NorthCoastOregon.com

On May 23, 6:29 AM, Do it wrote:

If LNG is so dangerous and scares you so much I propose all you anti LNG
foes take a stand and have it removed from your property/homes/businesses and shift to wind or solar.
Now that would be a statement.

On May 23, 8:05 AM, Alternatives wrote:

McGee,
Go chop some wood and build a fire.

On May 23, 12:12 PM, Do It wrote:

Where is Patrick going to keep his chickens, horse and cow? Maybe on Hauke’s old lot.

What is it he does for a living, design buildings-homes? They must all be totally “green.”

My home is 100% green so I am way ahead of all the anti’s.

When will all commercial traffic on the river be stopped? You can’t just crap on the LNG people and leave the others alone. Get off your “Ass” and get to work. Cruise ships included.

Where waiting

On May 23, 2:13 PM, Nookie Bookie wrote:

McGee is a misogynistic, jealous person whose greatest happiness is his daily email from Marquis saying, “thanks” as if they were good ole pals

Spammy McGee fancies himself as some sort of attack dog for the Californians, redshirted treehuggers and AVAsters. As well as the defender of the unholy union of Josh Marquis & Steve Forrester. McGee probably almost busted his buttons with pride when he got his name in that yellow piece of garbage some choose to call the local newspaper. McGee get’s an “atta boy” from the child abuser Forester. So now McGee’s so called blog or website is just a mirror for the Daily Assholian. McGee is a joke. A transparent cheap disposable lackey with no substance whatsoever. He’s good for a few laughs and that’s about all.

On May 23, 2:24 PM, Reader wrote:

Mcgee Made the DA Editorial Page

http://www.dailyastorian.com/main.asp?SectionID=23&SubSectionID=393&ArticleID=51613&TM=62578.46

And he bashes the paper!

On May 23, 3:27 PM, Jimmy wrote:

We should also try and push bioheat to all existing oilheat users. From what I understand, people in Europe have been using this for a while now. It has the potential to save 400 MILLION gallons of oil. Imagine what will happen to prices then. Wouldn’t it just be a better day. Working for NORA, I have been reading about people’s hardships with the whole oilheat industry and how some are even going to the extremes, and stealing. Here’s a cool informative site that will give you more info about bioheat: http://oilheatamerica.com/index.mv?screen=bioheat

I’m no expert on the subject, that’s why I have provided you with a link.

On May 23, 4:55 PM, wondering wrote:

Is there a “except for if he starts it” clause in that agreement?

You know, SOME people do that on purpose, just to make others look bad and break the agreement. And then they can attack the guy providing us w/this outlet. Lets agree to not feed the troll, ‘kay folks?

Guy - I have changed my mind on this the day after certain people started spouting off. Surprised me since I don’t think of myself as someone who listens to the rumor rousers, I guess I do if they are on the same side I am on. It makes me look twice at what it is I am against. When I saw how the lies of the Antis outnumbered the lies of the Corporations, and the Antis use fear and bullying to get rid of their opposition. The Corporations can at least offer us money in exchange for their lies. The antis offer us nothing but fear and the threat of tearing our community apart if we don’t agree with them.

On May 23, 7:49 PM, patrickmcgee wrote:

On May 23, 3:15 PM, NCO Terms of Use wrote:

D.You agree not to use any obscene, indecent, or offensive language or to provide to or post on or through the Website any graphics, text, photographs, images, video, audio or other material that is defamatory, abusive, bullying, harassing, racist, hateful, or violent. You agree to refrain from ethnic slurs, religious intolerance, homophobia, and personal attacks when using the Website.

And the only way these terms work is if they are honored and/or inforced.

I’ve had a blast playing here believe me and I really hate to see this site, or at least Tryan’s original idea die.

Thank you all.

On May 24, 2:35 AM, PAH wrote:

Mr. Balkins, you know as well as I that you are indulging in the logical fallacy of false alternatives.  Nonetheless, I do wash dishes by hand, a practice which could, if not properly executed, be more energy intensive than using a dishwasher. 

Methane is cooled to store as LNG at the peak shave facility in Portland, but the amounts are miniscule compared to the levels of import proposed, The shaver plant also has no tanker deliveries.

Titan, a moon of Jupiter, has lakes if not seas of LNG. That doesn’t make the carbon-loading and greenhouse gas emission of LNG mining, cooling, transport, regasification, pressurizing and pipeline transport any less damaging to this planet

We are beings who want happiness doing what we can to steward the earth’s environment in a responsible manner.  We could all do better.  Imported LNG has a completely different history and impact profile than a science project, a peak shaver or a cold moon.  You know that Mr. B.  You are obviously very intelligent.  Let’s hear your views without the all-or-nothing crap and the personal attacks.

On May 24, 6:21 AM, Captain Io wrote:

What are your ideas on this Peter?

It’s probably a given that PAH is more concerned about stewarding the lakes of LNG on Titan than the economic improvement of Clatsop County. Perhaps when Mr H. returns from his Memorial Day trip to Jupiter he might get around to answering

On May 24, 9:19 AM, Rick Balkins wrote:

PAH,

You do bring some basic points that does make some sense. We are talking about energy conservation and zero carbon footprint. We know that is different from each other but related. You can’t always achieve the best energy efficiency while also achieving zero carbon footprint.

Fact: Population growth rate of Earth is higher then the rate of energy and zero carbon footprint reduction.

Fact: Natural gas and LNG is anywhere from 80-98% efficient. Still has carbon footprint.

Fact: Increasing portions of the world is entering industrial, technological ages and incorporating the benefits. Third world countries are now having computers and stuff that we took for granted in the 70s and 80s. Even the microwave. Not new for us but energy and carbon footprint would be relatively similar.

Fact: Humans had the smallest energy and carbon footprint back in the days of the Wooly Mammoth. Sure Humans did camp fire. This was human’s means to survive as a species. If you follow Darwinism and the belief of survival of the fittest purely on natural methods - we should be in africa eatting nuts and berries like the gorillas, apes, monkeys and eventually be extinct by now because we don’t have the fur and claws and teeth like Lions, and Bears and other such creatures. We would have been killed off without the use of our species natural ability to creatively make tools and increasingly make better tools. Ultimately, lead us here. Tools made lives better and more effective but ultimately with it, it came change in life style from hunting & gathering life-style to civilizations and that turn to wear humans are today. We stopped moving around so much and built homes (homes of that time) and did irrigation (farming) and hunting. This in turn lead to larger carbon footprint (burning wood) and energy usage.

People want to live their life-style. Not always do they care about stewardship of Earth. You do realize that fiberglass insulation is about as efficient as it would get. We already made homes in the 70s that was about 85-90% efficient as scientifically possible with available construction materials that would be affordable for everyday folks. It isn’t like everyone can build $5 Million dollar homes. We are reaching a reality point where we can either make houses that people can afford or we don’t.

The thing is, most anti-LNGer folks (not all) that are making such ruckus over LNG wants not a single electron more energy used but wants the world to reduce energy consumption to 1% of what it is now AND have zero carbon footprint. As population increases, that is going to make things harder and to a point impossible. There is a point that we can’t possibly do it with the materials on Earth. There is a point that for what it takes to do that makes for an unhealthy air circulation problem when on earth but in space it isn’t as big of a problem. Then you ask yourself, what does it cost to make a space station “module” in space. How much is mylar? Gets expensive but you wouldn’t want to wrap your home and seal it up too much unless you have either non-mechanical ventilation that is sufficient to circulate air or a mechanical ventilation system for circulating air.

It gets back to, where do we stop harping. We can be as efficient as possible and global warming continues because places in Asia are having large growth rate.

Two options would eventually be before us. Option A) Kill off 90-95% of the world’s population. I know this isn’t popular. Option B) Revert to pre-human “civilization” life-style to that of what it was like 10,000 to 100,000 years B.C. Why? Population is still going to continue to rise and energy demands will because of more people. Even if everyone has the most efficient houses possible. The situation is real. We’ll have 12 Billion people in around 25 years from now. Give or take 5 years. That means twice the energy needed than for 6 Billion. We can make our homes as efficient as possible and with zero carbon footprint. If you look to 50-60 years from now - the pop. would be 24 Billion. Look to 80 years and we be around 48-50 Billion. Look at 100-120 years and we might be at an explosive 100 Billion people on earth. Why? India? Other countries growing? So, go figure.

What can we do to stop this? Global warming is still happening. Regardless of our efforts as humans.

Don’t get me wrong. I am not against people trying to be energy efficient and reduce carbon footprint and try to be better stewards of our planet. Let each person or family decide for themselves if,when and how they want to achieve these goals on their existing buildings. As for new buildings, they are governed by building codes and will be meeting the requirements for that. That should be updated as technology makes way to make more efficiency at affordable prices. As windows get more efficient, then we make requirements for those newer windows as they become affordable and standard. That is another issue.

I’m looking at a folly that unless the population stays the same or reduced, we can’t really stop global warming if it was human cause. It may never matter and occur anyway. We all know the planet will burn up in an inferno as it was birthed when the sun turns into a red giant. So what. Lets remember, the sun is aging and the inevitable will happen on Earth (or its debris of material) at some point in time.

Earth has had these global warming and cooling cycles in the past and they all are different from each other in intensity.

I’m not saying that humans have not had their impact on earth. It goes with the territory of “life”. Some rather bad moments but we learned. However, we should be concerned about where the energy goes. It goes where it is needed. That is why these gas lines are inter-networked. It can go to our homes, California, Mexico (another country), Arizona, Nevada, Idaho, or any of the States. It goes anywhere.

We just have to meet the needs in order to maintain an economy from local, state, national and international. Nation and International economy does effect State and local economy more readibly.

If you look at the matters, LNG would be paying “property taxes” to Clatsop County and a state income tax besides the Federal. Now, where do you think the State income taxes goes to. It goes to schools, roads and politicians pockets… I mean, remodeling their office.

Some of it will come down the pike from State to local places like us through State sponsored programs. Our economy works on money. Go where the money is and then bring that money back to building alternative energy systems. Build those wind mills and water wheels and solar systems.

We need to be diverse in our energy, ultimately.

Zero carbon footprint. Zero carbon emmission is unrealistic on a global scale. 

It is time to get back to reality. We aren’t stopping global warming. we are only preserving this optimal condition for manufacturing as long as possible. In the end, it will all burn up.

On May 24, 12:48 PM, Mary Ann wrote:

Most fishermen have absolutely no problem with LNG being sited at Bradwood. The few that do have claimed the waters around Clifton and don’t want to draw any undue attention to what goes on there. If we are going to be talking straight up here, PAH, lets be straight up. You are not considered a friend of the fishermen and you do not know much about the cycle of fish species in the river. You have your THEORIES about it all. Merely THEORIES.

Bradwood has one of the most thought out plans for ballast intake of any of the ships on the river. Cruise ships do much more harm to the environment than and LNG tanker would.

Bradwood is being sited on privately owned land. Red shirts are up in arms regarding the government “taking” small parcels of property (imminent domain) and compensating the land owner in order that a pipeline may run through that property. Yet, red shirts are preventing a property owner from using his property, 400+ acres, in accordance to the laws and the process in place and they don’t have any plans of paying that property owner any compensation whatsoever.  Red shirts steal the rights of the land owners to get their way through fear mongering, and now (via Roger Rocka) with outright threats to our county commissioners.

Also, these same red shirts, wish to deprive all businesses/industries of the opportunity to apply for land use variances by placing a blanket law on the books. This law will ensure that you and I will see a steep increase in our property taxes over the next years. Many of these red shirts live in cities, they don’t care that our county taxes will increase tenfold. They don’t care that we need more developments to expand our tax base to share the burden that the declining timber revenue is going to leave us with. What they don’t realize is that their costs will increase, too, as they use the county services. Or, those services will simply disappear. Aid to children and families, county mental health, transition center, drug and substance abuse rehabilitation, senior citizen programs, the community programs that help to catch those who would normally fall through the cracks will be tossed aside first as the county struggles to maintain its roads, issue permits, see to its law enforcement, and those services that have a direct impact on daily life.

A tourist economy does NOT add to our tax base. Filling stores in downtown Astoria for three months until they go belly up does NOT add consistency to our tax base. Becoming a SERVICE oriented economy does NOT lessen our tax burden, nor does it bring it living wages. It will barely keep a family of four afloat. All it does it stroke the egos of the artists for four months of the year.

We need a solid, strong tax base to work from. OR extremely high paying jobs so that people can afford the taxes. Oregon is in the top 5 hungriest states in America

Oregon for the past 5 years has been either the #1 or #2 hungriest state in America with the hunger rate remaining nearly twice that of the national average rate for hunger.  (Oregon 5.8%, United States 3.3%)

Oregon’s poverty rate is 11.6%; the Federal Poverty Line for a family of four is $20,650 per year.

19.7% of children in Oregon live in poverty.

5.4% of elderly in Oregon live in poverty. 

Statistics on Poverty and Hunger in Clatsop County/Oregon

Percentage of households with income less than 185 percent of the poverty level:

Clatsop County = 29.8%

State of Oregon = 26.9%

Source: EM 8842-E * Poverty and Food Assistance in Clatsop County, November 2003

The poverty rate for Clatsop County is higher than state poverty rate.

Clatsop County = 13.2%

State of Oregon = 11.6%

Source: EM 8842-E * Poverty and Food Assistance in Clatsop County, November 2003

Reasons:  according to Oregon Center for Public Policy

housing costs have soared while wages have stagnated.  In the last decade housing values in Oregon have risen 129%.

The gap between rich and poor grew four times faster in Oregon than nationally--the richest 20% in Oregon had a 34% increased earnings while the poorest 20% in Oregon had a 6% decline in income.

The changing nature of employment in Oregon has resulted in fewer family-wage industrial jobs and more low-wage SERVICE jobs.

Rural Oregon fares poorly due to more seasonal employment which equals low annual incomes.

Now, what was that about ballast water?

On May 24, 2:48 PM, jist asking wrote:

Can Bradwood pay to convert the Emergency Responders’ transportation to be able to take CNG? Wouldn’t that save the fire districts a lot of money?

On May 24, 5:03 PM, Lawrence wrote:

Concerns with ballast water should read these sites:
http://wdfw.wa.gov/fish/ballast/ballast.htm
http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-m/mso/ans.htm
http://groups.ucanr.org/Ballast_Outreach/Laws_and_Regulations/Oregon.htm

Discussions on LNG propelled vehicles are available. Check out
the Honda Accord LNG automobile thats in production but only allowed
in 3 states.  Only emissions are water vapor. A wall mounted home filling adaptor unit is in production and can be connected into you existing natural gas piping. We won’t see it until the governments can find a way to collect their road fees and installation charges.  If I recall doesn’t or did the Oregon state motor pool have vehicles powered by LNG? But we will wait till hell freezes over to get approval. Bottom line is not pollution reduction but money in the till.

On May 25, 7:02 PM, richpix wrote:

Many are opposed to LNG because it isn’t the same as domestically available natural gas.  It’s far more expensive because of all that goes in to getting it here.  Domestic or Canadian natural gas comes basically straight out of the ground and into the pipe.  LNG requires energy intensive processes to be turned into and kept in a liquid state, be moved from where it is harvested, and then more energy is expended in turning it back into a gas from the liquid state.  In fact, something like 3% of the gas brought by an LNG tanker is used in the regasification process.  And then there’s the matter of the tankers having to travel thousands of miles round-trip to deliver their loads and return empty to refill.  What do you think all this will do for the price of natural gas?  How is this helping us not be dependent on other countries for our energy needs?

Until about 1970 we imported almost no oil, and no one could hold us over a barrel (pardon the pun) by deciding what we would pay for oil and couldn’t decide what we had to pay for it.  Why then do we want to start down the same road with natural gas?  Do we really want Russia and other states to decide our energy policy for us?

studying inquisitively, I looked into the current price of converting vehicles to run on natural gas.  $6,000-12,000 per vehicle, and must be done by an EPA certified tech with an EPA certified kit.  The home refueling stations cost $4,500 and up to install.  They also take up to 16 hours to refill a tank if it’s empty.  Topping up takes overnight.

The Honda Civic powered by natural gas base price is over $25k.

On May 25, 7:59 PM, g wrote:

Richpix:  Now we know what’s wrong.  Because of where we are in terms of renewable technology, we are stuck with gas or oil or both.  It is guestimated that oil and gas will run their course in the next 100ish years.

Contrary to your belief that gas is too expensive to ship here, you may want to check again.  There is a reason for LNG.  The reserves in the US are getting more scarce.  Domestic prices are going higher.  The evil corporate energy companies are looking miles down the road.  Years down the road.  Decades down the road.

Google World Natural Gas Economics to get started.  The playing field will amaze you.

On May 25, 8:23 PM, lngpro wrote:

What is LNG? - The Facts
LNG is a very cold liquid (approximately -260° F), containing
mostly methane but typically including other “hot” or “wild”
hydrocarbons such as ethane and propane, and other
contaminants.
Increases in natural gas prices, and recent technological
improvements in the production and shipping of LNG, have
made it possible to profitably export otherwise stranded
natural gas reserves. In addition, a ruling by the FERC in
2002 called the Hackberry Decision provided investment
incentives for land-based LNG import terminals allowing
them to be operated with less regulation.As a result, LNG
has emerged as an attractive investment opportunity for the
energy industry.
LNG is the most energy dense of all the hydrocarbon fuels,
yielding 50 million BTUs per metric ton. All other
hydrocarbon fuel energy densities fall within the range of 38.1
and 43.3 million BTUs per metric ton.

On May 25, 9:59 PM, Best Guest wrote:

That may be why Dirk is against LNG.  He’s probably putting in methane collectors in his vat of cow crap.  Bradwood would be in direct competition with his natural gas factory.  He should just bottle it and sell it to CCFOG members who are against natural gas even though they use it.

On May 26, 3:53 AM, more facts to look at wrote:

Depends on what you are converting but a diesel to CNG conversion kit is $1,828. 

Another site http://mycngkit.com/ says that they’ve had 140,000 kits installed for under $1,000 A video shows how it is done.

2004 Cavalier bi-fuel CNG $10,000

CNG Phill Fuel Maker

Do I want America completely self sufficient? I want America to learn to play well with others. I don’t want freakin walls built around us like we are xenophobic China or an Iron Curtain like Russia. I find it really hard to believe that we are going to go to war with Australia, Peru and New Guinea.

If we find Natural Gas in the newly opened areas of the Arctic or Antarctic, claimed for USA, we certainly will be needing terminals to bring that in and Bradwood sure would be nice to be and ready to accept that.

It seems to me that this effort to halt LNG is being funded by big money. Sorry, nope, I don’t believe that a bunch of bleeding hearts are shelling out the dough it takes for the fees alone much less the lawyers for the appeals process. That takes MONEY. Who stands to monetarily gain if the Natural Gas companies are stopped or slowed down? Follow the money.

On May 26, 5:50 AM, lngpro wrote:

Is LNG Explosive? - What FERC/Northern Star Says:

LNG is not at all explosive or
flammable in its liquid state

On May 26, 10:03 AM, Rick Balkins wrote:

LNG extraction in China is no more “dirtier” then LNG extraction by US or Canada. However, there is a difference and energy footprint (not necassarily carbon footprint. Don’t imediately correlate them to mean the same thing) for transporting it.

However, it would be good to take the sum of energy to cool the LNG and compare it to the energy yield of the LNG fuel at optimal. Then take the difference, multiply it by 0.98 (for considering a 2% wasted energy as used by cooking stoves and furnaces and other natural gas powered (includes LNG-powered cars which is actually natural gas when it is in your engine). Then take the resulted amount and divide it by optimal energy and you got an aproximate percentage of efficiency.

What would coal be like? I know natural gas boilers would be less efficient then natural gas forced-air heating would be. Lets assume we went to natural gas heating - no boiler but maybe in-line water heat exchanger that heats water “in-line”.

We can compare to other fuels. Bradwood Landing is just a receiving terminal. Where the LNG comes from doesn’t matter. The reality is, United States can not be self-sufficient 100% of any other country and meet the energy needs of our country and also being the supplier of energy to several other “allied” countries.

The manufacturing of the facility may vary a little bit on terms of building codes. The efficiency of the facility and ever improving methodology over the next 100 years will render more “cleaner” extraction of energy. In ideal world, we would have 100% energy efficient and absolute zero carbon footprint or carbon neutral society and $100 Trillion a year into producing facilities that does that. We are not there. It isn’t ideal and we need to be smart and work with both fossil fuel and alternative energies and ever improve on our energy footprint and our carbon footprint.

Don’t forget, all fossil fuels are renewable. Just wait 100 million years and your mulch and grass compose will make new fossil fuels like coal. It is just a matter of time and natural process. What about some of the stuff that in production today. Stuff that 10 years ago wasn’t quite there yet but now is. Ok. We need less dependence on it in long run but we can’t go cold turkey on it. It would collapse industries.

How do we get the funding to make stuff like that. Would Bradwood Landing be interested in alternative energies. Sure. Will Bradwood make it less desirable… No. Why, it would make for an infrastructure that would allow our electrical and natural gas companies be capable of providing sufficient systems to allow for the manufacturing of new box stores and other industries and corporate commerce. The biggest employers outside of college and schools and governement and hospitals are corporate owned jobs. The mom & pop shops don’t hire people. Why do you think we have such high unemployment. How are people here going to buy a home or have a house built which we were so lucky in the 1950s. The American way had been rendered dead because we don’t make means to have people be able to live in the community with “family-wage” jobs. Jobs that can allow people to get construction loans to build a house to raise a family and then Mortgage to pay off the construction loans and make payments on mortgage and still have a decent living. I’m not talking about living like the folks in Malibu, California. I’m talking about decent ordinary living lifestyle like we seen on TV in the 1950s but of course with modern technology.

We need infrastructure that can handle such commerce and industry.

On May 26, 11:21 AM, PAH the Homegrown wrote:

Okay, I"ll risk dropping a couple of quotes into this discussion, to help you understand my global view of LNG, beyond my admittedly NIMBY bias.

“It is dead wrong to think LNG is better than any other fossil fuel. It is not. In fact, it’s worse than domestic natural gas because it’s hotter, meaning that it has a different chemical composition from North American natural gas, and will release more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. In addition, creating a market for LNG where one does not exist necessary leads to increased prices, and once LNG has led to increased prices, then different kinds of coal-burning becomes economically equivalent. Far from being a substitute for coal, it will actually create a market for new coal plants.”
- Loretta Lynch
former Chair of the California Public Utilities Commission

It is well worth listening to what Ms. Lynch has to say.  She was among the first to realize what was going on with ENRON.

Also, please take a look at a nicely balanced article from TheStar,com at http://www.thestar.com/comment/columnists/article/413800

I"ll excerpt a bit that supports my point of view:

Michael Griffin, a professor of environmental engineering at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, is wary of claims that LNG is just as clean as domestically produced natural gas. He and two colleagues from Carnegie Mellon calculated the life cycle of emissions from LNG and coal – all the way from exploration and production to combustion in a power plant.

They found that natural gas, while it has nearly half the carbon dioxide emissions of coal when burned, is far less climate-friendly in LNG form. Liquefying, transporting and regasifying natural gas uses tremendous amounts of energy and some of the gas is lost as “fugitive emissions” along the way.

The result is that LNG has a much higher carbon footprint than domestic natural gas, and isn’t too far from coal’s in cases where the LNG must travel huge distances by tanker ship. For example, LNG coming to the U.S. from Trinidad would leave a smaller carbon footprint than LNG coming from Australia.

Griffin said it’s worth questioning the wisdom of spending billions of dollars on LNG infrastructure in a world that’s increasingly carbon-constrained.

“The key question is whether it’s worth making this investment.”

On May 26, 12:06 PM, PAH hugs fish wrote:

Hi g,

Nice to hear from you.  I believe that I’ve cited the economic study done for Harpswell, Maine, regarding business loss and discouraged investment.  Locally the Columbia River Business Alliance has described their concerns at length, so I won’t repeat.

Perhaps naively I believe that commercial and sport salmon fishing and all the supporting infrastructure has a future here.  In the case of Bradwood, NMFS, the tribes and even NorthernStar predict adverse impacts on salmon, including the ESA listed fish.  You and I have seen the result of declines in returns of the ESA runs - extreme reductions in fishing opportunity. 

I know that this is not an example of past business loss because of LNG.  Examples are out there but limited because besides Everett I think that all the other sites are reasonably remote.  I have anecdotes from the Chesapeake, and it seems to me that Dr. D had some examples…

But stressing ESA salmon and the resulting economic impact is something that I do know about.  I also know about the dismal record of attempts to mitigate for loss of estuarine biological function.  So the potential for the Bradwood project to harm our salmon-related businesses is very real. 

It appears that human impacts to the Sacramento River system contributed, to say the least, to the situation that closed ocean fishing for salmon off California and most of Oregon.  Same story previously for the Klamath runs.  Columbia returns constrain ocean opportunities as well.  Do we want to make things worse for fishing both in the river and at sea?

Destroying more salmon habitat and otherwise increasing mortality of the out-migration is foolish by any measure, but it is insane if we also take into account climate change, with reduction of glaciers and average temperatures warming the river.  This is the time to preserve and restore estuary habitat, that is if we still value fish and fishing.

And, no I don’t believe that flooding Svenson Island would make up for the damage to biological function at Bradwood, let alone the on-going disturbance.

All the best, g.  Cheers!

On May 26, 12:33 PM, g wrote:

You still haven’t answered the question.
What’s the bridge solution?

Take care Peter.
Check out my website later on today.  I’m doing a youtube video tribute to some of my favorite bands of the past.
“Freedom Lies in the Barrel of a Warm Gun”

g
http://tenasillahe.wordpress.com/

On May 26, 1:33 PM, lngpro wrote:

What happens when LNG is warmed? - What FERC/Northern Star Says:

As a vapor, natural gas mixed with air is flammable in the air
concentrations noted previously. As LNG vapor warms above
-160°F (-106.7°C), it becomes lighter than air and will rise and
disperse rather than collect near the ground. However, it is not
explosive unless flammable concentrations of gas occur in
enclosed or otherwise confined spaces.
Spill sizes as well as fire sizes, vapor clouds, and resulting
hazard zones are extensively analyzed. The coordinated efforts
of FERC, the Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Transportation
(DOT), and other state and federal organizations strive to
assure the safe transit to and storage at the terminal and are
described in great detail in the analysis.

On May 26, 2:42 PM, jist sayin wrote:

Recalled California Governor Davis’ appointed PUC commissioner Lynch? That’s the Lynch we should be listening to?

A staunch Democrat (hmmm what party is it that is trying to overthrow FERC and is in denial that LNG is needed?) this is what has been said about Loretta Lynch in the Corruption of Power report:

As Californians confront the crippling power crisis and attempt to craft both short and long-term solutions, it is important to understand how this situation deteriorated so rapidly. There are a multitude of factors that have converged, resulting in what Governor Gray Davis called “this mess.” Among them are a partially deregulated market, a serious supply shortage, the inability to meet a constantly growing demand for energy, and most importantly, the determination of California’s Governor to address the political aspects of this problem before giving thought to a policy solution.

One key individual responsible for providing oversight is the President of the state’s Public Utilities Commission, Loretta Lynch. Appointed by Governor Gray Davis in March of last year, Ms. Lynch’s tenure as PUC President has produced a record of repeated missteps and failed leadership that has contributed significantly to the nightmare now facing the state.

It has become quite clear that Loretta Lynch was not selected by Gray Davis to serve because she had experience and knowledge of the complex world of deregulation, energy markets and utility operations. If Governor Davis wanted someone who was an expert in these areas, then Ms. Lynch, who has no prior experience in the realm of utility oversight or energy matters, would not have made the cut.

The Los Angeles Times reported that, Lynch “was a San Francisco trial lawyer with no energy background when Davis tapped her for the job.” ("Widely Criticized in Crisis, Davis Defends His Caution,” Los Angeles Times, January 21, 2001).

But if Governor Davis had wanted someone who was a master at damage control, a hard-nosed political warrior experienced in scapegoat politics, and a loyal lieutenant who would advance his political career, then he could have found no better person than Loretta Lynch. Unfortunately, abandoning responsible public policy for political warfare has been a decision that has devastated California’s fragile energy market.

Ms. Lynch’s failures are as much the result of Governor Davis’ flawed priority of politics first, as they are her own misunderstanding and mishandling of utility and energy issues.

To appreciate why Loretta Lynch still holds her position after such a miserable tenure requires the understanding of how she is being evaluated by Governor Gray Davis: as a fiercely loyal, partisan, political warrior whose job is to provide cover for the governor to make his presidential aspirations a reality. At this point, Governor Davis could not be more pleased with her service. For the sake of taxpayers and ratepayers, however, it is time for Loretta Lynch to vacate her position as PUC President.

When Governor Gray Davis needed a loyal aide to carry out his public policy on utility matters, he surprised many observers by picking Loretta Lynch, who had at that time been his director of the Office of Planning and Research (OPR). What made the selection odd was that Lynch’s work at OPR was one of the few public policy positions that she had ever held.

Even more ironic is that while at OPR Lynch was responsible for “fulfilling statutory land use and environmental requirements” where she coordinated “California’s environmental justice efforts.” (Source: Official Biography of Loretta Lynch posted at PUC website). It doesn’t sound like she was thinking very much about new energy supplies for California.

Obviously the infinitesimally small amount of public policy experience of Ms. Lynch was centered on the enforcement of environmental regulations. That alone would be quite a controversial background for someone who would become one of the Governor’s principal energy advisors.

It is quite evident that it was not Lynch’s expertise on utility matters or how energy markets operated that Davis sought when he tapped Lynch for the post. Indeed, competent oversight of the state’s utility system and navigation through the deregulatory process was the furthest thing from Lynch’s area of expertise.

On March 8, 1992 the New York Times reported on questionable income tax deductions taken by the Clintons in 1984 and 1985. Reporter Jeff Gerth suggested in the story that Whitewater may have been used as a conduit to funnel money to the Clintons or perhaps to Bill Clinton’s campaign efforts.

Determined to kill any media momentum to investigate the Whitewater dealings, the Clinton campaign assembled a cadre of intensely loyal senior advisors to form a rapid response team. That team consisted of Loretta Lynch, Webster Hubbell and Vince Foster of the Rose Law Firm, and Hillary Clinton friend and New York lawyer Susan Thomases. The Independent Counsel Report indicates that Lynch and the other Clinton aides “reconstructed Whitewater-related records and coordinated the response effort.”

Is there a credible source of information regarding LNG that is non-political, w/o an economic/philosophical dog in the fight?

This fight seems to be all about politics, economy and philosophy. All emotional warfare.

On May 26, 3:17 PM, jist sayin wrote:

Tyler Hamilton is the Toronto Sun’s Green Columnist who wrote the “balanced” article you asked us to read. His philosophy is organic biofuel, that wonderful ethanol we are all spending nie on to $4/gal for presently while it clogs our fuel lines, destroys our small equipment engines all the while: devastating the rain forests of Indonesian, changing lands to biofuel crops and releasing more carbon into the air.

Hamilton acknowledges that biofuel has its problems, however he asserts that biofuels problems can be remedied through advanced technology and regulation of the industry.

Hmmmm. Same answers that LNG proponents use for almost the same reasons.

On May 26, 3:52 PM, Rick Balkins wrote:

Very good information lngpro.

The time it takes for LNG vapor to turn to lighter than air vapor is less than a minute.

“explosions” by definition requires pressurization. Only occurs in confined space. In order to get a *BOOM*.

However, flash combusion (not explosion but rapid combustion into flame) is possible and from human perspective could be reasonbly interpreted or called an explosion even though it is not by technical meaning of definition.

In any case, these cases are rare and often well managable. In worst case scenarios, the ship or facility would have an “LNG fire”. Most danger would be around the ship or facility. However, NO building would be located close enough to the facility to catch on fire under most cases.

These facilities would have reasonable safety protocols and procedures. We have more potential danger on our streets then in the shipping channels. Can a disaster occur. Sure. We already have a gas bomb under our houses and roads if you want to look at it that way. I don’t think we worry about it because we put our trust in the folks at the city and utilities.

I’m not afraid of having LNG facilities. Hell, I use to live not far from an oil refinery and we haven’t had any problems with it. There was only one incident (accident) were there was a gas leak at the refinery and there was a requirement of safety protocols and requiring students to be indoors in the classrooms. Big concern was the gas vapors catching on fire. A no-ignition rule within the maximum range of flamability with a factor of safety of 1.5 times the distance. It was like for a few hours.

This was in a highly populated suburban area like Carson, California.

Keeping in mind that with safety protocols and respect of authority, major incidents would not occur. Inclusion of advancement in knowledge and understanding and controllability - these issues would be small.

In case of an LNG leak on Skipinon, the main 101 bridge to warrenton would be closed for 2-3 hours for traffic. Large ships would be held up for a couple of hours and outside the exclusion zones. Fishing ships maybe held up - depending on heat exhaust. Consider the rarity of an event, it would be only a minor inconvenience. It is just a matter of getting things under control and then allow traffic to resume as soon as possible. This would be the same kind of incident if there was an issue with a Oil Tanker or LPG (not LNG) ship.

It can be that way even for liquid petrolium gas truck on the road. Probably not to the same extent of exclusion zones but these zones are often more then the distance of danger.

Since we haven’t had any major incident of any kind with LNG, it is due to the great care and dilligence of LNG companies and importance and observation of incidents involving oil, lpg and other fuels and taking “proactive” approach to safety. not just reactive.

That is good news.

PAH has provided some interesting points from his opinion. I look at it like this, on a world scale we need to still use LNG and the sort while we improve our energy and carbon footprints. Can these LNG be a pregenetor for alternative energy development. Absolutely. This isn’t about competition of energy but about answering the energy needs as there will be supply and demand.

Who cares where the gas goes and where it comes from. The most is in the efficiency of extraction and getting it where it needs to be.

Keep in mind that 1 gallon of LNG is equal to like 600 gallons of NG. So, $0.66 per gallon divide by 600 would not be bad at all. I can live with that. Think of it like for $0.66, I get 600 gallons of natural gas.

Correct me on the gallons of LNG to gallons of ordinary natural gas if I made a mistake on the numbers but somehow the number 600 comes to mind on compression due to being chilled down.

I’ll look at PAH’s “bridging plan” in a bit but I think there is some assumptions that needs to be carefully looked at.

How does “Clatsop County” address these needs. How do we address the issues of decreasing timbers and fishing industry. We at Clatsop County needs other industries. How does geothermal going to work. How much energy would it take to extract geothermal energy out of this VERY dense basaltic bedrock? Wind is readible but how exactly are we going to get enough energy. 

Making buildings more efficient is fair thought. Ok, big catch. Where is the money to renovate our homes. Most of us has problems paying the bills, medicine and food. Already in a juggling act. No grants? Grants denied because not enough funding? Can I get energy efficient windows that matches the architectural character of the building of these 19th century Victorians. In order to pass HLC, I would have to have OLD GROWTH cedar. Since, any changes would have to be made with the same material and I have to have glass that is single-pane rolled sheet glass of late 19th century method. I’m in a historic district which kind of screws me a bit. Although, we are not on any tax benefit but it is a historic landmark house and I would have to custom make windows and the cedar wood frame through custom milling and match the millwork to micrometer level.

How do you propose to solve every issue of every person in Clatsop County in order to achieve these issues. We can just go out and demo all the houses in Clatsop County and start anew. That will make you alot of friends and now our tourism industry goes bye-bye. Take some thought and look at the WHOLE entire picture. I think the issue gets very complicated. Best solution is through diverse usage and applying the best combinations for yourselves. Try to do what you can as soon as you “can”. Don’t rush. We have alot on the plate to look at.

On May 26, 4:26 PM, lngpro wrote:

What is the operational safety record
of LNG Facilities? - The Facts

For a variety of significant reasons, past
operating records do not provide an
appropriate perspective for the analysis
of LNG risks. Overemphasis on past
operations to predict future failures is a
characteristic of poor risk management
techniques, particularly for such
complex systems.
The increasing number and complexity
of very unique LNG marine receiving
energy infrastructures significantly
increase the likelihood that a major
event will occur.
In the absence of an adequate model for
predicting risk and assessing the
resulting outcome of an LNG terminal
catastrophe, caution must prevail.
Siting these unique facilities in remote
locations or offshore is the only way to
protect the public.

On May 27, 5:16 AM, lngpro wrote:

What is the transportation safety record of
LNG ships coming to the US? - What FERC/Northern Star want you to hear

During more than 33,000 voyages completed
since the inception of LNG maritime
transportation in 1959, there have been only
eight significant incidents involving LNG ships,
none of which resulted in spills from cargo tank
ruptures.

On May 27, 9:32 AM, Rick Balkins wrote:

The ocean’s aren’t anymore or less dangerous after 9/11. We have increased security and change of protocols for perpectual Redcon 1 or 2 status. With essentially perpetual Defcon 2 or 3 status.

We have a heighten security and change of the baseline security.

On May 27, 10:43 AM, lngpro wrote:

Where does LNG come from? - The Facts

Currently, LNG is produced in Trinidad, Iran,
Algeria, Malaysia, Brunei, Libya, Egypt, Bolivia,
Indonesia, Venezuela, Oman, Nigeria, Qatar and the
United Arab Emirates, which are members of the
four-year-old Gas Exporting Countries Forum. Each
of these countries are locations where al Qaeda has
an already established foothold.9 Russia has the
largest gas reserves in the world and has already
begun to position itself as an LNG exporter.
Large liquefaction facilities and export terminals are
built to produce LNG and to load it aboard ships.
The refrigeration of natural gas is energy intensive, as
is its transport and ultimate regasification. From 5 to
20% of the gas is used to power these three steps in
the LNG supply chain.

On May 27, 7:08 PM, g wrote:

Richpix:  Thanks for setting me straight.  I typoed and meant to say clatsop county.

On May 27, 7:32 PM, Jon Dana wrote:

http://www.transoceangas.com/ AN THE ADVENTURE CONTINUES, if 33% of natural gas from oil wells is just being burnt into the atmosphere already. Wouldn’t it be wise to capture the energy instead of wasting it. Just wondering.