From "The Daily Astorian" Letters To The Editor
LNG actually threatens local, state economyBy Robert Stang and Don WestFor The Daily AstorianLast Wednesday the CEO of Northewrn Star Natural Gas shared his response to the U.S. Coast Guard's assessment of Columbia River security issues concerning the proposed liquefied national gas terminal at Bradwood Landing. Today a recently formed group of LNG opponents offers its thoughts on the issue.The Texas energy speculators and their public relations staff at Northern Star must think that the local business community in Astoria just fell off the turnip truck. They have to believe that the communities around the Columbia Estuary are too "small town," un-educated, or gullible to question their almost silly editorial claim that bringing LNG tankers into the Columbia would somehow "benefit ship traffic" and "improve safety" for our community.George Orwell would be proud of Northern Star's editorial spin, but it lacks any basis in reality. It's easy to understand Northern Star's interest in trying to put a positive glow on the U.S. Coast Guard's recent report which found allowing LNG tankers into the Columbia would require serious restrictions on Columbia River ship traffic and fundamentally change life on the Columbia as we now know it. But claiming that bringing high-risk LNG tankers and the intense security measures that surround them would somehow benefit ship traffic or public safety is an insult to the intelligence of our community. The findings of the report summary, and the majority of the report which were not public, were so serious that even U.S. Rep. Brian Baird, who had only said positive things about the project for the last year, is now against Northern Star's project and threatening to withhold funding from the Coast Guard and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission if necessary to stop the project.The portion of the Coast Guard's waterway suitability report that was made publicly available made a number of things clear about how LNG tankers would threaten our local economy and use and travel on the Columbia River.As LNG opponents have claimed would occur, the Coast Guard explained that "Due to a narrow shipping channel, numerous navigational hazards and the proximity to populated areas," the Coast Guard would require a 1,500 foot wide security zone around any LNG tanker in the estuary. Because the Columbia shipping channel is only 600 feet wide at best, this exclusion zone would effectively shut the Columbia down to one-way river traffic when LNG tankers were in the river and effectively force other boaters, fisherman and shippers to margins of the river or off it all together.The Coast Guard identified only four specific sections of the Columbia where other commercial ships could pass oncoming LNG tankers, but even in these locations it said "meeting situations will be closely controlled" and allowed only on a "case-by-case basis" by the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard also said it would prohibit all ships from passing slow-moving LNG tankers from behind. While this makes sense from a safety perspective, it would create a daily bottle-neck in Columbia River traffic that would seriously impact all river users, since with several inbound and outbound tanker trips a week LNG tankers would be a dominant new feature on the river. What the Coast Guard report made clear was that free passage on the Columbia would come to an end with the arrival of LNG tankers. While this may benefit some of the river pilots, who could prosper from the chaos of sending high risk LNG tankers up the narrow Columbia shipping channel; commercial and recreational fisherman, recreational boaters, and commercial river traffic would be hard hit. The Coast Guard report also specifically acknowledged the obvious conflict between LNG tankers and cruise ships and requires that if LNG tankers were allowed into the Columbia "cruise ships will require separate waterside security" and will be prohibited from ever passing LNG tankers. How much would this new security cost? How many times would cruise ships be forced to wait outside the bar while priority LNG tankers move up-river? How long would it be before cruise lines take their business elsewhere?But the extent to which the whole feel of our community would change if we became a high-security LNG highway was highlighted by the Coast Guard's requirement for Northern Star to establish 24-hour a day "camera system with complete coverage of the entire transit route." The Coast Guard estimated it would take 20 people to operate this massive new camera system. So much for a private day of fishing with your family.Finally, the Coast Guard recognized that there were not adequate existing security, fire, or emergency response capabilities, but offered no suggestions as to how cash-strapped local communities, state agencies or even the Coast Guard could afford to maintain the massive security infrastructure necessary to protect the public from LNG.While the Californians who would end up with the gas imported through our backyards may enjoy benefits from Northern Star's project, the recent Coast Guard report is just the latest sign that our economy and community will not.
Robert Stang is Columbia River Business Alliance president and Don West is vice-president
