Kulongoski energy summit leads to OPEC

Local News

Carrie Bartoldus August 28, 2008

While Governor Kulongoski’s long term goal calls on his soon to be created energy council to eventually reduce dependence on foreign oil, participants in Wednesday’s summit on Oregon’s Energy Future were encouraged to collaborate on both short and long term plans, based on the reality of today’s available energy.

Waiting for Washington D.C. to act on a comprehensive energy plan is “as futile as seeking Sasquatch,” according to Governor Kulongoski. Speaking at his summit held at the Nike Campus’ Tiger Woods Convention Center, the Governor called making a plan for Oregon’s energy future a moral imperative. He asked suppliers, business leaders, environmental groups, labor groups and individual consumer representatives “to speak openly, disagree respectfully, and work collaboratively” on an energy plan that he said could “bridge the gap between the status quo – which is no longer acceptable – and free from carbon, which is not yet attainable.” He stated that in other words, “we need to chart a short-term strategy while we advance our long-term vision for an energy independent Oregon.”

The Governor stated that he called the summit for four specific reasons: 1) to explain to Oregonians how the transition to a clean, renewable and energy independent economy can happen; 2) to celebrate Oregon’s national leadership on the issue of renewable energy and conservation while reviewing the progress that has been made to create a sustainable energy policy; 3) to bring together a diverse group of Oregonians to work collaboratively on an energy plan to chart a short-term strategy while \advancing a long-term vision for an energy independent Oregon; and 4) to put cold facts on the table so the public knows what’s at stake; knows what options are available. And the end he wants the public to know “that my bottom line is this: When it comes to energy – Oregon families and businesses must always have supply certainty and price stability.”

While acknowledging that Oregon is on the track to sustainable, renewable energy Kulongoski stated that Oregonians must also acknowledge the “hard truth” that “as we think and invest long-term, we need a reality check about the short-term.” In 2007 Oregon passed energy legislation which set renewable electricity and fuel standards resulting in 25-percent of Oregon’s electricity coming from renewable sources by 2025. However, Kulongoski countered, Oregonians must “put some uncomfortable truths on the table.” By 2030 Oregon’s population is projected to see a 41-percent increase, with more demands for energy, more vehicles on the road and an increase in the CO2 emissions.

The demand for energy will increase with one million more people and more businesses tapping into the grid.In order for Oregon to be able to maintain certainty and stability, supply will have to increase. Kulongoski stated that Oregonians must face the fact that renewable energy, by itself, at least for the next decade, will not be able to satisfy Oregon’s demand for energy.

The three elements of Oregon’s energy infrastructure – generation, transmission, and distribution – were acknowledged as facing major economic and environmental obstacles. Kulongoski listed the conventional energy sources of coal, oil and natural gas, along with their current associated problem of contributing, in varying degrees, to global warming. He discounted nuclear power plants as a viable solution to Oregon’s energy problems, calling them hugely expensive and time-consuming to build while calling out that the industry has still not solved the problem of how to store radioactive waste. The Governor reminded attendees that construction of new generation facilities – including hydroelectric – is slowing at the same time electricity use is soaring.

A topic which directly affects Clatsop County residents, and voters in the upcoming September 16th special election, was discussed. One of the important facts that the Governor called to the attention of the summit attendees was even if there were enough energy sources generating capacity to meet the future demand for electricity – Oregonians need to invest in a transmission infrastructure to move that electricity from where it is generated to where it is distributed and from there to the consumer. In Clatsop County ballot measure 4-131 is about the transmission of energy. Proponents of measure 4-131 want to allow conditional use permits for energy cables and pipelines through remote and seldom used areas of Clatsop County. Opponents of the measure want to block it, in the hopes it will forestall an LNG terminal from being built in the area. Mark Dodson, with NW Natural explained that if the measure is defeated Clatsop County will not have a way for new transmission lines of energy to be placed. “If we can’t build pipelines, we’re in trouble,” Dodson stated, “we only have one line into Clatsop County at this time and there won’t be a way to increase capacity if we can’t put in more.”

On the panel for energy suppliers graphs were shared by presenters from Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), NW Natural, Portland General Electric, PacifiCorp, and McMinnville Water and Light as they provided an overview of the current energy supply. Steve Wright, with the BPA, talked about a theme from a children’s book, The Plight of the Beaudelaires, with the conclusion being what is “noble enough”? Wright stated that Oregon does not have adequate tools today to optimize for rates, reliability, CO2 emission reductions and salmon mitigation. The potential tools at hand are wind forecasting, storage of energy and a smart grid, increased gas supply, accelerated energy efficiency implementation, transmission construction, protection of existing resources and broadening balancing authority reach.

“>
Gregg Kantor, with NW Natural, presented graphs for the west that showed rising energy consumption and rising demand for more energy with the demand in 2007 being at approximately 1.2 Bcf/d and projected to be at 2 Bcf/d by 2025. His last slide asked if the West was “ready for the rush to gas” depicting a map of the United States with pipelines and LNG terminals covering the Midwest to the East Coast.

On the panel representing the environmental groups at the summit was Andrea Durbin with the Oregon Environmental Council. Durbin stated that the white elephant in the room was that 40-percent of Oregon’s energy comes from coal. She questioned whether retrofitting Oregon’s only coal plant in Boardman with scrubbers, to the tune of 40 million dollars, was a prudent investment or something that Oregon would regret in the near future. Durbin said that all energy plans must recognize carbon emissions as a central component in the planning stage.

Rachel Shimshak with Renewable Northwest Project, another member of the environmental panel, declared that transmission of energy must be the number one concern, at this time with number two being that not enough people were educated regarding how energy was transmitted and energy providers must team with education providers, local community colleges and technical schools, to provide more people to get the job done.
“>The final member of the environmental panel, Margie Harris, urged a plan that was not predicated merely on fossil fuel but concentrated on energy efficiency. Harris encouraged using “living buildings” to not only conserve energy but to actually acquire energy. She advocated for building right the first time, as retrofitting or fixing buildings later was often more costly, took more energy at the outset and was less beneficial then doing it right at the onset. Appliance efficiency was one of the most practical ways for individual households to help with energy conservation and to have an impact on their fuel consumption (or, see a savings on their energy bill).

On the panel for the individual consumer and labor, Tom Chamberlain with the AFL-CIO stated that while this is both a difficult and exciting time he worried that Oregon working families were the ones that would end up paying for it. “When we start talking about bridge fuels a lot of the discussion is about long term, let’s talk about short term,” Chamberlain stated, “let’s talk about LNG, or a pipeline to the Rocky Mountain states. All of a sudden you see this tremendous uproar among consumers. They don’t understand that without that bridge fuel, not only is it going to raise their rates, it can cost them their jobs. We’re talking about the Oregon economy. Something so vital to workers it is life itself, it is bread on the table, it is a roof over their heads, it is kids in school. What we need in this state is what we don’t have right now. We really don’t have a clearing house to come together, show the data and engage the Oregonians in a discussion on how this impacts them. We need to come together, all different viewpoints, on short term and long term strategies. This is crucial to my members, it is crucial to Oregon families, it is crucial to Oregon.”

Governor Kulongoski concluded the summit by announcing his intentions of creating, by executive order, a council whose focus will be energy. The proposed name for this new entity is: The Oregon Planning and Energy Council – or OPEC for short. The Governor emphasized that one of the council’s tasks would be reducing, not eliminating, Oregon’s dependence on foreign oil.

“>
“>

101 Comments

On Aug 28, 4:39 PM, Ann Samuelson wrote:

Great factual reporting, one of the best articles I’ve read on NCO. As I read this I’m listening to a campaign ad for the no on gas lines in parks campaign. As a Commissioner who voted for the “variance” on private land regarding the Bradwood Landing project, I’m concerned about the lack of factual information folks are receiving to base their vote on regarding this referendum. This article is refreshing, as it is filled with TRUTH and no scare tactics.

On Aug 29, 10:37 AM, Emil E. "Swede" Nyberg wrote:

One of the important facts that the Governor called to the attention of the summit attendees was even if there were enough energy sources generating capacity to meet the future demand for electricity – Oregonians need to invest in a transmission infrastructure to move that electricity from where it is generated to where it is distributed. In Clatsop County ballot measure 4-131 is about the transmission of energy.

On Aug 29, 10:39 AM, Emil E. "Swede" Nyberg wrote:

Proponents of measure 4-131 want to allow conditional use permits for energy cables and pipelines through remote and seldom used areas of Clatsop County. Opponents of the measure want to block it, in the hopes it will forestall an LNG terminal from being built in the area. Mark Dodson, with NW Natural explained that if the measure is defeated Clatsop County will not have a way for new transmission lines of energy to be placed. “If we can’t build pipelines, we’re in trouble,” Dodson stated, “we only have one line into Clatsop County at this time and there won’t be a way to increase capacity if we can’t put in more.”

On Aug 29, 10:40 AM, Emil E. "Swede" Nyberg wrote:

The above 2 post say’s it all, taken from the above story.

Thanks Carrie

On Aug 29, 12:32 PM, Patrick McGee wrote:

On Aug 29, 10:37 AM, Emil E. “Swede” Nyberg wrote:

It’s about the transmission of Natural Gas in a 36” dia., High Pressure Pipeline buried 3 feet below grade through a property zoned OPR(Open Space, Parks and Recreation) Swede, approved by the Clatsop County Board of Commissioners by amendment to the Clatsop County Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development and Water Use Ordinance(LWDUO) on the advice of Northern Star Natural Gas.

On Aug 29, 12:37 PM, Patrick McGee wrote:

On Aug 29, 10:39 AM, Emil E. “Swede” Nyberg wrote:

Proponents of measure 4-131 want to allow conditional use permits for energy cables and pipelines through remote and seldom used areas of Clatsop County. Opponents of the measure want to block it, in the hopes it will forestall an LNG terminal from being built in the area. Mark Dodson, with NW Natural explained that if the measure is defeated Clatsop County will not have a way for new transmission lines of energy to be placed. “If we can’t build pipelines, we’re in trouble,” Dodson stated, “we only have one line into Clatsop County at this time and there won’t be a way to increase capacity if we can’t put in more.”

Mark Dodson?

Northwest Natural Gas?

Well, what the hell would you expect him to say?

I would even venture NWNG is on the Bradwood Landing short list od Terminal Use Clients.

Come on Swede!!!!

On Aug 29, 4:46 PM, AnotherAstorian wrote:

I am really encouraged by the direction the State is going, finally getting serious about looking at EVERYTHING. My only concern, is that the acronym OPEC is already taken, by a rather ironic industry also! http://www.opec.org/home/

On Aug 29, 5:10 PM, Tina wrote:

4-131 is about the transmission of energy. That is the simplest and most forthright statement I have seen yet about this ballot measure. THANK-YOU!

When people have asked what this is ALL about, FINALLY there’s a way to explain it!

Are we going to allow narrow minded people to block the transmission of energy in Clatsop County? VOTE YES on 4-131, yes for renewable energy! Yes for JOBS, Yes for progress!

On Aug 29, 5:39 PM, Patrick McGee wrote:

I guess all us “Armchair Scholars” will have to wait on the LUBA ruling huh?

On Aug 29, 8:21 PM, CB wrote:

There were 35 comments on this article, however they appeared to have more to do with land use and land use rights, without referencing this article. In acknowledging that there is a 100 comment limit to each and seeing that those comments were on a topic many were passionate about they were moved over to their own article on the Opinion page, Discussion on Land Use Law in Clatsop County.

On Aug 31, 2:01 AM, political observer wrote:

You have to ask the question, what exactly is the Governor telling us? Some guy commented, “Mark Dodson? Northwest Natural Gas? Well, what the hell would you expect him to say?” Fact is, Kulongoski picked the panels, picked who would sit on the panels and chose the order they would speak in, and how often they would speak. How many spots did he give to NW Natural and who did he chose to speak last? Thats a message from the Governor. Its like a “soft opening” a business runs to work out the bugs before the “Grand Opening”.

On Aug 31, 7:22 AM, Sick of the constant critics wrote:

So NW Natural Gas spoke....ok so who else could speak to the issues of energy using gas better than them....THATS WHAT THEY DO!!!!! For cryin out loud....they are the experts on this. Of course they’ll make money, doesn’t everybody need to make money....and how many jobs do you think they provide.

On Aug 31, 8:44 AM, Patrick McGee wrote:

On Aug 31, 2:01 AM, political observer wrote:

In context, it was in repsonse to Emil Nyberg’s comments.

Kulongoski is correct in getting input from all sides but, we must remember NWNG has a “Big Dog” in this fight on the Lower Columbia River with the LNG Speculators and supporters

On Aug 31, 5:34 PM, AnotherAstorian wrote:

Yes, NW Natural does have a big dog in this fight, since they are the major supplier of natural gas in this area. They own the pipeline that the LNG will supply....in case you haven’t noticed, NATIONWIDE, people are finally accepting that natural gas IS the fuel we need to be using. More and more people are getting electric or partially electric cars - natural gas is the cleanest (other than hydro) futel to create the electricity we’ll need.

I know we have large local deposits, but if I had a choice of importing it or having a drilling rig in my back yard, guess which I’d choose! The enviros that have been fighting this all along, would fight even harder if they wanted to drill locally, I’d bet!

On Aug 31, 5:40 PM, AnotherAstorian wrote:

Darn...no spell check! Obviously I meant “FUEL to create the electricity we’ll need”

On Sep 2, 12:37 AM, D Woods wrote:

Sure we can vote against progress, some times people like to wallow in the same mud hole rather than get up clean up and act responsible. What the hell, the pipe lines and cables will be required to be buried you will never see them once installed. We live in a rain forest the moss will cover it over in a few months time. Then all those that can not see beyond the end of their nose can go out to the wilderness and have a picnic roll in the moss and turn green and be peaceful, then they can call themselves green-peace people wouldn’t that be original. Then they can thank everyone that voted for progress or would they?

On Sep 2, 7:16 AM, Dog wrote:

NW Natural has a big dog in the fight because they are a utility that provides a resource of energy for us to utililize and purchase...and gawd, wasn’t it brilliant of the Governor to invite major energy providers to his energy summit???? I don’t call some generic guy to do electrical work for me, I call an electrician, figure it out McGee. If you’re ever the office of Governor you can invite the twelve people who lie about the pipes in the parks issue and you can run the state, until then I’m thrilled Dodson sees the importance of this for our economy.

On Sep 2, 7:44 AM, Patrick McGee wrote:

On Sep 2, 7:16 AM, Dog wrote:

NW Natural has a big dog in the fight because they are a utility that provides a resource of energy for us to utililize and purchase...

This is the same NWNG who cried that it is careless and impractical to use Natural Gas to produce electricity using Gas Turbines and that it would not curb the huge demands for it.

Stop progress “D Woods” say?

I thought the new focus was for us to wean ourselves off “Fossil Fuels”.

On Sep 2, 8:14 AM, McWhatever wrote:

Council Policy Statement

The Council recognizes that there are applications in which it is more energy efficient to use natural gas directly than to generate electricity from natural gas and then use the electricity in the end-use application. The Council also recognizes that in many cases the direct use of natural gas can be more economically efficient. These potentially cost-effective reductions in electricity use, while not defined as conservation in the sense the Council uses the term, are nevertheless alternatives to be considered in planning for future electricity requirements.
The changing nature of energy markets, the substantial benefits that can accrue from healthy competition among natural gas, electricity and other fuels, and the desire to preserve individual energy source choices all support the Council taking a market-oriented approach to encouraging efficient fuel decisions in the region.

Read The Entire Piece: http://www.nwcouncil.org/Library/2001/2001-17.htm

On Sep 2, 8:34 AM, Jon Dana wrote:

If we increase all the electricity produced from wind power by 100 times, we’ll still only produce less than 1% of our electrical needs. Stranded natural gas is being burned into the atmosphere right now. wouldn’t be smarter to use that in place of oil for automotive fuel. right now we ship 30% of our north slope oil overseas because we won’t build another refinery on the west coast how smart is that. The USA needs to be energy independent, and we need to start with oil. LNG is only transision fuel to the future. It will take 50 years to wean ourselves off oil

On Sep 2, 9:57 AM, Rick Balkins wrote:

Energy != (does not) equal electricity, Patrick.

Ask te Physics Instructor at our local community college what “energy” means in Physics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy

“energy” = ability to do work.
Amount of energy requiored to do a specific type of work is rated in two general category.

Ideal and Reality

Ideal is the optimum condition in theory possible (absolute minimum necassary) of energy necassary to do work in frictionless, vacuum environment.

Reality is the less then ideal condition that all things falls end. There is no such thing as 100% efficient.

Reality of energy is measured in terms “% efficient” which efficient is the “Ideal optimum efficient” with zero wasted energy (radiant heat is the common) to a specific work.

On Sep 2, 11:16 AM, Peg wrote:

A valid point that our local environmentalist don’t seem to acknowledge. 40% of our energy is supplied by COAL and it will cost us 40 million dollars to retrofit it! By 2025 the state will be at 25% renewable energy. WHERE IS THE OTHER 75% coming from? What will we be using for the 18 years until we get to the 25%? What is the REALISTIC, practical, future? Conservation? How does WAUNA conserve, at what cost? What will that do to the price of their product? Are people really willing to pay for conservation efforts? When the price is for ONE item, or backing one firm, maybe. However when EVERYTHING is skyrocketing at one time? You can bet your “bottom dollar” the people telling us how easy it is to “conserve” are not the parents of three children, living off of $35,000! When toilet paper hits $2/roll, when bread is $5/loaf, when gasoline is $6/gal, who is going to suffer? The single, middle age hippie? The duo income, on the verge of retirement couple? FAMILIES! That’s who.

On Sep 2, 11:37 AM, Nick wrote:

Alternative energy? Stuff that isn’t supposed to cause harm to environment? Like windmills, that the audobon society fights? Windmills are ugly. They are loud. They interfere with radio and TV signals. Visually they can produce a strobe like effect under certain lighting conditions that can cause seizures. Windmills can be iced in the winter, and moving blades can throw large chunks of ice. It takes 50 years of constant running to recoup its own cost, problem there is that the average lifespan for one is 20-30 years. They are the Blades of Doom bird-wise, and you want to see what one looks like when high winds hit and something breaks? http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cdd_1203701257

On Sep 2, 11:39 AM, Patrick McGee wrote:

On Sep 2, 9:57 AM, Rick Balkins wrote:

Energy != (does not) equal electricity, Patrick.

And what’s your point Rick?

On Sep 2, 12:17 PM, Rick Balkins wrote:

The point is, Patrick, you are assuming natural gas is being used strictly for use as electric energy generation and as more options are available to supplement energy used to generate electrictity via methods like wind generators, hydrogenerators, ect. The less natural gas would be used for “electricity generation”, anyway. When houses can supplement its own heat and electricity generation, those houses will use less natural gas but still it is used to cook food and heat the house anyway.

If people are willing to use more layers of blankets, they can let the house run at a lower temperature like 65 degrees instead of 70 degrees. That was how we lived in the 19th century. Since computers and other equipment also generates heats, why use the natural gas fored-air heating to keep the house at temperatures like 70 degrees.

On Sep 2, 12:19 PM, Rick Balkins wrote:

People can live just fine at household temperatures of 60-65 degrees and when you cook in the evening, that will warm up the house so turn it off. I have had the forced-air heating off since like around May of this year at the least. Most cases, it’s off from March to about October/November time except for uniquely cold days. The sun will fluctuate the temperature in the day and oven and other equipment like TV or humans will keep the temperatures reletively stable.

It isn’t that difficult to keep things livable. Livable means any living condition in which you will not die. Too many Californians wants their 70-degrees all the time. Wear a sweater or another layer of shirt and blanket at night. Use thermos. Come on. You’ll be just fine.

On Sep 2, 1:09 PM, Patrick McGee wrote:

Well, Rick that’s called the “Human Factor” and if you have a trick that can get the masses to comply with your train of thought then you could be wealthy beyond your means but, that ain’t likely and by the way, when NSNG speaks of their “Commercial Clients”, who is it you think they are referring to?

You actually think it’s NWNG, getting Natural Gas to us lowly consumers so we can stay all toasty?

On Sep 2, 2:05 PM, Rick Balkins wrote:

Patrick, someone extract the gas. Someone ships it and someone may be a warehouse storage of that (ok, an LNG facility is an example) and then there is the someone who delivers it to us actual user.

Basicly, that is what it is and always been. Where it comes from, doesn’t matter. It all originates in less then pure form and that is part of the extraction process.

LNG is cooled down so more natural gas can be delivered. In fact, the energy used to cool it is less then that would be used by 600 tankers delivering the fuel as natural gas.

Pipelines, also has an energy cost factor. What energy is needed to move that gas down the line instead of stagnating? Ah, yes, pressure. How much energy is needed to build the pressure and sustain the pressure to move it across a few thousand miles? Add that to the equation. Why use up our resources (what’s left of it) if we can use up the rest of the world’s first and capitalize on being the world’s last resources?

That is the equation.

On Sep 2, 2:32 PM, Patrick McGee wrote:

Sorry Rick, you are way too intellectual for me.

On Sep 2, 3:48 PM, Tim wrote:

Otherwise, Rick, Pat wants you to call it a stalemate. Patrick can never admit that he has lost. Basically, he blames the person for having a logical answer. Its not that you are right, you are just too intellectual for him to argue with. If he was as intellectual as you, he would be able to argue better and his side, the “right” side, would win.

Your argument is accurate. Thank-you for contributing it, even if Pat is too much of a poor sport to admit loss.

On Sep 2, 3:59 PM, Patrick McGee wrote:

Oh no!

Way over my head.

I can’t compete.

On Sep 2, 6:33 PM, Tim wrote:

Yeah, that’s a real hard thing to understand! Raw material is delivered to a plant that turns it into something usable and sends it to a distributer who delivers it to the consumer.

Factor in (figure out) how much energy each step takes for each type of energy to see which is most cost effective.

You have coupons for certain items but the coupons are from different stores. You have to figure out which store (Freddies or Safeway) is giving you the most deal for your dollar. If you are saving $2.00 on groceries but spending $5 on gas to drive back and forth between the two, your not saving money nor conserving energy.

Is that simple enough for you Pat?

On Sep 2, 8:05 PM, Patrick McGee wrote:

Define Bradwood/NSNG’s “Commercial Customers”....Tim.....Rick

On Sep 2, 8:18 PM, Two More Votes In The Ballot Box! wrote:

Ahhhhhh! Feels good to do your duty as a citizen.

Had to wait in line even.

On Sep 2, 8:23 PM, AnotherAstorian wrote:

I’ll take that one McGee - Among others, their commercial customers will be Wauna Mill and Longview Fibre. I know there are others at Port Westward also. Which is WHY, once the pipeline crosses the river, it’s 30” instead of 36”.

Oh...and the minute the mail came today, I marched right down and put my ballot in the box as well. Voted YES YES YES (that’s one vote for each person in my household)

On Sep 2, 8:55 PM, Rick Balkins wrote:

Bradwood/NSNG can be said to be the local wholesaler/distributer to our service providers and large volume users and ultimately.

Certainly, NW Natural gas is perhaps a customer to Bradwood (if or when it is built) simply because it provides a cost advantage for them and their customers (that’s us, Patrick) so we can spend less dollars in our utility bills.

It is virtually impossible to drill holes in the United States for extracting fossil fuels as it is. Why is that? The environmentalist tree-huggers. Enough said for now. How would we be able to extract new fuel sources? At new sites? Oops, not allowed. Only at existing locations are allowed. Oh, btw, that’s only in the United States and maybe a few other countries that it is this stiffly regulated.

On Sep 2, 10:14 PM, Patrick McGee wrote:

Keep going fellas.

That’s Commercial Customers at a Termianl Use Fee of $0.38 per MMBTU or so.

A thousand or so BTU equals one cubic foot of Natural Gas at a Billion Cubic feet per day.

$800 Million dollar investment to service Wauna Mill and Longview Fibre?

Don’t forget NWNG’s pimping Palomar pipeline primarily

On Sep 2, 10:44 PM, Nick wrote:

And a windmill is 100 times that cost.

But those “speculators” are just little gods of goodness because they doing it purely for the sake of the earth.

On Sep 3, 7:31 AM, Patrick McGee wrote:

For us, it was such a simple decision on 4-131.

On Sep 15, 6:16 PM, Vote was easy, see ya in November wrote:

For us it was as well. Do we want to limit our choices or expand them? Do we want to be sheep and believe lies or do we want to read the law and know the truth? There is no such thing as LNG pipelines. FERC can put a gas pipeline where ever it wants so voting against 4-131 does not keep gas lines out of parks.

On Sep 15, 10:13 PM, Eddy Tank wrote:

We care about out state, county and my neighbors. We voted yes on 4-131. We don’t have no truck with those anti-LNGers, or their DINO friends. LNG is good for Oregon and good for the USA, it’s sure as hell good for Clatsop County

On Sep 15, 10:19 PM, AnotherAstorian wrote:

Patrick, I never said that Bradwood will service ONLY the Wauna Mill and Longview Fibre “$800 Million dollar investment to service Wauna Mill and Longview Fibre?”

I simply cited a couple of the commercial customers ALONG THE WAY that will benefit by being able to take gas directly from the pipeline.

The majority of the gas, however, will go to the NW Natural pipeline, which will go into the existing grid for the general public.

On Sep 15, 10:24 PM, AnotherAstorian wrote:

Eddy Tank - good for you! You saw through the crap that the anti-pipeline people were shelling out!

I’m not gonna hold my breath that it’s going to pass, but it would make my YEAR if it does…

I think the anti-faction went just a bit too far this time. I know that I, along with every single person I talk with on a regular basis, voted Yes.

On Sep 16, 5:42 AM, Guess What wrote:

Hey people need to make a living, I bet Caplan and Brent pay their bills working this anti gig just like the rest of us work hard to pay the bills....problem is....they work hard so our kids won’t have a future....hope they get paid lots,, talk about their worry about speculators, they speculate and act against growth so our community suffers. They even out and out lie to get it done!

On Sep 16, 10:43 PM, Doc Chalk wrote:

, Patrick McGee wrote:

For us, it was such a simple decision on 4-131.

We’re aware of that. Obviously you were influenced by a campaign designed to impress simpletons

On Sep 27, 8:53 AM, yeti wrote:

With nat. gas surpluses back east so high and prices low, why is Northwest Nat. raising our rates so much,( 25% increase)? when will pipeline from the rockies be done or has it even started or is there factions trying to stop it also. Better yet lets drill more around Mist

On Sep 27, 11:09 AM, Ann Samuelson wrote:

Look at the map of the US Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines & LNG Terminals, you’ll see that the new Rocky Express pipeline is going east, the Alliance pipeline does as well, the western region is for the most part left out of the distribution network. We will continue to see rising energy prices with the current infrastructure. We will continue to lose industrial family wage jobs, companies have to have affordable energy to operate. We are already as far west as you can get, so shipping goods is expensive as well, that takes energy too.

On Sep 27, 12:01 PM, yeti wrote:

Thanks for the reply, kinda hard to see that map. I guess I just assumed a pipeline was coming west, cause I keep hearing we don’t have a need for any more natural gas in the NW. How much of our nat. gas comes from Canada? And why do people think we have plenty for the next 20 years or so.As the NW grows, will Canada increase our gas supply or should we just get used to the price of Nat. gas going higher. Everybody might have to go back to wood stoves, but then they are not the cleanest source of heat either.

On Sep 27, 12:35 PM, Jon wrote:

Canada has stated that they will NOT be increasing the natural gas supply to the USA. The drop to the USA was expected to be 1 billion cubic feet a day, or about 11%, in 2007 alone.

According to The Oil Drum, Canada’s Arctic gas won’t be available until 2022 at the earliest.

Supposedly, the governor called the summit meeting for 4 reasons. The fourth reason: to put cold facts on the table so the public knows what’s at stake; knows what options are available. And in the end he wants the public to know “that my bottom line is this: When it comes to energy – Oregon families and businesses must always have supply certainty and price stability.”

Ann, tell the governor to put TEETH into what he is saying. BACK HIS WORDS with some ACTION. So far all he has done is UNDERMINED ALL EFFORTS for supply certainty and price stability.

On Sep 27, 1:42 PM, Patrick McGee wrote:

On Sep 16, 10:43 PM, Doc Chalk wrote:

, Patrick McGee wrote:

For us, it was such a simple decision on 4-131.

We’re aware of that. Obviously you were influenced by a campaign designed to impress simpletons

So, your implcation is that, the 68% of the 55% voter turnout that soundly defeated the acute misuse, by Clatsop County Board of Commissioners, of property zoning are “Simpletons”?

Well, I think you did clearly define what, exactly, a “Simpleton is.

On Sep 27, 1:47 PM, Ann Samuelson wrote:

It is my understanding that Canada will want to keep their gas to process their oil sands in the future, takes energy to do that. It is also my understanding that approx. 60% of our gas has come from Canada.

On Sep 28, 1:20 AM, Vanguard Of Truth wrote:

On Sep 27, 1:42 PM, Patrick McGee wrote
So, your implcation is that, the 68% of the 55% voter turnout that soundly defeated the acute misuse, by Clatsop County Board of Commissioners, of property zoning are “Simpletons”?

Precisely. The Antis whippled up some less than honest advertising which sensationally decried County Leaders were going to place huge pressurized piplelines of lethal toxic gas right under every park from Tapiola to Shively and maybe dog that puppy into Alderbrook on the way to Cifton. How about that photo of Big Creek, before and after Pipleine builders’decided to get rid of the creek and just have a pipleline instead. Not to mention those chain smoking bored foriegn undertrained sailors crusing around with all those lit cigs, and what we’d have is near nuclear force explosions in the parks where the children play!

On Sep 28, 1:22 AM, Vanguard of Truth wrote:

(cont)…

Every park will become a killing zone for the dreaded evil LNG that must be pumped through those parks- with all that incredible destructive power just waiting to blow it’s self to Kingdom Come and take whoever is hanging around with it.

SWell, sure glad there’s some real smart cookies who figured out the parks were in danger.(even though no one mentioned a specific park it’s doesnt matter.

On Sep 28, 6:26 AM, McGee(Read Carefully) wrote:

VOT Said:.........."Precisely. The Antis whippled up some less than honest advertising which sensationally decried County Leaders were going to place huge pressurized piplelines of lethal toxic gas right under every park from Tapiola to Shively”....

Open your mind, read carefully, if possible, with no prejudice but as plain, hard fact.

On Sep 28, 6:40 AM, McGee(Read Carefully - #2)...cont'd wrote:

BEFORE THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
FOR CLATSOP COUNTY, OREGON

ORDINACE(An “Ordinance is a “Law") NO. 08-05(Signed March 20, 2008 by CCBofC Chair Patricia Roberts)

AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE BRADWOOD LANDING LNG PROPOSAL AND AMENDING THE CLATSOP COUNTY COMBINED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING MAP, THE TEXT OF THE CLATSOP COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE TEXT OF THE CLATSOP COUNTY LAND AND WATER DEVELOPMENT AND USE ORDINANCE(ORDINACE NO. 80-14)

There’s nothing vague in this is it?

Ordinance 08-05 clearly changes exisiting law and language in that law, right?

On Sep 28, 6:58 AM, McGee(Read Carefully - #3) wrote:

ORDINANCE 08-05 - Relating to, OPR(Open Space, Parks and Recreation) zoned properties and ammending the language in CLATSOP COUNTY LAND AND WATER DEVELOPMENT AND USE ORDINANCE to read:

SECTION 5. Provisions of the LWDUO are amended to list “Cable, Sewerline, waterline or other pipeline” as a conditional use in the OPR zone as described in Sextion 6.

SECTION 6. LWDUO 3.586 - (10) is ammended to state:

“10. Cable, Sewerline, Waterline or other Pipeline.”

and the current LWDUO 3.586 - (10) is made LWDUO 3.586 - (11)

Any vagueries here?

It clearly states these conditions have become language of the “ORDINANCE/Law” in general and are applicable to “ALL” OPR zoned properties.

It’s all “public Record” at County right now waiting for you to read it yourself.

On Sep 28, 8:29 AM, yeti wrote:

Don’t let this McGee guy get you off track, something a county commission did or the wording of an ordinance, is small potato’s. People like him try and distract everybody from the bigger picture, CLEAN ENERGY on the west coast. Jobs on the west coast, without CLEAN ENERGY our economic base will began to dry up. What do you think an increase of 25% in the nat. gas rate is going to do some business’s that use it for production purposes. Now that we heading into a recession, any new construction is desperately needed and it would start here, 4 years, 400 jobs, that just might keep this area ticking along. Once built Bradwood will only be an asset to the economy of Oregon and Washington. Tourism and industry can live side by side if just given the chance. In my view if the economy continues this downward spiral tourism will be down by 50%, unfortunately.

On Sep 28, 8:44 AM, Patrick McGee wrote:

On Sep 28, 8:29 AM, yeti wrote:

Yeah, don’t let a little thing like facts cloud your judgement folks.

On Sep 28, 9:09 AM, Ernie wrote:

The Guv is AGAINST LNG folks!
Maybe Ann could remember that next time she goes lobbying!

On Sep 28, 10:13 AM, Bert wrote:

On Sep 28, 9:09 AM, Ernie wrote:

The Guv is AGAINST LNG folks!
Maybe Ann could remember that next time she goes lobbying!

Make sure she leaves her persecution complex at home.

On Sep 28, 10:33 AM, yeti wrote:

My governor is a populist so whatever way the wind is blowing at the time. C’mon think about it, who needs jobs in a recession. I’m sure this McGee guy will be bragging how he volunteers at the soup kitchen.

On Sep 28, 10:42 AM, Guest wrote:

That’s right McGee, look at the narrow picture that you continue to create for yourself...McGee Land is a little place. This energy industry issue is big, no surprise you don’t get it.

On Sep 28, 11:06 AM, Patrick McGee wrote:

As I have said previously, don’t confuse those 400 or so alleged jobs starting at day one and ongoing through to the day the gates open and then, which one of those,as of yet undefined,end jobs you going to qualify for?

And now “The Guvnuh” fully intends to “Re-Hear”, get that, “Re-Hear” the entire Bradwood Application?

Yeah, it is “Big Business” and how long before Northern Star has had enough of the annoyance or their California pet project shows signs of positive approval?

On Sep 28, 11:31 AM, Kulongoski is a liar wrote:

FULLY INTENDS?
And here we thought Governor Kulongoski “fully intends” 4) to put cold facts on the table so the public knows what’s at stake; knows what options are available. And in the end he wants the public to know “that my bottom line is this: When it comes to energy – Oregon families and businesses must always have supply certainty and price stability.”

Kulongoski is full of shit and a LIAR. Helpful to the working class? When we are freezing this winter, with each increase in the price of fuel we can thank HIM!

On Sep 28, 1:15 PM, James G. Blaine wrote:

AM, Patrick McGee wrote:

don’t confuse those 400 or so alleged jobs starting at day one

“alleged” jobs?

Mister, you are so anti-working man and anti-Oregon that Im surprised you can stand to even live here. You and your ilk are disgusting and unwanted.

On Sep 28, 1:41 PM, Patrick McGee wrote:

On Sep 28, 1:15 PM, James G. Blaine wrote:

AM, Patrick McGee wrote:

don’t confuse those 400 or so alleged jobs starting at day one

“alleged” jobs?

Mister, you are so anti-working man and anti-Oregon that Im surprised you can stand to even live here. You and your ilk are disgusting and unwanted.

You a Union Man James G. Blaine?

On Sep 28, 3:34 PM, don't feed the troll, James wrote:

Don’t answer him. He never has the courtesy of answering anyone else. Everyone on this board has answered his questions, ad nauseum, and he has never returned the courtesy. He ALWAYS says, “what was the question”?

On Sep 28, 3:48 PM, yeti wrote:

I think I see a pattern since my last post, this McGee guy has posted twice, asking 5 questions. Seems he has no answers or solutions to increasing energy crisis, let alone a constructive idea. Why would any new business want to locate to the NW when energy prices (nat. gas) are lower east of the Rockies and the supply is stable if not abundant. There is only one way out of a recession and thats work out of it. Remember natural gas is a clean energy when compared to coal or oil. Let’s do the world a favor and use it.

On Sep 28, 4:26 PM, Patrick McGee wrote:

On Sep 28, 3:34 PM, don’t feed the troll, James wrote:

And what was your question?

On Sep 28, 4:26 PM, James G. Blaine wrote:

Patrick McGee wrote:
You a Union Man James G.Blaine?

I am a Uniontown Man. If that says I stand with the longsoremen, the cannery workers, the fishermen, the loggers, the mill hands and all our people in our traditional economics and lifestyles then you are goddamn right I am a Union Man. Just fed up and disgusted with all these new people, such as yourself, who pull in here and dedictated themselves to makikng it harder and harder for the people of Clatsop County and Oregon to not only get ahead in this world, we struggle to stay afloat. All you California yuppie retiring scum make me ill. Nobody is more responsible for the destruction of life as we treasure it here than those people. They, including you, can all kiss my ass. You are all a blight on the soul and spirit of this place…
..

On Sep 28, 4:29 PM, James G. Blaine wrote:

...and if I could round up all these anti LNGers, the Riverkeepers, the anti Commercial fishing idiots, the Sealion huggers and the arts community and put them on a barge, I would take it out to the 500 fathom line and sink it.

On Sep 28, 4:55 PM, Patrick McGee wrote:

Take a “Mulligan” Jimmy Boy and chill why don’t you.

Threatening bodily harm to your fellow community members will not help your situation nor NCO’s for allowing it to happen either.

This LNG issue, in spite of you or me is going to take its own course and when it’s final we move forward with the end result whatver it will be.

Believe me, if I could restore the traditional industries and livelhoods in this community I would but you cannot tell me there are not related industries out there that would be attracted to the workforce and environment here that could put many, many more people to work in sustainable, well paid and benefitted jobs.

You want to blame somebody, blame that socalled silent majority out there that only wants to talk about jobs and life quality and such during election season.

Where’s that community task force that’s willing to go out into the world and sell this community’s assets to cohesive industry?

On Sep 28, 5:21 PM, James G. Blaine wrote:

Patrick McGee wrote: blah blah blah blah blah

like I said, you and your carpet bagging do nothing big talking club of poodlepuffers and fluff monkeys can all pucker right up and kiss my ass.

On Sep 28, 5:52 PM, Patrick McGee wrote:

On Sep 28, 5:21 PM, James G. Blaine wrote:

Patrick McGee wrote: blah blah blah blah blah

like I said, you and your carpet bagging do nothing big talking club of poodlepuffers and fluff monkeys can all pucker right up and kiss my ass.

I presume you mean, “Jimmy Boy”, that 68% of the 55% voter turn-out that rejected CCBofC’s change in zoning for OPR properties.

Kiss your ass?

Why would anybody want to do that?

On Sep 28, 6:16 PM, go east, young man, go east wrote:

Presumptions aside, anyone hiring 20 people to canvass an area and tell lies regarding supposed dangers of kids catching on fire while they play in a playground is going to get the result they paid people to lie for. Trust them to tell us what is good for the area, to bring in viable economic benefits? It aint going to happen. They want a servant class of people waiting on the elite that come to vacation and retire here. The “industry” they want is what is here. The culture they want is the one that is here. One that can be manipulated with one paper and fear.

On Sep 28, 6:23 PM, Outraged wrote:

Pretty tough to tempt any industry to come here that’s going to need energy, we’ll be lucky if we can hang on to our paper and the few lumber mills we have left....if it’s cheaper to make the product elsewhere, that’s where it will be made...Clatsop County will become the home of the trust fund babies and the poor...McGee you and your cohorts just keep shuttin’ it down, then all you’ll have is each other...is that your plan?

On Sep 28, 6:44 PM, Patrick McGee wrote:

On Sep 28, 6:23 PM, Outraged wrote:

And the anti-LNG forces are being accused of “Fear Mongering”?

On Sep 28, 7:15 PM, Red Orchestra wrote:

These outsiders scissorbills and pilgrims who have come here, from California, the southwest,midwest and down south dont have a clue. Nothing chaps my hide more than some idiot anouncing, “I just moved here and it is so cool, but I want this and this changed” why dont they go back to where they come from, the places they messed up, and fix them and leave us alone. No one asked them to come up here and screw up our lives and livlihoods. They need to be identified and put on a list of undesirables who’s only purpose here is to cause trouble and hardship. No more politely listening to such blithering wingnuts. It’s time to tell them just where the bear shits in the buckwheat

On Sep 28, 7:28 PM, Outraged wrote:

If these anti everything people keep it up, it’s a fact that nothing will come here, they can’t afford to, our energy costs are already too high, they are projected to go higher...and YES they promoted fear, many people are now afraid of LNG pipes of which there are none.

On Sep 28, 9:04 PM, Nick wrote:

People didn’t reject the “CCBofC” change. 8 out of 10 people had no idea that the BOCC had recently amended a section of LWDUO that was out of sync with the rest of the zones’ conditional use sections. They were terrorized with lies.

You may wish to bow to terrorists coming from out of town with their lies. Most of the rest of us don’t like it, and we don’t like it when we see our friends and neighbors doing it. These people couldn’t even find enough locals to go door to door telling people the truth. They had to hire people, and then they didn’t even hire locals. They hired professional liars to come in and blanket the area. Where’s the story on that one? Or, are these rats so deep in their holes there’s no way to get to them to ask them questions?

On Sep 28, 9:39 PM, Patrick McGee wrote:

On Sep 28, 9:04 PM, Nick wrote:

People didn’t reject the “CCBofC” change. 8 out of 10 people had no idea that th..conditional use sections. They were terrorized with lies.

You may wish to bow to terrorists. Most of the rest of us don’t like it, and we don’t like it when we see our friends and neighbors doing it. These people couldn’t even find enough locals to go door to door telling people the truth. They had to hire people, and then they didn’t even hire locals. They hired professional liars to come in and blanket the area. Where’s the story on that one? Or, are these rats so deep in their holes there’s no way to get to them to ask them questions?

Can you substantiate these canvassers were hired and where did they come from and by whom?

I’ve never seen the first bit of evidence of this at all and all correspondence from the different groups were for unpaid volunteers only.

I’d like to see your documentation.

Is that something you can share with us?

On Sep 28, 10:16 PM, Nick wrote:

Where do you think one gets this information? Or, maybe you do represent the average joe and that is why Columbia Riverkeepers and Common Sense know they can get away with this kind of crap.

https://secure.sos.state.or.us/eim/sooDetail.do?sooRsn=36385

Campaign finance activity. etc… About four people hired locally, the rest out of the area, many out of state.

On Sep 28, 10:22 PM, Patrick McGee wrote:

On Sep 28, 10:16 PM, Nick wrote:

Where do you think one gets this information? Or, maybe you do represent the average joe and that is why Columbia Riverkeepers and Common Sense know they can get away with this kind of crap.

https://secure.sos.state.or.us/eim/sooDetail.do?sooRsn=36385

Campaign finance activity. etc… About four people hired locally, the rest out of the area, many out of state.

Thanks for sharing that with us.

On Sep 28, 10:32 PM, Patrick McGee wrote:

I don’t see any reference to any expediture for hiring canvassers to go door to door.

Doesn’t mean it’s not there but, I just can’t find any reference to it.

Thanks again Nick.

On Sep 28, 11:33 PM, union worker wrote:

Sub Type : Cash Expenditure Exam Letter Date : 09/15/2008

Payment Method : Check Check : 1042
Amount : $1,927.40 Aggregate : $5,008.70

Description : reimbursing Columbia Riverkeeper for paid canvassers

Purpose : Reimbursement for Personal ExpendituresAddress Book Information
Address Book Type : Other
Name : Columbia Riverkeeper
Address : 724 Oak Street Hood River OR 97031

---------------------------------------------------------------
Transaction ID : 411914 Transaction Date : 09/21/2008

Transaction Type : Expenditure/Account Payable Filed
Date : 09/25/2008 09:32 PM

Transaction Sub Type : Cash Expenditure Exam Letter Date :

Payment Method : Check Check : 1046

Amount : $350.00 Aggregate : $2,026.00

Description : Per Diem

Purpose : Wages, Salaries, BenefitsAddress Book Information
Address Book Type : Individual
Name : Jesse White
Address : 40 Rocky Rd. Trout Lake WA 98650
Occupation : Canvas Director
Employer Name : Columbia RiverKeeper Hood River OR

On Sep 28, 11:57 PM, IOU wrote:

Try this one --- https://secure.sos.state.or.us/eim/cneSearch.do?cneSearchButtonName=next&cneSearchPageIdx=3&sort=desc&by=TRAN_DATE&next=Next
--should be 3 pages

On Sep 29, 12:03 AM, IOU wrote:

didn’t quite work, id# 13160 dates 6-28 thru 9-28 might help

On Sep 29, 6:15 AM, Patrick McGee wrote:

#394715 - “reimbursement for paid canvassers”

Thanks again.

Now, can you verify/confirm the content of what the canvassers were imparting to the prospective voter?

On Sep 29, 6:48 AM, Huh wrote:

Seems many have been misled, and ended up on the wrong side of the fence....

On Sep 29, 6:54 AM, Patrick McGee wrote:

On Sep 29, 6:48 AM, Huh wrote:

Seems many have been misled, and ended up on the wrong side of the fence....

Misled?

In what ways. specifically?

On Sep 29, 7:25 AM, Huh wrote:

People voted on something that does not exist, LNG pipes.... effective campaign, not the will of the people.

On Sep 29, 7:38 AM, Patrick McGee wrote:

On Sep 29, 7:25 AM, Huh wrote:

People voted on something that does not exist, LNG pipes.... effective campaign, not the will of the people.

And it’s really pathetic that this is the only argument, even Joe Desmond, Director of External Affairs, Northern Star Natural Gas, could mount to attempt to counter the referendum.

Any wonder Measure 4-131 passed?

And ironically, it’s still being used.

On Sep 29, 7:57 AM, Huh wrote:

This is not the only argument, no child has ever been harmed by a pipe that doesn’t exist in a park, the local newspaper is an obvious slant publication, they failed to inform people that the land the BOCC granted this variance on is privately owned...getting carpal tunnel from typing all these lies, there’s more, but who cares, people were intentionally confused by this group that was their goal...and ultimately duped the public, so I agree, it is no wonder it passed...again, effective campaign, NOT the will of the people....

On Sep 29, 8:01 AM, Huh wrote:

And let us not forget they literally paid people to go door to door and lie since of course there are “NO LNG PIPES IN PARKS” anywhere in the universe.

On Sep 29, 8:20 AM, IOU wrote:

Mcgee asks for proof then he gets it then he asks for more, talk about living on the river of denial. Bet when he gets his nat gas bill and it’s up 25%, he’ll twist that into a good thing and we should be thankful for his vision.

On Sep 29, 8:24 AM, Huh wrote:

It is amazing what lengths people will go to to believe people of the lie…

On Sep 29, 9:13 AM, off topic wrote:

I hope those damn Republicans hold there ground and vote no on the bailout. Why delay the depression, ain’t stopping this train, just about out of track. Don’t worry be happy

On Sep 29, 1:53 PM, Patrick McGee wrote:

On Sep 29, 7:57 AM, Huh wrote:

The land is also zoned OPR(Open Space, Parks and Recreation)

On Sep 29, 2:04 PM, Rick Balkins wrote:

First off, McGee ->Zoning Laws are suppose to be changed on a regualr basis with the needs of the community and commerce. That is exactly what the commission dis. You waant the laws to remain static and stagnant. Stagnation is what kills communities, businesses and governments.

A saying from CEO Jack Tramiel of the former Commodore Business Machines -"If you are through changing,you’re through”. That means if you don’t make changes - you go out of business. Competition takes you out. When that happens with even local businesses,those businesses closes doors and that means bye-bye to their taxes. See the domino effect?

On Sep 29, 2:11 PM, Patrick McGee wrote:

Zoning Laws?

Supposed to be changed on a regular basis?

By the way what happened to Commodore Business Machines?

Tip of the Day

"A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." ~ George Bernard Shaw "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have." ~Thomas Jefferson (Thanks, Auntie)

NorthCoastOregon.com

Local News