Education - The board restricts the size of online charters and requires them to get districts' permission
Friday, March 14, 2008
BETSY HAMMOND - The Oregonian
Online charter schools can operate in Oregon only under severe restrictions, including limits on enrollment and securing permission from each local school district before enrolling students, the state Board of Education decided Thursday.
Two national companies -- Insight Schools, based in Portland, and K-12, based in Virginia -- want to open large online schools that would enroll students from across the state and teach them using lessons delivered via computer to the students' homes.
They would collect roughly the same $6,000 per-student of state money that bricks-and-mortar schools do.
The state school board, which had the power to kill the idea or open the door wide, was lobbied heavily by both backers and opponents of statewide cyber-schools.
After more than six months of deliberation, it offered a compromise Thursday, allowing the schools to open but keeping them small and forcing them to jump through hurdles.
One of the proposed schools will open for sure, its backers said. Under the sponsorship of the North Bend school district, K-12 will open a kindergarten through eighth-grade school called the Oregon Virtual Academy for 900 students this fall.
But backers of the Insight School plan weren't sure Thursday whether they would proceed, given the new restrictions. State board members said they would limit Insight School of Oregon, which offers grades nine through 12, to 500 students.
The school, which is sponsored by the Lincoln County School District, opened in January with about 200 students -- most of whom do not have permission from their home school districts to attend, because that was not required.
Many school districts in Oregon restrict their students from attending other school districts -- usually because the home district doesn't want to lose the per-student funding, to help its own schools remain robust.
Oregon's first and largest for-profit cyber-school, Connections Academy, is exempt from the new restrictions for two more years. Connections opened in fall 2005, before state law was changed to add restrictions, and it is allowed to operate outside of the new rule until its contract expires in 2010.
Sponsored by the Scio school district, that K-12 cyber-school has 1,800 students.
Organizers of the Oregon Virtual Academy said they were unsure how difficult it would be for them to get permission from local school districts for students to enroll in their charter. They said they plan to work hard to convince districts that the online school will be an effective learning option for some of their students.
The fact that the state board will allow cyber-schools to open at all "is a very positive outcome for us," said Dianne Phillips, a Eugene parent who is on the school's founding board. "Their intent is to do what's right for kids."
Mark Horning, a Gresham parent on the school's board, said the state board's decision to limit enrollment to 100 students per grade was not one the school wanted, but it will abide by the decision. "It's hard to tell families that you have a great program but you have to turn students away. . . . We're taken some pretty hard restrictions, and we've smiled and said we will make this work for students."
Betsy Hammond: 503-294-7623 or betsyhammond@ news.oregonian.com
©2008 The Oregonian
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Can A Write-In Candidate Win?
You're darned right they can and the climate is right in this community for that to happen.
There are no filing forms or fees required to run as a write-in candidate.
A defeated primary candidate may not actively offer or campaign as a write-in candidate for the ensuing election.
The use of posters or stickers on the ballot is not permitted.
A voter must cast his write-in ballot in his or her own handwriting or that of a duly authorized assistant or as authorized on his ballot.
Write-in votes are not allowed in primary elections or the election of President or Vice-president. Write-in votes are allowed for all other elections.
In 1954, Strom Thurmond was a successful write-in candidate for the office of United States Senator.
There are no filing forms or fees required to run as a write-in candidate.
A defeated primary candidate may not actively offer or campaign as a write-in candidate for the ensuing election.
The use of posters or stickers on the ballot is not permitted.
A voter must cast his write-in ballot in his or her own handwriting or that of a duly authorized assistant or as authorized on his ballot.
Write-in votes are not allowed in primary elections or the election of President or Vice-president. Write-in votes are allowed for all other elections.
In 1954, Strom Thurmond was a successful write-in candidate for the office of United States Senator.
Friday, March 14, 2008
From: World Net Daily - Eminent Domain Abuse
Report: Eminent-domain abuse widespreadFirm cites thousands of cases of government seizing land for private uses
Posted: April 22, 20031:00 am Eastern
By Jon Dougherty© 2008 WorldNetDaily.com
If you believe your home is your castle or that the government can only take it for public use, you should be warned otherwise, says a public-interest law firm that documented thousands of cases nationwide where governments have abused eminent domain.
The report, titled "Public Power, Private Gain," is the first of its kind nationwide to document how often government confiscates private property and hands it over to private developers, says the Institute For Justice, a libertarian-oriented firm based in Washington, D.C.
"This report is a wake-up call to all citizens," says Dana Berliner, a senior attorney at the institute and author of the report. "Your property can be taken away by the unholy alliance of government and business interests. It is happening all over the country, and it can happen to you."
In the report, Berliner discusses more than 10,000 cases where homes, businesses, churches and private land were seized or threatened with seizure over the past five years ? not to be used for public use, but instead for private for-profit development.
The concept of eminent domain is defined as the right of government to take private property for public use "by virtue of the superior dominion of the sovereign power over all lands within its jurisdiction," according to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary. The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits the federal government from taking private property for public use without "just compensation" to the owner.
Among the examples cited by the report include the condemnation of a family's home so that the manager of a planned golf course could live in it; the eviction of four elderly siblings from their home of six decades for a private industrial park; and the removal of a woman in her 80s from her home of 55 years, allegedly to expand a sewer plant but in actuality to give her home to an automobile dealership.
The report said that since 1998 there have been 10,282-plus filed or threatened condemnations for private parties with reports of actual or threatened condemnation for private parties coming from 41 states.
John Kramer, vice president for communications, said the institute would release its findings to the public today at the National Press Club in Washington.
Besides the federal Constitution, the firm says every state's constitution also imposes similar eminent domain restrictions on government.
"In America, private property can only be taken for a public use, not for a private use," the institute said, in a statement.
But, as the report denotes, "state and local governments believe they can condemn anything for any purpose, no matter how blatantly private," the statement continued.
States with the worst record of private-use condemnations, the firm said, are California, Kansas, Maryland, Michigan and Ohio. Runners-up include Pennsylvania, Florida and New Jersey.
Cities with the worst record are Detroit, Riviera Beach, Fla., San Jose, Calif., and Philadelphia.
"From a legal standpoint," the institute said, the worst states in which to live for property owners seeking to avoid condemnation are New York, Missouri and Kansas.
But the institute's report also contained some good news for property owners: "The best states [to avoid condemnation of property] are Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, South Dakota and Wyoming, none of which had any reported eminent domain for private use."
In its February 2003 issue, Reason Magazine published a story chronicling eminent domain abuses. It said some property owners are getting legal satisfaction, but that those cases could be the exception.
"Despite recent victories, the courts are unlikely to be much help in reining in abuses of eminent domain," the magazine reported. "In fact, many of the recent victories against eminent-domain abuse have resulted from nonjudicial remedies."
Not everyone agrees eminent domain is being abused.
"The fact is that in the average community in the typical state, the system is working well," claims the American Planning Association, a nonprofit public interest and research organization, Reason magazine reported. "Property-rights advocates are waging a guerrilla war of sound bites, misleading 'spin doctoring' and power politics which characterizes government at every level as evil empires of bad intent."
Critics argue that sometimes eminent domain is needed so local governments and private real estate partners can move quickly on development projects.
"Eminent domain is critical for local redevelopment efforts," says John Bowers, executive director of the Arizona Association for Economic Development. "Without it, it would be virtually impossible for a city to assemble a multi-parcel piece of property for redevelopment."
In August, the Phoenix-based Goldwater Institute addressed eminent-domain abuse in Arizona.
"Despite strong protections for private property in the Arizona Constitution, municipalities increasingly have been taking private property from landowners for use by other private citizens and by corporations," the institute said, in a statement. "These abuses of eminent-domain power have been enabled in recent years by the 1997 redevelopment statute."
Berliner says the most common excuse for abusing eminent domain is for governments and developers to cite "community" betterment, a concept he says doesn't exist.
"Communities have no rights (to execute private-use condemnation) ? not under natural law, not under common law and not under the Constitution," he says, even if most local people favor a particular development project. "It was to prevent just such abuses, the tyranny of majority over minority, that the Founders wrote our Constitution."
Jon E. Dougherty is a Missouri-based writer
Posted: April 22, 20031:00 am Eastern
By Jon Dougherty© 2008 WorldNetDaily.com
If you believe your home is your castle or that the government can only take it for public use, you should be warned otherwise, says a public-interest law firm that documented thousands of cases nationwide where governments have abused eminent domain.
The report, titled "Public Power, Private Gain," is the first of its kind nationwide to document how often government confiscates private property and hands it over to private developers, says the Institute For Justice, a libertarian-oriented firm based in Washington, D.C.
"This report is a wake-up call to all citizens," says Dana Berliner, a senior attorney at the institute and author of the report. "Your property can be taken away by the unholy alliance of government and business interests. It is happening all over the country, and it can happen to you."
In the report, Berliner discusses more than 10,000 cases where homes, businesses, churches and private land were seized or threatened with seizure over the past five years ? not to be used for public use, but instead for private for-profit development.
The concept of eminent domain is defined as the right of government to take private property for public use "by virtue of the superior dominion of the sovereign power over all lands within its jurisdiction," according to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary. The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits the federal government from taking private property for public use without "just compensation" to the owner.
Among the examples cited by the report include the condemnation of a family's home so that the manager of a planned golf course could live in it; the eviction of four elderly siblings from their home of six decades for a private industrial park; and the removal of a woman in her 80s from her home of 55 years, allegedly to expand a sewer plant but in actuality to give her home to an automobile dealership.
The report said that since 1998 there have been 10,282-plus filed or threatened condemnations for private parties with reports of actual or threatened condemnation for private parties coming from 41 states.
John Kramer, vice president for communications, said the institute would release its findings to the public today at the National Press Club in Washington.
Besides the federal Constitution, the firm says every state's constitution also imposes similar eminent domain restrictions on government.
"In America, private property can only be taken for a public use, not for a private use," the institute said, in a statement.
But, as the report denotes, "state and local governments believe they can condemn anything for any purpose, no matter how blatantly private," the statement continued.
States with the worst record of private-use condemnations, the firm said, are California, Kansas, Maryland, Michigan and Ohio. Runners-up include Pennsylvania, Florida and New Jersey.
Cities with the worst record are Detroit, Riviera Beach, Fla., San Jose, Calif., and Philadelphia.
"From a legal standpoint," the institute said, the worst states in which to live for property owners seeking to avoid condemnation are New York, Missouri and Kansas.
But the institute's report also contained some good news for property owners: "The best states [to avoid condemnation of property] are Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, South Dakota and Wyoming, none of which had any reported eminent domain for private use."
In its February 2003 issue, Reason Magazine published a story chronicling eminent domain abuses. It said some property owners are getting legal satisfaction, but that those cases could be the exception.
"Despite recent victories, the courts are unlikely to be much help in reining in abuses of eminent domain," the magazine reported. "In fact, many of the recent victories against eminent-domain abuse have resulted from nonjudicial remedies."
Not everyone agrees eminent domain is being abused.
"The fact is that in the average community in the typical state, the system is working well," claims the American Planning Association, a nonprofit public interest and research organization, Reason magazine reported. "Property-rights advocates are waging a guerrilla war of sound bites, misleading 'spin doctoring' and power politics which characterizes government at every level as evil empires of bad intent."
Critics argue that sometimes eminent domain is needed so local governments and private real estate partners can move quickly on development projects.
"Eminent domain is critical for local redevelopment efforts," says John Bowers, executive director of the Arizona Association for Economic Development. "Without it, it would be virtually impossible for a city to assemble a multi-parcel piece of property for redevelopment."
In August, the Phoenix-based Goldwater Institute addressed eminent-domain abuse in Arizona.
"Despite strong protections for private property in the Arizona Constitution, municipalities increasingly have been taking private property from landowners for use by other private citizens and by corporations," the institute said, in a statement. "These abuses of eminent-domain power have been enabled in recent years by the 1997 redevelopment statute."
Berliner says the most common excuse for abusing eminent domain is for governments and developers to cite "community" betterment, a concept he says doesn't exist.
"Communities have no rights (to execute private-use condemnation) ? not under natural law, not under common law and not under the Constitution," he says, even if most local people favor a particular development project. "It was to prevent just such abuses, the tyranny of majority over minority, that the Founders wrote our Constitution."
Jon E. Dougherty is a Missouri-based writer
The Lee "Inquiry"
Oregon Department of Justice's "Media Rep" confirmed today that there was, indeed, an "Inquiry", upon request, into certain actions in Richard Lee's past conduct as confirmed by Sheriff Tom Bergin and reported by the Daily Astorian.
They, D.O.J., determined, in their inquiry, there was not enough evidence to warrant a full investigation at the time.
They, D.O.J., determined, in their inquiry, there was not enough evidence to warrant a full investigation at the time.
The Port:Dump Conner? - Mitchum? - No Way In Hell!
About the only the thing the Port of Astoria has going right these days is the "Cruise Ship Business" and spin it any way you want, it is the "Brain Child" of Bruce Conner with Mitch Mitchum's help in coordinating the ground operations.
Conflict of Interest?
No way, as Bruce and Mitch are technically, in my view, acting as contractors, in the business of "Tourism" and should, indeed, profit from their services as opposed to adding a full-time staff burden to the port at the moment.
In the meantime and until a new Port Manger is selected and put to work, leave this procuctive facet of Port Operations alone.
Port wants to do something productive, take that Taggart "Albatross, turn it into a functional port administrative facility along with a Cruise Ship Terminal/Welcome Center and get rid of all that chain link fence crap out there and make it look like something other than some kind of "Marine Impound Yard"
Your don't think some of these Cruise Lines would consider some investment into "Our Port" to enhance their convenience while here?
Scrap that "Fish Porcessing Interpretive Center" (How many millions of dollars?) and put the money where it counts.
Conflict of Interest?
No way, as Bruce and Mitch are technically, in my view, acting as contractors, in the business of "Tourism" and should, indeed, profit from their services as opposed to adding a full-time staff burden to the port at the moment.
In the meantime and until a new Port Manger is selected and put to work, leave this procuctive facet of Port Operations alone.
Port wants to do something productive, take that Taggart "Albatross, turn it into a functional port administrative facility along with a Cruise Ship Terminal/Welcome Center and get rid of all that chain link fence crap out there and make it look like something other than some kind of "Marine Impound Yard"
Your don't think some of these Cruise Lines would consider some investment into "Our Port" to enhance their convenience while here?
Scrap that "Fish Porcessing Interpretive Center" (How many millions of dollars?) and put the money where it counts.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
District 4's Rohne And Johnson: Where are you On LNG Siting/NG Pipeline Development?
Also, define "Private Property Rights In Land."
Both of you and whomever may come late will be asked to address both these issues many times and some general statement on either will not suffice so, address them both now, in detail.
Both of you and whomever may come late will be asked to address both these issues many times and some general statement on either will not suffice so, address them both now, in detail.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Clatsop Commissioner Hazen Breaks No Law By Contributing To Anti-4-123 Element
On the queries regarding Hazen's contributions to "Citizens for Clatsop County Charter Integrity"
Oregon's Election Division states:
There is nothing in Oregon election law that prohibits a seated county commissioner, or any other elected official, from contributing to any political committee.
The only requirement is that any contributor's name, address, occupation and employer's name and address shall be disclosed when the aggregate amount of money is over $100 for a calendar year.
The committee receiving the contribution must make this disclosure.
In this case, both contributions that were cited, the $250 in cash and the $1152 in-kind, were reported by the committee "Citizens for Clatsop County Charter Integrity" on the Elections Division web-based Orestar reporting system.
The committee has met its requirement and JeffHazen has not violated any Oregon election law.
Oregon's Election Division states:
There is nothing in Oregon election law that prohibits a seated county commissioner, or any other elected official, from contributing to any political committee.
The only requirement is that any contributor's name, address, occupation and employer's name and address shall be disclosed when the aggregate amount of money is over $100 for a calendar year.
The committee receiving the contribution must make this disclosure.
In this case, both contributions that were cited, the $250 in cash and the $1152 in-kind, were reported by the committee "Citizens for Clatsop County Charter Integrity" on the Elections Division web-based Orestar reporting system.
The committee has met its requirement and JeffHazen has not violated any Oregon election law.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Politicians With Cajones: Forest Grove Council Opposes LNG Project
Councilors Say Liquified Natural Gas Terminal And Pipelines Threaten City's Water Supply And Increase Region's Reliance On Fossil Fuels
By John Schrag
The Forest Grove News-Times, Mar 11, 2008
Saying that proposed natural gas pipelines threaten the the city’s water supply and increase the nation’s reliance on fossil fuels, the Forest Grove City Council on Monday unanimously went on record opposing a proposed liquefied natural gas terminal on the Columbia River near Astoria.
Pipeline critics say the council is the first local government to go on record opposing the project, which would require 211 miles of pipeline to be laid, much of it between the Coast Range and Highway 47 in western Washington County. A section of the project path would cross the city’s watershed and as the pipes that carry drinking water for Forest Grove and several other Washington County cities.
The council action came just hours after the four Democratic members of Oregon’s congressional delegation sent a letter to Joseph Kelliher, the chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, expressing their concern about the licensing process used by the federal agency.
Forest Grove’s resolution, crafted by Councilor Pete Truax, is just 12 paragraphs long, but captures most of the criticisms of the project, noting a litany of concerns over the environment, public safety, private property rights and a dependence on fossil fuels.
“I worked for 20 years on clean air and clean water,” said Councilor Victoria Lowe, “and this [project] fails both miserably.”
Lowe and others on the council noted that the proposed pipeline path runs through hillside property that has been identified as susceptible to landslides.
“To mix high-pressure gas-line anywhere near that is absolutely ludicrous,” she said. “I will be voting for this and working to block it.”
By John Schrag
The Forest Grove News-Times, Mar 11, 2008
Saying that proposed natural gas pipelines threaten the the city’s water supply and increase the nation’s reliance on fossil fuels, the Forest Grove City Council on Monday unanimously went on record opposing a proposed liquefied natural gas terminal on the Columbia River near Astoria.
Pipeline critics say the council is the first local government to go on record opposing the project, which would require 211 miles of pipeline to be laid, much of it between the Coast Range and Highway 47 in western Washington County. A section of the project path would cross the city’s watershed and as the pipes that carry drinking water for Forest Grove and several other Washington County cities.
The council action came just hours after the four Democratic members of Oregon’s congressional delegation sent a letter to Joseph Kelliher, the chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, expressing their concern about the licensing process used by the federal agency.
Forest Grove’s resolution, crafted by Councilor Pete Truax, is just 12 paragraphs long, but captures most of the criticisms of the project, noting a litany of concerns over the environment, public safety, private property rights and a dependence on fossil fuels.
“I worked for 20 years on clean air and clean water,” said Councilor Victoria Lowe, “and this [project] fails both miserably.”
Lowe and others on the council noted that the proposed pipeline path runs through hillside property that has been identified as susceptible to landslides.
“To mix high-pressure gas-line anywhere near that is absolutely ludicrous,” she said. “I will be voting for this and working to block it.”
Rising Gas Demand Pinching LNG Shipments
Business
Rising gas demand abroad pinching LNG shipments
Bloomberg News
Russia is forcing Exxon Mobil to abandon plans to export natural gas to China. Nigeria is requiring explorers to share output with its citizens. Indonesia will cut sales to Japan.
Countries holding almost half the world's gas are curbing shipments to meet growing domestic use, hurting importers from the U.S. to Japan. Prices for the heating fuel may rise 50 percent within five years on the New York Mercantile Exchange as a result, said Chris Jarvis, president of Caprock Risk Management in Hampton Falls, N.H. He anticipated the rally in gas prices during the past month.
While raising energy costs, the policies will limit opportunities for Exxon Mobil and Royal Dutch Shell Plc, who are struggling to reverse a five-year production decline of 23 percent in the U.K. North Sea and 42 percent in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico. Natural-gas use is rising 2.5 percent a year, three times the rate for oil, according to BP Plc statistics.
"All the gas is concentrated in places where you don't have access," said Frank Harris, co-head of the natural gas practice at the Edinburgh-based Wood Mackenzie Consultants Ltd., an adviser to 24 of the world's 25 biggest oil and gas companies. It's "a major concern for oil majors," he said.
In Russia, the energy ministry told Exxon Mobil in August that gas from the $17 billion Sakhalin-1 project off the nation's eastern coast should be sold into the domestic market, not exported. Russian President Vladimir Putin wants the gas to feed an economy that's growing 7.6 percent annually. Putin two days ago said his successor, Dmitry Medvedev, will also be a "nationalist."
Exxon planned to build a pipeline to China, where the 10 billion cubic meters a year of Sakhalin gas could meet 18 percent of China's needs, based on 2006 consumption.
Changing export policies in Nigeria and Egypt threaten projects that would ship 45 million metric tons of liquefied natural gas to the world market annually, equal to about 33 percent current supply, Wood Mackenzie's Harris estimates. The 45 million tons are almost fourfold larger than the U.S.'s LNG imports in 2006, according to the Energy Department.
Nigerian President Umaru Yar'Adua said last month that a new state-run company would start requiring explorers to sell a portion of output locally. Nigeria, Africa's most-populous nation, holds the continent's largest gas reserves, yet only about 40 percent of its population of about 140 million citizens have access to electricity, according to the World Bank.
Total SA, Chevron Corp., Shell and ConocoPhillips have put on hold two LNG projects, at Brass and Olokola, until the government sets its policy on supplies to the domestic market. The gas would have been more than enough to meet India's annual consumption, based on BP's statistics.
Caprock Risk's Jarvis said restrictions on liquefied natural gas exports will tighten global energy markets.
Demand for LNG, or gas chilled for shipment in tankers, is the industry's fastest-growing business, with growth of about 10 percent a year, Shell and Total estimate.
Compared with fuel oil, natural gas costs 18 percent less, based on the amount of energy in each fuel. Crude prices have tripled since 2002, pushing governments to seek more of the industry's record profits and limit access to regions that typically harbor natural gas too.
"The correlations between gas and crude oil will become tighter as the LNG market becomes more important on a global scale," Jarvis said in an interview. Natural gas in New York may rise to $15 per million British thermal units by 2013, he said.
"When you are in a supply-constrained situation, prices will rise," said Darren Jones, president of global gas for Houston-based ConocoPhillips, the third-largest U.S. oil company.
Wood Mackenzie's Harris said he expects oil and natural gas prices will converge. If that happens, a $10 million investment in natural gas on the Nymex would return 22 percent, or $2.2 million.
Indonesia lost its top ranking as an LNG exporter to Qatar in 2006 as Southeast Asia's most populous nation diverted exports to meet soaring domestic needs. The economy grew 6.2 percent in the three months ended Dec. 31, near the fastest pace in 10 years. State oil company PT Pertamina will lower supplies to a Japanese buying group by 75 percent after the current contract expires in 2010, Vice President Iin Arifin Takhyan said in October.
"By 2011 we see a very tight global natural gas market," said Stacy Nieuwoudt, an analyst at energy investment bank Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co. Securities Inc. in Houston.
Chevron, which is seeking to expand an LNG venture in Angola, respects governments' desires to direct supplies to domestic markets, said John Gass, president of Chevron's global gas business.
"At the same time host countries also see the value of exporting their gas on world markets," Gass told reporters today in Bangkok. "The companies that are going to be successful in the future are the ones that are going to be able to balance I would say those complementary priorities that resource holders have."
Natural gas provides 22 percent of the world's energy, behind coal's 23 percent and oil's 40 percent, according to BP. The world's known gas reserves may last about 63 years, compared with 41 for oil, the BP statistics show.
Increasing demand and a lack of supplies meant that Japan and South Korea this winter paid more than double the U.S. benchmark gas price to attain cargoes from as far away as Trinidad, the biggest LNG supplier to the U.S.
U.S. natural gas futures for delivery at the Henry Hub in Louisiana have risen 29 percent so far this year on the New York Mercantile Exchange, outpacing a 9 percent gain in benchmark U.S. crude prices. Nymex gas for April delivery was trading at $9.682 per million British thermal units at 9:59 a.m. London time today.
"We have seen this year a situation where there was strong appetite for LNG, forcing buyers to pay oil prices or even a premium," said Philippe Sauquet, senior vice-president of Total Gas & Power Ltd., a unit of Paris-based Total.
www.bloomberg.com
Rising gas demand abroad pinching LNG shipments
Bloomberg News
Russia is forcing Exxon Mobil to abandon plans to export natural gas to China. Nigeria is requiring explorers to share output with its citizens. Indonesia will cut sales to Japan.
Countries holding almost half the world's gas are curbing shipments to meet growing domestic use, hurting importers from the U.S. to Japan. Prices for the heating fuel may rise 50 percent within five years on the New York Mercantile Exchange as a result, said Chris Jarvis, president of Caprock Risk Management in Hampton Falls, N.H. He anticipated the rally in gas prices during the past month.
While raising energy costs, the policies will limit opportunities for Exxon Mobil and Royal Dutch Shell Plc, who are struggling to reverse a five-year production decline of 23 percent in the U.K. North Sea and 42 percent in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico. Natural-gas use is rising 2.5 percent a year, three times the rate for oil, according to BP Plc statistics.
"All the gas is concentrated in places where you don't have access," said Frank Harris, co-head of the natural gas practice at the Edinburgh-based Wood Mackenzie Consultants Ltd., an adviser to 24 of the world's 25 biggest oil and gas companies. It's "a major concern for oil majors," he said.
In Russia, the energy ministry told Exxon Mobil in August that gas from the $17 billion Sakhalin-1 project off the nation's eastern coast should be sold into the domestic market, not exported. Russian President Vladimir Putin wants the gas to feed an economy that's growing 7.6 percent annually. Putin two days ago said his successor, Dmitry Medvedev, will also be a "nationalist."
Exxon planned to build a pipeline to China, where the 10 billion cubic meters a year of Sakhalin gas could meet 18 percent of China's needs, based on 2006 consumption.
Changing export policies in Nigeria and Egypt threaten projects that would ship 45 million metric tons of liquefied natural gas to the world market annually, equal to about 33 percent current supply, Wood Mackenzie's Harris estimates. The 45 million tons are almost fourfold larger than the U.S.'s LNG imports in 2006, according to the Energy Department.
Nigerian President Umaru Yar'Adua said last month that a new state-run company would start requiring explorers to sell a portion of output locally. Nigeria, Africa's most-populous nation, holds the continent's largest gas reserves, yet only about 40 percent of its population of about 140 million citizens have access to electricity, according to the World Bank.
Total SA, Chevron Corp., Shell and ConocoPhillips have put on hold two LNG projects, at Brass and Olokola, until the government sets its policy on supplies to the domestic market. The gas would have been more than enough to meet India's annual consumption, based on BP's statistics.
Caprock Risk's Jarvis said restrictions on liquefied natural gas exports will tighten global energy markets.
Demand for LNG, or gas chilled for shipment in tankers, is the industry's fastest-growing business, with growth of about 10 percent a year, Shell and Total estimate.
Compared with fuel oil, natural gas costs 18 percent less, based on the amount of energy in each fuel. Crude prices have tripled since 2002, pushing governments to seek more of the industry's record profits and limit access to regions that typically harbor natural gas too.
"The correlations between gas and crude oil will become tighter as the LNG market becomes more important on a global scale," Jarvis said in an interview. Natural gas in New York may rise to $15 per million British thermal units by 2013, he said.
"When you are in a supply-constrained situation, prices will rise," said Darren Jones, president of global gas for Houston-based ConocoPhillips, the third-largest U.S. oil company.
Wood Mackenzie's Harris said he expects oil and natural gas prices will converge. If that happens, a $10 million investment in natural gas on the Nymex would return 22 percent, or $2.2 million.
Indonesia lost its top ranking as an LNG exporter to Qatar in 2006 as Southeast Asia's most populous nation diverted exports to meet soaring domestic needs. The economy grew 6.2 percent in the three months ended Dec. 31, near the fastest pace in 10 years. State oil company PT Pertamina will lower supplies to a Japanese buying group by 75 percent after the current contract expires in 2010, Vice President Iin Arifin Takhyan said in October.
"By 2011 we see a very tight global natural gas market," said Stacy Nieuwoudt, an analyst at energy investment bank Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co. Securities Inc. in Houston.
Chevron, which is seeking to expand an LNG venture in Angola, respects governments' desires to direct supplies to domestic markets, said John Gass, president of Chevron's global gas business.
"At the same time host countries also see the value of exporting their gas on world markets," Gass told reporters today in Bangkok. "The companies that are going to be successful in the future are the ones that are going to be able to balance I would say those complementary priorities that resource holders have."
Natural gas provides 22 percent of the world's energy, behind coal's 23 percent and oil's 40 percent, according to BP. The world's known gas reserves may last about 63 years, compared with 41 for oil, the BP statistics show.
Increasing demand and a lack of supplies meant that Japan and South Korea this winter paid more than double the U.S. benchmark gas price to attain cargoes from as far away as Trinidad, the biggest LNG supplier to the U.S.
U.S. natural gas futures for delivery at the Henry Hub in Louisiana have risen 29 percent so far this year on the New York Mercantile Exchange, outpacing a 9 percent gain in benchmark U.S. crude prices. Nymex gas for April delivery was trading at $9.682 per million British thermal units at 9:59 a.m. London time today.
"We have seen this year a situation where there was strong appetite for LNG, forcing buyers to pay oil prices or even a premium," said Philippe Sauquet, senior vice-president of Total Gas & Power Ltd., a unit of Paris-based Total.
www.bloomberg.com
Bradwood/NSNG LNG's Joe Desmond: Criticizes Californians For Being Fixated On Greenhouse Gases - Commenting, "Radicals And Energy Policy Don't Mix!"
Instead of fossil fuels, invest dollars in clean-energy supplies
By Rory Cox and Robert FreehlingTuesday, March 11, 2008
Re: Joe Desmond's March 2 commentary, "Radicals, energy policy don't mix."
Pacific Environment has just published a new report called "Collision Course" that makes a case for what is really common sense: California cannot reduce greenhouse gases while at the same time increasing its commitment to consuming fossil fuels.
Importing liquefied natural gas from overseas would be a huge commitment, tying us to long-term fossil-fuel purchase contracts amounting to many billions of dollars. A better choice is to invest these same dollars in clean energy, and state law already commits us to do this.
The main problem is that many people think that needing energy means that this need must be met with fossil fuels. But there are other options.
State law requires California's utilities to use 20 percent renewable energy by 2010 and to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions 25 percent by 2020. It is state policy that by 2020, one-third of our electricity should come from renewable sources. These are wise policy decisions supported by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Desmond, who works for Northern Star natural gas, recently critiqued us in these pages for being "fixated" on greenhouse-gas emissions. We plead guilty.
The relentless rise in global temperature has already resulted in serious problems that are a mere foreshadowing of things to come: unprecedented wildfires in Southern California, killer heat waves in France, diminishing cropland in Sudan that has led to civil war, the rising price of food due to crop failures and melting polar ice caps. Most scientists agree that this is the result of greenhouse-gas emissions.
We acknowledge, with Desmond, that renewable technologies have environmental impacts. But none even remotely compare to the damage to the climate brought on by burning fossil fuels.
That is why we support the California Energy Action Plan — co-published by his old agency, the California Energy Commission — that states efficiency and conservation are the best options to meet future energy needs. Without a doubt, the cleanest kilowatt is the one you don't use. Of course, that means using less natural gas.
The Energy Action Plan says that the next best option after efficiency is renewables and distributed generation (or smaller generating facilities located closer to customers.) Desmond mentions that utilities are having problems meeting their renewable mandate.
However, if utilities and energy planners would follow the Energy Action Plan and invest in distributed generation, the problem of "locations and transmissions" for far off renewable energy that Desmond mentions would be reduced.
Desmond writes about LNG as if it were just more of the same natural gas that California is already using. But there are major differences. Domestic natural gas is now piped to us from gas fields in the U.S. and Canada.
LNG is shipped in supertankers that likely will come from politically challenging regions; about 80 percent of the world's available natural gas is in the Middle East (particularly Iran and Qatar) and the former Soviet Union. LNG dependence comes with all the same hazards as foreign-oil dependence, including price shocks, possible supply disruptions and expensive wars.
There is simply no good reason to expose California rate payers, as well as our troops, to this vulnerability. The LNG process also adds 15 to 25 percent extra greenhouse-gas emissions over that of domestic natural gas.
A clean, efficient and locally oriented energy supply has many benefits. A number of studies have demonstrated that it will provide more jobs and investment at home while protecting the environment and improving our security.
This may sound radical. But there's a growing consensus that says it's just common sense.
— Rory Cox is California program director at Pacific Environment and Robert Freehling is research director at Local Power. Both groups are in the coalition Ratepayers for Affordable Clean Energy. "Collision Course" can be downloaded at http://www.raceforcleanenergy.org/.
By Rory Cox and Robert FreehlingTuesday, March 11, 2008
Re: Joe Desmond's March 2 commentary, "Radicals, energy policy don't mix."
Pacific Environment has just published a new report called "Collision Course" that makes a case for what is really common sense: California cannot reduce greenhouse gases while at the same time increasing its commitment to consuming fossil fuels.
Importing liquefied natural gas from overseas would be a huge commitment, tying us to long-term fossil-fuel purchase contracts amounting to many billions of dollars. A better choice is to invest these same dollars in clean energy, and state law already commits us to do this.
The main problem is that many people think that needing energy means that this need must be met with fossil fuels. But there are other options.
State law requires California's utilities to use 20 percent renewable energy by 2010 and to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions 25 percent by 2020. It is state policy that by 2020, one-third of our electricity should come from renewable sources. These are wise policy decisions supported by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Desmond, who works for Northern Star natural gas, recently critiqued us in these pages for being "fixated" on greenhouse-gas emissions. We plead guilty.
The relentless rise in global temperature has already resulted in serious problems that are a mere foreshadowing of things to come: unprecedented wildfires in Southern California, killer heat waves in France, diminishing cropland in Sudan that has led to civil war, the rising price of food due to crop failures and melting polar ice caps. Most scientists agree that this is the result of greenhouse-gas emissions.
We acknowledge, with Desmond, that renewable technologies have environmental impacts. But none even remotely compare to the damage to the climate brought on by burning fossil fuels.
That is why we support the California Energy Action Plan — co-published by his old agency, the California Energy Commission — that states efficiency and conservation are the best options to meet future energy needs. Without a doubt, the cleanest kilowatt is the one you don't use. Of course, that means using less natural gas.
The Energy Action Plan says that the next best option after efficiency is renewables and distributed generation (or smaller generating facilities located closer to customers.) Desmond mentions that utilities are having problems meeting their renewable mandate.
However, if utilities and energy planners would follow the Energy Action Plan and invest in distributed generation, the problem of "locations and transmissions" for far off renewable energy that Desmond mentions would be reduced.
Desmond writes about LNG as if it were just more of the same natural gas that California is already using. But there are major differences. Domestic natural gas is now piped to us from gas fields in the U.S. and Canada.
LNG is shipped in supertankers that likely will come from politically challenging regions; about 80 percent of the world's available natural gas is in the Middle East (particularly Iran and Qatar) and the former Soviet Union. LNG dependence comes with all the same hazards as foreign-oil dependence, including price shocks, possible supply disruptions and expensive wars.
There is simply no good reason to expose California rate payers, as well as our troops, to this vulnerability. The LNG process also adds 15 to 25 percent extra greenhouse-gas emissions over that of domestic natural gas.
A clean, efficient and locally oriented energy supply has many benefits. A number of studies have demonstrated that it will provide more jobs and investment at home while protecting the environment and improving our security.
This may sound radical. But there's a growing consensus that says it's just common sense.
— Rory Cox is California program director at Pacific Environment and Robert Freehling is research director at Local Power. Both groups are in the coalition Ratepayers for Affordable Clean Energy. "Collision Course" can be downloaded at http://www.raceforcleanenergy.org/.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Keep Oregon Free Of LNG Art Show And Fund Raiser For Columbia RiverKeeper
KEEP OREGON FREE OF LNG
ART SHOW & FUND RAISER FOR
ART SHOW & FUND RAISER FOR
COLUMBIA RIVERKEEPER
An Art Show by Lori Durheim and Various Artists
Astoria Visual Arts (AVA) 453-A 11th St.
March 20, 2008 <> March 23, 2008
Reception Friday, March 21 6 - 9 PM
Regular gallery hours: 2 - 6 PM
All sales go to Columbia Riverkeeper, a non-profit organization,
whose mission is to protect the Columbia River and all life connected to it.
The Art show opens on March 20th at 2:00pm at the AVA building. This is the same day for the Clatsop C.C. final vote at 4:00. Please stop by before and after the dog & pony show by the board.
An Art Show by Lori Durheim and Various Artists
Astoria Visual Arts (AVA) 453-A 11th St.
March 20, 2008 <> March 23, 2008
Reception Friday, March 21 6 - 9 PM
Regular gallery hours: 2 - 6 PM
All sales go to Columbia Riverkeeper, a non-profit organization,
whose mission is to protect the Columbia River and all life connected to it.
The Art show opens on March 20th at 2:00pm at the AVA building. This is the same day for the Clatsop C.C. final vote at 4:00. Please stop by before and after the dog & pony show by the board.
Daily "A" Op-Ed:Yes On Lee Recall
Yes On Lee Recall
Richard Lee has served himself more than he’s served the county’s votersRecalling an official from elective office is an extreme remedy.
In the last 20 years, Clatsop County voters removed a district attorney in 1994 and Astoria voters removed a city councillor in 1996.
A 2004 recall directed at four members of the Astoria School board failed.
Now some 4,366 voters in Clatsop County District 3 are being asked to recall Commissioner Richard Lee. The recall petition was organized and circulated by some 25 citizens who are alarmed at Lee's behavior in office. Their petition statement can be found at ccfog.org
Click on the link below for full story
http://www.dailyastorian.com/main.asp?SectionID=23&SubSectionID=392&ArticleID=49657
Richard Lee has served himself more than he’s served the county’s votersRecalling an official from elective office is an extreme remedy.
In the last 20 years, Clatsop County voters removed a district attorney in 1994 and Astoria voters removed a city councillor in 1996.
A 2004 recall directed at four members of the Astoria School board failed.
Now some 4,366 voters in Clatsop County District 3 are being asked to recall Commissioner Richard Lee. The recall petition was organized and circulated by some 25 citizens who are alarmed at Lee's behavior in office. Their petition statement can be found at ccfog.org
Click on the link below for full story
http://www.dailyastorian.com/main.asp?SectionID=23&SubSectionID=392&ArticleID=49657
McCain - Rice Ticket?
Well, what do you think?
McCain and Rice For the Republican ticket?
How about a McCain - Colin Powell ticket?
McCain and Rice For the Republican ticket?
How about a McCain - Colin Powell ticket?
Sunday, March 09, 2008
From The Oregonian: DeFazio Pushes For State Input On LNG
Safety - The process to site a proposed natural gas terminal is inadequate, U.S. House Democrats say
Saturday, March 08, 2008
CHARLES POPE - The Oregonian Staff
WASHINGTON -- U.S. Rep. Peter DeFazio, backed by Oregon's three other Democratic House members, demanded Friday that the federal government consider Oregon's concerns about the location of a proposed liquefied natural gas terminal.
DeFazio along with Reps. David Wu, Earl Blumenauer and Darlene Hooley told the chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission about the "inadequacy" of the process for determining whether the facility is built and where.
"As you know, the proposed LNG facilities in Oregon do pose some significant environmental and safety challenges, while the question of need is being left to the market to answer," the letter said. "We would appreciate FERC's insight and expertise into the question of need, before our constituents are asked to grapple with the safety and environmental obstacles.
"And finally, we encourage FERC to work collaboratively with the state of Oregon because we believe that there are several state agencies that can offer significant resources regarding the question of siting an LNG facility in Oregon."
DeFazio said in an interview that he's worried the federal government will approve the facility without adequately taking into account local concerns. Asked if Oregon should hold a veto on the project, DeFazio said, "absolutely."
Friday's letter is similar in tone and substance to one sent last month by Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore., and yet another by Democratic Gov. Ted Kulongoski.
FERC must approve the application if the LNG facility is to move forward. The commission has not said how long it will take before a decision is made.
Charles Pope: 202-383-7819; charles.pope@newhouse.com
Saturday, March 08, 2008
CHARLES POPE - The Oregonian Staff
WASHINGTON -- U.S. Rep. Peter DeFazio, backed by Oregon's three other Democratic House members, demanded Friday that the federal government consider Oregon's concerns about the location of a proposed liquefied natural gas terminal.
DeFazio along with Reps. David Wu, Earl Blumenauer and Darlene Hooley told the chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission about the "inadequacy" of the process for determining whether the facility is built and where.
"As you know, the proposed LNG facilities in Oregon do pose some significant environmental and safety challenges, while the question of need is being left to the market to answer," the letter said. "We would appreciate FERC's insight and expertise into the question of need, before our constituents are asked to grapple with the safety and environmental obstacles.
"And finally, we encourage FERC to work collaboratively with the state of Oregon because we believe that there are several state agencies that can offer significant resources regarding the question of siting an LNG facility in Oregon."
DeFazio said in an interview that he's worried the federal government will approve the facility without adequately taking into account local concerns. Asked if Oregon should hold a veto on the project, DeFazio said, "absolutely."
Friday's letter is similar in tone and substance to one sent last month by Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore., and yet another by Democratic Gov. Ted Kulongoski.
FERC must approve the application if the LNG facility is to move forward. The commission has not said how long it will take before a decision is made.
Charles Pope: 202-383-7819; charles.pope@newhouse.com
U.S.S. Ranger Berthed In Hammond?
The U.S.S. Ranger Berthed At Hammond?
Smart People!
Obviously wisdom not shared by Port of Astoria and of cousre, many would say no surprise there.
"Our mission is to preserve the Aircraft Carrier USS Ranger as an educational, civic and cultural center in Portland Oregon where she will become the world’s largest floating museum; a must-see tourism destination in the Pacific Northwest. Still serving her country as an emergency communications and disaster response center, she will be the centerpiece of a complex to honor those men and women who have served the cause of freedom in the USA and around the world.
The Foundation's vision is to produce a venue that will honor the history all the ships that bore the name USS Ranger from John Paul Jones’ to the current Super Carrier. In doing so, we will also honor and preserve the memory of all her sister carriers, including those already scrapped or sunk; those targeted for sinking and those nuclear powered ones protecting our freedom on all the seas of the world today.
Indulge yourself and enjoy our website as you learn about the USS Ranger Foundation and the effort that is being done to preserve her memories for generations to come.
Stop by the Ship's Store and browse through our gift shop. You are sure to find something to delight the sailor in your life. Log into the Message Board and join the conversations. Coming soon is our Blog! Above all join us with your support to save our “Top Gun of the Pacific Fleet”."
Here you go, visit the USS Ranger Foundation Site...Click on Link Below!
The Clatsops....Is This Still Their Land?
"The Clatsops are a band of the Chinooks, occupying the country on the Pacific coast, from the mouth of the Columbia river, about thirty miles south. Their lands are considered very valuable; they include what are called the Clatsop plains. Nearly all their territory is already claimed and occupied by settlers. They number in all eighty, and have ceded their lands to the United States."
"Ceded" their lands, yes, but to Anson Dart on Tansy Point in the 1850's but this treaty to my understanding and some 50 others around these parts, were never ratified and Dart in this letter, the above paragraph is excerpted from, even says they(The Clatsops) are a band of the Chinooks, which would confirm their legitimacy today would it not?
Anybody have any idea as to the current status of the "Clatsop Nation".
Can anybody locally, today, claim descendency to the "Clatsop Nation"?
Anybody know where "Indian Mary" is buried?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)