not a company spokesman.

“I guess the opponents to the project are kind of scrambling for reasons to oppose it ... to bring up what I think is a false issue, saying Northern Star is trying to hide stuff, but that is just not the case,” Peterson said. “They have to follow the law. So, if the Coast Guard says certain things can’t be disclosed to the public, Northern Star isn’t going to cross that line just to appease the local community.”

He said some people have been allowed to review the materials, including some fishermen and tug-boat operators in the community.

“People who have a stake in it and who have some role in security – fire chiefs, police chiefs, emergency responders, the ports – they all get to see it,” he said. “The people who really have a role in it get to see it.”

Others will have to wait about four more months for the FERC environmental impact statement.

FERC filing by NorthernStar Natural Gas

2006-06-18T08:39:00.000-07:00

LNG terminal company officially files with FERC

by John Yoakum - Seaside Signal
(Created: Friday, June 16, 2006 10:43 AM PDT)

Bradwood Landing, LLC a subsidiary of NorthernStar Natural Gas, filed its application for a liquefied natural gas (LNG) importation facility to be built on the lower Columbia River last week. The filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) begins the formal assessment of the site and all the associated environmental concerns, from light pollution to the threat of a terrorist strike.

Nearly 100 demonstrators marched through downtown Astoria Saturday to protest NorthernStar, LLC’s filing of its federal application to build an LNG importation facility at Bradwood Landing. Submitted photo

And marking a new phase in the opposition to the facility, opponents were contacting property owners along the proposed pipeline route to advise them of their rights.

Many property owners were feeling pressured by the company to allow surveyors access to their land, according to Columbia RiverVision librarian Samantha Duncan. Northern Star will need to build a pipeline to connect their facility with the Williams pipeline that runs along the I-5 corridor.

On Saturday June 10 demonstrators marched through downtown Astoria past the Northern Star offices, where several property owners retracted the permission given to Northern Star for survey work on their property.

"I feel you grossly misrepresented what this project would mean for me and my family, and I withdraw any permission I had given," wrote Vonda Brock of Longview, Wash. She stated that company representatives had not spoken with her of safety concerns connected with pipelines or of the threat of condemnation proceedings if she chose not to allow an easement voluntarily.

Most of the natural gas used in the United States comes from domestic sources. Liquefying the gas compresses it by a factor of 600, allowing it to be transported across the ocean economically. Currently, only four LNG importation facilities operate in the U.S., but with domestic sources dwindling, energy analysts say that about 12 more must be built around the country.

Five different proposals for the facilities have been proposed in Oregon, four of which are on the lower Columbia. The Bradwood Landing site is the clear front-runner in the complicated and expensive process of satisfying the FERC application process.

Several groups say they will file for intervenor status on the application. Any group, whether they oppose the project or feel they have direct impacts that need to be addressed during the FERC process, has 30 days to apply for the official status.

Brent Foster of Columbia Riverkeeper, a partner of Astoria’s Columbia RiverVision, said, "This proposal threatens our safety, our economy, and our quality of life. We have come here today to notify NorthernStar that we are ready to fight every step of the way."

Foster said that demand for natural gas in the Pacific Northwest was flat and that the destination for the gas was the California market.

In addition to pipeline safety concerns, opponents cite numerous reasons that the lower Columbia River is unsuitable for LNG tankers. Safety concerns are the most dramatic, with the specter of a plume of fire that would burn exposed skin within a mile radius.

Also of concern to opponents are river traffic, which could come to a standstill three times a week as tankers arrived. The smallest exclusion zone around an LNG tanker in the U.S. is 1500 feet. The Columbia River’s shipping channel is 600 feet at the widest.

Environmentalists point out that a turnaround basin would also need to be dredged in front of the Bradwood site in what they call prime salmon habitat.

Nearly 100 people participated in the march, which culminated at the 6th St. Observation Deck, overlooking the Columbia River. There, with several boats and kayaks sporting anti-LNG signs in the backdrop, opponents held a rally.

Peter Huhtala of Pacific Marine Conservation Council told the crowd that during his recent visit to Washington D.C. other LNG opponents from across the country agreed that the lower Columbia was unsuited for LNG tanker traffic.

"What was amazing to me was that it was agreed by every single person there that the Columbia River was the single-most outrageous place in the United States to build an LNG receiving facility," Huhtala said.

Canada's Ban on LNG ships

2006-04-02T07:13:00.000-07:00

Canada to Ban LNG Ships in Nation's Waters, Canadian Press Says
April 1 (Bloomberg) -- Canada plans to prohibit U.S. owners of liquefied natural-gas terminals in Maine from using waters off New Brunswick to bring large LNG tankers into their plants, Canadian Press reported, citing a member of the federal Cabinet.

Greg Thompson, the Canadian province's senior minister in Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Cabinet, said LNG is seen by the country as a dangerous cargo and can be banned from transport in its waters, the news service reported.

Three U.S. companies are planning to build terminals on the Maine coast, across from New Brunswick on Passamaquoddy Bay and want to use an internal Canadian waterway to bring in their tankers, CP said. Residents along the coast fear that increased shipping activity will hurt tourism and the fishing industry.

Gordon Grimes, an attorney for Quoddy Bay LLC, one of the LNG companies, said Canada can't block the ships because the waterway is used for international navigation and there is a right of passage, the news service said. Grimes also said Canada has endorsed the safety of LNG by approving a terminal in New Brunswick near the port of Saint John.

Ferc Forum meets Locals

2006-03-31T14:08:00.000-08:00

THANKS for your good energy Tuesday. It was wonderfully successful! The sandwich boards were fantastic. Between them, the original signs on sticks and the red shirts - we looked like we really knew what we were doing.

I'm sure the Washington suits and even our own Astoria citizens were surprised by the amount of support for this issue. All the businesses on Commercial with signs, the HUGH banner at Bronze gallery and the trailer at NO star office.

We were on KATU live at noon and again on the 5 o'clock news. This is the 1st time in a year of LNG that KATU has done anything on this issue.
We were also on KBOO the day before the event and again yesterday for a follow-up. Also on KEX news radio in Portland.

It all helps to get the word out to a larger audience - that this is not just a local issue but deeply affects the future of the entire pacific northwest.

It was especially beautiful to see the people from all the different groups come together and get to know each other.

Cheryl

FERC Forum In Astoria

2006-03-24T05:31:00.000-08:00

On 28 March, FERC will put on an LNG forum at the Liberty Theatre
in Astoria from 8 am to 5 pm. So far that we know, this will be the
only forum for the west coast. They have this event planned to
"enlighten local residents" to all that LNG is. There will be no
site specific information given, just general LNG info. As if we
haven't had enough of that.

Questions have to be written on cards before hand to give to the
speakers. If they don't like the questions, they never get asked.
This is just another "check mark" on the list of what the government
has to do. I guess no one in government realizes that most people
work during the regular weekday, and therefore won't be able to
attend.

Hopefully, there will be people in front of the Liberty theatre in
the morning and at their lunchbreak to "inform" FERC about LNG on the
Columbia river, and how any LNG plants should not be located here.
Please join us in helping to show FERC the door.

LUBA appeal of Warrenton City Commission on LNG

2006-01-25T06:18:00.000-08:00

LUBA Appeal

PFRP is going to appeal the decision by the Warrenton City Commission to allow an LNG facility on the Skipanon peninsula, to the Land Use Board of Appeals. We, PFRP, feel that this decision by the Warrenton City Commission is basically illegal.

There are many issues which are in dispute.

For one, the City commission never addressed, and failed to provide evidence of, the effects of an LNG transfer facility on the economy, the Estuary, and the livelihood of fishermen. We know that the LNG facility will have an affect on all of these things, but the City of Warrenton has not brought up these issues nor found an answer to them.

As far as the economy is concerned, what will this plant do to our housing prices, in the short term with all of the transient workers, and in the long term. Wales thought that they wanted an LNG plant, but now that it is there, they are finding that people are being displaced from their homes. Is that what we want? Where will the initial builders of this facility live? Do we have the infrastructure to deal with them. Cost of security. Who will pay for the security that these transitting ships require? In Boston they are finding out that is the city that it is paying $80,000.00 everytime the ship comes in

The Estuary where they want to dock the LNG ships is an important habitat. The city is changing the zoning in that area to allow for this plant and docking facility. What affect will this have on the fish and wildlife? They will not tell us, nor do I think that they know the answer to that.

Fishermen have to travel up and down this river, it is their livelihood. The issues between an LNG ship and the commercial and sport fishermen has not been addressed. We feel that it needs to before going any further. Will the fishermen have to wait at different spots, maybe outside the bar, for these LNG ships to transit? That could be a very dangerous situation.

As I said, there are many other points as well that need to be addressed, these are just a few.

We are extremely confident that LUBA or the courts will see the problems with the City of Warrenton’s decision and will overturn it.

Jim Doten

Fall River appeal denied

2006-01-21T07:46:00.000-08:00

This should say something to the Warrenton city council...they will not have
the control that they think and have been told they would.

FEDERAL ENERGYREGULATORY COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20426

NEWS RELEASE

NEWS MEDIA CONTACT: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Tamara Young-Allen January 19, 2006
(202) 502-8680 Docket Nos. CP04-36-001,
CP04-
41-000, CP04-42-000 &
CP04-
43-000; and Docket Nos.
CP04-
223-000; CP04-293-000; &
CP04-358

FERC AFFIRMS ITS APPROVAL OF WEAVER'S COVE LNG;
STANDS BY ITS REJECTION OF KEYSPAN LNG IN PROVIDENCE

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission today affirmed its
July 2005 decisions to approve the construction and operation of
a new import liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal and associated
facilities in Fall River, Massachusetts, proposed by Weaver's
Cove LNG, and to reject for safety reasons a proposal submitted
by KeySpan LNG to convert an existing liquefied natural gas (LNG)
storage facility into an import terminal that would serve gas to
the northeast United States.

"The Commission's primary role in reviewing LNG import
facility authorizations is to ensure public safety. Our actions
today demonstrate our commitment to high safety standards,"
Chairman Joseph T. Kelliher said. "New England is facing a winter
of very high natural gas prices. The region sorely needs
additional gas supplies and a stronger gas infrastructure. While
both of these projects are needed, we only approve one."

The Commission's decision in the Weaver's Cove proceeding
denies appeals filed by several parties who challenged the July
15, 2005, Commission order authorizing the facility, and responds
to arguments or issues the parties raised. The Commission denied
petitions for rehearing filed jointly by the City of Fall River,
the Rhode Island Attorney General, and the Massachusetts Energy
Facilities Siting Board. In addition, the Commission denied
separate petitions for rehearing filed by the Conservation Law
Foundation and Mr. Michael L. Miozza.

Citing increasing need for imported natural gas to meet
growing demand, the Commission's July 15, 2005, order granted
authority to Weaver's Cove to site, construct, and operate a new
LNG terminal in Fall River that would bring up to 800 million
cubic of gas per day of new service to customers in New England.
The Commission also approved a proposal by Mill River Pipeline to
construct and operate new lateral pipelines to connect the
Weaver's Cove terminal supply to interconnections with the
Algonquin Gas Transmission System and intrastate pipelines.

With the mitigation measures it imposed, the Commission said
the project would be constructed in a safe, secure and
environmentally acceptable manner.

The Commission denied pleadings from Fall River and Mr.
Miozza who sought dismissal of the Weaver's Cove LNG application
on a number of issues including recent legislation that prohibits
federal funding for the demolition of the nearly 100 year old
Brightman Street Bridge. The petitioners asserted that the
bridge, which spans the Taunton River downstream from the
proposed facility, would not be able to accommodate the passage
of certain LNG tankers to serve the new terminal. The Commission
noted its July 15 order did not condition its approval of the
project on the demolition of the old bridge and that it would be
premature to dismiss the case as moot.

The Commission noted, however, that its July 15 order
requires Weaver's Cove to review its waterway suitability
assessment on an annual basis in consultation with the Coast
Guard and to keep FERC informed.

The Commission further rejected pleadings by Fall River and
the Conservation Law Foundation that reiterated previous
arguments regarding safety and consideration of alternatives to
the Weaver's Cove Project. They also questioned whether the
project adheres to criteria under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
The Commission said its July 15 order thoroughly addresses safety
and security issues. Further, the Commission suggested the
parties pursue their issues regarding the Wild and Scenic Rivers
Act with the U.S. Department of Interior, which has jurisdiction
under the statute.

The Commission rejected pleadings styled as amicus briefs
filed by the City of Newport and the Towns of Bristol, Tiverton,
Middletown and Portsmouth and Jamestown, Rhode Island in
opposition to the Commission's July 15 ruling. The Commission
said none of the towns sought intervener status and therefore
have no standing in the proceedings before FERC. The Commission
noted FERC regulations and the Natural Gas Act restrict requests
for rehearing of agency actions only to interveners.

Also rejected was Fall River's request for evidentiary
hearings and oral argument. The Commission found these
unnecessary as there are no material issues of fact that have not
already been addressed and parties have had ample opportunities
over the two-year review period to present their arguments in
written submissions.

Emissions from LNG plants

2005-11-17T10:07:00.000-08:00

Environmental Guidelines - Table 10

LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS (LNG) LIQUEFACTION PLANTS
AND REGASIFICATION FACILITIES
Natural Gas Liquefaction Plants may affect air quality from stack emissions and water quality from cooling system discharges. Natural gas-fired combustion turbines associated with liquefaction plants may produce significant amounts of nitrogen oxide emissions. LNG plants, re-gasification plants and associated terminal facilities should be located at sites that minimize the effects of natural hazards, and measures should be adopted to provide for the safe operation of LNG Vessels at the terminal and during in-harbor transit.

New LNG and re-gasification projects as well as major expansions to these facilities will require submission of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), as outlined in Annex E, identifying the environmental effects of the project and measures to mitigate the adverse impacts. Site selection should minimize the project's impact on sensitive ecosystems such as corals, fisheries and resources of importance to local communities. The EIA should identify impacts to the natural habitant of pier construction, harbor dredging and other project activities.

The international guidelines presented in this Table are condensed from World Bank Group guidelines set forth in the Pollution Prevention and Abatement Handbook (PPAH) and applicable World Bank Group Operational Policies. Since LNG plants and thermal power plants utilize equipment that is similar in type and size, the quantitative guidelines on emissions and effluents set forth below for LNG plants track those contained in the "Thermal Power Guideline" Table of the PPAH. Additional environmental information and guidance relevant to components of LNG facilities is contained in the World Bank/IFC Guidelines on Port and Harbor Facilities and Gas Terminal Systems.

The PPAH and the World Bank Group Operational Policies referenced in this Table can be found at: http://www.ifc.org/enviro/EnvSoc/pollution/guidelines.htm. In the case of ambiguity between information contained in this Table and the relevant sections of the PPAH and referenced Operational Policies of the World Bank Group, the guidelines presented within the PPAH and Operational Policies as of December 18, 2003 will prevail for purposes of Ex-Im Bank's review and its determination of a project's compliance with guidelines of the World Bank Group.

AIR QUALITY

STACK EMISSIONS - Concentration of contaminants emitted from the process equipment should not be diluted nor exceed the following limits during normal operating conditions:

Particulates (<10 microns aerodynamic diameter):- 50 mg/Nm³
Note: Nm3 refers to a cubic meter at 00C and pressure of 1,013 milibars under dry conditions.

SO2 when using untreated gas: 2,000 mg/Nm3 maximum level of SO2 in exhaust gas

NOx (as NO2):
Combustion Turbines
Gas fuel- 125 mg/Nm3 (dry at 15% oxygen); 86 ng/j or 0.20 lb/million BTU
Furnaces/Heaters
Gas fuel- 320 mg/Nm3 (3% oxygen); 86 ng/j; 155 ppm; 0.20 lb/million BTU

AMBIENT AIR QUALITY - EIAs for LNG plants and large expansions to existing plants should contain air-modeling studies that take into account existing air quality data to assess the quantitative impact of the new plant or expansion on the airshed* of the area. In the case of major expansions to existing facilities, the aggregate emissions from the existing and the new portion the facility should not result in ambient air conditions that exceed local standards or the values set forth below:

Pollutant 24 hr. average Annual Average
Particulates (<10-6 dia): 150 mg/Nm3 50 mg/Nm3
NO2 150 mg/Nm3 100 mg/Nm3
SO2 150 mg/Nm3 80 mg/Nm3
*Unless defined by local legislation, the airshed refers to the local areas around the plant whose ambient air quality is directly influenced by the plant emissions.

WATER QUALITY
LIQUID EFFLUENTS -. Reduction in the generation of effluents through process modifications and recycling is recommended. Minimization of water usage for cooling by means of air cooling or closed-loop systems is encouraged where feasible. Where dredging activities is required near coastal marine environments, a Dredging Plan will be prepared to assess the increase in turbidity, re-suspension in sediments and the disposal of sediments associated with the dredging together with measures to mitigate impacts to the water quality and aquatic resources. Wastewater, cooling water discharge, domestic sewage and contaminated storm water should be treated to meet the following specified limits before being discharged to surface waters.

Pollutant Limit (mg/l)
pH 6 to 9
COD (Chemical Oxygen Demand) 250
BOD5 (Biochemical Oxygen Demand) 50
Total Suspended Solids 50
Oil and Grease 10
Total and Residual Chlorine 0.2
Metal, Total 5.0
Specific Metals (as applicable)
Cadmium 0.1
Chromium, Total 0.5
Copper 0.5
Lead 0.1
Mercury 0.01
Nickel 1.5
Zinc 1.0
Arsenic 0.1
Iron 3.5
Coliforms, Total <400 MPN/100 ml (MPN - Most Probable Number)
Temperature (edge of a designated mixing zone) - Max 3oC > ambient temp of receiving water
A mixing zone is a limited area or volume of water where initial dilution of a discharge takes place and beyond which applicable water quality criteria should not be exceeded. In the case of a thermal plume, a mixing zone is generally defined as occupying no more than 25% of the cross section of a waterway channel (river, stream, etc.) so as to allow passage of aquatic life and permit other uses of the water. In the case of an open body of water, the mixing zone will be defined on a case-by-case basis taking into account the existing ecology and in particular, the presence of coral reefs. Where zone is not defined, 100m from the point of discharge is used.

Liquid effluent discharges to a public or private central wastewater treatment system may be subject to pre-treatment requirements. For projects potentially causing erosion and sedimentation impacts in receiving waters, a plan should be submitted incorporating measures to mitigate the impacts on water quality and aquatic life. Where dredging activities will be required near coastal marine environments, a Dredging Plan should be prepared to assess the increase in turbidty, resuspension in sediments and the disposal of sediments with measures to mitigate impacts caused on the water quality and the aquatic uses and resources.

SOLID AND LIQUID NON-HAZARDOUS WASTES

Applicants should provide a waste management plan that incorporates environmentally safe waste management and disposal practices. Recycling or reclamation of materials is encouraged where possible. If recycling or reclamation is not practical, wastes must be disposed of in an environmentally safe manner that incorporates best management practices, as well as in compliance with applicable local laws and regulations.

HAZARDOUS AND TOXIC MATERIALS AND WASTES

Projects that include the handling, storage, treatment and disposal of hazardous materials must include a management plan for those materials which contain the following elements:

Existing equipment and systems utilizing PCBs or CFCs should be phased-out and disposed of in a manner consistent with the requirements of the host country and in accord with the recommendations set forth in the PPAH ("Industrial Management of Hazardous Wastes").
Storage and liquid impoundment areas for fuels, raw and in-process materials, solvents, wastes, and finished products should be designed with secondary containment or liners, where required, to prevent the contamination of soil, groundwater and surface waters.
Maintenance of all hazardous materials in clearly labeled containers or vessels
Storage and handling of all hazardous materials appropriate to their hazard characteristics: reactivity; flammability; corrosiveness; radioactivity; and toxicity
Fire prevention systems and secondary containment for storage facilities, where required, to prevent fires or the release of hazardous materials to the environment
Hazardous wastes must be treated and disposed of in a manner to prevent the contamination of soil, groundwater and surface waters and to avoid the release of toxic substances in the environment.
A suitable remediation plan should be developed to address the clean-up of contamination in soil and water related to construction activities, where applicable.
NATURAL HAZARDS

LNG plants, re-gasification plants and terminal facilities should be located, designed, constructed and operated to minimize the risk to the project from natural hazards such as earthquakes, tidal waves, floods and fires from surrounding areas. Exclusion zones should be established to minimize the potential impact of the project to surrounding areas from the results of accidents that could produce severe adverse effects.

Plant facilities and terminals should comply with National Fire Protection Association LNG Standards or equivalent standards. Terminal operating procedures, security measures, and Emergency Preparedness and Response Plans should be to best industry practice. Where applicable, ship traffic must adhere to international MARPOL and Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) guidelines for ships movements, recommendations of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and other relevant treaties and international agreements.

Cathlamet Citizens at FERC/Northern Star meeting

2005-10-29T07:42:00.000-07:00

Cathlamet Citizens Confront FERC/Northern Star And Vent Their Anger

Cathlamet Citizens Confront FERC/Northern Star And Vent Their Anger And Frustration

CATHLAMET, October 27, 2005 -- Angry citizens faced off with federal regulators Wednesday night in the latest of a series of contentious public hearings over plans to build a liquified natural gas plant on the Oregon side of the Columbia River.

More than 125 people attended the meeting at Julius Wendt Elementary School, during which representatives from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission fielded area residents' thorny questions about the LNG plant. Northern Star Natural Gas hopes to build in Bradwood, Ore., an abandoned mill town less than a mile from Puget Island.

FERC and the U.S. Coast Guard must approve the $520 million project before Northern Star may break ground, which the gas company hopes to do in 2007. The terminal would be operational by 2010 and could handle up to 125 LNG tankers a year.

LNG is natural gas that is supercooled into a liquid state and shipped overseas in specially constructed tankers, then heated back into a gas and distributed through pipelines.

Wednesday, the audience quickly became frustrated at the lack of specific answers FERC's environmental project manager and liquified natural gas engineer had to offer. Coast Guard representatives did not attend the meeting, raising the ire of those who wanted to know how much the LNG tanker ships would disrupt fishing and boating on the river.

Over and over again, audience members accused FERC of withholding critical information about the project. FERC project manager Paul Friedman and engineer Kareem Monib explained that their agency hadn't yet analyzed the environmental and safety data Northern Star is compiling.

The crowd, many of whom wore red t-shirts emblazoned with "I am NOT an LNG 'acceptable risk,' hectored the two FERC agents. During a slide show about how the plant and pipeline would be constructed, a woman called out in the dark, "Where are the homes that you don't show that you're destroying?"

When the lights came back on, the pointed questions continued. "So where do you guys live at? Is there one (an LNG plant) near you?" a woman asked.

"Actually, there is," said Friedman, a resident of the Washington, D.C., area.

"Is there one within a mile of where you live at?" the woman shot back.

"No," Friedman admitted, appearing pink-cheeked and harried.

Another woman stood up and shouted, "How do you justify trashing our rivers? Because that's what this company will be doing if you go ahead!"

FERC did not propose the LNG plant, Friedman reminded the grumbling crowd.

When an audience member suggested that FERC was merely a mouthpiece for Northern Star, Friedman replied, "I hope I do not parrot anything Northern Star has to say, and I hope that FERC does an independent fact checking of everything they send in."

The studies will have cost Northern Star more than $14 million by the time the project is finished, said Gary Coppedge, the company's vice-president of permitting and development. Sitting in the back of the auditorium, Coppedge said he knows many people are upset, "but that's because they don't have the information."

The LNG plant permitting process is still in its earliest stages, and the community will have additional opportunities to air their views, he said.

"We're developing the information, and these public input sessions allow us to develop answers to address the concerns of the public," he said.

Opponents of the LNG plant worry about a catastrophic explosion, that the storage tanks and the massive ships that deliver the gas would be targets for terrorist attacks. Proponents argue that natural gas is clean, efficient, abundant and needed, and LNG has a long track record of safe deliveries for over 40 years.

Amy M. Fischer
The Daily News
Longview, Washington

Jerry Havens talks to Astorians

2005-08-16T12:29:00.000-07:00

LNG expert warns of ‘half-mile-wide’ fire
Terrorist attack could cause devastation, visitor says

By KATE RAMSAYER
The Daily Astorian

A terrorist attack on a liquefied natural gas shipping tanker could result in a spill that, if ignited, would create a fire a half-mile wide that could burn the skin of people a mile away, Jerry Havens, a chemical engineering professor at the University of Arkansas, said during a visit to Astoria Monday.

And while scientists are generally in agreement with those figures, there is no federal regulation that sets boundaries or exclusion zones based on the threat of a spill on water, said Havens, who has studied LNG for more than three decades.

Four companies have proposed building LNG receiving terminals along the Columbia River, two at sites in Warrenton, one in Bradwood just downstream of Wauna, and one at Port Westward in Columbia County.

“The public should not assume that the safety aspects associated with siting an LNG terminal are being sufficiently addressed by the government,” Havens said in an interview with The Daily Astorian. “I feel like it behooves them to educate themselves about what reality is.”

Havens also gave a talk on LNG safety and security to a full house at Astoria’s Performing Arts Center Monday night. In both conversations, he said that although LNG companies can use best-management practices, put in safety features and tout an impressive accident record, since 9/11 the risks involved with the industry have changed.

“When you have malicious intent, it changes all those rules,” Havens said.

Rapid spill
After two reports by the American Bureau of Shipping and the Sandia National Laboratories, most scientists are in agreement that terrorists could use available weapons to blow a hole in the side of an LNG tanker, causing a rapid spill of 3 million gallons, Havens said.

Although there are exclusion zones that the Federal Energy Regulatory Council requires based on models of LNG spills on land, models that Havens’ work helped establish, there aren’t any mandated boundaries in place based on what would happen if LNG is released on water.

But because there is no way to contain LNG on water, a spill from a ship is something that needs to be seriously considered, Havens said.

If millions of gallons of LNG is spilled on water and the rapidly evaporating fuel is ignited, it could cause a fire bigger than one anyone has ever studied, he said.

In the 1980s, scientists experimented with a test pool fire of 10,000 gallons of LNG, equivalent to what a tanker truck would hold. That resulted in a cone-shaped fire, 60 feet in diameter and 250 feet tall. There are technical difficulties with testing larger amounts of LNG, but by scaling up the results a thousand times to approximate volumes in a shipping tanker, scientists came up with the half-mile-wide fire scenario.

LNG evaporates immediately when it is warmed by contact with water, and natural gas will only burn if it makes up between 5 percent and 15 percent of the air around it. If there’s no ignition source, the evaporated gas from a spill could form a vapor cloud that could blow downwind. Although it is lighter than air, a vapor cloud is still heavy because it is so cold, so won’t immediately dissipate into the upper atmosphere, Havens said.

The fact that a cloud could travel with the wind, and could be ignited away from a spill, increases the minimum safety distance, he said.

“We’re now talking about distances from about a mile to about three miles where somebody could be in harm’s way,” Havens said. Still, he said that a vapor cloud was unlikely in a terrorist attack, since the attack would probably spark a pool fire before a cloud had a chance to form.

‘Violent’
While the Sandia report discussed spills of three million gallons of LNG and acknowledged the possibility of a greater spill, Havens expressed more specific concerns.

A pool fire “would be so violent and so large, I think there’s a very high probability, almost a certainty in my mind, that it wouldn’t stop there, that the ship would be further damaged and you’d have cascading failures and so forth, probably endangering the whole ship,” Havens said.

A typical tanker holds 35 million gallons of LNG in a handful of separate tanks, and if 3 million gallons spill from one tank and ignites, the fire could envelop the entire ship and cause structural damage, possibly resulting in additional spills, he said.

Havens added that he and others haven’t attempted to figure out what the effects of a cascading fire would be, because there are so many unknown variables, like the timing of the different spills.

Still, he said the possibility of a half-mile fire, radiating heat that can burn a person a mile away, and a two- to three-mile potential traveling distance for a vapor cloud, should be a serious enough threat to encourage remote siting.

And because the threat is on a tanker ship, the safe distances move with the ship.

“This danger zone now is a traveling danger zone,” Havens said. “It goes with the tanker.”

In response to one woman at Monday’s meeting, who asked if she would get burns standing in Astoria, half a block from the Columbia River, if a spill from a passing tanker ignited, Havens said yes. The studies suggest that people a mile away would get second-degree burns on unprotected skin within 30 seconds; however, he added that people inside a building would be protected.

Questions
With these known dangers, Havens said, the question becomes how far away these LNG facilities should be sited so that they won’t hurt anybody. There are upwards of 50 new terminals proposed, and offshore facilities are becoming feasible, so distance from populated areas should be taken into account, he said.

“If we’ve got alternatives to siting in an area where the siting would bring into harm’s way a sizable population area, it ought to be considered,” Havens said.

He is working as a consultant for the city of Fall River, Mass., which is fighting the siting of a terminal there, and asking the U.S. Coast Guard to start a rulemaking process to set exclusion zones around tankers as they make their way to a facility.

He stressed that he was not taking a position on the four facilities proposed for the lower Columbia, but that his goal was to inform people of the threats that should be considered.

“I’m not trying to scare you,” Havens told the audience Monday. “I believe that we have to be realistic, and we have to know what we’re dealing with.”

• Stories highlighting the LNG saga are featured on The Daily Astorian’s Web site (Columbia River LNG Controversy)

FERC, Army Corps of Eng. sign MOU

2005-07-14T15:14:00.000-07:00

FERC, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS SIGN MOU
>
>ON AGENCY ROLES IN AUTHORIZING GAS PROJECTS
>
>The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have signed a memorandum of understanding to streamline regulatory processes through early coordination to identify project purposes, needs and alternatives that each agency can use in carrying out its respective regulatory responsibilities.
>
>FERC is responsible for authorizing the construction and operation of interstate natural gas pipelines, storage facilities and liquefied natural gas import terminals under the Natural Gas Act and is the lead agency for complying with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for such purposes. The Corps is responsible for protecting the waters of the United States, including wetlands, under the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and the Clean Water Act, and administers permits for such purposes.
>
>The interagency agreement, which took effect June 30, acknowledges the separate roles that the two agencies have under their respective statutes, and provides that the FERC certification and the Corps permit processes will begin at the outset of a gas project. The agreement clarifies that the Corps will defer, to the maximum extent allowable by law, to the project purpose, need and alternatives that FERC determines to be appropriate. The agreement also spells out a streamlined dispute resolution process for those instances in which the two agencies cannot agree that a project proposal fully complies with the agencies' respective rules.
>
>FERC Chairman Joseph T. Kelliher said, "This agreement will provide greater regulatory certainty. Necessary decisions will proceed more smoothly, as the agreement provides for FERC to work early with the Corps to study practical alternatives, and for the Corps to defer to the Commission's determination of purpose and need."
>
>Army Assistant Secretary John Paul Woodley, Jr., said, "I am pleased that this interagency agreement will streamline the energy regulatory process and carry out the directives of the President to facilitate America's energy independence while assuring the highest standards for environmental quality."
>
>R-05-46 (30)

Pipeline Safety

2005-07-14T11:57:00.000-07:00

Pipeline safety sparks added worries to LNG concerns
Pipeline Safety Trust was created after a major gas explosion in 1999

By Kate Ramsayer
The Daily Astorian

There’s more to a liquefied natural gas receiving terminal than a couple of large storage tanks and a regasification system – there’s also the need for a pipeline to transport the natural gas to the main distribution system, Carl Weimer, executive director of the nonprofit Pipeline Safety Trust, emphasized at a talk in Astoria Monday night.

“Any place an LNG plant goes in, you’re going to end up with more pipelines,” Weimer said. There’s already an interstate natural gas pipeline that goes through Kelso, Wash., and any new pipeline from an LNG facility would probably cross the Columbia River to connect at that point.

Four companies are seeking to build LNG plants on the Columbia River, including two in Warrenton, and are at various stages of the permitting process.

Anti-LNG activists should pay attention to the pipelines because of the associated safety concerns, the potential for environmental damage, and property rights issues, Weimer said.

A federal study of natural gas safety, called the C-FER study, shows that for a 30-inch pipeline, there should be 660-foot safety buffer on each side.

“It’s a real problem, but all the engineering shows that’s the safety zone you need,” he said.

Still, there are ways to make sure that pipelines are as safe as possible, he said. Companies, agencies, and advocates can ensure that the pipelines are properly inspected and regulated, place the pipelines away from populated or sensitive areas (which is getting harder to do as the population grows, Weimer said), and can establish setback requirements – minimum distances that buildings can be located from pipelines.

The Pipeline Safety Trust, based in Bellingham, Wash., was established as the result of a major safety failure, the 1999 explosion of the Olympic pipeline in Bellingham.

“Everything that could go wrong did go wrong,” Weimer said of the explosion. Someone had nicked the pipeline, which wasn’t fixed, a valve was installed wrong and malfunctioned, and the pipeline operators made mistakes as well. As a result, 250,000 gallons of gasoline spilled in a creek, asphyxiating a recent high school graduate and causing severe burns all over the bodies of two 10-year-old boys who later died – the only places their parents could touch them was the soles of their feet, Weimer said.

The Bellingham community demanded that the pipeline company test and replace the pipeline, and the Pipeline Safety Trust was formed with a $4 million criminal settlement.

The organization lobbied to get the Pipeline Safety Act of 2002 passed, which states that pipelines through populated or sensitive areas have to be inspected. In the first two years, companies found 12,000 problems in need of immediate repair.

In addition, after the explosion there was a turn-around at the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Office of Pipeline Safety; before it was “hard to tell where the regulators started and the regulatees stopped,” Weimer said, however the agency has improved over the last five years.

The environmental concerns with natural pipelines are mostly centered on their installation; many times companies aren’t diligent about restoration after they dig trenches for the pipeline, Weimer said. In addition, it’s difficult to lay pipelines across rivers and streams, and often companies will clear cut right-of-ways to make monitoring easier.

And if a company wants to build a pipeline through a piece of property and FERC says it’s necessary, the property can be condemned, Weimer said, although companies prefer negotiate.

“Private property is really up for grabs right now because of the latest Supreme Court ruling,” Weimer said.

Having a pipeline through property could devalue it, and also puts that section off limits for the owners to build around.

Weimer suggested that the audience of more than 50 work to build connections with other communities around the country that are facing LNG proposals.

When one person mentioned that Clatsop County commissioners are holding a public hearing Wednesday to review land-use rules that may apply to the proposed Bradwood LNG plant, Weimer suggested raising the pipeline issue.

“Get the thought in their minds,” Weimer said. “There’s going to be pipelines associated with these things.”

MA. Energy Fac. Siting Board Joins the crowd

2005-06-22T19:31:00.000-07:00

FALL RIVER -- Add another agency to the list of those that want the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to reconsider a liquefied natural gas terminal proposal for the city.

The Massachusetts Energy Facilities Siting Board announced Thursday that it was joining other state and local officials in asking FERC to prioritize safety in its consideration of an LNG terminal that Hess LNG proposes to locate off North Main Street. The board is also asking FERC to widen its study through a comparative evaluation of all LNG project proposals along the northeast coastline.

FERC is the federal agency responsible for approving proposed LNG terminals.

In evaluating LNG proposals within and outside New England, the board noted that FERC did not weigh or rank projects based on safety and environmental concerns with their accompanying natural gas supply costs, needs and reliability to determine which project is most suitable overall.

"The Siting Board agrees with Gov. Romney and Fall River officials who maintain strong concerns over the safety impact of the project to the residents of the Fall River area and the need for a more comprehensive analysis by federal regulators," said Board Chairman Paul G. Afonso.

The Energy Facilities Siting Board is a nine-member review board charged with ensuring a reliable energy supply for the commonwealth with a minimum impact on the environment at the lowest possible cost.

The Siting Board’s primary function is to license the construction of major energy infrastructure in Massachusetts, including large power plants, electric transmission lines, natural gas pipelines and natural gas storage facilities.

The Siting Board also represents Massachusetts before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on cases involving the construction of energy infrastructure in Massachusetts, and coordinates state and local permitting of Massachusetts hydropower projects.

In its filing with FERC, the board called attention to the federal regulator’s finding that more people could be affected by a major LNG water spill at the Fall River site than at two other proposed deep-water LNG port sites outside of Massachusetts. It further noted that 12,000 residents live in 5,100 housing units within a mile of the project and that 1,200 units are within a half-mile of Hess LNG’s proposed Weaver’s Cove Energy storage tank.

Mayor Edward M. Lambert Jr. said he was pleased to have another ally in the fight for sensible placing of LNG terminals.

"I appreciate Gov. (Mitt) Romney and his administration’s attention to this critical issue to our citizens," Lambert said. "In a post-9/11 environment it does not make sense to site an LNG import terminal in our densely populated urban neighborhood. I applaud the Energy Facilities Siting Board’s request and expect the FERC to conduct the comparative analysis recommended that will yield vital energy supplies in a safer location."

E-mail Will Richmond at

wrichmond@heraldnews.com.

Wave Power--an alternative to LNG?

2005-06-14T07:33:00.000-07:00

Scottish company to build world's first commercial wave power station

Paul Brown
Friday May 20, 2005
The Guardian

The world's first commercial wave power station is to be built in Portugal by a Scottish company which employs 35 people but believes it is tapping into a market worth billions.
Ocean Power Delivery (OPD), based in Edinburgh, is to install three wave power machines in the Atlantic, three miles off the coast of northern Portugal, near Povoa de Varzim.

The contract, initially worth €8m (£5.4m), will provide 2.5 megawatts of electricity to the Portuguese grid, enough to provide power for 1,500 homes, but the company has a letter of intent for another 30 machines before the end of 2006, subject to satisfactory performance of the first three.

Richard Yemm, managing director of OPD, said: "This is a significant milestone for our company and for wave energy. We see this order as just the first step in developing the Portuguese market, which has the potential to be worth up to €1bn over the next 10 years."

The company is hoping to build another 30 machine power stations off the north coast of Scotland but the Department of Trade and Industry has been slow to offer support to the project.

Portugal, which has to import most of its energy from abroad, sees a huge potential for wave renewables because of its long Atlantic coastline.

At present, power from wave machines will cost about 15p a kilowatt hour, less than solar power and less than wind at the same stage of development.

Max Carcas, a spokesman for OPD, said: "Obviously, at this stage it is expensive, but cheaper than power from the first turbines.

"Once production is ramped up, then costs come down. Wind is 80% cheaper than it once was, and we believe we can do the same."

Unlike other wave generators that are in the development stage, the OPD's Pelamis P-750 machines face the waves and the power comes from the articulated body driving hydraulic rams, which push fluid through a motor.

If the weather gets too rough the machines go through the waves rather than attempting to ride over them, avoiding damage.

The initial phase of the project will save 6,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide a year.

Portugal, which imports gas from Algeria, needs renewable projects to become more self-sufficient in energy and keep to its EU imposed target under the Kyoto protocol to control its emissions.

Port Westward CEO--How he does business!!

2005-06-13T09:56:00.000-07:00

Port Westward CEO, Vasilopoulus, Harrasses Spouse Of LNG Activist!

From Columbia River Vision

LNG activists' spouse harassed by Port Westward LLC CEO

Spiro Vasilopoulus, an owner of Port Westward LNG LLC has began to feel the pressure by the spokesperson of Save Our Columbia River (SOCR) Tammy Maygra, a critic of the proposed Port Westward LNG facility. Spiro found that Tammys' husband is a business agent of one of the union’s that is hoping to build the LNG facility.

Sprio contacted the head of the NW building trades, Bob Shiprack who Spiro had been in contact with regarding union labor if the project is built. After talking with Shiprack a call was put in to the union, and Tammy's husband was immediately questioned about his wife’s participation in anti-LNG activities.

While Mr. Maygra was being called on the carpet, Spiro was in a meeting with Tammy and a Columbia County Commissioner, at the Commissioners' request. During the meeting Spiro received a call from Bob Shiprack. Both the commissioner and Tammy heard Bob Shiprack identify himself to Spiro, who then left the room to take the call.

When Mr. Maygra came home from work and asked his wife what was going on, the days events unfolded. Spiro’s attempt to drive a wedge between the Maygra’s, by putting pressure through her husbands job didn't work.

After Mr. Maygra contacted the County Commissioner about Spiro’s actions, the commissioner took the Port Westward CEO to task and reprimanded him for his crude, unprofessional actions telling him that Columbia County does not do business that way. If that is the way Port Westward LNG LLC conducts business they are in the wrong county. Afterwards Spiro wrote an apology to the county commissioner, admitting his inappropriate behavior. Port Westward LNG LLC has not made an apology to the Maygra family.

Tammy requested a copy of the letter written to the County Commissioner but was refused the document. Spiro’s actions only intensified her determination to speak out against all LNG facilities.

Is he different than any of the others?

Long Beach CA response to Boston trip

2005-06-02T14:52:00.000-07:00

(May 28, 2005) -- LBReport.com posts below extended portions of testimony and a report from LB's first responders -- LBPD and LBFD -- presented at a LB City Council Committee meeting related to Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG)...an issue raised by a proposal to locate an 80+ million gallon LNG facility in the Port of LB, roughly two miles from downtown LB.

On April 22, LBFD Chief Dave Ellis and LBPD Deputy Chief Tim Jackman testified at a meeting of LB's Federal Legislation & Environmental Affairs Committee (chair: Councilman Frank Colonna; vice chair: Vice Mayor Jackie Kell; member: Councilwoman Tonia Reyes Uranga).

Chief Ellis and Deputy Chief Jackman reported on an April 11-12 trip (with LBFD Battalion Chief Steve Lewis) to Boston, made at the direction of City Manager Jerry Miller to gather information about operations related to an LNG facility in Boston harbor (Everett, MA).

City Manager Miller told the Committee that he read their report "with some interest and some degree of concern and felt that you should have the ability to see this as well."

The report, from LBPD Chief Batts and LBFD Chief Ellis, is dated April 20 and marked "draft." City Manager Miller noted that although staff typically reviews and vets materials at greater length before release, due to the immediacy of the LNG issue (federal LNG legislation advancing) and a scheduled legislative advocacy trip to Washington, D.C. by the Committee members (slated to begin April 24), staff sought to expedite the report.

Councilman/Committee chair Colonna promptly convened a meeting of the Committee on April 22 at which the materials and testimony were made available to the Committee and the public.

We post salient portions, including statements by Committee members, below. We remind readers that for the reasons cited by City Manager Miller, staff released the written materials marked in "draft" form. The transcript below is unofficial, prepared by us.
Opening Statement by City Manager Jerry Miller

City Manager Jerry Miller:...I think that the discussion related to the Police and Fire Dept. trip to Boston would help to inform your Committee on your discussion related to our approaches on LNG and FERC [Federal Energy Regulatory Commission] jurisdiction as they reach the Senate. So with your permission, I'd like to give you some background on why we sent the Police and Fire Dept. back to Boston and then have them report to you on their findings.

Basically about a month or so ago, I decided to send Police and Fire to the Boston area to gather information about the LNG plant in Everett, principally because I felt it was important for us to gather information about the security, operational, navigational and cost issues related to that LNG plant, and in particular movement of the vessels, which seem to have a similar set of circumstances as we might find here in the Long Beach area.

And so we did that. The goal basically was to help the City Manager in formulating ultimately a letter to the Harbor Dept. to be submitted as information as part of the Environmental Impact Report for the proposed LNG plant...

I would not have planned to bring this to you at this point in time because, again, we were going to have a chance to review the draft report from the trip and we would typically vet that through the Police and Fire Chief and spend a little more time talking about the findings in the document before it would come to you and the community. But we felt that given the immediacy of this issue, and the timing of your trip, that we would try to expedite that report...

Excerpts of April 20 memo

All pages marked "Draft"

Date: April 20, 2005
To: Gerald R. Miller
From: Anthony W. Batts, Chief of Police
Dave Ellis, Fire Chief
Subject: Summary -- Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Issues -- Boston Trip

...This report is not intended to replace or predict the results of an environmental impact report. The Port has not yet been involved in discussions with the trip participants since their return...

The following summarizes the findings of the visit to Boston regarding the security and safety procedures for LNG vessels entering the Port of Boston. [excerpted below]

...Entrance to Harbor

The Coast Guard maintains command and control from one of their two vessels.
Two boats each from the Massachusetts State Police, Boston Police Department (PD) and the Massachusetts Environmental Police meet the LNG carrier.
A State Police Helicopter hovers above the flotilla.
A security zone is established. No maritime traffic is allowed within the security zone. The security zone causes a significant impact, particularly during warmer seasons. Most maritime traffic in Boston Harbor consists of pleasure boats, harbor ferries and commercial shipping. Gasoline and bulk crude carriers also make frequent passage through the harbor.
...

Boston Harbor

Boston PD takes regular patrol units out of service and places them at strategic locations on the shore. The units are stationed at their location (based upon normal transit times) and once the ship has passed their area of responsibility they are released back to regular duty.
The channel narrows significantly near Boston's financial district. It is only 800-1,000 yards wide at some points. The security zone is adjusted accordingly to smaller than would otherwise be allowed due to the physical geography.
The security zone is a moving area -- similar to a bubble. Before or after flotilla movement,and outside of the security zone, maritime traffic is allowed to move.
...There is no anchorage in Boston Harbor for vessels waiting for Pier space. However, there is some anchorage for barges.
Tobin (Mystic River) Bridge

Prior to going under the bridge, the LNG carrier is turned around and backed up the Mystic River.
The Massachusetts State Police close the Tobin Bridge to all traffic. It is reopened as soon as the ship clears the bridge. Route 1, a major route into Boston, is impacted. Total closure time is about six minutes.
LNG Terminal (DistriGas)

Prior to ship arrival, Massachusetts State Police dive the pier and adjacent waters. Nine officers are required to perform the dive mission.
While ship is in port, Massachusetts State Police maintain a 24-hour presence in a boat on the Mystic River.
Everett Police staff a five-officer detail 24 hours inside the DistriGas property.
...DistriGas employs a private security force to provide perimeter security.
Risk Management

Recent research (Sandia Labs, December 2004) indicates the greatest danger from LNG exists from a "pool" fire. A pool fire is most likely to occur from a shipboard incident, whether or not caused by accident or intentionally.

A pool fire of LNG is similar in thermal characteristics as any other pooled petrochemical. The flame front may be as high as 250-300 feet. Potential for significant burns may exist as far as one mile from the flame front...Any incident that would puncture a hull would likely ignite the spill. In the event a spill does not ignite as a result of the force that caused the rupture, it is probable that any of the thousands of ignition sources will light the vapor cloud when it reaches land.

Land based facilities are dramatically less problematic. , The tanks are constructed within earthen berms designed to hold 110% of total tank capacity. Further, the tanks are pumped from the top, eliminating the possibility of a gravity fed breach...

DistiGas purchased two tugboats for use by the Boston Fire Department (FD) in the event of a fire. Both boats are equipped with monitors to spray water on a fire. According to Boston FD, a fireboat is useless in extinguishing a pool fire since the fireboat can only shoot water 200 feet. The closest approach to a pool fire is 1000 feet for a properly equipped vessel. These tugboats are operated by a tugboat company and do not have trained fire fighting personnel on board. (A side note, Boston FD has a fireboat that is not in continuous service. When it is not in the yard being repaired, it is staffed by sending an engine company to operate the boat.)

A key issue for policy makers is that Boston's LNG facility has been in place for 30 years. A modern environmental impact report has never been completed.

Cryogenic issues have not been fully examined in any study. LNG is held at a temperature of -256 degrees F. The result of a breach, leak or other exposure to cryogenic material can be significant.

Much has been made of the fact that there has never been a significant LNG incident at sea. The real issue is that the probability of an incident is greater than zero -- meaning that instead of minimizing the likelihood of an event, attention should be directed towards the consequences of an eventual incident and ways to mitigate those consequences.

...

Testimony of LBFD Chief Dave Ellis & LBPD Deputy Chief Jackman

LBFD Chief Ellis: ...We had the opportunity to meet with high ranking staff in the Boston Fire Dept., Boston Police Dept., the U.S. Coast Guard, the State Police, and a safety officer at the DistriGas LNG facility...

Our goal was to see firsthand what is needed by city resources to ensure public in the event of any type of event related to the shipping, off loading, and storage of LNG in the Boston region.

It was very clear during our visit to Boston that the most important stakeholder is the community. This is also true of Long Beach.

The city resources required to mitigate any potential emergency will heavily impact the staffing in the Fire Department, the Police Department and other city departments. This leads to a major fiscal impact.

And post 9/11, the increase in security concerns only makes that impact greater from a financial and a resource standpoint...

LBPD Deputy Chief Tim Jackman: ...I think it's key to understand that when you talk about risk assessment, you're talking about the probability of an incident occurring. And unless the probability of an incident occurring is zero, then there is some likelihood somewhere that something could happen.

And that something that could happen is what they "the hazard" or the consequences of an incident occurring...When I use the term "incident," I'm talking about anything from an accident to an intentional act, anything from a fire to a spill to a cryogenic accident. Those things all could potentially happen.

Any time, obviously, you have human beings involved, you have machinery involved, you have the ocean involved, there is a probability of an error being made or a mistake happening or an accident occurring.

And so based on that,...it's important to understand that it's not a question of "if" something will happen; it simply is a question of "when" when you're talking probability.

....[Police units] in the remainder of the city are responsible to respond to any calls that may occur while those other officers are on detail safeguarding...particular land points. Obviously, that creates a problem with the police response times and is of significant concern to the Boston Police Dept...

...[Discusses some potential impacts in Long Beach based on what was learned in Boston; notes that LBFD and LBPD hadn't yet spoken with Port because of short time since return.]

...Ships coming into Long Beach will likely be taken care of similarly to the way they are in Boston. They'll be stopped offshore where the Coast Guard will conduct a security and safety check and at that point the vessel will be allowed to proceed.

It will then come [uses map to show seaward entry point to LB harbor] this is called Queens Gate, there's a hole in the breakwater...it would probably follow a path through the Queens Gate and then directly to [Pier T near eastern end of Port]...

[Shows items roughly within a mile of Pier T site]...You can see that Sea Launch is well within a mile. [Points to other nearby area] This is also a military fueling facility where gasoline tankers come in, I believe it's jet fuel for the military...

[Shows closer-in photo with facilities near proposed LNG site]...This is an existing gasoline terminal, I believe British Petroleum is here now...they offload their crude here for their refinery. This is the Gerald Desmond Bridge [a bit further]...

Now when we look at Long Beach and try and determine what exactly may occur, some initial thoughts that I have on this, is as the [entry] channel goes right by here, it is well within the fire zone. And again using the distance of a mile...the ship would transit very close to shore here [indicates Port channel area].

Unlike Boston, we're not going to have to go under a bridge. We're not going to a couple of hundred yards of condominiums, but there is significant infrastructure located on the shore [Port area] here.

The other thing that concerns me to some degree, and again it'll take someone to do a proper EIR to determine this, is that if a [LNG] ship were to have an incident out in this area [indicates seaward, on approach to LB harbor] were to become a derelict, were to catch fire, it would be drifting uncontrollably. There's no way to approach a fire of that intensity with anything that is known to man at this point.

With the prevailing winds in a drift of a derelict, it would eventually push up on shore, obviously over here [indicates areas roughly toward Bluff beach areas, very approximate] but it's along the Long Beach shore.

It exists within the realm of probability. It means it could happen. It doesn't mean it's likely to. I can't answer that. Somebody who's got a lot better math skills than me will have to address that. I do know however the probability of an incident occurring is greater than zero and that concerns me, because I have to look at how do I mitigate the impact if something does happen. That's what the Fire Chief has to do, is mitigate if something does happen.

And so those are some of the issues that concern me on the hazard side.

On the security side...in addition to the law enforcement agencies I mentioned before, the Everett Police Department has to put five people on 24 hours a day within the DistriGas [LNG] facility. The State Police has to maintain a 24 hour presence in the Mystic River, maintaining a 500 foot security zone.

The only costs that are reimbursed out of all that is $12,000 is paid for the State of Massachusetts to reimburse the State Police for overtime costs. But that doesn't take into account capital acquisition and capital replacement costs for vessels, helicopters. It doesn't into effect operating costs for that equipment.

It's expensive the amount of resources that are being spent on this and there's been no discovery, which is why during Chief Ellis' presentation he stated that one of the most important issues for us to look at is to be able to ensure whoever comes in here, if they come in here, come up with some way to mitigate costs that we as a local entity are likely to face.

And we aren't going to have the support of a number of different communities here. This is a Long Beach problem and we'll face the consequences thereof.

Council Colloquy

[Chair Colonna indicates he has several questions but as a courtesy first defers to colleagues]

Vice Mayor Kell: OK, these prevailing winds that you talked about. They would go how far into the City of Long Beach itself?

LBPD Deputy Chief Jackman: I don't think the winds are the problem. It would be the fact that the winds would push the vessel and any potential pool fire towards the shore, and again wherever the edge of the pool is, the flame heights may be as high as 600 feet depending on if the pool is big enough, that can burn [people and property] a mile away.

And I'm not a fire expert, Chief [Ellis], you might want to address that.

LBFD Chief Ellis:: ...I think it goes back to...the importance of having a scientific research done that actually provides the information from a scientific standpoint...site specific to Long Beach...

Councilwoman Kell: But I think you could probably tell me how far, when you talk about if there were to a fire that went into Long Beach, tell me where is the mile from that point? Where down here is the mile? Is it at City Hall?...

LBPD Deputy Chief Jackman: ...Just projecting from the shore...roughly 10th St. to Anaheim is probably a mile if you were go inland. That might be a bit far, it could even be 7th St is a mile...probably somewhere between 7th and Anaheim I'd guess is a mile.

Councilman/chair Colonna: I'd like to just add the potential of other incendiary actions that could occur...[W]e're presuming if an incident were to occur that it would confined in and of itself, but we do have other cargo that's petroleum product, direct driven, that could significantly leapfrog and create a chain reaction that could keep moving...from the southwest, which is the wind usually, the current brings it more to shoreline, more moving towards the Bluff, Belmont Shore peninsula areas.

But my concern...is this [is] not just a single vessel out there. There are other vessels that I believe carry bulk petroleum products that we certainly, I don't think we'd be eliminating them constantly if a [LNG] ship like this would be coming in...

...It would seem to me when you indicated that if there were an explosion or whatever would ignite or create the problem, that there is no operation known to man, meaning you guys or our fire people, that could deal with anything other than the perimeter. It would seem to me that it would be a run for your life type of incident.

Deputy Chief Jackman: Yes sir...I've learned a great deal [about LNG] and one of the issues out there is that it's unlikely in an incident where a tank has ruptured that you're going to have an explosion...It's actually a slow igniting, depending on that 5-15% [concentration], where it occurs in the pool, where it's gassified. But it generally won't explode unless it's in a confined space like gas in your house. If you turn the gas on and don't light it, eventually it may blow up because it's contained. Generally speaking in a shipboard accident, it's probably not going to be contained, it's going to flow and therefore ignite slowly.

It's going to be a bad thing no matter what, but it's not going to be an explosion...As I understand it, it ignites slowly and it travels back toward the source...and of course as it warms it and vaporizes it as it goes back, it's actually traveling back towards the source...

LBFD Chief Ellis: ....In essence what he said seems to be somewhat accurate, but I want to point to a [1944] incident that took place in Cleveland, Ohio. We can speak about...how [LNG] burns back slowly to its source, but in that case the liquid and the gases were in confined spaces, they were homes, basements and sewer lines and close to 130 people died. So yes in those atmospheres...[in those conditions] there was an explosion that took place. So again, statistically there are possibilities for things like that to happen even though from a scientific standpoint, in a controlled environment, you might not think that it would...

...Really, one of the main things we have to do is be concerned about the exposures from the [LNG] site itself and for the tankers. And as the tanker travels you'll have exposures both for pleasure craft, you'll have other tankers, you'll have containers...and also you mentioned the fuel tankers...

Councilwoman Reyes Uranga: Thank you for the information...This presentation, how does this relate to our immediate trip on Sunday [legislative advocacy visit to Washington, D.C. scheduled two days later]?.

City Manager Jerry Miller:...We just felt that the information was relevant to you. I was given a draft of the report earlier this week. I read it with some interest and some degree of concern and felt that you should have the ability to see this as well.

In addition, some of the information that we are talking about today is information...that should probably be discussed as this legislation [federal Energy bill] moves into the Senate, because there are questions which must be addressed in our mind before we would ever want to move forward on a project like this...

Councilwoman Reyes Uranga: Well you know all the research that I've done, and I did go to Boston in June [04], and there's nothing relatively new here, to me anyway, other than we still don't have facts or figures as it relates to the city of Long Beach. I don't want to get into a hysteria, bogeyman approach to this. I want to be able to see if we can with all caution see if we can implement, and I think that the Police and Fire recommendations you have on page six [of April 20 memo, cited above] really need to be considered by the full Council because those are important that we look at qualified experts doing some assessments, our ability to mitigate any of the issues and to see how we're going to be able to pay for it all.

...There's a lot of "what ifs" and a lot of negative aspects to this that I think people are trying to sort out at this time. One thing that was interesting in the trip that I took, I was only there one day, I didn't get to get in depth...probably the most informative aspect of the trip was the discussion with the Coast Guard. And one thing that they did say was never before, I guess there's a silver lining on everything, is that never before in Boston had there been this level of coordination with all the public safety entities...maybe it was the result of 9/11, but that even before 9/11 that the police, the fire, the Coast Guard, the state police, at every level that there is a practice run, so to speak, whenever the [LNG] tanker comes in and that there is a level of coordination that's unprecedented...

What I did see when I was there, I was standing in the main control room of the LNG facility, I looked out across to my left and there were the LNG tankers, and I looked off to my right and there were some newly built condos...they were requesting a pretty penny for some of those and we saw barbecue pits and people's plants and it was amazing to me the proximity...

[B]oston is impacted totally by [the LNG tanker deliveries]. It is a big event, so to speak, once a week in the city. It goes right through the city. And I guess my concern is...a lot of things in your report here don't relate directly to what, because it's going to come through our city. It will be at the edge, granted it'll be here at the city, and we'll still have to deal with a lot of the issues that occur when we have something, an event of this magnitude.

But we're comparing apples and oranges in many instances, so I would like to see somewhere down the road that we look at oranges and oranges, and we say OK these are the elements that we can compare from Boston or another area that has an LNG facility and this is what we're looking at in Long Beach as a comparable kind of issue or problem or situation and this is how we can get some estimates in terms of risk management, some costs for that risk management and mitigation.

But as I went through Boston...there were very few areas that I could see a comparison with Long Beach, because you're going so right through, I mean, it's not going to go right by our airport where you can wave; we don't have a financial district; there's no condos that you can see, and we're not going under a bridge are we in Long Beach, no?

LBPD Deputy Chief Jackman: ...We don't go under a bridge and we certainly don't come close to these condos...is we have an anchorage. And an anchorage has to be traversed here. It's not traversed in Boston. So we don't have the same problem, we have a different problem...

Councilwoman Reyes Uranga...But I guess my concern is that if this is presented to Council, which I'm sure it will be, that we emphasize more of the common...that we start looking at some of the similarities and start comparing apples and apples, and looking at real facts, real comparisons and real scenarios, and that we have a discussion with the Port before it's presented to the Council because in some aspects, this is and can be pretty frightening.

But again, going to Boston, I'm seeing people, I mean, the person was out there watering their plant looking at an LNG tank, maybe it's just because it's been there so long that they're used to living with it, I don't know.

But the level of hysteria, and I'll call it hysteria because to a certain extent we don't have the facts in order to see if it's real hysteria or if any of that's justified but, you know, the "what ifs" of the world, I mean, there's a lot of things "what if, what if, what if," but I would like to see a little bit more comparison to real life scenarios here in the City of Long Beach and maybe that's what's going to happen with the EIR...

...[O]n my trip to Boston, and we were having lunch with someone from the Museum, they have a Children's Museum, I think it's a Children's Museum on the wharf or whatever and they were concerned because they said their biggest problem there, the biggest problem they had wasn't with people thinking it was going to explode, or closing down the bridge for six minutes, the biggest problem at that time...was the tankers running into, I can't remember if it's whales or dolphins...and that this was a particular issue when it comes to that area [because of Boston harbor's layout]...

Vice Mayor Kell: ...You talked about the costs, the Boston police, the State police, the equipment...and who pays or funds these costs. The federal government? The state government? Who?

Deputy Chief Jackman: Right now nobody is funding the cost except for that $12,000 to the State police in Massachusetts and that's paid by the [LNG] terminal operator DistriGas.

Vice Mayor Kell:...The biggest problem I see for us is the fact that this facility would be close to downtown, and our new Pike @ Rainbow Harbor, and our new 4,000 residential units that have been built. It's not like the condos [in Boston] but nevertheless we hear a lot of fear, fearful statements about [paraphrasing others] "it would not only ruin our port but it would ruin our downtown, our tourist trade," one of the big things that this city relies on for income.

So in the study where they've had other facilities, how close are their downtowns, or their residential units, to some of these more modern facilities [LNG terminals constructed after the Boston area facility]? I think we have to look at this fairly.

And then also in these other places, of these new facilities, how were their costs handled? I think I'd like to know all three things: How are the costs handled in other ways? What are the new safeguards at the new facilities? And how close are they to large projects and residential units?

City Manager Miller: I just simply wanted to explain, again, I had the ability to look at a draft report this week that we really haven't carefully vetted, and we probably ordinarily would have done a little bit more staff work to develop the premises of the report...And my goal was to give you sort of a virtual tour of the Boston Harbor versus the Long Beach Harbor, so any imprecision or indiscretion in that regard is totally mine. I simply wanted to give you folks as much as I could give you on a short-notice basis.

Again our fundamental goal here is to look at security planning, security operations and costs. And those are things that I want to be able to address in the environmental impact report. And I think the [LBPD/LBFD] report itself is very clear that we see that there are great differences between Long Beach and Boston, but nonetheless there are concerns. And so I am only attempting to share those concerns with you and hopefully this will inform you and the entire Council.

Councilman/chair Colonna: ...It would appear to me if would be important for us to find out the information on the various other locations that were sited on LNG and when they were done. Our Council made a commitment to continue with a seamless development of the downtown and the new condominiums prior to the exploration of what impact an LNG facility would have. My concern is I have been told by numerous developers are their concern about the impacts of the values of the subject sites that they are involved in building, considering that in my business being a real estate broker, that you would have to fully disclose no different than if you were in the flight path or within reasonable proximity of the airport that there is an LNG facility, and probably by the time if this were to occur, you'd have to thoroughly vet what could happen or what could be the possibilities.

One other question...we talked about the ignition issue, but I just want to get some clarification, because on page three of the report on the risk management side, it said "A pool fire is most likely to occur from a shipboard incident, whether or not caused by accident or intentionally." And notwithstanding the Boston issue, it says "Any incident that would puncture a hull would likely ignite the spill. In the event a spill does not ignite as a result of the force that caused the rupture, it is probable that any of the thousands of ignition sources will light the vapor cloud when it reaches land."

LBPD Deputy Chief Jackman: ...[E]very car that's out there is sparking, it has spark plugs, it's a potential ignition source. We have the SERRF plant just on the other side of Ocean Blvd. which is obviously burning stuff. Every house that has a pilot light is a potential source of ignition. Every boat or ship that operates on an internal combustion engine can potentially ignite something. A car driving down the road dragging a piece of metal on the asphalt can spark. The number of sources for ignition are almost endless.

FERC vs FACT

2005-05-19T07:40:00.000-07:00

This is FERC vs the real facts. Check it out, very interesting.

http://pstrust.org/library/pdf/LNG_Public_Safety__FERC%20_2_.pdf

Clatsop County Commission On LNG Zone Ruling

2005-05-13T10:33:00.000-07:00

Board wants public hearings on LNG permit applications
Clatsop County wants the city of Warrenton to give a more thorough review to any effort to build a liquefied natural gas facility in the community.

A divided board of commissioners voted Wednesday to appeal the Warrenton planning department’s recent ruling that an LNG plant could be allowed outright in the city’s I-2 Water Dependent Industrial Shorelands zone.

If the county’s appeal is upheld, any application from the developers of the two LNG projects currently proposed for the Warrenton area would have to be reviewed at a public hearing before the city planning commission.

Supporters of the appeal said they were not voting on the merits of the project itself.

“This (appeal) has a very narrow focus – it has nothing to do with whether we want or don’t want an LNG facility,” said Commissioner Pat Roberts, who was joined by commissioners Lylla Gaebel and Helen Westbrook in supporting the appeal. Commission Chairman Richard Lee and Commissioner Sam Patrick voted no.

The county’s appeal will be heard by the Warrenton Planning Commission.

Last month Calpine Corp. asked the city to determine whether an LNG terminal would be allowed as an outright permitted use in the I-2 zone, or whether it would require a conditional-use permit and have to go through a longer review process. The company, which proposes to build an LNG facility along the Skipanon River, has not yet submitted a formal application to the city.

As a neighboring property owner to the Skipanon River site – the county owns several nearby lots acquired through tax foreclosures – Clatsop County was given the opportunity to comment on the city’s review of the zoning question.

In the county’s response, sent to the city April 20, county counsel Andrew Jordan argued that an LNG terminal does not qualify as a “marine cargo transfer facility,” which are permitted outright in the I-2 zone.

“It seems highly unlikely that the city would have intended or contemplated LNG facilities at the time of adoption of that section of the code,” he wrote. “More likely, the city contemplated ‘cargo’ in the ordinary and traditional sense.”

The city planning department, however, ruled that an LNG terminal would meet the definition of marine cargo facility.

Lee said he was “totally opposed” to an appeal, and called the decision politically motivated.

“This subject is totally the business of the city of Warrenton,” he said.

Westbrook countered that the county had been formally invited to comment on the zoning review. “I think it is perfectly appropriate for us to press our case.”

Roberts noted that under the conditional-use review process, there is an opportunity for more public input, as well as the chance to require extra conditions for the project.

The Calpine project is one of two LNG facilities proposed for Warrenton. Warrenton Fiber Co. owner Martin Nygaard is working with consultants to investigate the feasibility of building an off-loading terminal at the company’s Tansy Point site, just north of the proposed Calpine location.

Last month the Warrenton City Commission voted to give Warrenton Fiber a five-year option to renegotiate its lease with the city, which owns the Tansy Point property and leases it to the company, to allow an LNG facility.

Important May meetings for LNG on the river

2005-05-02T13:04:00.000-07:00

Cathlamet Community Meeting
Tuesday, May 3, 2005
Event location: *River Street Meeting Room Cathlamet, WA*
RiverVision will hold a community meeting 7:00 - 8:30pm to discuss
the LNG issue and what effects it will have on Puget Island and
surrounding areas.

The meeting room is next to the PUD on River Street, one street
toward the river from Main and underneath (around back) of the
building at street level. There is some parking by the entrance and
more on the street. If you are coming from Oregon the Westport Ferry
leaves Westport dock at 15 mins. after the hour, every hour.

For information contact Carol Carver ccarver@stjamesfamilycenter.org
{mailto:ccarver@stjamesfamilycenter.org}

Plan to attend and learn what can be done to oppose this industrial
facility planned for your stretch of the river.

*Knappa Community Meeting*
*Wednesday, May 4, 2005*
Event location: Knappa High School
RiverVision will host a community meeting 7:00-8:30pm at the Knappa
High School to discuss the planned Northern Star LNG facility at
Bradwood. Plan to attend and learn how you can be involved. For
information contact Cheryl Johnson at (503)-458-6910 or
trillium@pacifier.com {mailto:trillium@pacifier.com}

*ODE informational meeting in Clatskanie*
*Tuesday, May 10, 2005*
Public Workshop on "Need for Facility" Rule for Liquefied Natural Gas
(LNG)Import Terminals.

The Oregon Department of Energy will hold a public workshop to
discuss the "Need for Facility" rule for Liquified Natural Gas (LNG)
importation terminals. All interested persons are welcome. The
workshop will be:

*Tuesday, May 10th, 2005 7:30 P.M. Clatskanie River Inn 600 E.
Columbia River Highway (On U.S. Highway 30 just East of Clatskanie)*

The current Need for Facility standards in the Oregon Administrative
Rules were written before LNG importation facilities were
anticipated. Therefore, the Department believes that rulemaking is
necessary to determine:

* Whether or not the Need standard should apply to LNG facilities and
* If a Need standard does apply to LNG facilities, how we should
implement such a standard.

The workshop will be an informal discussion. It is not a formal
hearing.
Anyone is welcome to contact the Department directly to discuss this
issue before the workshop. Contacts at the Department for this issue
are Phil Carver, Sam Sadler, Dave Stewart-Smith, Adam Bless, or Cathy
Van Horn. You can reach these contacts by calling 1-800-221-8035.
If you cannot come to the workshop, written comments are also
welcome. Please be aware that if the Department proposes any formal
rulemaking action there will be other chances to comment later in the
process. However, for this round of comments, we ask that you mail or
email your comments by MAY 10th to:

Phil Carver Oregon Department of Energy 625 Marion St. N.E. Salem, OR
97301 Email: philip.h.carver@state.or.us

*Bradwood site visit and walkabout*
*Saturday, May 14, 2005*
Event location: Bradwood, Oregon
Northern Star officials will hold a public tour of the proposed LNG
site at Bradwood, Saturday May 14th, 10:00am-3:00pm

This is your chance to visit the site and ask questions about their
plans for this parcel across from Puget Island and Cathlamet, Wa.

*ODE taking public comments in Knappa*
*Thursday, May 19, 2005*
Event location: Knappa High School 41535 old Hwy 30
The Oregon Department of Ecology (ODE) will be taking public comments
on the proposed Northern Star LNG facility at Bradwood Thursday May
19th at 7:00pm.

*This is your chance to tell the ODE your concerns about this
proposal.*

5:30-7:00, Northern Star will hold a "science fair" style
presentation to explain their plans to all interested parties. Come
early and ask company officials your questions regarding LNG in your
community.

New Energy Bill

2005-05-02T13:00:00.000-07:00

Energy bill limits local authority
New law will allow federal government overrule community opposition to LNG plant construction.

By Juanita Millender-McDonald
Amid much fanfare, Congress last month passed a long-awaited energy bill. While the authors of the bill touted an array of alleged benefits contained in the legislation, I voted against this expansive and intrusive legislation because it does little to reduce energy costs for American consumers, and it contains many provisions that are not in the best interests of my constituents.

One such provision would directly affect the safety and concerns of the citizens of Long Beach and the surrounding communities. (An LNG facility is under study at the Port of Long Beach.)

In the administration-sponsored bill, there is language that gives the federal government central authority over decision-making with respect to liquefied natural gas terminals. This language severely limits state and local involvement in the decision-making process regarding the safe location of LNG facilities in populated areas.

As a former city council member and member of the state Assembly, I know firsthand the importance of state and local governments in public safety decisions such as LNG facility placement.

In opposition to the Republican-sponsored provision, I voted for an alternative amendment that would have retained state and local authority to ensure that LNG facilities are placed in areas where they do not pose a threat to public safety or to sensitive coastal and ocean areas. I believe state and local authorities, rather than distant federal officials, are best equipped to make LNG placement decisions that directly affect the safety of their citizens. Unfortunately, the alternative amendment was voted down, largely along party lines.

As a result, the language contained in the energy bill that is expected to be signed into law by the president gives the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC, final authority over LNG terminals and connecting pipeline facilities, while excluding state and local authorities from adequately participating in the permitting process of LNG facilities.

If approved by the Senate, this provision will effectively nullify the many valid safety and environmental concerns of local governments and their citizens, while allowing the federal government to force potentially dangerous facilities to be located within densely populated areas without public comment.

While we have lost this most recent battle in the House of Representatives, I assure you that I will continue to work to overturn this draconian provision, in order to ensure that the citizens of the 37th District and the Southern California region have a voice in the safety of their communities.

Juanita Millender-McDonald, D-Carson, represents the 37th Congressional District.

Seattle Intelligencer Article

2005-04-24T05:27:00.000-07:00

Saturday, April 23, 2005 · Last updated 11:23 a.m. PT

River town sees both hope and danger in plans for LNG terminal

By JOSEPH B. FRAZIER
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

ASTORIA, Ore. -- A proposed liquefied natural gas import terminal heralds both jobs and the jitters in this Columbia River town, pitting a fear of catastrophe against the draws of an industry with a superb safety record.

The LNG ships, some the length of three football fields, pack a potential explosive force of nuclear size. As they leave the Pacific Ocean they would have to cross the Columbia River Bar, one of the world's more dangerous crossings, as they steam to Warrenton, across Young's Bay from Astoria, about twice a week.

Under heavy security they would discharge their super-chilled cargos into tanks at Warrenton. Plans call for it to be piped across the river and inland to the Longview, Wash., area some 50 miles away and into existing lines.

The Port of Astoria has signed a five-year lease with California-based Calpine, which operates and develops power stations and lists itself as the nation's largest user of natural gas, with options for two 30-year extensions if the project materializes.

No formal application has been filed for the Warrenton site, said Tamara Young-Allen, spokeswoman for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in Washington, D.C.

Astorians jealously guard the Columbia, which defines their town of 11,000, the country's oldest permanent settlement west of the Rocky Mountains. And not all of them are rolling out a welcome mat.

"Liquefied natural gas can be made safe if you can keep it secure. But how do you do that with a gazillion BTUs?" said Dr. Tom Duncan, an Astoria physician and member of Columbia RiverVision, a conservation group.

Three opponents of the project have filed as candidates for the five-member Port of Astoria Commission in a May 17 election.

One, Rose Priven, says the region never envisioned heavy industry, and says the planned gas project could threaten the Young's Bay estuary where salmon and other species develop.

She said the lease with Calpine might be airtight but that what she called a "hand-in-glove relationship" between Calpine and the commission might not last if the three are elected.

"We might not be as cooperative," she said.

She has heard reports of jobs.

"But most of them are going to go to engineers and high-tech people," she said.

And she says she and others worry about a major earthquake that scientists say is a matter of time for the Oregon coast.

"The Cascadia Subduction is right out there," she said, gesturing toward the ocean.

""Will it explode like a bomb? That's not likely. The possibility of any disaster is very low," she acknowledged. "But safety studies show that if the worst happened, it would be horrendous."

Supporters of the proposed terminal point out that in more than 33,000 shipments to the United States since imports of liquefied natural gas began in 1959, there have been no serious accidents in this country and only a handful of minor incidents.

There are four such facilities in the United States - in Maryland, Georgia, Louisiana and Massachusetts. All have clean safety records, as do the 150 or so ships that deliver the liquefied gas. About 50 more import terminals are in various stages of proposal or planning in the United States, Canada and Mexico, including five in Oregon.

Still, opposition has scuttled projects in Harpswell and Hope Island in Maine, Eureka and Vallejo, Calif., Mobile Bay, Ala., and elsewhere. ExxonMobil withdrew plans to build an Alabama terminal after Gov. Robert Riley said he would block the sale of state-owned land for the project without an independent site study of potential hazards.

The last liquefied natural gas explosion in the United States was in Cleveland when a poorly designed tank blew up in 1944, killing 128 people and leveling a square mile of the city. A tank blast in Algeria last year killed about 25 people and injured dozens.

The gas is cheap, clean and plentiful. As of now it accounts for about 1 percent of the nation's energy needs. Most imported gas comes from Southeast Asia, the Middle East and Trinidad. Alaska produces it but sells it to Japan.

David Hiller, who worked on dry-docked LNG tankers and as an engineer on some of them, says the safety features are solid.

To be liquefied, natural gas is frozen to 259 degrees below zero, Fahrenheit, which reduces it to one 600th of its bulk. It becomes gas when it warms.

Hiller, of Sisters, Ore., says the ships are vented and have scores of sensors, to detect any premature gasification and that liquid nitrogen floods any areas where a leak is detected.

"Very few industries can say they have never had an accident," Hiller said of the ships. "We can say that."

"The ships will not blow up like a bomb," he said. "It is simply an economical way to move natural gas."

Double hulls and other features help protect the ships against a terrorist attack, he said.

The Warrenton tanks could be 250 feet across and up to 150 feet high, said Calpine spokesman Peter Hansen. They would have inch-thick stainless steel walls inside a 3-foot-thick sheath of reinforced concrete. The site is away from major populations and does not require passing under the bridge linking Astoria with Washington state, he said.

The project would cost $500 million and the terminal would be operational by 2011.

Peter Gearin, executive director of the Port of Astoria, said the terminal would add about 17 percent to Clatsop County's assessed valuation and be a huge boost in available energy to a fast-growing region.

Still, not everyone is sold on the idea. Some worry the ships carrying natural gas over the bar could disrupt cruise ships and fishing, which bring money to the region.

Due to the nature of their cargo, the arrivals of the ships are not announced in advance. This season 14 cruise ships are scheduled to dock in Astoria, a recent and welcome addition to the town's tourism base.

"A concern is to what degree any installation would interfere with other uses of the river," said Duncan, of the Columbia RiverVision organization. "The cruise ships aren't going to wait offshore while these things come in unannounced."

Exclusion zones are in effect around the ships for security reasons.

He said there is a feeling that supporters of the project have not been forthcoming with the public.

"They have signed a 65-year lease with no public input and say it is business as usual, that leases are signed all the time," Duncan said. "If it is a potato warehouse maybe it's business as usual, but we're talking about forever changing the nature of the river."

Public Notice Of Zoning for Skipanon LNG

2005-04-11T05:20:00.000-07:00

PUBLIC NOTICE

CITY OF WARRENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Warrenton Planning Department is currently conducting an administrative review on the below described land use matter. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS MAY SUBMIT written comments for or against the request by mailing letters to the Warrenton Planning Department, PO Box 250, Warrenton, OR 97146. Written comments may also be dropped off at Warrenton City Hall, 225 S. Main Ave., during 8:30AM to 5:00PM business hours. All written comments must be received no later than 5:00 PM on April 28, 2005. After the comment period closes, the Warrenton Zoning Administrator shall issue a Type n administrative decision for this matter.
IF ANY PERSON FAILS TO ADDRESS THE RELEVANT CODE INTERPRETATION ISSUE OR PROCEDURAL CRITERIA WITH ENOUGH DETAIL, THEY MAY NOT BE ABLE TO APPEAL TO THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS OR CIRCUIT COURT ON THAT ISSUE. ONLY WRITTEN COMMENTS BASED ON THE RELEVANT CODE INTERPRETATION ISSUE OR PROCEDURAL CRITERIA ARE CONSIDERED RELEVANT EVIDENCE.

The applicant and any party who requested or received mailed notice or who participated in the proceedings through submission of written evidence may appeal the interpretation to the Planning Commission within 14 days after the interpretation is mailed. The appeal may be initiated by filing a notice of appeal with the zoning administrator pursuant to Section 4.1.4.G of the Warrenton Development Code.

THE FOLLOWING LAND USE APPLICATION IS UNDER ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW: CI-05-1 :
Skipanon Natural Gas, LLC has applied for a code interpretation to determine if a an LNG (liquefied natural gas) terminal is a permitted use in the City's 1-2, Water Dependent Shorelands, zoning district. The applicant has requested a code interpretation to determine if an LNG terminal falls within the scope of a "marine cargo transfer facility" identified as a permitted use in Warrenton Development Code Section 2.11.110(1)(b) of the City's Water-Dependent Industrial Shorelands (1-2) Zoning District. In its request, the applicant explains that the proposed LNG marine cargo transfer facility would consist of: (I) an off-shore industrial dock with moorage facilities to berth one LNG tanker; (2) a pier, placed upon pilings, interconnecting the dock with the shore to carry related pipelines and vehicular and pedestrian traffic; (3) on-shore LNG tanks to equalize the delivery flow of natural gas into the interstate pipeline between tanker deliveries; (4) a pressurized vaporization system to convert the liquefied natural gas to a gaseous state and modify its heating value to meet FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) specifications; and, (5) a combined cycle cogeneration system to generate heat to convert the liquefied natural gas back to gas and dispose of ethane removed from the LNG to modify its heating value.

The subject property is described as all properties inside the City of Warrenton's 1-2, Water Dependent Industrial Shorelands, Zoning District. The purpose of the review is for the Warrenton Zoning Administrator to make a code interpretation to determine if an LNG terminal falls within the scope of a "marine cargo transfer facility" identified as a permitted use in WDC Section 2.11.110(1)(b), Water-Dependent Industrial Shorelands (1-2) Zoning District. The Warrenton Zoning Administrator will also determine if the application satisfies the applicable procedural criteria of WDC Section 4.8.2, Code Interpretation Procedure.
The complete application, all evidence supplied by the applicant, and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost; copies can be provided at reasonable cost. For further information, please contact either Pamela Alegria, Planning Technician, or Patrick Wingard, Planning Director/Zoning Administrator, at the Warrenton Planning Department (225 S. Main Avenue), at (503) 861-0920 during 8:30AM to 5:00PM business hours.

PUBLICATION DATE: Friday, April 8, 2005

Pipeline Hazards

2005-04-04T17:22:00.000-07:00

Washington State Hazard Identification and Vulnerability Assessment

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PIPELINE
Definition
Pipelines are transportation arteries carrying liquid and gaseous fuels. Pipelines are buried and above ground.

History
On February 8, 1997, a natural gas pipeline caught fire and exploded near Everson in remote, wooded, mountainous terrain and former glacier slide area. A 26-inch pipe carrying natural gas failed because of ground movement of water-saturated soil.

On February 9, 1997, another natural gas pipeline caught fire and exploded near Kalama in a remote area. Ground movement caused a natural gas pipeline break at a weld and an explosion resulted.

On June 10, 1999, a gasoline pipeline leak caught fire and exploded at Whatcom Falls Park in the city of Bellingham. Two 10-year-old boys burned to death. An 18-year old man was killed after fumes overcame him, he fell in Whatcom Creek and drowned. The ruptured gasoline line spewed 277,000 gallons of gas into the creek bed.

Hazard Identification and Vulnerability Assessment
Buried and exposed pipelines are vulnerable to breaks and punctures caused by earth movement, material failure, operator error, construction defects, and tampering. Fuel leaks cause hazardous materials spills, fires, and explosions. Williams Pipeline West (WPW) - http://www.georgiastrait.twc.com/WGP-West.htm - owns an interstate pipeline with service from Canada, through Sumas, and north from New Mexico. WPW has lines through Whatcom, Skagit, Snohomish, King, Pierce, Thurston, Lewis, Cowlitz, Clark, Skamania, Klickitat, Benton, Yakima, Kittitas, Douglas, Franklin, Grant, Adams, Walla Walla, Lincoln, Spokane, and Whitman counties. On the west side of Washington, the WPW has two parallel pipes. There are 20,174 miles of pipeline with 5-75 feet Right-of-Ways (ROWs). A 26-inch line was installed in 1956 and a 30-inch line was installed in the 1970's. The pipes are coated with a substance similar to mastic. An electron flow on the pipe monitors corrosion. Monitor and compressor stations with telemetry provide the distributor with safety information.

Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) Transmission-Northwest - http://www.pge-nw.com/home.html - has 36-inch and 42-inch pipelines coming from Canada, with service running through parts of Idaho and Spokane, Whitman, Columbia, Franklin, and Walla Walla counties in Washington State.

Both PG&E and WPW have distributors that extend service to homes and businesses. The distribution lines are smaller with less capacity and lower impact. Distribution companies include Puget Sound Energy - http://www.pugetsoundenergy.com/, Cascade Natural Gas Corporation - http://www.cngc.com/, Northwest Natural Gas Company - http://www.nwnatural.com/index.asp, and the Avista Company - http://www.avistacorp.com/.

The Olympic Pipe Line Company's - http://www.olypipeline.com/ - pipeline is a 400-mile system carrying gasoline, diesel, and aviation fuel at pressures of 1,400 pounds per square inch. The lines travel from refineries in Whatcom and Skagit counties south to Renton, SeaTac Airport, Tacoma, Olympia, and Portland, Oregon. The line carries 14 million gallons a day. As of 1998, the Olympic Pipe Line Company had 42 spills in 32 years. Many were small, but 17 spills were over 2,000 gallons. The 1999 227,000-gallon gasoline spill in Bellingham killing three people was the largest.

Most pipelines are buried; however, there are exposed areas. When crossing rivers, the lines are either attached to a crossing structure or buried below the flood area. In Kalama, the pipe is under the train trestle. On the White River, it is under the riverbed. There are two sites on the Columbia River and both are under the riverbed.

Pipelines and right-of-ways are frequently surveyed for land movement. By law, an entire pipeline has 26 fixed wing or rotary wing aerial surveys per year. At least once a year, someone walks the ROW. When indications of potential problems occur, more surveys are conducted, especially following increased rainfall.

If a pipeline moves during land movement, it can sheer. When the sheer moves across abrasive materials or comes in contact with an ignition source, then sparks can cause the fuel to explode or burn. Monitoring markers are used to denote creeping soil movement for potential strain on the pipe.

Conclusion
Pipeline breaks and punctures are reduced by compliance with safety measures set by the Federal Pipeline Safety Law and following prescribed operations and maintenance procedures. Breaks are reduced by operating with proper pipeline pressure, installing correct thickness and grade of the steel and monitoring its wear, and reducing third party damage from excavators, driving over the lines, and encroachment of pipeline right-of-ways. Disruption of pipeline service impacts our ability to heat homes and businesses and fuel equipment. It can cause the price of fuel to increase.

Resources
Washington State Emergency Management Division -
Washington State Utilities and Transportation Commission
Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development, Energy Policy Unit
Washington State Department of Transportation
Washington State Department of Ecology
United States Department of Transportation, Office of Pipeline Safety

Northern Star Natural Gas--Bradwood

2005-04-03T17:34:00.000-07:00

The following article was published in the Longview Daily News>Saturday morning, April 2, 2005:>> Company takes lead in race to build LNG import terminal By Courtney>Sherwood>>In the race to build the Pacific Northwest's first liquified natural>gas import terminal, a new contender has taken the lead.>>Northern Star Natural Gas submitted paperwork to the Federal Energy>Regulatory Commission in March, taking the first step in the two-year>permitting process that would preceded construction of its $520>million facility along the lower Columbia River.>>>>>>>>>{http://adsys.townnews.com/18924516172798/creative/tdn.com/
area_news_feature_tile/16491.gif?r=http://www.windermere.com}>>>>>Northern Star wants to build in Bradwood, Ore., an abandoned mill>town across the Columbia from Cathlamet.>>Other groups have proposed similar projects near Clatskanie, Astoria>
and Coos Bay, Ore.>>With so many liquified gas projects proposed, activists now are>gearing up for a prolonged battle against the big-money developers,>whose projects, the activists say, would disrupt shipping, fishing>and tourism on the Columbia River.>>Liquified natural gas, or LNG, is a supercooled version of natural>gas used to heat homes, cook meals and generate electricity across>the United States.>>As native reserves of natural gas run low, the U.S. Department of>Energy predicts imports of LNG will increase significantly over the>next 20 years. With demand rising in North America, the price for>natural gas is expected to rise. LNG importers stand to make>millions.>>LNG proponents say there may be enough demand in the region for one>or two of these facilities, but not for all four. So developers are>locked in a slow-motion race for state and federal approval -- a>process that could take two years or more.>>With it's federal filing, the first paperwork filed by any of the LNG>proponents, Northern Star Natural Gas is the only company out of the>gate.>>Northern Star wants to distribute imported natural gas through the>large Williams Northwest Pipeline, which runs through Cowlitz County>parallel to Interstate 5. To link up with that line, Northern Star>would build a 35-mile pipeline parallel to Highway 30 in Columbia>County. It would cross the Columbia River to connect with the>Williams Northwest Pipeline north of Kalama, according to Northern>Star filings.>>Construction would create 300 temporary jobs, and the complete>facility would employ about 75 people, said Gary Coppedge, vice>president of Northern Star Natural Gas. He did not have information>available about the typical salaries of these future employees.>>It's not worth it, local activists argue.>>LNG facilities have been identified by the Department of Homeland>Security as a potential terrorist target.>>Although supporters and opponents of an LNG import terminal agree>that an attack is unlikely, anti-LNG activists say that the needed>security precautions would disrupt life along the Columbia River.>>The U.S. Coast Guard enforces a buffer zone around traveling LNG>tankers, according to the Center for Liquified Natural Gas,>forbidding other boats and ships from getting too close.>>"The river is a confined waterway, and the LNG tankers will interrupt>commerce, fishing and other ships that come in, including cruise>ships, commercial fishing, sports fishing and sports boating," said>Rose Priven of Warrenton, Ore., who has become involved with anti-LNG>group Columbia RiverVision.>>The Daily News was unable to determine this week how often LNG>tankers would sail into the Columbia.>>LNG opponents also worry about the emissions from an LNG import>facility, which would burn natural gas for heat to warm up liquified>gas, Priven said.>>Although Northern Star Natural Gas' proposal would use a remote site,>shielded from its neighbors by small mountains and tall hills, some>LNG developers want to build near Astoria, which would put local>people at risk in the event of an accident or attack, Priven said.>>"If we have to import LNG, which I'm not convinced we do, then I>think maybe off-shore terminals would be better," Priven said.>>Because of its remote location, Bradwood, Ore., may be the safest>site for LNG imports in the region, countered Coppedge of Northern>Star.>>"All of the environmental impacts will be mitigated," Coppedge said.>"We have to meet EPA and local regulations. The impact of this LNG>facility will be much less than a manufacturing facility on the>river.">>

Earth Day

2005-03-19T12:30:00.000-08:00

CRISIS ON THE COLUMBIA

LNG: THE NEXT GOLD RUSH “The only way an LNG plant can be penciled out economically is if the LNG(stored on the Columbia) is supplied to California” Congressman David Wu, March 12, 2005, Clatskanie, Oregon

Dear Friends, In early November, the Daily Astorian reported that the Port of Astoria, in a “special meeting”, held at 5'oclock on Friday afternoon , signed a 65-year, transferable lease with Calpine Corporation to build a liquified natural gas receiving terminal on the mouth of the Skipanon River. Now, a few months later, it is revealed that there are three more LNG plants being proposed for the Lower Columbia.

So what’s going on here? The Port Commissioners claim they are just giving the citizens an opportunity for jobs, and by signing the lease without public input, they have opened the way to “civilized discourse” about LNG receiving terminals. The perception management specialists say that LNG is “Clean, Safe, and Needed”. However, the tanker ships and tankers require massive security, since LNG stores a lot of energy in a small space, and could explode if mixed with the right amount of oxygen. The military exclusion zones required around the tanks and tankers are “flexible”, we are told; in Massachusetts they are large and in Puerto Rico they are small. And Talking Heads are flying in from all over to give us PowerPoints.

But only four LNG receiving terminals exist in the entire US, and cities form Tampa, Florida, to Harpswell, Maine, Vallejo and Eureka, California have succeeded in keeping LNG out. If LNG is indeed, “clean, safe, and needed”, why the bother?

On one point everyone agrees: LNG is a very volatile, extremely high-tech product that needs special care and handling. And there is considerable controversy about how much energy these plants provide, for whom, and at what cost.

Please join us on Earth Day, April 23, for a lively discussion of LNG: THE NEXT GOLD RUSH.

Thanks, from your neighbors at RiverVision and People for a Responsible Prosperity

LNG: THE NEXT GOLD RUSH

Earth Day Forum

Warrenton Community Center170 SW 3rd Warrenton, OregonSaturday, April 2310-4Speakers:

Mike Buettner, Founder, LNGWatch, Eureka, California

Julian Darley, author, High Noon for Natural Gas, Founder, Post-Carbon Institute, Vancouver, British Columbia

Peter Huhtala, Senior Analyst, Pacific Marine Conservation Council, Astoria, Oregon

Paul Koberstein, Editor, Cascadia Times, Portland, Oregon

Dan Serres, Friends of Living Oregon Waters, Grant’s Pass, Oregon

$25. Donation suggested; lunch provided if you preregister.RSVP 503 325 1935; tduncan@pacifier.com

LNG tanker safety zones

2005-03-16T11:38:00.000-08:00

Trio of Port candidates call for LNG tanker safety zones

Contact: Peter Huhtala – 440-3211, Rose Priven – 861-2475, Tom Brownson – 440-3939

For immediate release:

March 15, 2005 (Astoria, Oregon) Three citizens seeking to unseat incumbent members of the Port of Astoria Commission have jointly called on the Coast Guard to regulate minimum exclusion zones for LNG tankers. Rose Priven of Warrenton, and Tom Brownson and Peter Huhtala of Astoria, say in their letter to the Department of Transportation, “As candidates for public office we firmly believe that, if we are elected, we have a responsibility to protect the health and safety of our constituents.”

The federal government had been considering a petition by the City of Fall River, Massachusetts, to establish thermal and vapor dispersion zones for LNG spills over water. Presently there are no minimum national standards for such zones.

An opportunity for the public to weigh in on the issue emerged last week when the Coast Guard agreed to consider additional comments and to allow a threat analysis on LNG shipments to enter the record. This analysis is being prepared for the State of Rhode Island by Richard Clarke, anti-terrorism advisor to four U.S. presidents.

“While Mr. Clarke’s report will gather a great deal of attention, the open comment period is a chance for those of us in the lower Columbia region to highlight the needs of our communities,” said Peter Huhtala. “This is a central issue for all who use and enjoy the river. If our activities would have to defer to the LNG shipments, we have a right to know.”

The government has regulations to put an exclusion zone around the LNG storage tanks, but no national regulations for exclusion zones around LNG tankers, although the ships are widely considered to be more vulnerable. Instead, the Coast Guard establishes site-specific security measures after terminals are sited. This makes local evaluation of interference with all other marine uses difficult, the candidates say. In their letter they state: “Waiting until late in the process before understanding the safety and security measures that will surround LNG tanker transit makes it impossible to consider the cumulative economic and social impacts of terminal siting.”

“We could face the loss of many more jobs than might be offered at an LNG import terminal,” said Tom Brownson. “If the government provided the basic regulations up front, we could run the numbers. We could decide whether the losses to commercial fishing, recreation and tourism are worth the promised jobs in the LNG industry. These are issues that will affect all residents of Clatsop County.”

Based on recent studies, tanker exclusion zones could extend from 500 meters to two miles or more. The candidates’ letter calls for the Coast Guard to determine the zones “based on the best scientific information available, and include a precautionary factor to allow for uncertainty in modeling.”

Rose Priven points out that the Columbia River shipping channel passes close by the communities of Hammond, Warrenton and Astoria. “If the government is going to sufficiently protect its citizens from a low probability event with one of these tankers,” she said, “then the safety zones may well require extreme and unpleasant security measures along the waterfront when the LNG ships pass.”

The candidates are encouraging the existing Port of Astoria Commission and other local governments to join them in calling for national regulations. “It’s not fair to leave the public guessing, speculating just how bad this would be,” said Huhtala. “We need some basic guidelines.”

Understanding the truth about the requirements for safe LNG shipment may rule out some import terminal locations. The letter states: “If ensuring the security of the tankers, and protecting life and property while tankers are in transit or berthed at a proposed terminal, would involve measures unacceptable to the public, then no one need waste time debating or processing an application for that location.”

Tansy Point LNG

2005-02-21T09:20:00.000-08:00

On Feb 17th, at the Warrenton City Commission meeting,
Mayor Gramson read a press release. It said that Warrenton
Fiber was approached by a company that wanted to put an
LNG facility at the Nygaard logging yard. It is a City of
Warrenton property, that is leased to Warrenton Fiber, who
want to discuss the possibility of amending the lease. The
press release also said that no decisions have been made and
that they (The Warrenton City Commission) have received
no written proposal. "We believe that our tenant may request
a preliminary agreement to allow a feasibility investigation."
"The city will make no agreement without advanced public
notice and an opportunity for Warrenton residents to be
heard in an open public forum." Hopefully, with more notice
than the Port of Astoria gave.

"The City Commission will reserve any judgement and
requests all citizens do the same until the facts are in and
a public process has occurred." If that is, in fact, true, then
that would be a wonderful thing. However, we have seen
with the Port Of Astoria, that is not always true. Mr. Gramson
was also in on that deal with Calpine, knew about it way
before hand, and never said anything about it. What makes
us believe that this would be any different??

Having said all this, it smacks of nothing more than rumor,
in a slightly more public way. We will reserve judgement
as to the authenticity of this rumor, till we see or hear more.
It may be just a way of making the Skipanon plant look more
viable.

Port Of Astoria Commission

2005-02-15T09:52:00.000-08:00

Rose Priven is now running for the Port Of Astoria Director (seat 5).
Peter Huhtala is running for the Port Of Astoria commissioner also
(seat 1). The last I heard, no one is running against Glenn Taggart
for Port Of Astoria (seat 2). Anyone willing to volunteer? These
three seats could be very important in the ending of this LNG fiasco.
I, for one will be campaigning for Rose and Peter, in any way that I
can. I suggest, that everyone who feels that the LNG needs to go away,
do the same. Next up may be the Warrenton City Commission.

New LNG plants

2005-02-10T16:25:00.000-08:00

This morning on my way into work, I heard on KAST (local radio station),
that there was a rumor about two more LNG plants. One at Tansy Point
(around the Nygaard logging yard, I presume) and one in Bradwood (a
small town just to the west of Wauna paper mill). I immediately was
concerned about that!! I talked on an online forum to a few gentlemen
with more knowledge on the political point of view. One, from the Port
of Astoria, was saying that Tansy point would be way too close to the channel
that it would shut down the channel during offloading along with the transit
in and out. That would probably not do well, but Bradwood?? Now, the other
gentleman, well, to sum up what he said...It sounded kind of fishy to him.
That the radio station was the only one to hear the rumors, and that it was
the same radio station that is paid (probably heavily) to advertise for Calpine.
I started wondering if this might be a "red herring" to throw us off from
Calpines track, and try to get us to waste resources on something totally
unrealistic. The security concerns with Port Westward and the channel
would be the same for Bradwood. It would monumentally affect shipping
from/to the Port of Portland. Not to say that Port Westward is out of the
thick of things. The Astoria/Megler bridge to Washington state would have
to be closed to all traffic while the LNG ships would go under (or get close
to). The Port Commissioner remarked that Calpine looks alot better now,
doesn't it? I get the feeling that that is just what they want us to think.
Calpine's Peter Hansen was on the radio in a brief sound bite, stating that
Calpine would bow out if another corporation came in and got up to speed
with another plant first. Not room enough for two LNG plants, just one.
Is this supposed to make us feel better?? Pick your spot!! I don't think so!!

PFRP website

2005-02-06T11:22:00.000-08:00

There is a website to come, that will have more information on LNG.
It should be out soon, hopefully this next week of Feb 7. There has been
alot of information that has come by way of Eureka. There will be a meeting
of Calpine with the local commercial fishermen (as reported by the Daily Astorian),
this week sometime. The information listed, in a comment to the bottom entry
on this blog, will be very informative to those same fishermen, if they care to look
at it. I have sent the "Salmon For All" an e-mail that will lead them to the ourastoria
website that has a forum. In that forum, Mike from Eureka, has sent a few entries that
are very informative. I would encourage anyone looking for more info to visit that site
also. Find at www.bridgecity.homestead.com. community forum.

2005-02-02T07:41:00.000-08:00

Security

2005-01-29T14:00:00.000-08:00

According to Mr. Glascock, Director of Environmental Dept. at the Mayors office in Boston Ma. ,security is tight enough in Boston that they have police officers, plainclothes and uniformed along the side of the river when the LNG ships come in. I also went to a website where they talk about snipers in the vicinity of the harbor. SNIPERS!! Sounds like a pretty safe and secure cargo to me. Unfortunately, the City of Boston(taxpayers) pick up the tab on all of the police presence in the area. The Coast Guard and Homeland security(which the Coast Guard is part of now) pay for Coast Guard boats and personnel. Mr. Glascock talked about the Gunboats that the Coast Guard sends along the route of the LNG tanker, and that there have been times when they have fired warning shots around boats that don't comply with the security zones. What will happen when the CG has to make fishing boats, commercial and sport, stay in port or go back to port when the huge LNG tankers come in? How will the new Cruise ships that the Port of Astoria has been courting, take it?? How much money does the City of Warrenton plan on paying it's meager police force to hire more police (with probably overtime hours) to watch the banks of the river as these ships come in? Where is that money going to come from? Does the City of Warrenton know that this is being done in Boston and that it may very well have to be done here? Is the Port Of Astoria going to help the City of Warrenton pay for all these people? The City of Boston, according to Mr. Glascock, has put in to the federal government to be reimbursed for it's expenses. None has been paid to date. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that. On top of it all, the City of Boston gets no revenue from the LNG plant since it's in Everett, MA. Do you think Warrenton will get enough in revenue (or any revenue), to cover all of the expenses it will take to have this thing here??

Potential killing of Salmon/Fishing

2005-01-25T08:20:00.000-08:00

My wife found this article and we were very disturbed by the ways in which LNG can be heated back into it's gaseous state. "Open Rack Vaporization"(ORV) is the method that Calpine will most likely want to use to do this. They would take water out of the Columbia river(approx 10-20 million Gals per day), chemically treat the water(so as not to corrode/plug their warming pipes), run it through the system to heat the gas, then discharge it back into the river. This treated water(essentially sterilized water) will be lacking in bacteria and other food for salmon and all fish and will cause all kinds of consequences such as killing fish or mutating fish.
ORV is preferential to the LNG companies, due to it's low cost. They can use a gas heating method, but that will have to burn some of the gas that they bring, and can cost up to 10 times more than ORV in operating expenses.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration found a 100 Percent mortality rate of all organisms entrained by the vaporizer. Greenpeace says "this will cause toxic and mutagenic effects that damage the processes of reproduction, feeding, and respiration in marine life."
Is this what we want in our eco-system?
Is this what we want in the Youngs Bay Salmon smolt nursery?
All of this, and more....small fry fish that commonly use this area currently, can be sucked into the pipes that will bring the water to the plant.
If the LNG companies use the gas heating method versus the ORV method, it also could cause acid rain with the nitrogen from the air, and the sulphur from the source. It would be one of
the worst polluters in the county.

Impact of LNG Plant

2005-01-24T11:03:00.000-08:00

Perhaps we should also list what will be impacted by the new plant.

Property insurance rates for Warrenton and Astoria Residences/Businesses
Property Values
Security Zone affecting cruise ships arrivals/departures
Security Zone affecting commercial/sport fishing vessels from access to Skippanon Mooring Basin
Security zone affecting all commercial shipping in Columbia River.
Security zone interupting bouy 10 fishery.
Area of the mouth of Skippanon will have to be dredged.

Meet with City Councilman

2005-01-24T07:25:00.000-08:00

Hi all....At the City Council meeting on the 19th of Jan, after Sally got done with her
presentation to the city council, and then most of their other items on the agenda,
Mr Gramson said that he would be available to meet with residents at 9:30 to 10:00
on Monday mornings. He originally said 10:30 but then changed it to 10:00. It may be
a good time to let him know what we think, since he is the prime mover for LNG in
the city. There may be more than him there from the council, but if there are more than
two councilman there(including Mr. Gramson) then it is a public meeting and they have to
have someone there to take the minutes of the meeting.

List of other possible uses of land

2005-01-23T11:11:00.000-08:00

I want to create a list of other possible uses for the space that LNG would be taking.

RV park/recreational area/viewing platform
Unique river shops/restaurants
Bird viewing/sanctuary

Community Meeting

2005-01-22T11:12:00.000-08:00

There will be a Community Meeting at the Warrenton Community
Center on Feb 8 at 7:00 to 9:00pm. The meeting is to discuss LNG, ask
questions of people in the know, etc.