Pipeline taps residents' fears
Hundreds worry about a gas line's effect on their land and environment
Friday, November 16, 2007
TED SICKINGER The Oregonian
A chorus of concerns rang out this week as landowners along the snaking route of a proposed natural gas pipeline showed signs of organizing to oppose the line and liquefied natural gas terminals along the lower Columbia River.
Several hundred landowners, farmers, advocates and concerned residents aired their complaints at public meetings this week in Maupin, Molalla, McMinnville and, on Thursday, Forest Grove. The towns sit along the proposed route of the Palomar pipeline, which would connect a planned LNG terminal near Astoria with an interstate transmission line that runs through central Oregon to California.
Douglas Sipe, a project manager from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, was the man behind the lectern and thus the stand-in punching bag for both his agency and the private companies that want to build the terminal and pipeline.
Most speakers expressed deep misgivings about the agency's ability to deal with associated threats to people, wildlife, farmland and the environment.
Tuesday night's meeting in Molalla was raucous.
"Emotions were running high," Sipe said. "It was hard for me to say anything to make people happy."
Wednesday's meeting in McMinnville was lower key, if no less heartfelt. Ilsa Perse, a landowner from Carlton, told Sipe that it was increasingly difficult to discriminate between where the federal government ends and private companies begin.
"California told these companies to take a hike, and I find it a little weird that we now get the special privilege" of hosting them in Oregon, Perse said.
The Palomar pipeline is actually a joint venture between Northwest Natural Gas Co., the state's largest gas utility, and TransCanada Pipelines Ltd., which owns an interstate pipeline that runs through central Oregon to California.
Palomar is one of two proposed pipelines that would connect planned LNG terminals on the lower Columbia River to TransCanada's line in central Oregon. The second would connect to the planned Bradwood Landing LNG terminal 20 miles upriver from Astoria. Both pipelines would run through Clatsop, Washington, Yamhill, Marion, Clackamas and Wasco counties. A third LNG terminal is being considered in Coos Bay, with a pipeline that runs to near the California border.
Supporters of the LNG projects and pipelines contend that the new gas supply and pipelines would bolster economic development and protect the region from price shocks as domestic and Canadian gas supplies get tighter.
Yet the California question looms large over all of the projects. Critics say Oregon's gas needs are a fraction of the proposed terminals' capacity. They worry that the state is a back door for shipping foreign fossil fuels to its southern neighbor, where gas prices are higher and citizens have helped block LNG proposals.
Palomar backers and the company bankrolling the Bradwood Landing LNG terminal, Houston-based NorthernStar Natural Gas, Inc., don't even like to associate the two projects together in public for fear that opposition to one will infect the other.
NW Natural's rationale for Palomar is to diversify its customers' supply of natural gas. Even if the LNG terminal is never built, the Portland company says it wants to build the section of Palomar that links its distribution hub in Molalla, southeast of Portland, with TransCanada's interstate line in central Oregon.
NW Natural says such a link has been contemplated for the past 15 years. Palomar officials maintain that the company can rationalize extending the pipeline farther west to serve growing areas of Washington County that NW Natural doesn't serve today.
Critics remain skeptical. They contend the local gas monopoly, constrained by the slow growth of its regulated business, wants a piece of the lucrative interstate gas trade, which would complement its growing natural gas storage facilities in Mist, near the LNG terminal.
Opponents of the projects maintain that a high-pressure, 36-inch pipe crossing the Cascades -- one costing hundreds of millions of dollars -- doesn't make economic sense if NW Natural isn't moving vast quantities of gas from an LNG terminal each day.
"There's no credible, straight-faced argument that these projects are being driven by Oregon's needs," said Brent Foster, an advocate with Columbia Riverkeepers.
Sipe, the FERC project manager, acknowledged the concerns over California at the public meetings, but he said the Palomar pipeline and the LNG terminal at Bradwood would be evaluated separately since the owners intend to build them regardless of whether the other project is approved. He also confirmed many landowners' fears when he acknowledged Wednesday night in McMinnville that they "won't necessarily have a vote" on the pipeline, even if it runs across their land.
But Sipe stressed that the public input would help shape the agency's environmental analyses of the project, which is a key piece of its approval process.
Many landowners fear the property and environmental damage that could come with a 50- to 100-foot right-of-way across their property. Their concerns range from the increased risk of wildfire and introduction of noxious weeds to destruction of valuable farm and timberland. Many wonder who will pay their attorneys' fees and the property taxes on land that is no longer productive, or whether they can push the pipeline into existing public right-of-ways.
Landowners along the pipeline route are forming local chapters of a group they call Oregon Citizens Against the Pipeline.
Jody Hawkins, a landowner from Yamhill, told Sipe on Wednesday that his kids play on a baseball diamond 30 feet from the proposed pipeline route and his house sits 200 feet away.
"If a 36-inch gas line (explodes), my house is gone, my kids are gone," Hawkins said.
This week's meetings aren't the only chance for the public to provide input on the project. They can write or provide electronic comments to the agency until Nov 28. FERC will hold another round of hearings after it issues a draft environmental impact statement in June, Sipe said.
"They can think what they want about the federal government," Sipe said. "But we're out there trying to protect the public while providing the infrastructure that the nation needs."
Ted Sickinger: 503-221-8505, tedsickinger@news.oregonian.com
©2007 The Oregonian
Friday, November 16, 2007
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
1000 Friends of Oregon LNG Pipeline and Terminal Position Statement
1000 Friends of Oregon LNG Pipeline and Terminal Position Statement
Liquefied Natural Gas pipelines and terminals threaten livable urban and rural communities, family farms and forests, and natural and scenic areas across Oregon.
Oregon faces an unprecedented number of proposals for Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) import terminals, pipelines, and related facilities. Two terminals are currently proposed for the Columbia River Estuary, and a third terminal is proposed for Coos Bay. Hundreds of miles of pipeline are proposed from the Columbia River terminals to Molalla, from Central Oregon to Molalla, and from Coos Bay to the California border. These pipelines would cut across hundreds of miles of productive farm and forest land to serve utilities in California, where the vast majority of the gas from the three terminals would be used.
1000 Friends of Oregon is opposed to these proposals because the pipelines threaten family farms and forests and the terminals threaten sensitive estuaries and the fisheries that depend on them. Oregon and the Pacific Northwest are already feeling the effects of global warming. Constructing huge facilities to import fossil fuels will worsen these effects and undercut our goals for energy independence.
If the LNG facilities are built, they should be built on Oregon’s terms. The pipelines should follow existing roads and rights-of-way, instead of plowing through the middle of productive farm fields and forest lands that support Oregon families. The terminals should fully comply with Oregon’s Statewide Planning Goals without exceptions, including Goal 16, which protects Estuarine Resources.
In the words of 1000 Friends co-founder, Governor Tom McCall:
"Oregon is demure and lovely, and ought to play a little hard to get. And I think you’ll all be just as sick as I am if you find it is nothing but a hungry hussy, throwing herself at every stinking smokestack that’s offered."
Liquefied Natural Gas pipelines and terminals threaten livable urban and rural communities, family farms and forests, and natural and scenic areas across Oregon.
Oregon faces an unprecedented number of proposals for Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) import terminals, pipelines, and related facilities. Two terminals are currently proposed for the Columbia River Estuary, and a third terminal is proposed for Coos Bay. Hundreds of miles of pipeline are proposed from the Columbia River terminals to Molalla, from Central Oregon to Molalla, and from Coos Bay to the California border. These pipelines would cut across hundreds of miles of productive farm and forest land to serve utilities in California, where the vast majority of the gas from the three terminals would be used.
1000 Friends of Oregon is opposed to these proposals because the pipelines threaten family farms and forests and the terminals threaten sensitive estuaries and the fisheries that depend on them. Oregon and the Pacific Northwest are already feeling the effects of global warming. Constructing huge facilities to import fossil fuels will worsen these effects and undercut our goals for energy independence.
If the LNG facilities are built, they should be built on Oregon’s terms. The pipelines should follow existing roads and rights-of-way, instead of plowing through the middle of productive farm fields and forest lands that support Oregon families. The terminals should fully comply with Oregon’s Statewide Planning Goals without exceptions, including Goal 16, which protects Estuarine Resources.
In the words of 1000 Friends co-founder, Governor Tom McCall:
"Oregon is demure and lovely, and ought to play a little hard to get. And I think you’ll all be just as sick as I am if you find it is nothing but a hungry hussy, throwing herself at every stinking smokestack that’s offered."
Monday, November 12, 2007
Havens Says Bradwood/Northern Star Misused His Models!!
From: Energy Current - Houston, Texas
LNG expert says vapor model used inaccurately
Filed from Houston 11/12/2007 6:53:51 PM GMT
USA: A chemical engineering professor at the University of Arkansas said that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and NorthernStar Natural Gas have misused models he devised to calculate how far a vapor cloud would travel if liquefied natural gas (LNG) spilled from the proposed Bradwood LNG facility on the Columbia River in Oregon, the Longview Daily News reported last week.
Havens also said the data FERC used assumes a relatively small spill, which skews proejcts for how far vapor rising off leading LNG could spread.
Havens testified at a FERC hearing in Astoria, Ore. about NorthernStar's plans to bring LNG tankers up the river to Bradwood, Ore. The company would unload two 168-foot (51-m) tall tanks, regasify and send it to market via a new pipeline spanning Clatsop, Columbia and Cowlitz counties.
FERC is considering whether to issue permits for the proposed terminal and pipeline.
Havens said FERC used two models, both authored by him, to set safety zones for vapor clouds at LNG terminals. If a spill occurs, gas vapor must be projected to stay within the terminal's property, or the terminal cannot be approved.
Haven noted that the size of the projected spill in NorthernStar's data is smaller than spills project in other terminal applications, which suggests the company is cherrypicking data to get the facility approved. NorthernStar said its LNG tanks will be double-lined and that the risk of a spill is minimal.
NorthernStar spokesman Joe Desmond called Havens a "professional opponent" and said the professor has given similar testimony on the applications of 14 different LNG terminals. In each case, Desmond said, Havens' arguments were rebuffed.
Environmental group Columbia Riverkeeper paid Havens' expenses to travel to Astoria, but Havens said he is not employed by the environmental group.
While LNG spills are "highly unlikely," if an LNG fire engulfed the LNG tanker itself, there's a chance the fire could break open other containments on the ship and cause "cascading failures" in which case more LNG would be released, and "the whole thing would burn," The Daily Astorian quoted Havens as saying, citing a recent report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO). Havens made the statement while addressing Astoria city and county leaders at the Astoria City Hall on Nov. 8.
Havens, who has studied LNG for over 30 years, said with the "feeding frenzy" to get approvals for LNG terminals, companies have incentives to "cut corners" and federal agencies may be under pressure to "grease the wheels."
The GAO report said more research is needed on the issue, and Havens said the result of new research study might result in more new LNG terminals offshore rather than onshore near population centers.
LNG expert says vapor model used inaccurately
Filed from Houston 11/12/2007 6:53:51 PM GMT
USA: A chemical engineering professor at the University of Arkansas said that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and NorthernStar Natural Gas have misused models he devised to calculate how far a vapor cloud would travel if liquefied natural gas (LNG) spilled from the proposed Bradwood LNG facility on the Columbia River in Oregon, the Longview Daily News reported last week.
Havens also said the data FERC used assumes a relatively small spill, which skews proejcts for how far vapor rising off leading LNG could spread.
Havens testified at a FERC hearing in Astoria, Ore. about NorthernStar's plans to bring LNG tankers up the river to Bradwood, Ore. The company would unload two 168-foot (51-m) tall tanks, regasify and send it to market via a new pipeline spanning Clatsop, Columbia and Cowlitz counties.
FERC is considering whether to issue permits for the proposed terminal and pipeline.
Havens said FERC used two models, both authored by him, to set safety zones for vapor clouds at LNG terminals. If a spill occurs, gas vapor must be projected to stay within the terminal's property, or the terminal cannot be approved.
Haven noted that the size of the projected spill in NorthernStar's data is smaller than spills project in other terminal applications, which suggests the company is cherrypicking data to get the facility approved. NorthernStar said its LNG tanks will be double-lined and that the risk of a spill is minimal.
NorthernStar spokesman Joe Desmond called Havens a "professional opponent" and said the professor has given similar testimony on the applications of 14 different LNG terminals. In each case, Desmond said, Havens' arguments were rebuffed.
Environmental group Columbia Riverkeeper paid Havens' expenses to travel to Astoria, but Havens said he is not employed by the environmental group.
While LNG spills are "highly unlikely," if an LNG fire engulfed the LNG tanker itself, there's a chance the fire could break open other containments on the ship and cause "cascading failures" in which case more LNG would be released, and "the whole thing would burn," The Daily Astorian quoted Havens as saying, citing a recent report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO). Havens made the statement while addressing Astoria city and county leaders at the Astoria City Hall on Nov. 8.
Havens, who has studied LNG for over 30 years, said with the "feeding frenzy" to get approvals for LNG terminals, companies have incentives to "cut corners" and federal agencies may be under pressure to "grease the wheels."
The GAO report said more research is needed on the issue, and Havens said the result of new research study might result in more new LNG terminals offshore rather than onshore near population centers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)