NorthCoastOregon.com

On Apr 14, 12:15 PM, Emil wrote:

I thought this was one of the better letters I have recevied.

The “Why you should support LNG” advertisement is factual and to the point. Going to another level on this: The Bradwood project would bring an estimated $600 million taxable property on the tax roles - which Clatsop County desperately needs. The Bradwood project would bring 30 - 40 full time “family wage” jobs to Clatsop County - which we desperately need. The Bradwood project would bring very high value tractor tugs to assist in docking ships to our area - which will add more taxable property to the tax roles and even more jobs - and the capacity to have these tugs in our area would enhance the cruise ship market by allowing very large cruise ships to visit our area. If we have the tractor tugs available, Oregon could develop a major cruise ship port for the entire Pacific Northwest at the mouth of the Columbia River. In the end the Bradwood project is a win-win for Oregon.

Now going to the next level: I have been very disappointed with the media coverage of the Bradwood and LNG subject matter. For the most part it has been superficial, based on scare tactics, and at times been a mouth piece for opposition groups. There seems to be a lack of reality in this issue - we need the gas resources and we need the jobs - in the end how do we make it work?

When I look at projects and programs I generally start from the position of “how to make it work” From this positive start then I can organize all the issues, problems and quirks that might be associated with the issue at hand. When you start on the positive note, then you can easily understand your subject matter and thought process, with an output that has meaning. When a person starts from the position of “no way in hell”, or “not in my backyard”, then you loose the capacity for an open minded and transparent process. Too many of local opponents of the LNG process have started from the “no way in hell” starting gate and have lost the ability for upward and outward thinking.

A number of the anti-LNG activists have become CAVEmen: Citizens Against Virtually Everything. I am tired of this. I am also tired of the self serving political positioning of a number of state and national elected leaders. These people have done nothing for creating jobs or economic opportunity. What some of these people are doing is playing the Roman Coliseum game - where you play your sad act to the crowds and bring more blood to the arena. Good leaders understand how to lead and how to bring positive change - so far we have no good leaders - just users.

I would like to offer my congratulations for the good advertisement. It is too bad they had to pay for what should have been freely given.

On Apr 15, 6:05 PM, Hard to tell wrote:

I’m hard pressed to find so many negative idea’s Of LNG as Mr.H.
I wish he could be more specific in which existing family wage jobs will leave or not come here if LNG does survive all the negative hype.
Seafood workers avg 10 dollars per hr, what are these new retail and hospitality jobs going to pay 11 dollars an hour? What is the avg cost of a house in Clatsop County. Workers need to make 20-25 an hour, their spouse earning 10-15 an hour to be able to own there own home. My opinion is that access to energy is access to industry that will most likely pay a family wage. Natural gas is a fairly clean energy source. You go on the internet, you have home units that compress natural gas for a car, you have machines that change natural gas to hydrogen for cars and home electric needs. Yes it’s in the near future. I think we can have the best of both worlds, by all means keep going with wind and wave and solar. Maybe the earth has reached the apex of our warm cycle and we are on a cooling trend now. Take out the damn dams that don’t produce much electricity. Can’t we find any common ground?

On Apr 15, 8:03 PM, Emil Nyberg wrote:

I agree that sometime down the road the dams have to go.  If they did now, before we have developed wind, solar and wave power where will we get our electricity from for the next 15 - 29 years?  From coal?  (During this past winters storm I learned that I really lick electricity. Don’t you? Natural gas is the cleanest source of energy availble at this time.

Since I was a child here (in the good times with logging Polluting the river and we need to clean that up, 37 cannaries on the water front)as these jobs left I have heard we need to bring in jobs but as soon as someone wants to do that it is the wrong kind, dangerous, will kill us, the jobs that are created will go to outsiders, ect.

The next statement always is, if you deny this we will work to bring in good , clean jobs, but we never do.  To me the time has come to move forward and start developing these jobs. The river is our greatest assett, lets do something with it if we should get this LNG terminal there will be many more spill over industries moving here and with those family wage jobs locals will be able to buy these 300,000 dollar homes, that way we could close I- 5 and PDX and quit shipping things to California or importing our food from there.

On Apr 15, 11:29 PM, Avid Reader wrote:

Unfortunately there will be no way to stop the referendum.  The anti-LNG zealots will probably have little problem garnering the necessary number of signatures to put the thing on the ballot.  One can assume we can look forward to the same standard of journalism we were just afforded during the Richard Lee recall.  I think it will be up to the LNG companies to foot the bill to fight it.  Pete Huhtala is a naif.

On Apr 16, 6:25 AM, The Gnostic wrote:

“ Perhaps you’re all Intelligent Design fanatics who think that worldwide climate change is a liberal myth dreamed up along with the lie of evolution? “ It is a shame you have to insult people that you have a difference of opinion with. I guess you have given up your aspirations of trying to bring people together. I’m not even a fanatic, but I believe in God and that our journey is to spiritually evolve back to him. Good luck OK back on topic
. “ Hauling this stuff up to Bradwood is an unnecessary risk that would hurt our economy, our environment and our quality of life” Can you go into more detail here and please be specific.  thank you

On Apr 16, 8:20 AM, sticking to facts wrote:

It is interesting that those politicians who have “come out against it” don’t have any legal standing to do so nor do they state legal precedent in any of their reasons to do so. The BOCC has shown all businesses and industries that they will follow law and established procedures to come to a conclusion that will stand to a LUBA review of the case and that they are doing as charged, to work WITH developers.

It is NOT the job of the BOCC to pick and chose what industries to allow in to the county.

On Apr 16, 4:53 PM, Anonymous Coward wrote:

PAH, you continue to talk without speaking and threaten legal this and legal that.  Do us all a favor and take your shit to the dump.  When you stop taking money from the fishermen, we’ll have something to talk about.

On Apr 16, 8:42 PM, Vision for the future wrote:

We can all be happy with the wonderful vision for the future Northern Star is providing for us in Clatsop County.  40 to 60 jobs, living wage jobs that average $65,000 per year, wonderful support for salmon, and nearly 8 million each and every year in property taxes.  We should get down on our knees and pray at their out of state corporate alter of greed.  What are we giving up?  If it is all good why did the county staff report say this was not a good idea.  They spent many man hours working on finding out the details of this 600 million dollar “small to medium” size project which our county comprehensive plan allows.  I guess it has to be a billion dollars before it is a large project and therefore not allowed by the county’s comprehensive plan.  The only way they could approve this is if it were a small to medium project.  But is a large project bad?  Why not have many such projects with many more plants offering 40 to 60 living wage jobs?  Oh, by the way, can anyone tell me how many people living in Clatsop County are qualified for the high paying jobs?  Perhaps our youngsters will get the education they need to get those jobs one day but not now.  The only jobs available to our citizens will be clerical, maintenance and security unless you believe those jobs will be at $65,000 per year.  If so where do I sign up?

In addition to the nearly 8 million dollars in property taxes there are costs that are not spoken about often.  These costs are born by the good citizens of Clatsop County and will average about 40,000 everytime a ship comes in and $40,000 everytime it goes out.  Now at an estimated 3 ships a week with a 22 hour off load cycle that means there will be an LNG ship on the river 6 days a week costing annually slightly over 12 million dollars per year.  Oh by the way this is the current cost of the operation an existing operation on the east coast.  Now I am not an “idot” but it seems that if we take in 8 million and pay out 12 million that someone is left holding a very expensive bill.  I am sure that Bradwood will thank the tax payers of Clatsop County for their contribution so they do not have to cover that cost.

Any of the good citizens who took time to go to the county meeting on March 20th when they were talking about safety would have been impressed with the concern of our county commissioners as local fire and emergency responders were criticized for always asking for more than they need.  Or when the county has a requirement for a 500 foot wide radius for a turn on Clifton Road to ensure that vehicles and fire trucks can safely pass each other.  They recently granted a variance for that allowing the company to only put in a 375 foot width on that turn.  The cost difference for the company was 1.2 million versus 2.9 million.  When it comes to safety I am sure glad the commissioners have put a price on safety.

Astoria is part of the area that is about the receive a “National Heritage Area” designation.  An amazing addition that will help our growing businesses.  Add this to the recent “Today Show” mention that Astoria is the number 1 place to retire in the nation.  This is simply fabulous.

Finally, should LNG, make it through the referendum and make it through a LUBA appeal we should change the sign to give the remaining visitors a warm “Welcome to Gastoria”

On Apr 16, 9:34 PM, No Name [required} wrote:

These costs are born by the good citizens of Clatsop County and will average about 40,000 everytime a ship comes in and $40,000 everytime it goes out.

Okay, I’ll bite.

Why is each inbound and outbound LNG ship going to cost Clatsop County $40k?

On Apr 16, 10:14 PM, Nukes are the answer! wrote:

Hey, we can just drop this whole LNG debate and build a big ‘ol nucular plant there! We can bring in someone from CALIFORNIA to design it and some of those corrupt Soprano-esque contractors from the Big Apple to build it. Sound good? Okay, then.

On Apr 17, 5:43 AM, Guy wrote:

Those who don’t know, teach.
Those who really don’t know, teach Phys Ed.
Those who really, really don’t know, consult.

On Apr 17, 9:57 AM, JD Bishop wrote:

“All this information was provided to the Clatsop County Commissioners well in advance of their vote and they made no mention of it.”

Let me get this straight. Bradwood Landing will be paying $333,848 in taxes to the Clatsop County law enforcement each year and $810,318 each year to the Knappa, Svenson, Burnside firedistrict. It’ll pay a slew of other taxes totaling $7,692,076 each year and in return the public has to belly up $80,000 for the cost of security or (so you say) we can be the #1 retirement spot in the USA and increase our tax base by ... what a couple thousand dollars?

You have no proof that we would lose our designation of becoming the #1 retirement spot, and even if we did it would be no great loss. It isn’t a lure for most the people I know. We don’t want our future to be trinket sellers while we watch a group of old people sit around waiting to die. We want, we demand, a vital community that is growing and we have no more qualms about a “HUGE” Lng ship going down the river than we do a ship full of Mitsubishis traveling PAST us on its way to Portland or the HUGE cruise ships that keep the artist colony stroked.

Your talking “points” that have nothing to do with granting a land use application. Have you read the LUBA decision on RiverKeeper vs City of Warrenton? That issue is not part of a determination that an administrative body making land use decisions can take into consideration. It has NOTHING to do with a land use application. You attack and vilify the commissioners when your leaders tell you to like a bunch of sheeple.

On Apr 17, 6:54 PM, PAH wrote:

From the documentation I’ve seen and referenced by the CRS, the Coast Guard costs are about one half the total expenditure at the Mystic River site,with the balance spent by state and local agencies.  I believe that the estimates for Fall River, which involves a trip about 30 miles up a bay and river, were higher to the local municipalities.

As for supporting the Coast Guard presence and their local spending, bravo.  We;re getting something for our federal taxes.  If the LNG company doesn’t even pay adequate taxes to offset the local costs of services, services in good part mandated by Homeland Security, then we have a problem.  Our responders might be able to negotiate infrastructure investment by Northern Star, even though the County could have put them in a better negotiating position.  But the ongoing costs of tending to these tankers and the tank farms is non-federal spending with no offset but property tax, and those funds would not necessarily be used as direct offsets.  Fiscally, the Commission made a very poor business decision in this regard.  Does anyone know if Clatsop County can get another bite at the apple other than to hope that Columbia Riverkeeper gets LUBA to remand thecase back to the Commission?

On Jun 17, 11:12 PM, Ed wrote:

JD- All this talk of the supposed 7 mil Bradwood will add to the tax base (assuming they don’t pull a TrendWest scheme and sue the county after they’re assessed) neglects the time tested notion that increasing the tax base in fell swoops via large scale development usually leads to increased property taxes for all.

If you’re excited about the idea of a few dozen jobs being added to the local roster, fine. I hope you get one. But this talk of what Bradwood will contribute to the coffers as a justification for it’s approval is naive. After it’s all said and done, Clatsop residents will flip for a portion of the bill. Our property taxes will increase as a direct result of Bradwood.

Your last remark, “You attack and vilify the commissioners when your leaders tell you to like a bunch of sheeple.” is ironic. Of the many weighty arguments against LNG- e.g. danger to surrounding residents through user error or more likely imminent tectonic motion (where expecting a big one FYI), loss of property value for the neighbors, salmon habit destruction, the massive ramifications surrounding the necessary pipeline and the well established fact that the Northwest has no need for LNG (few folks in the rural NW even have access to NG- hint), the best LNG proponents can come up with are contrived numbers from camp LNG claiming a boon to the economy through an increased tax base (see paragraph 1) and 30, no 43, no 65 “living wage jobs”. Sheep trust their shepherd’s directive because they’re too simple minded to question it. Most end up on a plate.

On Jun 18, 12:58 PM, Patrick McGee wrote:

And just why, specifically, is it “WE” are against LNG “yawwwwning anonym”?

On Jun 18, 4:21 PM, Patrick McGee wrote:

How about “River Current Hydro-Generators” in lieu of “Solar”?

I don’t know exactly at what rate that river bottom current passes us by at but,I would bet with the right set of generators we could get off the grid, form a PUC and self-sustain our power for years to come around most of this area without chewing up one fish.

Add to that a nice set of “Wind Generators” as proposed, your complaint would be null.

On Jun 23, 1:42 AM, sorry charlie wrote:

You have no proof for any of your assertions. Increased property taxes? BS, says who and why? Property values suffering? Yeah, right. Due to LNG, not the economy, but LNG, again, YEAH RIGHT. Earthquake, tsunami risk? And so, we really shouldn’t be building those wind turbines or solar plants here either, correct? Insurance companies shouldn’t allow that or should charge exhorbant prices for these types of facilities. Especially the ocean wave ones. Look at all of those quakes we are having off the coast. How stupid is that, to build one of those things anywhere along the Washington, Oregon or California coast when its just going to go down in the tsunami or earthquake that is due any moment.

You have no proof whatsoever that the fishing industry will suffer in the least with LNG coming in. The ONLY fishermen protesting Bradwood (and none protesting Oregon LNG) are those with their little conclave in at Clifton. They don’t want anyone noticing them and what they are up to. The sports fishermen aren’t protesting LNG, en masse. NO FISH SPAWN where Bradwood’s site is. There will be screens on the intake pipes and screens on the tankers. They will be fish friendliest ships that this river has ever had on it.

Tired of being called sheeple, about as tired as those for LNG are at being told they are “grossly ill informed”.  The move for a referendum was a “grossly ill informed” and short sighted idea. If it fails, it will incapacitate the ability of ANY sort of energy to be able to move into the area, whether it be solar, wind or LNG. It will curtail any further cable companies from competing with Charter for cable television, for DSL internet connection, for any sort of advancement in cable technology or energy.

The ODE report’s statement that Natural Gas will not be needed is based on the FALSE assumption that 146 new nuclear plants will be built and additional coal plants will be built. NOTHING in that report mentioned any alternative power because NONE of the alternative powers are far enough along in development on a massive scale to take the place of Natural Gas except for nuclear power or coal. BOTH nuclear power and coal have coalitions of environmental groups lobbying extensively against their further development, almost as heavily as LNG opposition.

For ODE’s report to be based on the FALSE assumption that imported natural gas will not be needed shows how blatantly unrealistic it is. Those relying on that report have yet to explain how they propose to “mitigate” the circumstances should the nuclear plants fail to materialize.

The LNG corporations have been forced to mitigate every eventuality including ludicrous scenarios of terrorist attacks (none yet on Boston), .9 earthquakes (like we would have to worry about the LNG facility after one of those) and the demise of the salmon (which the HYDRO dams have already wiped out and the LNG have nothing to do with).  I don’t think its asking much for the “other side” to have to mitigate the certainty that there will NOT be even HALF of the proposed nuclear plants built within the next 10 years and what will we be doing for power then?

On Jun 24, 1:32 AM, charlie wrote:

If those fishermen were worried about their livelihood as law abiding fishermen then they would be joined by other fishermen who don’t have their boat houses and duck shacks right there. There isn’t a single fishermen who has been in the business for two decades who supports the cry that the salmon are endangered by LNG coming onto the river. NONE.

Personally, I thought Boston was a pretty big town surrounded by quite a few towns with big populations. Yet, the government allowed not only one LNG plant to be built near it but has approved for a second one to be built near it.  Numbers theory? Isn’t there a pretty large population surrounding Boston Harbor? One of the largest LNG plants in the US is located in Chesapeake Bay, the largest estuary in the United States, with Maryland and Virginia surrounding it. Another pretty large population and a pretty significant location. A much more vulnerable spot for a terrorist target, as well, one would think. Yeah I know you didn’t hit on that one this time. But someone else always does.

If FERC were truly afraid regarding the supposed “risk” that LNG is supposedly incurring I think that Boston Harbor and Chesapeake Bay would be two places they would keep LNG out of.

Neither place reported land values going down with LNG coming in. Of course you can’t just say that and say, “Use your logic” if my logic is saying LNG isn’t bad. It wasn’t bad for Boston or Cove Point land value so why would it be bad for here? It should make it more valuable, having energy guaranteed to our state and therefore to us.

I don’t have natural gas where I live, either. I asked NW how much to pipe it in and was told $10,000 to come down my road. I asked WHY? I was told because they don’t have a lot of it and they aren’t going to bring it down my road unless they know for sure there is a market for it because it is so expensive right now. HOWEVER, if the price were to come down a little and I was able to get enough of my neighbors to order gas appliances to show that they were intent on using natural gas the price for coming down our road would correspondingly go DOWN because many more people paying regularly a less, fixed price is better than having one or two that pay large prices every once in awhile.

To me that is the same thing that LNG is saying. If we have the demand and can prove the intent to use then we will be supplied.

On Jun 24, 10:29 PM, Ed wrote:

Sry. I forgot the link on Warrenton LNG-

http://www.oregonpipelinecompany.com/pdfs/Jun19-pressrelease.pdf

On Jun 25, 2:08 AM, Charlie wrote:

Your asking me to prove something that didn’t happen (ie homes didn’t lose value). Looking at property values prior to LNG plants going in and after and the change that you claim will happen if LNG comes here hasn’t born out anywhere else so why would it here?

Overall property value is going down. To suggest that LNG being sited here is to be blamed is disingenuous. I’ll look for the site I was using, sorry I didn’t bookmark it.  However, asking someone to prove something didn’t happen, in essence make your argument for you, does seem backwards!

Your argument does not counter what I was told by NW Natural Gas. Supply and demand, pure and simple. If NW has ample gas they will offer it and take chances on more areas where they are NOT offering at this time because of the expense in bringing it to outlaying areas. Each year, as NW has access to more gas it has extended its gas lines and its clients. NW natural wants customers, they don’t want us using gas appliances as lawn ornaments. Your assertions on this point are not thought out.

On Jun 25, 12:02 PM, Rick Balkins wrote:

Scott:

In general,

The building code doesn’t directly state what systems to use as it would be an “engineered” system requiring an Oregon registered structural engineer due to the structure being a “significant structure”.

Due to the basics of the design of the system for the storage tanks. The storage tanks would be best situated on base isolators between the tanks and the “slab on pile” system that is in contact to the ground.

Given estimated lateral movements projected for a Cascadia subduction zone earthquakes. The code specifies 150% g peak ground acceleration for a 0.2 second spectral response time on a site class B site. This type of stuff is all engineered. Any engineer can tell you that a structure on the size and scale and budget that these LNG projects would have would be on base isolators systems. In some cases, it may have a combination of seismic systems.

In the code, it implies acceptable engineering practices and standards to be mandated. So, you can expect ASCE 7-05 to apply as well as FEMA regulation standards because of FERC mandates. If you do your homework, you’ll learn about the significant requirements of FEMA and minimum load conditions indicated in ASCE 7-05 (or current edition of ASCE 7. (ASCE 7-05 is 2005 edition. There is also a supplement 1.

Piles in themselves would be used to anchor the base slab (which the base isolators would be located on between the tanks themselves and the slab).

The reinforced concrete outer shell would likely be equipped with #5 to #8 rebar spaced 8-inches on center both horizontally as well as vertically. There would also likely be two rows of rebar. One row being about 1.5-2” below the outer surface and the inner row being about 1.5-2” from the inner surface. Keeping about a 1.5-2 inch coverage of high strength concrete.

It is most likely that they’ll have 4000 psi @ 28 days concrete as minimum. This isn’t going to be lightweight concrete as it wouldn’t be permitted for use on structures of this nature and scale.

No engineer worth their word is going to cut corners on these regards. The engineer would also provide for a factor of safety of at least 1.3 to 1.5 or even a factor of safety of 2. What that means is the design of the structure would be designed to 1.3 to 2 times that of what might be expected at the highest level. Why? They worked their butt off to get their license. They are not going to risk losing it. It is their job security.

On Jun 25, 2:11 PM, Rick Balkins wrote:

First off, NOT every single LNG facility is exactly the same.

http://www.ucy.ac.cy/~gracm05/PROCS1/21.pdf

Some of the existing ones do not. Good question is how many LNG facilities have been built in high seismic zone areas like the west cost (California, Oregon, Oregon, Washington and Alaska) in the last 15 years. If none, the reasons is technology. These facilities would be among the first ones to employ the use of seismic base isolators.

Google search:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=seismic+base+isolators+LNG+facility

The first in the search results:
http://www.ncree.gov.tw/itp2002/09_FundamentalsOfSeismicBaseIsolation.pdf

Indicates the use of a type of base isolation systems in LNG facilities in Greece. Greece is an area known for seismic activity much like California. Regularly occuring quakes in the orders of Magnitude 5 and 6 levels.

This is not unheard of or non-existant. What they would do below the heated slab and slab-top pile foundation systems. Think - double slab with base isolators systems in between. The bottom slab would be directly connected to the piles and serve as a shared/common cap for the piles used to secure the structure from sinking under liquefaction.

The base isolation system would be used to isolate the LNG storage tanks from the seismic energy of the earthquake and thus - reduce damage from an earthquake.

This would be a mandated requirement by engineers because piles-only system would NOT provide the level of seismic safety and performance that would adequetely satisfy the engineers. Especially in a megathrust earthquake zone on the orders of magnitude 9.0.

These types of facilities would require the greatest level of safety performance of any facility mandated by federal laws and state laws. Requiring complete survival of seismic event with continuous operations. Just like a nuclear reactor, LPG, and other facilities.

On Jun 25, 5:22 PM, Rick Balkins wrote:

My answer is that I don’t know. Neither yes or no in regards to this continent.

As far as buildings with base isolations in the Pacific Northwest, yes. Several buildings had been either seismically retrofitted with base isolation system as well as some newer buildings. These buildings are often newer buildings or large buildings. You may or may not immediately know but you have to do some searching for information and do some homework.

Some school buildings / college buildings had had such systems installed. If the site is flat, it is easier to implement such a system. Both LNG sites are flat.

Any LNG facility built outside a major seismic zone might not be equipped with seismic base isolators. These systems are increasingly becoming more popular as the prices for these systems are becoming less expenses and more schools, colleges and universities are undergoing seismic retrofitting.

LNG tanks are structures without any shear walls. The delicate nature of concrete does not like significant movement (even with rebar).In general, you want seismic base isolation so the seismic energy would be dissipated without causing cracks on the exterior shell beyong that of natural thermo-contraction/expansion. Modern concrete specification would also require additives that protects the concrete in wide temperature changes from freezing temperatures to high temperatures like 80 or 90 degree temperatures. Also additives to protect the concrete from the salt.

Some of the specifications of concrete would be mandated by engineers would be from the current edition of ACI 318.

On Jul 22, 7:24 AM, Ed wrote:

But don’t take my word for it. Ted Ames said it best-

“How can a small fire department with two paid people and 30 volunteers prepare for a potential of an accident involving an LNG tanker somewhere along the Columbia River on our shores?” he said. “The bottom line is I need an awful lot of people and an awful lot of stuff to prepare for that, and it shouldn’t be the taxpayers’ responsibility to do that.”

http://www.dailyastorian.com/main.asp?SectionID=2&SubSectionID=398&ArticleID=52958

On Jul 22, 8:51 AM, Jon Dana wrote:

How is Ted planning for 9.0 earthquake and a series of 50 ft tsunami waves, probably just as much a chance as a LNG accident.

On Jul 22, 10:19 AM, Ned wrote:

If I were Bradwood that would stick in my craw, a bit, that I was picking up the whole bill and Oregon LNG picking up nada. Part of Bradwood’s “conditional use” permit should read that if Oregon LNG comes in that it shares the cost of whatever Bradwood provided w/Warrenton OR the board should take into account that Warrenton’s fire dept can be provided for by Oregon LNG, if Warrenton’s City Council is forward thinking, and relieve Bradwood of that responsibility.

On Jul 23, 12:57 AM, Rick Balkins wrote:

Ed:

The basis of analyzing earthquake risks here is to understand where the fault lines lies, what type of faults and their projectable maximum magnitude. Note: I said projectable. There is NO way that we can be exact with current knowledge.

We don’t have to worry a whole lot about magnitude 7.0 and below earthquakes in the Clatsop region. Given the relatively few fault lines and their distance.

General rule of thumb given relatively consistant geology, the farther you are from an earthquake fault line the lesser is the potential damage to property. Almost all the fault lines are at least 20 miles from Astoria.

The CSZ fault is almost always a Magnitude 8.0+ when it goes off except aftershocks. The other shallow faults like the one near Cape Disappointment and the one strike-slip fault about 10 miles closer then the CSZ’s fault may produce earthquakes potentially similar to a Northridge/2002 Tacoma area scale quake. Earthquakes of magnitude 7.0 are near the projectable limits of those faults. So assuming a magnitude 7.0 occurs at either quake spots. We are talking about 30 some odd miles.

What kind of damage should we expect. Lets look at Northridge damage and look at areas 30 miles away from the Northridge area like Carson,CA and Torrence,CA and Long Beach, CA. Most any single-family residence survived the earthquake with zero damage. Maybe a little crack in drywall at the seams between panels and micro-cracks in the motar joints between concrete masonry units. This was the basic assessment of buildings in these neighborhoods. Most of which were one, two or three story track development made of light-frame construction. Most any Victorian that is in good condition and nails well fastened should be able to survive the earthquake without damage. Most any concrete,reinforced concrete and even brick masonry structures should survive with minor to no damage at all if the structure is in good condition. Note: Victorians houses with highly deteriorated corbelled chimneys may have significant issues with these chimneys like collapsing of the chimney inside if not attended to. The wood frame of the building should otherwise survive the earthquake. Most any concrete/masonry veneered building in Astoria are sufficiently strong to survive such an earthquake.

Why? The energy dissipates with distance from fault for the most part. There are other issues that can be of serious dire such as landslide susceptibility. Earthquake in Seattle or Portland are not of any serious threat. Even a 9.0 in Seattle or Portland would pose no greater threat then a local mag. 7.0. The only earthquake fault of significant threat is a CSZ event with magnitude 9.0+ level projected with tsunami.

The other earthquakes would get our attention and be disruptive during that time but we move on. Most buildings in downtown Astoria were built with fairly hefty rebar and thick walls. If the Astoria Flour Mill rings a bell. The rest of these buildings are much like them. Given what I read and heard about the demolition of the Astoria Flour Mill, if it was still standing, that structure would likely survive a mag. 7 or even 8.0 earthquake and potentially a mag. 9.0 At that scale, it is hard to say. It can be expected that the earthquake would have some dissipation of strength but still quite strong and long lasting.

The issue is duration period. Potential aftershocks after that of significant strength.

It is not a threat to ignore. The CSZ is one that has dire consequences if it did occur. The thing is, you can never pin the date on if or when an earthquake will happen.

On Jul 23, 9:59 AM, Patrick McGee wrote:

On Jul 22, 7:51 AM, Jon Dana (Hartill?) wrote:

How is Ted planning for 9.0 earthquake and a series of 50 ft tsunami waves, probably just as much a chance as a LNG accident.

Would it be that some relative of Jon D. Hartill would be stooping to the level of using this guy’s name in anonymity just so it could be said this name “Jon Dana” was that of a real person?

Hmmmmmmmmm!

Interesting!

On Jul 23, 12:37 PM, Rick Balkins wrote:

Not for fear mongering purposes but for preparation. The point is the nature of earthquakes are impossible to predict. It has a equal chance of happening today as any other time.

What we can count on is that there will be another megathrust earthquakes. In an infinite world with infinite period of time there will be infinite numbers of quakes and disasters.

I can careless of predictions and statements like “within the next 50 years, we may undergo one of these quakes”. We have the technology to make buildings safer and stabilize hillsides. The correct solution is NOT to ignore but to address the matters as finances afford it. Keep your house maintained. In Victorian homes with “cripple walls” (short pin-up walls between a masonry/concrete foundation and the wood main floor (often the second level floor). Simple solutions such as sistering on both sides of the 2x4 or 2x6 cripple wall studs with 2x4s or 2x6s (if cripple wall studs are 2x6 use 2x6 for sistering on both sides). Then install a 2x4 or 2x6 or 4x4 or 4x6 or 6x6 diagonal wood brace. (Basically, cut the 2x4 or 2x6 or 4x4 or 4x6 or 6x6 ends so that it will fit the space snug and tight. Use a warrent truss style bracing technique. Toe-nail the ends so they are fastened to the cripple studs (or the sistered studs.) Then add 1/2” plywood sheets over the studs. Considering shaking intensity and strengthening the floor so we don’t have a “weak story” problem. Also, anchor the sill plates to the brick/concrete foundation with at least a simple masonry anchor typically used in construction like a concrete anchor. Place them at the middle of the space between every stud. Halfway between each stud.  That way, the wood frame won’t be slidding around.

If finances are limited, start at the corners and about halfway in between the corners on long walls. Code generally specifies only plywood or 1x4 for shear resistance. I don’t put my entire trust in just that for a large earthquake strong enough to cause floor collapse and serious damage. It isn’t about “fear” but about saving lives through preventing problems to occur. Why wait til the quake comes.

The problem often in human society is they just don’t do anything and when it happens - lives are lost. The common theme is, with preventative measures, the many of the lives would not be lost. We studied enough about earthquakes to know what it does to buildings. California just happens to be a great testing ground because of how often earthquakes occur there. We have seen the damages and recorded them and diagnosed the failure of many buildings. Use that knowledge to protect our buildings. Once a building is destroyed, that building is gone. Once lives are gone, it is gone and NOT revivable.

Again, not for fear but prepareness. Hopefully, prepare a house or commercial building by retrofitting it so it doesn’t kill you, your family or children if a large earthquake occurs in your time.

I didn’t mention the 300 years and so on about the CSZ or the possibility of happening in the next 50 years because it doesn’t matter. It will happen and happens when it happens. Taking steps forward to upgrade a building from 80 year old concepts of what the building would face to current consideration (whichever is greater or consider increasing the strength of te building by a factor of 1.5).

I rather error on the side of safety then to gamble a chance and not do something and get killed or someone killed because I ignore.

For the same reasons to make reasonable preparation of your house to prevent fire from happening. The same for any disaster. Prepare but also know the facts and what is the potential problem. For me, I’m not afraid of earthquakes. I have seen them and been through them. I know what kinds of damages to expect to see on buildings not upgraded to handle such earthquakes based on construction type, style and structural design of the building.

Am I afraid ? No. Does my house have risks? Yes. Should I make mitigative efforts before such an event occurs? For moral reasons and protection of my life and lives of public neighboring - YES. How should I do this? Take it step by step within financial reason and start from the ground up, generally. Some case may need special attention in other areas of the building presenting greater danger.

Danger is part of life but preventing it before they happen is just prudent.

On Jul 23, 3:13 PM, visitor wrote:

You go big brother, you hit the nail right on the head. I often thought Mcgee must have a sinister reason for needing to know “who you are” to the point of harrassing.

On Jul 23, 3:41 PM, big brothers watching wrote:

Yep, we will have to show him our votes next, before we are allowed to put them in the ballot box or he won’t consider them “valid” because we aren’t standing behind them with our names.

Your Mr. Rohn hasn’t even bothered to show at a single meeting to prepare for stepping into Patricks shoes as District 4s rep on the board. Oh, excuse me, that is how he is preparing. At least Scheller is making it to all the meetings so IF he is elected he will know what is going on and how to be a responsible member of the board.

On Jul 23, 5:23 PM, Patrick McGee wrote:

On Jul 23, 2:41 PM, big brothers watching wrote:

Yep, we will have to show him our votes next, before we are allowed to put them in the ballot box or he won’t consider them “valid” because we aren’t standing behind them with our names.

Your Mr. Rohn hasn’t even bothered to show at a single meeting to prepare for stepping into Patricks shoes as District 4s rep on the board. Oh, excuse me, that is how he is preparing. At least Scheller is making it to all the meetings so IF he is elected he will know what is going on and how to be a responsible member of the board.

Scheller’s my choice over Roberts...yessssirrreee! Good Choice there. She’s gone in November.

Mr. Rhone doesn’t have to show up till he takes his seat from Patrick. Why don’t you test Mr. Rhone’s preparedness. Call him. Oooops! You might have to identify yourself wouldn’t you? Don’t call him, just watch him when he takes office. If you aren’t happy with the job he will do, you, as a citizen, have every right to mount a recall to replace him but again, you m ight have to identify yourself as a petitioner and even sign it, wouldn’t you? Never mind, just continue to hang out here where you are safe.

Yeah!! You show’em that anonymous vote and how that works.

On Jul 23, 9:09 PM, Ned wrote:

I have talked to Rohn. His answer to most of my questions was that Betsy Johnson should handle more and county should handle less. State should handle more and county should handle less. Federal should handle more and county should handle less. And he didn’t ask me to identify myself more than my first name. He didn’t ask me to provide him with PROOF that I was who I said I was, no driver’s license or anything.

Unlike you and your “ilk” I won’t mount a recall campaign just because the person I supported didn’t make it into office. I will allow him to find his feet as I feel Samuelson, Hazen, Robertson and Raichl are strong enough to carry him. It still doesn’t take away from the FACT that he does not prepare himself for taking over his role as a commissioner and probably shows how he will conduct himself in office. He can talk until he’s blue in the face. Actions speak louder than words. He isn’t there, he misses or leaves college board meetings and planning board meetings early. His civic duties take a backseat to his business and other things occuring in his life. That is a fact. It is pitiful that Cary Johnson was attending every board meeting for a year preparing for the opportunity to serve his community and the Paper refused to acknowledge that. Even more pitiful is the fact that had Johnson been Margaret Lee’s godchild, as Rohn was, the Paper would have made a HUGE deal out of that connection but didn’t think it prudent to inform the public of Rohn’s connection to Lee. Telling, don’t you think?

On Jul 23, 10:24 PM, Rick Balkins wrote:

Ed, from technical standpoint, you are right. In that statement, I don’t want to be too technical. There is several factors that are unknown to us. A) The pressure threshold of the plates, B) The exact build up and C) conditions caused by several areas like what another earthquake elsewhere will do to this plate.

The problem is that we don’t know every variable involved in an earthquake. Plates can show no strain one day and then suddenly tremendous strain and rupture immediately. Because we can’t predict when earthquakes occur. We don’t know if a quake in Japan will cause additional stress to this fault and cause this fault to slip and cause a large shake. So for what it is worth, for average joe - it can happen any day, any time. We can’t predict.

We already gone over the CSZ reoccurance cycles based on historical record. It happens on average (given the last 10-12 quakes on this fault) to occur every 200-600 years. Since there is too many unknowns, it is best to say that it can happen anytime, equally. When playing the game of chances, it is better to think that any day there is a possibility of an earthquake.

As for the preparation of Bradwood? I suspect their structures would be engineered to have reasonable performance considering it would be a new structure that would need to meet today’s seismic code. Is there a potential for a problem? I won’t rule out that possibility given we don’t know if “mother nature” will give us a whopper that is bigger then planned for. There are already commonly known methods (some already used in an LNG facility) to minimize issues regarding damage to the storage tanks. Such as base isolation between the bottom of the storage tank (both inner and outer shell) and a 6-12” thick reinforced concrete slab on piles. The slab would act as a common cap for all the piles which would likely be 24” diameter piles anchored 30-60-ft down. Maybe 75-ft or even 100-ft. All depending on the soil.

As for my statement of “dire consequences”. This includes ALL possible threats. A CSZ event can be more disasterous to our community then an LNG event (whether or not an LNG facility is built). Tsunami is a wide spread damage. We get the whammy of the earthquake then the tsunami. However, an LNG plant would add additional concerns as inherited of being a source of tremendous energy and if released will add additional strain on the emergency response. Certainly Bradwood facility would not likely cause tremendous damage to nearby community, in such an event. If it happen during a CSZ event, it would be additional stress which could cause problems with emergency response to homes and businesses damaged during a CSZ event and subsequent tsunami.

Applying preventative measures and significant conservative design including planning for signigicant lateral displacement by using flex lines that allow a degree of displacement as much as 10-ft. in any direction. This would be reasonable for what we should expect from what I recall in some sources of information. This can also include vertical displacement. Reasonable preparation and we should not have much problems with these facilities. Key words is “should not”.

I am certain that Bradwood folks are reading this and taking notes. Perhaps, even passing on to engineers that are preparing the design/construction documents.

In all reason, I don’t rule out anything but we can only do our best.

Enough said on this message.

On Jul 23, 11:07 PM, Ed wrote:

Rick, I’d feel more at ease if you were calling the shots on the terminal’s engineering. Maybe you should give them a ring?

On Jul 24, 9:32 PM, Ed wrote:

Wendy- The link you put up isn’t THE CUP (read the title page). It contains the CUP (actually 2) for the pipeline and 1 more for construction of a parking lot (that 1 was news to me). None of the CUPs mention emergency response funding or training. Chalk it up to semantics if you like.

The PBS&J;report referred to in the commission’s approval doc is titled the “ERP Revisions & Response Resource COST SHARE Report” (paid for by Clatsop County).

http://clatsopcounty.us/Assets/Dept_12/PDF/Public%20Safety%20ERP%20Revisions%201107.pdf

The sections Bradwood will be required to honor (4.1 & 4.3) make no mention of ER funding from Bradwood. Northernstar has clearly been relieved of section 4.2 titled “Outstanding Response Resource and Cost Share Gaps”, the most telling piece of all. Read the extensive wish lists from Warrenton, Astoria, and Knappa fire districts. Who will fill them if Bradwood won’t? That’s where tax payers come in. It’s called “cost sharing”, thus the title of the doc.

In lieu of 4.2, section F of the ERP report shows Bradwood committing to a series of 1 time or 5 year payments to each of the fire districts to subsidize various upgrades/ equipment, etc. none of which will close the funding gap of section 4.2 demands. I wonder where AFD will find a fire boat for under $100K? I also find it interesting that Northerstar specifically promises not to file a property tax abatement against funds owed to Knappa fire district. Looks like the rest of the county is fair game. 

You bring up a list of ER fortifications Bradwood will add to the terminal. It has nothing to do with additional funding the 3 fire districts are asking for. These resources won’t be dedicated to them. You may as well give us a list of your favorite pizza toppings.

What you fail to understand is that it doesn’t matter whether or not you or I think the districts should get extra personnel for a maybe catastrophe that hasn’t happened in recent history in the USA (sic). They’ll demand it. The additional equipment they deem necessary? They’ll demand it. It won’t come free and 8 mill a year isn’t going to go too far after it’s doled out across the county. Warrenton and Astoria fire districts won’t be allocated a piece of this pie. I see a major funding...sorry, budgetary shortfall here.

I’m not sure where the river traffic vs local funding came in. I never made the assertion they were related (though others have). This one will be a sink hole for our federal tax dollars. You pay those, don’t you?

Your indictment of Ames is unfounded and almost too desperate to warrant a response. Ultimately I’d say his opinion on the matter holds a hell of a lot more weight than yours considering he’s the one with the clout.

On Jul 24, 11:01 PM, Wendy wrote:

http://clatsopcounty.us/Assets/Dept_12/PDF/Supplemental%20Safety%20Condition.pdf
Indictment of Ames? I charged or accused him of what? Pandering to his city council? ooooooooooh! What a serious thing to charge a city employee with! Not. It’s politics, honey. It is what it is.

Lord you love the melodrama, Patrick, must be why you love center stage.

On Jul 25, 2:10 PM, Wendy wrote:

Five years worth of commitment with the next five years negotiable, over a million dollars worth of equipment. By that time it will be easily assessable as to whether or not the extra manpower was needed in the first place.

We will have to pick up the bill for two extra guys in each fire department? With Warrenton scheming to get a fire department and extra men out of the NorthCoast Business Park and have those businesses pay for it? You really don’t know what you are talking about. Astorians can decide, in ten years, if those two extra men are really worth their pay.

With all of the other tax burdens that Bradwood will be helping to shoulder Astoria and Warrenton’s tax bill to county will not inflate and their citizens will benefit from that. If they have to shoulder the costs of two additional employees at the end of ten years I think they will be able to manage.

I think it is you who are not looking at the big picture of what these types of business/industries can do for an area in the arena of shouldering taxes and what this benefit actually DOES do for a community. Sans honey, would you rather have vinegar? Since I adore flies I try to keep it sweet.

On Jul 25, 3:40 PM, Rick Balkins wrote:

Very simple Ed.

When Assessed property values continue to go up so does that for Bradwood Landing. In other words, in 10 years, the assess value will go up 30% (or roughly that). So, the $7 Million would be $9.1 Million. This is not controlled by Bradwood but Clatsop County tax assessors office. Just like any other business and residences.

Bradwood legally can’t make those claims or they simply didn’t think people in the community are that dense. The law makes no distinction. NS/Bradwood & Oregon LNG are not tax exempt entities from property taxes. They are a corporation like any other corporate/business/commercial entity. They deal with an industrial mark. Period.

The rate taxes goes up depends on the County office.

On Jul 25, 4:20 PM, Rick Balkins wrote:

Ok, ed. I might have misunderstood what you wrote in the last paragraph.

You were wondering if Bradwood’s taxes would contain (halt or reduce the tax increase). Perhaps but then again, should we. To some degree, more revenues for the county with continued increases in cost, we might want to increase at 3% anyway. While, hopefully doing more in our community and get more done. It is hard to say.

Just a thought.

On Jul 25, 5:26 PM, scott wrote:

Well said on Jon “Dana” Hartill statement, Mr. McGee.

You ever heard that old saying, Patrick, when you throw a rock at a pack of dogs, the dog that squeals is the dog you hit. Looks like you hit a couple judging by the squealin’.

Patrick wrote:
On Jul 23, 8:59 AM, Patrick McGee wrote:

On Jul 22, 7:51 AM, Jon Dana (Hartill?) wrote:

Would it be that some relative of Jon D. Hartill would be stooping to the level of using this guy’s name in anonymity just so it could be said this name “Jon Dana” was that of a real person?

Hmmmmmmmmm!

Interesting!

And a response:

On Jul 23, 1:31 PM, big brothers watching wrote:

On Jul 23, 8:59 AM, Patrick McGee wrote: Drivel, per norm.

What a great society to be living in, now, where big brother is intent on hunting you down to see who you are when you make a comment. Yeah, lets all go to his forum and his blog so he can log in our ips and monitor our every thought. All for our own, and society’s, greater good.

Can’t wait to see what happens when the rest of McGee’s ilk are appointed into power after taking the elected out one by one. Goodbye freedom of speech and the right to anonymous voting.

I say doubleplus good on ya, Patrick.

On Jul 25, 9:27 PM, Jon Dana wrote:

I say doubleplus good on ya, Patrick.--- Doubleplus good?? thats funny, so you think I’m related to someone, aren’t we all? I noticed in the paper also a Jon D Hartill making a water generator, producing hydrogen, inceasing his gas milage by 50%. Pretty cool stuff, somebody actually doing something instead of spewing hot air. For months I was Bartoldus, if you want me to be a Hartill fine. I respect them both so its OK with me. I still believe it’s what the words say and not who says them.  Jon Dana

On Jul 25, 10:17 PM, Rick Balkins wrote:

Ed: Thanks for the final clarification/confirmation. This thread is about to hit the 100 post limits before you no longer can view the rest. Unless that was solved. This would be the second thread to hit 100+ messages.

Interesting, it is a Carrie Bartoldus thread. Like the prior thread. Kudos to Carrie, she manages to get topics that gets over 100 messages as responses.

On Jul 26, 7:49 AM, Patrick McGee wrote:

And look at the general content of the posts.

“Dried Salmon Matters II”

On Jul 26, 2:31 PM, scott wrote:

Hey Pete P: Where do us knobs come from?

From a place where we read the books that we reference, that’s where.

“Doubleplus good” comes from Orwell’s “1984” - the same book that “Big Brother” comes from. Before you or your friends call anyone big brother you should go read the book.

On Jul 26, 4:33 PM, interesting read wrote:

The LNG shipping industry has an exemplary safety record, with only eight accidents over the
past 40 years. None of these accidents have led to a loss of life or a breach of the vessel’s cargo
containment system.

On Jul 26, 4:38 PM, almost there wrote:

Therefore, for this report, DOE requested that Sandia focus on assessing the potential breach sizes, spills, and associated hazard distances for credible intentional events… Sandia worked with intelligence groups and agencies & used historical data to establish a range of potential intentional LNG cargo tank breaches that could be considered credible and possible.

On Jul 26, 5:27 PM, Patrick McGee wrote:

On J