"We demand that big business give the people a square deal; in return we must insist that when anyone engaged in big business honestly endeavors to do right he shall himself be given a square deal." Theodore Roosevelt November 15, 1913
Friday, January 11, 2008
Should America Follw This Man's Lead?
Prime Minister John Howard - Australia
Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on Wednesday to get out of Australia , as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks.
Separately, Howard angered some Australian Muslims on Wednesday by saying he supported spy agencies monitoring the nation's mosques. Quote: 'IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT. Take It Or Leave It. I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Bali , we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians'.
'This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom'. 'We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society . Learn the language!'
'Most Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian, right wing, political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture.'
'We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us.'
'This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom,
'THE RIGHT TO LEAVE'.'
'If you aren't happy here then LEAVE. We didn't force you to come here. You asked to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted.'
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
LNG: Report Says LNG/Oil Tankers Vulnerable - Coast Guard Protection Inadequate
By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer Wed Jan 9, 7:17 PM ET
The Coast Guard lacks the resources to adequately protect tankers carrying liquefied petroleum or crude oil from a possible terrorist attack, congressional auditors reported Wednesday.
The report by the Government Accountability Office said the Coast Guard is stretched too thin in some cases "to meet its own self-imposed security standards such as escorting ships carrying liquefied natural gas."
Also, said the report, some ports visited by the government auditors did not have the resources needed to promptly respond to a terrorist attack on a crude oil or LNG tanker, including a shortage of fire boats and inadequately trained people.
The GAO report said past incidents overseas have shown that fuel-carrying tankers are significant terrorist targets, with the biggest concern being a suicide attack. The report noted the 2002 suicide boat attack on a tanker off the coast or Yemen, for example.
While the GAO cited no specific terrorist threat to a vessel or U.S. port, the report said "the threat of seaboard terrorist attacks on maritime energy tankers and infrastructure is likely to persist," with the greatest risks at shipping chokepoints far from U.S. shores.
But it also said the United States "has limitations" in its ability to head off a terrorist plot overseas and that actions taken in U.S waters and ports "carry increased importance."
The Coast Guard has the primary responsibility for maritime security. It monitors arriving ships, boards vessels before they reach port and conducts escort patrols of incoming LNG tankers.
But the GAO auditors said Coast Guard documents show that at some ports a lack of resources has hindered some Coast Guard units from meeting their security duties, including vessel escorts and boarding. It said the Coast Guard has sought to prioritize its security activities to focus on the most risky shipments such as LNG, but that may have reduced security involving other commodities such as crude oil.
"We know that terrorists are looking for the weakest link in our security efforts, and this GAO report is a timely reminder that LNG and oil tankers are serious targets," said Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., who long has been concerned about security for LNG tankers going into Boston harbor.
Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said he would support more money for the Coast Guard for these security activities.
"If there is an attack on an energy tanker or terminal in a U.S. port there could be significant economic environmental and public safety consequences," Dingell said.
Tankers carrying liquefied petroleum now account for 3 percent of U.S. natural gas supplies and that is expected to grow significantly in the coming years. LNG imports now are equal to two large tankers arriving at a U.S. port every three days. There are four onshore LNG terminals operating, but federal regulators have approved construction of at least 11 new facilities, and dozens more have been proposed.
Fire from a terrorism attack against a tanker ship carrying LNG could ignite so fiercely it would burn people one mile away, according to various government studies.
A report by the GAO in March concluded that further research is needed to understand the consequences of an LNG inferno. But it also examined six unclassified studies about the effects of a major spill and fire aboard a double-hulled LNG tanker, concluding that fierce heat from the intense fire — not explosions — would be the biggest threat to the public.
LNG is natural gas that has been cooled to minus 260 degrees, so that it becomes a liquid that can be transported in a tanker. Once brought ashore it is warmed so that it again becomes natural gas.
The GAO report was requested by Dingell, Markey and Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas.
Barton said in a statement that most LNG safety experts surveyed by the GAO said the protection zones required for LNG tankers and terminals will protect the public.
"Who can disagree that in an age of suicide bombers and America-haters, the vessels which deliver energy to Americans warrant protection," Barton said. "We'll need to protect the tankers, but we'll require far fewer of them if we can summon the political will to produce our own energy from our own reserve."
Barton has been a strong advocate for opening more offshore waters for natural gas exploration and drilling and more domestic oil and gas production.
The Coast Guard lacks the resources to adequately protect tankers carrying liquefied petroleum or crude oil from a possible terrorist attack, congressional auditors reported Wednesday.
The report by the Government Accountability Office said the Coast Guard is stretched too thin in some cases "to meet its own self-imposed security standards such as escorting ships carrying liquefied natural gas."
Also, said the report, some ports visited by the government auditors did not have the resources needed to promptly respond to a terrorist attack on a crude oil or LNG tanker, including a shortage of fire boats and inadequately trained people.
The GAO report said past incidents overseas have shown that fuel-carrying tankers are significant terrorist targets, with the biggest concern being a suicide attack. The report noted the 2002 suicide boat attack on a tanker off the coast or Yemen, for example.
While the GAO cited no specific terrorist threat to a vessel or U.S. port, the report said "the threat of seaboard terrorist attacks on maritime energy tankers and infrastructure is likely to persist," with the greatest risks at shipping chokepoints far from U.S. shores.
But it also said the United States "has limitations" in its ability to head off a terrorist plot overseas and that actions taken in U.S waters and ports "carry increased importance."
The Coast Guard has the primary responsibility for maritime security. It monitors arriving ships, boards vessels before they reach port and conducts escort patrols of incoming LNG tankers.
But the GAO auditors said Coast Guard documents show that at some ports a lack of resources has hindered some Coast Guard units from meeting their security duties, including vessel escorts and boarding. It said the Coast Guard has sought to prioritize its security activities to focus on the most risky shipments such as LNG, but that may have reduced security involving other commodities such as crude oil.
"We know that terrorists are looking for the weakest link in our security efforts, and this GAO report is a timely reminder that LNG and oil tankers are serious targets," said Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., who long has been concerned about security for LNG tankers going into Boston harbor.
Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said he would support more money for the Coast Guard for these security activities.
"If there is an attack on an energy tanker or terminal in a U.S. port there could be significant economic environmental and public safety consequences," Dingell said.
Tankers carrying liquefied petroleum now account for 3 percent of U.S. natural gas supplies and that is expected to grow significantly in the coming years. LNG imports now are equal to two large tankers arriving at a U.S. port every three days. There are four onshore LNG terminals operating, but federal regulators have approved construction of at least 11 new facilities, and dozens more have been proposed.
Fire from a terrorism attack against a tanker ship carrying LNG could ignite so fiercely it would burn people one mile away, according to various government studies.
A report by the GAO in March concluded that further research is needed to understand the consequences of an LNG inferno. But it also examined six unclassified studies about the effects of a major spill and fire aboard a double-hulled LNG tanker, concluding that fierce heat from the intense fire — not explosions — would be the biggest threat to the public.
LNG is natural gas that has been cooled to minus 260 degrees, so that it becomes a liquid that can be transported in a tanker. Once brought ashore it is warmed so that it again becomes natural gas.
The GAO report was requested by Dingell, Markey and Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas.
Barton said in a statement that most LNG safety experts surveyed by the GAO said the protection zones required for LNG tankers and terminals will protect the public.
"Who can disagree that in an age of suicide bombers and America-haters, the vessels which deliver energy to Americans warrant protection," Barton said. "We'll need to protect the tankers, but we'll require far fewer of them if we can summon the political will to produce our own energy from our own reserve."
Barton has been a strong advocate for opening more offshore waters for natural gas exploration and drilling and more domestic oil and gas production.
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
From Willamette Week: Three Sources Say State Senator Betsy Johnson Under FBI Investigation!
Three Sources: State Sen. Betsy Johnson Under FBI Investigation
January 8th 2008 3:17pm
BY: Nigel Jaquiss - Willamette Week
(Click Jaquiss's name for full story)
January 8th 2008 3:17pm
BY: Nigel Jaquiss - Willamette Week
(Click Jaquiss's name for full story)
Oregon On Track To Add Seat In Congress
U.S. House - The state's growth positions it to gain a sixth representative after the 2010 Census
Friday, January 04, 2008
CHARLES POPE - The Oregonian
WASHINGTON -- If power in Congress is a measure of numbers, Oregon is likely to become a wee bit stronger after the 2010 Census.
Political demographers say Oregon is growing large enough and consistently enough to make it a strong candidate for adding a sixth House seat after the next census.
It would be the first addition to the Oregon delegation in 30 years.
"Earlier in the decade, we didn't see Oregon gaining a seat, but Oregon is now showing a strong potential," said Kimball W. Brace, president of Election Data Services, a Washington-based consulting firm that specializes in redistricting.
Brace's analysis, based on new census estimates, shows Northwest states booming, along with those in the Southeast and Southwest. The projections show population draining from the Northeast and Midwest.
Oregon's population is estimated to increase from 3.4 million in 2000, to 3.9 million by 2010, according to Census estimates.
Texas is likely to add four seats while Arizona and Florida would gain two each. Others likely to add at least one member of Congress are Georgia, Nevada and Utah. Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Missouri, New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania are projected to lose seats.
The projection of seats, which translates into winners and losers, is an intense parlor game played out every 10 years in state capitals and in Washington, D.C. Under federal law, legislative and congressional districts must be redrawn after each census to preserve one-person, one-vote equality. With the census completed by the end of 2010, the job will fall to a new governor and Legislature to remake Oregon's political map.
By law, the president is required to report the census results to the U.S. House early in the year. Within 15 days, the clerk of the House must tell all the governors how many seats their states get.
In Oregon, as in most states, the lines are drawn by the state Legislature, which means the party in power shapes districts to maximize its prospects. If the Legislature can't agree, the secretary of state intervenes to decide state legislative districts and a federal judge decides congressional lines.
It can get messy.
"It's usually the case that the Legislature can agree on congressional districts," said Norman Turrill, first vice president for the League of Women Voters of Oregon, who helped write a 2007 study on redistricting in Oregon. "They don't usually have a conflict of interest like they do when they draw their own boundaries."
Even so, if Oregon adds another House district, some difficult questions will have to be answered: Should the new seat be used to shrink the sprawling 2nd District in eastern Oregon that is rich with Republican voters? Should the lines around Portland be redrawn to consolidate it into a single district rather than divide the city and its suburbs among three lawmakers? Should the oddly-shaped 5th District, which runs from Clackamas County to the coast, be adjusted?
Whatever decisions are made, the districts will have to conform to unforgiving math; they will each have about 700,000 residents.
Here's more math: The number of House seats is capped at 435, which means a gain by one state causes another state to lose. Congress could change the number, though it seldom has. There were only 105 members after the first census in 1790. In 1910, Congress set the number at 435, where it has remained ever since.
Even the census itself is under scrutiny. State populations are derived by counting everybody -- citizens and non-citizens alike.
In March, Rep. Candice Miller, R-Mich., introduced legislation directing the Census Bureau to count only U.S. citizens. The bill quickly stalled.
"It's one thing if we lose seats simply because of population loss, but it's another thing if we lose this seat because of illegal immigration, and that's exactly what is happening," she said at the time.
All of this for an outcome that will barely move the needle on the power index. Even with six seats, Oregon will remain one of the smaller delegations, a far cry from California with 53 and still trailing Washington's nine. With six House members, Oregon will have parity with Kentucky and South Carolina.
"We'll have a little more clout in Washington, D.C.," Turrill says, "but not significantly more."
Charles Pope: 202 383-7819; charles.pope@newhouse.com
©2008 The Oregonian
Friday, January 04, 2008
CHARLES POPE - The Oregonian
WASHINGTON -- If power in Congress is a measure of numbers, Oregon is likely to become a wee bit stronger after the 2010 Census.
Political demographers say Oregon is growing large enough and consistently enough to make it a strong candidate for adding a sixth House seat after the next census.
It would be the first addition to the Oregon delegation in 30 years.
"Earlier in the decade, we didn't see Oregon gaining a seat, but Oregon is now showing a strong potential," said Kimball W. Brace, president of Election Data Services, a Washington-based consulting firm that specializes in redistricting.
Brace's analysis, based on new census estimates, shows Northwest states booming, along with those in the Southeast and Southwest. The projections show population draining from the Northeast and Midwest.
Oregon's population is estimated to increase from 3.4 million in 2000, to 3.9 million by 2010, according to Census estimates.
Texas is likely to add four seats while Arizona and Florida would gain two each. Others likely to add at least one member of Congress are Georgia, Nevada and Utah. Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Missouri, New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania are projected to lose seats.
The projection of seats, which translates into winners and losers, is an intense parlor game played out every 10 years in state capitals and in Washington, D.C. Under federal law, legislative and congressional districts must be redrawn after each census to preserve one-person, one-vote equality. With the census completed by the end of 2010, the job will fall to a new governor and Legislature to remake Oregon's political map.
By law, the president is required to report the census results to the U.S. House early in the year. Within 15 days, the clerk of the House must tell all the governors how many seats their states get.
In Oregon, as in most states, the lines are drawn by the state Legislature, which means the party in power shapes districts to maximize its prospects. If the Legislature can't agree, the secretary of state intervenes to decide state legislative districts and a federal judge decides congressional lines.
It can get messy.
"It's usually the case that the Legislature can agree on congressional districts," said Norman Turrill, first vice president for the League of Women Voters of Oregon, who helped write a 2007 study on redistricting in Oregon. "They don't usually have a conflict of interest like they do when they draw their own boundaries."
Even so, if Oregon adds another House district, some difficult questions will have to be answered: Should the new seat be used to shrink the sprawling 2nd District in eastern Oregon that is rich with Republican voters? Should the lines around Portland be redrawn to consolidate it into a single district rather than divide the city and its suburbs among three lawmakers? Should the oddly-shaped 5th District, which runs from Clackamas County to the coast, be adjusted?
Whatever decisions are made, the districts will have to conform to unforgiving math; they will each have about 700,000 residents.
Here's more math: The number of House seats is capped at 435, which means a gain by one state causes another state to lose. Congress could change the number, though it seldom has. There were only 105 members after the first census in 1790. In 1910, Congress set the number at 435, where it has remained ever since.
Even the census itself is under scrutiny. State populations are derived by counting everybody -- citizens and non-citizens alike.
In March, Rep. Candice Miller, R-Mich., introduced legislation directing the Census Bureau to count only U.S. citizens. The bill quickly stalled.
"It's one thing if we lose seats simply because of population loss, but it's another thing if we lose this seat because of illegal immigration, and that's exactly what is happening," she said at the time.
All of this for an outcome that will barely move the needle on the power index. Even with six seats, Oregon will remain one of the smaller delegations, a far cry from California with 53 and still trailing Washington's nine. With six House members, Oregon will have parity with Kentucky and South Carolina.
"We'll have a little more clout in Washington, D.C.," Turrill says, "but not significantly more."
Charles Pope: 202 383-7819; charles.pope@newhouse.com
©2008 The Oregonian
Oregon Democrat Law Makers List Their Priorities For Upcoming Legislative Session
Of Course Not a Word On LNG Speculation And Siting!
Issue priorities for Senate and House Democrats, who are the majorities in both chambers of the Oregon Legislature, which will meet Feb. 4-29 in a test drive for annual sessions. Issues are listed in no particular order, and some are subject to money available in the 2007-09 budget:
STATE POLICE: Potential additional hiring of troopers to restore around-the-clock patrol coverage on major state highways. The 2007 session set aside money for 100, short of the 139 estimated to be needed.
CHILDREN: Potential additional hiring of protective workers to ensure the safety of foster children and others under state supervision.
SENIORS: Unspecified additional money for Oregon Project Independence and other alternatives to nursing home care for seniors.
FORECLOSURES: New legal protections for homeowners caught up in the national mortgage-lending crisis. A bill passed the Senate but died in the House in the 2007 session.
NATURAL RESOURCES: Potential additional money for a state task force reviewing Oregon's land-use laws; the 2007 session reduced but did not end support. Expansion of water drawn from the Columbia River for Eastern Oregon communities and farming; the House passed but the Senate shelved a similar bill in the 2007 session.
PERFORMANCE: Lawmakers are wrestling with how to enhance their oversight of state agency operations.
Issue priorities for Senate and House Democrats, who are the majorities in both chambers of the Oregon Legislature, which will meet Feb. 4-29 in a test drive for annual sessions. Issues are listed in no particular order, and some are subject to money available in the 2007-09 budget:
STATE POLICE: Potential additional hiring of troopers to restore around-the-clock patrol coverage on major state highways. The 2007 session set aside money for 100, short of the 139 estimated to be needed.
CHILDREN: Potential additional hiring of protective workers to ensure the safety of foster children and others under state supervision.
SENIORS: Unspecified additional money for Oregon Project Independence and other alternatives to nursing home care for seniors.
FORECLOSURES: New legal protections for homeowners caught up in the national mortgage-lending crisis. A bill passed the Senate but died in the House in the 2007 session.
NATURAL RESOURCES: Potential additional money for a state task force reviewing Oregon's land-use laws; the 2007 session reduced but did not end support. Expansion of water drawn from the Columbia River for Eastern Oregon communities and farming; the House passed but the Senate shelved a similar bill in the 2007 session.
PERFORMANCE: Lawmakers are wrestling with how to enhance their oversight of state agency operations.
Monday, January 07, 2008
Natural Resource Group: Just More Appearance Of Bradwood Collusion To Ram LNG Down OUR Throats
State hints of conflict in firm's 2 LNG studies
Posted by The Oregonian January 05, 2008 08:47AM
Categories: Breaking News, Business, Clackamas County, Environment, Washington County
Oregon is skeptical of federal assurances that the terminal and pipeline reports were independently doneState officials aren't satisfied with federal regulators' steps to deal with a potential conflict of interest posed by the same environmental consulting firm working on two projects: a Columbia River terminal for liquefied natural gas and a pipeline that would ferry the imported gas to market.
They also are concerned that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's environmental analysis of the LNG terminal, Bradwood Landing, doesn't cover the pipeline proposal.
If both projects receive approval, the Palomar gas pipeline would carry gas from the LNG import terminal near the mouth of the Columbia River to a distribution hub south of Portland and from there on to an interstate pipeline in central Oregon.
FERC hired the consultant, Natural Resource Group, in 2005 to help prepare regulators' environmental evaluation of the terminal project -- a crucial part of the federal licensing process.
The next year, NRG went to work for financial backers of the pipeline, which now include TransCanada Corp. and Northwest Natural Gas Co., to help secure regulatory approval for the Palomar pipeline. At the time, NRG says, the Palomar proposal only connected Northwest Natural's distribution hub in Molalla to TransCanada's interstate pipeline near Madras.
The pipeline proposal, however, has since expanded to include a second section extending from the Willamette Valley to the LNG terminal, if the terminal is built.
The conflict-of-interest concern turns on whether, for regulatory purposes, the pipeline project and LNG terminal are considered related. The state of Oregon believes they are, and it wants FERC not only to eliminate any potential conflict with its third party contractor, but also consider the environmental impact of the pipeline in its analysis of the terminal.
"If these projects are related to each other, they both should have been covered," said Michael Grainey, director of the Oregon Department of Energy.
Backers of the LNG terminal and pipeline continue to argue that the projects are unrelated.
Bradwood could ship its gas to market over a shorter pipeline proposed to link it with the Williams Northwest Pipeline near Kelso, said Henry Morse, project manager for the Palomar pipeline. Similarly, the eastern section of Palomar, connecting Molalla and TransCanada's pipeline north of Madras, is still a viable project even if Bradwood is never built, he said.
"Neither one relies on the other for their existence," Morse said.
For licensing purposes, FERC is treating the projects as unrelated. In fact, Palomar's backers haven't even filed an application yet. But the agency acknowledges a potential relationship between the two. In late December, it sent a letter to NRG to express ethical concerns about its work on both projects.
"NRG's work on the Palomar pipeline could appear to provide it with a financial interest in seeing that Bradwood Landing LNG project gets approved," said the letter from Richard Hoffman, the director of FERC's Division of Gas.
Hoffman directed NRG to eliminate the potential conflict by separating staff and supervisors on the projects and segregating documentation on them.
Mary O'Driscoll, a spokeswoman for FERC, said such "Chinese walls" are common practice in corporate America.
"This is a longstanding practice in corporate circles and here at FERC," O'Driscoll said. "These are professionals. They have a blend of experience, and we know them from their past work."
Moreover, she said, FERC staff closely review every element of its environmental reviews. "Nothing goes out of here that is not signed and approved by FERC," she added.
U.S. agency critical, too
FERC issued its 600-page draft environmental analysis of Bradwood Landing, much of which NRG compiled, in August. Since then, Oregon state natural resource agencies have criticized the document as flawed and inadequate. The National Marine Fisheries Service, also critical, said FERC should include anticipated effects of the second section of the Palomar project in its analysis.
Douglas Lake, a vice president or NRG, defended the firm's work on the Bradwood Landing analysis and said no conflict existed.
"We've done work for FERC on many, many projects," he said. "We know what they want in terms of the level of detail. That's why they hire us again and again."
Lake said only one staff member from NRG, a soils expert, had worked on both Bradwood and Palomar. Meanwhile, he said, NRG had complied with FERC's request to separate project staff and documentation. The firm has even rented new space in Minneapolis so that staff working on the two projects won't interact.
State still worries
Mike Carrier, Gov. Ted Kulongoski's natural resource policy director, said the state is still concerned that NRG has the potential to be less than objective and separating the staff doesn't solve the issue.
"It's not sufficient," Carrier said. "Just a physical separation of the staff and work doesn't clearly resolve whether there's a material benefit for NRG to be working on both projects."
Depending on FERC's reaction to NRG's actions, Carrier said, the state might initiate a legal review of the situation. He wouldn't say whether the state was prepared to take any other steps.
In the meantime, the state is hoping FERC will substantially beef up its environmental analysis of the project.
"We have every indication that FERC is approaching this with a fairly light touch," Carrier said. "We'd like to see a more robust approach."
-- Ted Sickinger; tedsickinger@news.oregonian.com
Posted by The Oregonian January 05, 2008 08:47AM
Categories: Breaking News, Business, Clackamas County, Environment, Washington County
Oregon is skeptical of federal assurances that the terminal and pipeline reports were independently doneState officials aren't satisfied with federal regulators' steps to deal with a potential conflict of interest posed by the same environmental consulting firm working on two projects: a Columbia River terminal for liquefied natural gas and a pipeline that would ferry the imported gas to market.
They also are concerned that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's environmental analysis of the LNG terminal, Bradwood Landing, doesn't cover the pipeline proposal.
If both projects receive approval, the Palomar gas pipeline would carry gas from the LNG import terminal near the mouth of the Columbia River to a distribution hub south of Portland and from there on to an interstate pipeline in central Oregon.
FERC hired the consultant, Natural Resource Group, in 2005 to help prepare regulators' environmental evaluation of the terminal project -- a crucial part of the federal licensing process.
The next year, NRG went to work for financial backers of the pipeline, which now include TransCanada Corp. and Northwest Natural Gas Co., to help secure regulatory approval for the Palomar pipeline. At the time, NRG says, the Palomar proposal only connected Northwest Natural's distribution hub in Molalla to TransCanada's interstate pipeline near Madras.
The pipeline proposal, however, has since expanded to include a second section extending from the Willamette Valley to the LNG terminal, if the terminal is built.
The conflict-of-interest concern turns on whether, for regulatory purposes, the pipeline project and LNG terminal are considered related. The state of Oregon believes they are, and it wants FERC not only to eliminate any potential conflict with its third party contractor, but also consider the environmental impact of the pipeline in its analysis of the terminal.
"If these projects are related to each other, they both should have been covered," said Michael Grainey, director of the Oregon Department of Energy.
Backers of the LNG terminal and pipeline continue to argue that the projects are unrelated.
Bradwood could ship its gas to market over a shorter pipeline proposed to link it with the Williams Northwest Pipeline near Kelso, said Henry Morse, project manager for the Palomar pipeline. Similarly, the eastern section of Palomar, connecting Molalla and TransCanada's pipeline north of Madras, is still a viable project even if Bradwood is never built, he said.
"Neither one relies on the other for their existence," Morse said.
For licensing purposes, FERC is treating the projects as unrelated. In fact, Palomar's backers haven't even filed an application yet. But the agency acknowledges a potential relationship between the two. In late December, it sent a letter to NRG to express ethical concerns about its work on both projects.
"NRG's work on the Palomar pipeline could appear to provide it with a financial interest in seeing that Bradwood Landing LNG project gets approved," said the letter from Richard Hoffman, the director of FERC's Division of Gas.
Hoffman directed NRG to eliminate the potential conflict by separating staff and supervisors on the projects and segregating documentation on them.
Mary O'Driscoll, a spokeswoman for FERC, said such "Chinese walls" are common practice in corporate America.
"This is a longstanding practice in corporate circles and here at FERC," O'Driscoll said. "These are professionals. They have a blend of experience, and we know them from their past work."
Moreover, she said, FERC staff closely review every element of its environmental reviews. "Nothing goes out of here that is not signed and approved by FERC," she added.
U.S. agency critical, too
FERC issued its 600-page draft environmental analysis of Bradwood Landing, much of which NRG compiled, in August. Since then, Oregon state natural resource agencies have criticized the document as flawed and inadequate. The National Marine Fisheries Service, also critical, said FERC should include anticipated effects of the second section of the Palomar project in its analysis.
Douglas Lake, a vice president or NRG, defended the firm's work on the Bradwood Landing analysis and said no conflict existed.
"We've done work for FERC on many, many projects," he said. "We know what they want in terms of the level of detail. That's why they hire us again and again."
Lake said only one staff member from NRG, a soils expert, had worked on both Bradwood and Palomar. Meanwhile, he said, NRG had complied with FERC's request to separate project staff and documentation. The firm has even rented new space in Minneapolis so that staff working on the two projects won't interact.
State still worries
Mike Carrier, Gov. Ted Kulongoski's natural resource policy director, said the state is still concerned that NRG has the potential to be less than objective and separating the staff doesn't solve the issue.
"It's not sufficient," Carrier said. "Just a physical separation of the staff and work doesn't clearly resolve whether there's a material benefit for NRG to be working on both projects."
Depending on FERC's reaction to NRG's actions, Carrier said, the state might initiate a legal review of the situation. He wouldn't say whether the state was prepared to take any other steps.
In the meantime, the state is hoping FERC will substantially beef up its environmental analysis of the project.
"We have every indication that FERC is approaching this with a fairly light touch," Carrier said. "We'd like to see a more robust approach."
-- Ted Sickinger; tedsickinger@news.oregonian.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)