Bradwood Landing Comprehensive rebuttal: LNG benefits to Pacific Northwest explained

Local News

Staff May 28, 2008

Bradwood Landing affirms accuracy of project description; a supplemental draft Environmental Impact Statement (dEIS) not needed

Comprehensive rebuttal to recent Oregon Department of Energy Report also submitted; LNG benefits to Pacific Northwest explained in detail.

PORTLAND – In a letter filed late yesterday with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), Bradwood Landing, LLC affirmed the accuracy of its application filing and called on the agency to reject Oregon’s request for a supplemental draft environmental impact statement (dEIS) for the proposed Bradwood Landing liquefied natural gas import terminal. A final EIS is expected to be issued in the near future. The State had alleged that the project description for the terminal had significantly changed. Also, as part of its submission to FERC, NorthernStar included a rebuttal to the Oregon Department of Energy’s May 7 report on natural gas and LNG. Bradwood’s detailed response summarized the benefits of LNG and provided updated information on natural gas markets.

“The State has a responsibility to ensure Oregon’s energy needs are met in the most environmentally and economically sound way,” said NorthernStar Natural Gas Senior Vice President for External Relations Joe Desmond. “Unfortunately, it appears the State based its claims largely on the false assertions contained in a letter submitted to FERC by an opponent group, many of which appear to have been adopted by the State without independent review.”

Desmond said the issues raised do not constitute reasons to reissue the dEIS because: a) the State’s concerns that the project has changed substantially are based upon incorrect information about the project as proposed; b) Bradwood has provided information only in accordance with Commission procedures, none of which is “significant new information,” and no significant new information was contained in the ODOE Report; and c) under the applicable law and regulations, the State has not demonstrated that a supplemental dEIS is required.

In its response, Bradwood addressed the objections raised by the State in its May 9 letter in detail:

No changes have been proposed with respect to unscreened water intakes. Contrary to the State’s assertion, there has been no change with respect to screen design of the water intakes. The proposal has been, and continues to be, to construct an on-site water system and to negotiate with LNG shippers to fit their vessels with the equipment necessary to allow LNG carriers use of the on-site water system. A performance standard has been added to provide an additional layer of protection for fish, by limiting impacts for those LNG carriers unable to connect to the on-site water system.

The pipeline remains within the study corridor approved by FERC. Small changes to the pipeline route were made in response to specific landowner concerns prior to publishing the dEIS; however, the pipeline route has not changed and remains within the original pipeline study corridor as submitted in the dEIS. Any future change would require a new filing to be reviewed and approved by the permitting agencies.

Exploring the placement of dredge material is not a substantial change that warrants a supplemental dEIS. At the request of reviewing agencies, Bradwood explored several alternatives for the placement of dredge material at beneficial sites for river replenishment. Furthermore, not only was the dredge issue already raised and addressed in the dEIS, the public has already supplied extensive comments on the issue, which was also discussed at length before both the Clatsop County Planning Commission in the summer of 2007 and the Clatsop County Board of Commissioners in the fall of 2007.

Bradwood Landing has not altered its regasification plans. As required by the FERC process, the company considered alternative technology options for the project. However, the regasification technology remains as described in the dEIS. Simply evaluating alternatives does not constitute a change in the project design.

Regarding the Oregon Department of Energy’s report on LNG released earlier this month, Bradwood completed a thorough review of the report and also submitted today to FERC its rebuttal of the report’s conclusions.

“The Department of Energy’s report was correct in identifying the many factors driving Oregon’s need for additional supplies of natural gas. However, some of its conclusions regarding LNG and natural gas pricing, greenhouse gas emissions and the natural gas market are not supportable,” said Desmond. “The Department’s report was a snapshot in time, and there are limitations to the type of conclusions that can be drawn from such an analysis. In fact, NW Natural’s recent filing at the Oregon Public Utility Commission concluded that there would be substantial cost savings to Oregon consumers and businesses through lower pipeline transportation costs associated with the delivery of LNG from Bradwood Landing versus alternative sources of natural gas.”

Specifically:

· The report failed to accurately represent current and forecasted market conditions regarding availability of supply, projected demand, and key industry trends;

· Recent market developments since the preparation of the report regarding domestic pipelines call into question key assumptions regarding the expected timing and availability of domestic pipelines to serve the growing needs of the Pacific Northwest;

· There were fundamental flaws in the economic analysis that confused the cost of LNG with the price at which natural gas is sold in local markets;

· The report relied upon a widely discredited study related to lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions to justify concerns regarding CO2 emissions;

· The report failed to consider the actual emissions of the Bradwood Landing project relative to statewide emissions (Bradwood’s greenhouse gas emissions will be less than one half of one percent of Oregon’s annual statewide emissions);

· The report failed to apply a consistent methodology for comparing lifecycle emissions between projects, and, in general, did not accurately represent the legal obligation of any LNG project to comply with existing Oregon climate change statutes; and

· In certain cases, other conclusions reflect a misunderstanding of gas market operations.

“Given these concerns, we believe a revision to the report is needed and would serve the public interest,” said Desmond. “In the meantime, we continue to work closely with the State agencies to ensure their questions are addressed.”

On March 20, the Clatsop County Board of Commissioners approved Bradwood’s consolidated land use application after a nine-month public process. The LNG terminal would provide a new source of natural gas directly into the Oregon and Washington natural gas market. It would create more than 450 jobs over three years of construction and 65 permanent jobs while contributing more than $7.8 million annually in taxes to Clatsop County.

24 Comments

On May 28, 11:00 PM, Country Boy wrote:

That just goes to show the fogged brains just say anything they want to with out facts.

But then we do not need the family wage jobs or taxes, we just keep our wages down so Don West can hire minumin wage peopel for his hi cost hotel.

On May 29, 7:40 AM, ForReferenceandContext wrote:

Oregon Department Of Energy:LNG Is Not Needed In Oregon!!!
Agency : Oregon doesn’t need imported LNG
Posted by Ted Sickinger, The Oregonian May 09, 2008 14:11PM
In a potentially fatal blow to three proposals to build liquefied natural gas terminals in Oregon, the state Department of Energy released a report Friday stating that imported LNG isn’t needed, would be more expensive and polluting than domestic natural gas, and would come at a higher environmental cost than alternative proposals to ship more gas in from Wyoming.
Also Friday, Gov. Ted Kulongoski sent a letter to federal energy regulators asking them to go through an entirely new environmental analysis of the Bradwood Landing LNG project, as significant new information has become available, and the scope of the terminal project, located 30 miles upriver from Astoria, has changed substantially since the last review was undertaken.
Kulongoski’s energy policy director, Mike Carrier, said the letter and report did not mean that the governor was adopting a hardened position against the terminals, but that he wanted to see the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission address the state’s concerns before issuing its licensing decision.
The Department of Energy report “raises some really troubling issues about what the introduction around LNG would do” in terms of energy prices and environmental impacts, Carrier said. The governor believes this report is credible, it looks like they did a very professional and thorough job, and it immediately got his attention ... It certainly is going to be part of what forms his position on this.”
-- Ted Sickinger:

On May 29, 8:20 AM, AnotherAstorian wrote:

ForReferenceandContext - you have missed the point. The letter that Northern Star submitted to FERC points out that much of what was in the Oregon Dept of Energy letter was based on flawed information, and Northern Star was clarifying the incorrect information.

Read the last half of the post above and you can see the specific info that was wrong - the Oregon Dept of Energy used information given to them by an organization opposed to LNG coming to Oregon, and they took that info and used it without researching whether it was even correct.

On May 29, 8:53 AM, FRAC wrote:

What is correct?

So, what is correct?

The last have of NSNG is the same hype we’ve been hearing sonce day one.

You tell us, what is correct?

On May 29, 9:39 AM, AnotherAstorian wrote:

FRAC - you can find everything at http://www.FERC.gov and then go to the eLibrary.

I wasn’t able to link the specific page for some reason, but everthing is there, from the original letter from the ODE to the response the story is about.

In a nutshell - ODE was asking for a brand-spanking new draft environmental impact statement because of many changes that had been made in the project design since the original draft eis was issued last summer.

Among other things, it said that the pipeline route had changed significantly, which wasn’t true - and that the regasification process had been changed, which wasn’t true either. If you go look at the full filing, it goes into more specifics.

On May 29, 10:42 AM, FRAC wrote:

Excuxe the jibberish on my post, up way too early this morning.

On May 29, 1:12 PM, scott wrote:

Written by “Staff”? Come on TH.

Last time “staff” posted something, it ended up being a pro-Lee anti-Recall piece that was never properly accounted for. Remember?

That’s the one where TH said he was given the piece, and then Carrie claimed that she was actually handed the piece - but she couldn’t remember who gave it to her.

So who is “staff” this time? Nothernstar or Leucadia perhaps?

On May 29, 5:00 PM, Another other Astorian wrote:

“Last time” the staff posted was the Astoria boys baseball game. The time before that was a press release from the County, election results; time before that was another County press release regarding timeline for appointing District 3’s commissioner. Getcher head out, be real and quitcher whining. Must you be a schmutz, Scot?

Know this is real hard for you Scotto but try to read the article. Bradwood’s REBUTTAL, obviously THEIR media release.

More than half the articles in the Daily Astoria have no byline on them, ie are written by “staff” or “AP”.

This article is (duh) a media release by Bradwood, that any idjit could figure out. Sorta like the media releases that are in the Daily Astorian, except here it appears they don’t edit them. They let people have ALL the information and figure it out, give people credit for intelligence (sometimes, too much credit, apparently).

“Never properly accounted for?” It was on the opinion page and it was like the bajillion “opinion” pieces in the Daily A’s opinion page when you don’t know if its Forrester, Webb or one of their underlings posting.

On May 29, 5:01 PM, AnotherAstorian wrote:

I for one am very happy that this was posted at NCO!

I received the same information yesterday since I am a supporter of Bradwood Landing. When they have positive news they email their supporters, since they know it’s unlikely our local rag will print the press release.

And lo and behold, is it in today’s paper? Nope.

On May 29, 5:48 PM, Name (required) wrote:

And lo and behold, is it in today’s paper? Nope

No, it wasnt, but big surprise: The lead story was some tribute to that idiot Scheller supposedly babbling about how he thinks the LNG thing will somehow screw the county out of property taxes or something. The story was about Trendwest, but the Forester crew got it twisted around to become some free campaign publicity for Scheller.

On May 29, 8:57 PM, AnotherAstorian wrote:

Oh my yes, I noticed that right away

And I was just amazed...that once again our local paper used ANYTHING AND EVERTHING and connects it to LNG.

Of course, Jim Scheller doesn’t help, the idiot.

A HOTEL (basically), screws the county and city out of money, and just because THEY did, automatically makes everyone think Bradwood will too....oh PULEEEZE!!!! Bradwood is in the record several times stating that they will NOT pursue any tax abatements, but no matter how many times they say it (on the record, mind you), nobody seems to think that matters...those people are idiots too!

The newspaper is stretching with this one, and I hope a more than a few people see that and write in...I know I will be!

On May 30, 7:47 AM, Lawrence wrote:

I wonder if any of the existing ships transiting the Columbia River have intake screens????????

If not why this continual pressure being exerted only to the Bradwood site.

Maybe they speak with forked tongue??

On May 30, 8:23 AM, clearvision wrote:

On May 30, 6:47 AM, Lawrence wrote:

I wonder if any of the existing ships transiting the Columbia River have intake screens????????

If not why this continual pressure being exerted only to the Bradwood site.

Maybe they speak with forked tongue??

The collective intellect on this site amazes me.

Ships ballast and it’s negative impact, is and has been a major issue on all waterways.
The issue with Bradwood is their usual BS, vassilation and vagueness where they say their ships delivering LNG “Will” have environmentally friendly ballast intake screens and then they say in other documents that they are not quite sure that will be the case.

What kind of money you want to put on a multi-year deferment on that presumed $7.6Million Dollars of tax revenue?

Who’s gonna pay for all the security to get those tankers up river to NSNG’s proposed site.

There’s still speculation they, NSNG, are going to link up with Oregon LNG on the Palomar Pipeline. You think that’s will happen?

On May 30, 9:08 AM, fast ebb wrote:

Who’s gonna pay for all the security to get those tankers up river to NSNG’s proposed site.------ The same people that will pay all the NOAA employees if they happen to relocate to Astoria. The Feds

On May 30, 11:58 AM, Cascadian tired of the caca wrote:

Who’s gonna pay for all the security to get those tankers up the river to NSNG’s proposed site? The same people who pay for all the security around a cruise ship.

What kind of money you want to put on a multi-year deferment on that presumed $7.6 million dollars of tax revenue? A heck of a lot more money than on the plan to revitalize this area with a tourist trade.

The collective intellect on this site amazes me.

It is a wonderment to me that every time one has questions or a valid argument or point that even hints at pro LNG one is considered less intelligent. The elitist attitude that is prevalent in the circles of the anti-lng faction will be its downfall, locally.

Please show us the “other” documents where Bradwood says they are not quite sure that will be the case, and make sure you include what their proposal is if that isn’t the case. I am quite sure you are leaving that out, per norm. You see, I was once in the anti LNG camp, until I got fed up with your half truths and total lies. I see a half truth here. So, ante up and show us your documents. You have the NERVE to say that the LNG corpos are vague! You take the cake.

It is no wonder the Port commissioners have been stymied for years regarding bringing anything in w/this group of naysayers continually looking at every angle for some reason to NOT bring something here. I am truly amazed that this same group would be encouraging TRAFFIC here via the tourist trade. The amount of pollution they are encouraging people to contribute to the atmosphere by getting into their vehicles and coming to the coast is unconsciousable. They should be encouraging everyone to explore their own cities this year, stay out of their vehicles, save gas and resources, take a vacation at home. Use the internet to look at artwork, buy online.

Cut the Sunday Market in half, only those living in a radius of 30 miles invited to attend, save the earth.

But what is noticed is that most of these people use talking points, very few walk the walk. Very, very few care about the people living paycheck to paycheck. Very, very few look to compromise to figure out how we can work out a fiscally and environmentally responsible balance.

On May 30, 2:09 PM, Name (required) wrote:

On May 30, 7:23 AM, blurredvision wrote:

Who’s gonna pay for all the security to get those tankers up river to NSNG’s proposed site

I propose the city immediately impose a 30% sales tax on all arts and crafts for sale in the city as well as a $5,000.00 “artist license” that every would-be artist needs renew every six months in order to legally produce all that crappy artwork Astoria is supposedly getting famous for but no one really buys. Hey, it aint much but it’s a start.

Seriously, the costs will be passed along to the same people who pay for all those fancy coast guard vessels and personel at Cape D, Tongue Point and the foot of 17th, the helicopters at the Air Station and National Guard personel at Camp Rilea. Uncle Sugarbucks Sam!

On May 30, 3:30 PM, Lawrence wrote:

Yes, it’s true I am Norwegian so that makes me one of the collective intellect’s that live here.

But I know one thing I didn’t migrate from California in my Volkswagen Van and my weed.

On May 30, 5:09 PM, claervision wrote:

On May 30, 10:58 AM, Cascadian tired of the caca wrote:

Who’s gonna pay for all the security to get those tankers up the river to NSNG’s proposed site? The same people who pay for all the security around a cruise ship.

What kind of money you want to put on a multi-year deferment on that presumed $7.6 million dollars of tax revenue? A heck of a lot more money than on the plan to revitalize this area with a tourist trade.

The collective intellect on this site amazes me.

Ships ballast and it’s negative impact, is and has been a major issue on all waterways.
The issue with Bradwood is their usual BS, vassilation and vagueness where they say their ships delivering LNG “Will” have environmentally friendly ballast intake screens and then they say in other documents that they are not quite sure that will be the case.

It is a wonderment to me that every time one has questions or a valid argument or point that even hints at pro LNG one is considered less intelligent. The elitist attitude that is prevalent in the circles of the anti-lng faction will be its downfall, locally.

Please show us the “other” documents where Bradwood says they are not quite sure that will be the case, and make sure you include what their proposal is if that isn’t the case. I am quite sure you are leaving that out, per norm. You see, I was once in the anti LNG camp, until I got fed up with your half truths and total lies. I see a half truth here. So, ante up and show us your documents. You have the NERVE to say that the LNG corpos are vague! You take the cake.

It is no wonder the Port commissioners have been stymied for years regarding bringing anything in w/this group of naysayers continually looking at every angle for some reason to NOT bring something here. I am truly amazed that this same group would be encouraging TRAFFIC here via the tourist trade. The amount of pollution they are encouraging people to contribute to the atmosphere by getting into their vehicles and coming to the coast is unconsciousable. They should be encouraging everyone to explore their own cities this year, stay out of their vehicles, save gas and resources, take a vacation at home. Use the internet to look at artwork, buy online.

Cut the Sunday Market in half, only those living in a radius of 30 miles invited to attend, save the earth.

And as usual many tend to confirm the opinion.
Any wonder the bradwoood people are confident they can just walk right in here and have their way?

On May 30, 6:30 PM, Wally wrote:

Is it claervision or clearvision???

On May 30, 8:11 PM, g wrote:

It looks like the President is getting involved with LNG siting now.

Here is an Artists Rendering of one of these locations.

On May 31, 6:12 AM, Speechless wrote:

Words aren’t needed
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1786214/posts

On Jun 27, 6:35 PM, Cheap Cruises wrote:

I’m not surprised to see that the report failed to accurately represent current and forecasted market conditions regarding availability of supply, projected demand, and key industry trends. Otherwise it would require an explanation and fututre projection of growing cost of commodities and gas

On Jun 27, 7:29 PM, Tom Peterson wrote:

Has anyone seen that mini LNG tank at the Warrenton Home Depot?

On Jun 28, 8:45 PM, I want to buy CNG wrote:

No, what’s it look like and what’s it for? If we have a car that takes CNG will we be able to fill it there?

NorthCoastOregon.com

Local News

Bradwood Landing Comprehensive rebuttal: LNG benefits to Pacific Northwest explained

24 Comments

Submit A Comment

Search

Local Media

Police Blotter

Articles Elsewhere

Recent Comments

Elsewhere

Local Links

Local Government

Clatsop Blog Network

Local Blog Posts