Local News
PUC memo says LNG storage could benefit the state
In a memo to Governor Kulongoski the chairman of the Oregon Public Utility Commission (PUC), Lee Beyer, expressed concern about the future price of natural gas due to a combination of increased demand, lack of supply, increased production costs for Canadian and domestic resources, and a move away from coal-fired generation.
The memo, dated May 30th, states “The Commission’s statutory responsibility is to represent utility ratepayers in obtaining reliable utility service at a reasonable price. Naturally, we are very rate-sensitive with concerns about rate stability as well as consistency of service. To a large extent, our sensitivity was heightened by our experience with the 2001 energy crisis. From this perspective, we tend to take a “belt & suspenders” approach to energy hoping to avoid the ““what if we we’re wrong” result down the line.
Beyer concedes that “any one analyst’s assumptions or conclusions may be right or wrong, sometimes widely so,” with this in mind Beyer goes onto say, “the following is the Commission’s observations of the Oregon Department of Energy’s (ODE) Report.” Beyer then proceeds to give specific references in the ODE Report where PUC has additional or different information and/or data.
According to the memo the ODE report referred to the US Energy Agency in projecting that domestic natural gas usage will rise 0.3% per year through 2030. However, PUC counters, that percentage is based on the assumption that 145 new nuclear plants will be built and a number of new coal plants with carbon capture and sequestration technology. Most industry analysts question this forecast. They believe the forecast for gas demand is low based on a belief that new commercial coal technologies will not be available until after 2025 or 2030 and that the projected number of nuclear plants is unrealistically high. PUC reports that Northwest Natural Gas projects that the demand will grow by 1.9% through 2012 and that the NW Natural Gas projection is “generally consistent” with the experience of Oregon’s three natural gas utilities.
The memo goes on to state that the Wall Street Journal recently reported: “The global appetite for natural gas has profound implications for a U.S. economy already tipping toward recession and struggling against inflation pressures.” According to a March 2008 NRRI Report, between 1999 and 2003 200,OOOMW of natural gas generating capacity was built in the US. During this building cycle, gas prices were around $2.00/MMBTU promoting that “Dash for Gas.“ The current energy environment appears to be on the cusp of a second “Dash for Gas.“ The ODE report notes that 40% of current Oregon electricity comes from coal generation and notes that financial conditions (and policy uncertainty) will encourage the switch from coal to natural gas. “As renewable energy becomes a larger part of the Oregon energy portfolio, more gas-fired generation will likely be built to fill in the gaps and act as backup. This could increase demand for natural gas in Oregon.”
Breyer states, ‘In sum, it is fair to say that Oregon’s demand for natural gas will continue to grow over the next 20 years.”
One of the complaints of local opponents of the Bradwood Landing project has been that Oregon won’t see any of the natural gas being imported, that Oregon is being used as a conduit for a pipeline to carry the fuel to California. The PUC memo states that Oregon is served primarily by Canadian natural gas that is shipped via pipelines through Washington. Oregon also receives natural gas from the Rocky Mountain states via the Northwest Pipeline that accesses the Opal Hub in Wyoming.” About 70% of Northwest natural gas comes from Canada. The Northwest pipeline from Wyoming is currently operating at or near capacity.
The memo points out that while the ODE report shows Canadian exports are expected to decrease by more than 20% during the next 20 years industry analysts believe those numbers to be very conservative. Canadian government sources state that the natural well count in Alberta is decreasing and the productive life of each well is also decreasing at the same time that Canadian domestic demands are increasing.
The ODE report states that even if the Canadian supply diminishes there is a “sufficient” LNG capacity in the US to meet the demand because of LNG terminals on the East coast and in the Gulf of Mexico.
However, the PUC memo counters, “this optimism may be misplaced in view of limited pipeline capacity and energy economics.” More pipelines must be constructed in order for the ODE report to be accurate. Presently, the Mexican Costa Azul LNG terminal in Baja is unable to even reach Northern California because of a lack of pipelines. As Clatsop County citizens are currently aware, pipeline construction is being fought by many groups. Most recently a referendum to ban pipelines from being allowed to cross open spaces, parks and recreation lands has been proposed in Clatsop County. The referendum is expected to be voted on in September.
The ODE report contends that the global price of LNG compared to North American gas is keeping it out of the US market at close to $20 per million BTUs, roughly double the price of the U.S. benchmark. PUC counters that FERC Market Monitoring Snapshot reported that Japanese contract gas prices are pegged at $14 MMBTU, only about $1.50 above the current domestic spot price. The memo states, “It is worth noting that the reported actual cost of delivering LNG to U.S. facilities is approximately $4.50/MMBTU leaving lots of room for market economics to work.” The other point that PUC makes is that long-term contract LNG prices are cheaper than the spot market prices and that it is unlikely that a LNG developer could get financing without having long-term contracts for both supply and consumption.
ODE’s report notes drilling for natural gas in the Rockies and new pipelines to the Northwest (barring any organized efforts from local populations determined to keep the pipelines out of their backyards). However, the PUC memo counters, the exploration for new sources of natural gas is from what is referred to as “unconventional” resources. They tend to be located in areas more difficult to get to and work in. “It is likely however, that the cost of mining these nonconventional resources will approach the world market price for LNG,” Breyer writes.
PUC discounts the ODE’s assertion that domestic needs can be met by Alaskan gas and a new pipeline. Even the ODE report acknowledges that it is unlikely to happen before 2018 and most experts state that politics would never allow the pipeline to be built.
Disruptions commonly effect the gas supply in the United States, according to the ODE report, with hurricanes in the Gulf Coast at the source of much of the US domestic supply and problems with major pipelines like the failure of the El Paso Southwest line during 2001 energy crisis. PUC notes that both FERC and electricity regulators have raised concerns about the insufficient supply of natural gas during severe weather periods as the US becomes more reliant on gas fueled electricity generation.
The PUC memo draws attention to the fact that, “… a regional (supply) problem that left the Northwest isolated from supply could put significant stress on the state’s energy resources,” as stated by the ODE report. The memo quotes the report in emphasizing: “… the storage offered by an LNG plant in Oregon could benefit the state due to cost savings during high demand periods and provide resiliency in an emergency.” The memo concludes, before summarizing, “Other regions of the country are all looking to secure access to additional gas supply sources, such an LNG and nonconventional gas, to replace supplies from quickly diminishing domestic and pipeline import sources. The Northwest should do the same.”
Notes:
Report from the Oregon Dept. of Energy to the Governor can be read here.
The Oregon PUC “ensures consumers receive utility service at fair and reasonable rates, while allowing regulated companies the opportunity to earn an adequate return on their investment.”
The full PUC Report can be read here.
105 Comments
On Jun 15, 7:00 PM, Good wrote:
Finally a story that tells the rest of the story.
Thanks
On Jun 15, 8:23 PM, g wrote:
This [puc] information has been common knowledge since we first started this lng debate. Why is it news now? Because the ODE has some dip that didn’t bother to do any research before speaking? Have fun removing the shoe from mouth.
To say Oregon would become a conduit for natural gas going elsewhere before satisfying her own needs defies logic (no matter how bad you may want it to be true).
On Jun 15, 9:07 PM, gist saying wrote:
Thank God Washington, Montana and the Rocky’s states weren’t as selfish as Oregon. If they were, Oregon wouldn’t have any natural gas for electrical plants or heating. It is amazing how it is the attitude of these people that they don’t want to be a conduit for others but they sure don’t mind others being a conduit for them. They learned nothing in kindergarten.
The information may have been known but its great that PUC put it all down in one spot and refuted, point by point, ODE’s shameful report.
On Jun 15, 11:40 PM, ????? wrote:
Gist saying, are you possibly a bit hollow minded? You did not give a take on whether or not Washington, Montana and other Rocky Mountain states had takin care of their need first? If so it comes down to smart business and not selfishness. Not pro or con LNG, just wishing people would shoot straight on their comments.
On Jun 16, 6:10 AM, Patrick McGee wrote:
The key paragraph in the entire piece...."Aholes and Opinions”
Wasn’t too long ago Northwest Natural Gas Producers, in a study, said the worst possible use of Natural Gas was to use it to produce Electric Energy ans coal and hydrpower was still the best message.
To dramatically and immediately decrease demand on electric energy was to simply convert space and water heating to natural gas.
Beyer concedes that “any one analyst’s assumptions or conclusions may be right or wrong, sometimes widely so,” with this in mind Beyer goes onto say, “the following is the Commission’s observations of the Oregon Department of Energy’s (ODE) Report.” Beyer then proceeds to give specific references in the ODE Report where PUC has additional or different information and/or data.
On Jun 16, 6:24 AM, Wally wrote:
Speaking of “Aholes”
On Jun 16, 9:01 AM, Patrick McGee wrote:
Everybody has one...Right Wally?
PUC may be correct but, the big question is; Do we need these LNG and Storage terminals and pipelines to get it?
Would it not behoove us to accelerate the development of alternate, sustainable energy sourcea instead of just contiuing to use up this fossil fuel?
Our part of the world has many advantages to allow us the prospect of getting off the grid and forming our own PUC to do so is not an outrageous concept.
On Jun 18, 4:55 PM, waiting for the proof wrote:
If the people of your “ilk” would spend more money and time on working on that solution than on attacking the community you may brought that answer to us. Your “ilk” are the ones with the belief that its out there and economically feasible to bring it here. Put your money, and time, where your mouth is and PROVE it.
On Jun 18, 5:58 PM, Patrick McGee wrote:
Awwwwww! Another nobody (waiting for the proof) wants to pick a fight instead of find solutions.
If the people of your “ilk” would spend more money and time on working on that solution than on attacking the community you may brought that answer to us. Your “ilk” are the ones with the belief that its out there and economically feasible to bring it here. Put your money, and time, where your mouth is and PROVE it.
River Current Hydro Generators? The technology’s there. The community needs to Commit.
Wind Power Genration? The technology’s there. The community needs to commit.
Two viable alternatives that are there already, and ready to go to work.
By the way smart ass, You want to quote where I attacked the community?
On Jun 18, 6:37 PM, yawn wrote:
Such a typical non-answer. “Technology is there if the community commits” blah, blah, blah. So easy to say empty words. No facts to back up how it gets done, especially with a referendum blocking all cables from crossing anything in a county surrounded by either the ocean, the river or by Recreation Lands, Parks and Open Spaces.
How is this power transmitted from the River Current Hydro generator?
How is that going to happen without CABLES crossing open spaces and parks?
On Jun 18, 9:04 PM, Jon Dana wrote:
“ River Current Hydro Generators? The technology’s there.” Ok give us a website with info. I find only an experimental one going in on the Yukon. On the lower Columbia you only have 6-8 hours of good flow.
On Jun 18, 9:18 PM, Patrick McGee wrote:
Then you are blind as a bat Jon Dana or you cannot count past one on google. I stopped at page 29 and it was still going on hydro- generators and going and going and going and going and going, etc, etc., etc. with patent after patent.
You can explore them at your leisure.
On Jun 18, 9:49 PM, Patrick McGee wrote:
Don’t be silly “yawn”.
On Jun 18, 10:05 PM, Dale Stevenson wrote:
“Don’t be silly “yawn”.”? Answer the question, McGee. How you purpose to get any cable into, or through to destinations, in Clatsop County if that referendum DOESN’T pass? I want to know. I looked through those pages of website. Saw only one experimental model that was actually in progress. Everything else just a bunch of drawings, maybes and whatifs. Hardly anything we can look forward to in the next decade. And no telling what kind of cables will be needed but you can bet that power will need to go over an open space, a park and a couple of recreation spots before it can reach any of our homes.
That referendum better pass.
On Jun 19, 7:46 AM, Patrick McGee wrote:
Think about it Stevenson and if that is your real name, thanks for having the courage to stand behind it.
Let common sense guide you.
This the way you live your life, led by others in your thinking and logic as well?
Common sense would tell me that you just cannot plop hydro-generators in the bottom of the Columbia River and willy-nilly run cable to just anywhere, as it likely has to go to a transfer facility somewhere but, the advantage we have is that we can be sensitive to how it gets there and before that happens the community has to be behind it and the formation of a PUC as opposed to some “Jack Booted” private coporation deciding in collusion with a weak community leadership they will and can do any damned thing they want to without “OUR” ultimate approval.
I think you already know that and really there is no need to be hostile here on this issue. I will not decide it, we all will, you included, if you live here.
The simple question is can it or can it not work to “OUR”, all of us’s benefit as opposed to continuing “On The Grid” and continued reliance on a fossil fuel future?
On Jun 19, 8:08 AM, Jon Dana wrote:
Oh, sorry Patrick I was looking for one that was currently producing electricity, to see how much current (water flow) was actually needed to produce something. Between low slack and high slack and the flood, that leaves 6-8 hours per day that might produce something. You would have better luck putting one in your downspout around here. Aren’t you going to call me Bartoldus or Hartill, I always get a big chuckle out of that. Have a nice day
On Jun 19, 8:25 AM, Patrick McGee wrote:
Jon, I’m certain that if, say, Astoria, Warrenton, Hammond were to say: “Let’s explore hydro-power generation”, “The system” would not likely be something off the shelf, do you?
I really want to stop flaming and try to look for solutions Jon in discussions and spirited debate and quite frankly, if I don’t like the way this place is run, I don’t have to come here do I? I don’t like anonymous posters? Too bad for me.
Bottom line, I don’t know that “The River” is the answer but it is a live resource with a serious current 6 Hours, 10 Hours, etc. per day.
Same thing with the proposed “Wind Generation” site. Constant and powerful wind velocity to drive those props and also new technology is developing with vertical props instead of the airplane look that are very much more efficient in extracting low velosity wind.
On Jun 19, 9:36 AM, Rivernary Visonary wrote:
Gee, wouldn’t ocean bound baby salmon just love going through “river hydro-generators”? Especically after all the fun they have at the dams. The River could be like one big ride at the Disneyland Of Death for them. Now that’s a rivervision the riverkeepers could really sink their teeth into, and by golly, who wouldnt want to look at acres and acres of machinery stationed in the river. It just give me goose bumps, I tell you, goose bumps!
On Jun 19, 9:40 AM, Tom Peterson wrote:
Patrick:
Dont you mean “Our River” not “The River”
I dont want those salmon catching, ugly things in “Our River.” They sound like horrible salmon killers and there is no way to make them safe enough for the salmon. I love salmon even if they are only for looking at and counting and not for commercial and recreational harvest.
and another thing, I want all cables and pipelines removed from our open space and recreational lands. I cant believe that a fiber optic cable was allowed to run across the Delaura Beach property. We dont need that here, thats for Portlanders and Californians.
Forgive my sarcasm, we need natural gas and anything new you can come up with. Lets get real and expand our energy options.
On Jun 19, 10:03 AM, Patrick McGee wrote:
We have plenty of Natural Gas, so the experst say, the question is: Do we need LNG with accompanying pipelines?
Salmon eaters?
Fish protection would likely be taken into consideration on those systems I believe.
“Our River”?
“The River”?
“The River” was here long before “US” and will likely still be after we have extincted ourselves.
On Jun 19, 11:01 AM, DS wrote:
McGee, if that is your birth name, in googling your name I see that you have criticized all forums except one Astorian Citizen Journal and not surprisingly it appears to be yours and the one that has the least amount of use and contributors. “Debate” with you appears to mean that you throw out a concept and tell the other person to do all of your work. You then throw out one line questions that mean nothing. Perhaps you might enjoy online debate with people if you put a little bit more effort into it. If you are so dead set on in knowing the person before debating them, why do you chose this type of medium to debate in?
You introduce a completely alien concept and then appear to be derisive as to why the community doesn’t jump on board. While I certainly do not agree with many concepts of either Ambrose, Hartill or Holcome what I admire about all three is that if they critisize they also are actually DOING something about the area that they critisize. As far as I can tell you have ran for one position and spent $10 doing so. An amount that surely shows the community what you think of them and the position you were supposedly making an honest run for.
You appear to know a lot about this type of energy that you would rather see being used and you state that you know the foibles of all the leaders of the communities involved. It would seem that a proactive problem solver would quit bitching already and get an organization together to bring a proposal to these communities. You supposedly know how government works, you supposedly realize how these kinds of things get done. Then you should know it gets done by a group of determined citizens that come with a proposal and get the ball rolling in a positive, progressive manner.
With your connections to the anti-LNG green leaning sustainable living group one you must know these people well enough by now to get the proper people together to get this off the ground.
Frankly, because you keep bringing this concept up in online forums and I see nothing happening in “real” life I have a feeling that the “green” sustainable living people don’t think this is a realistic goal in the near future. Most of them are pretty practical These concepts are something that need big money and big investments, not something small governments have the resources to deal with.
On Jun 19, 11:07 AM, LNG works for me wrote:
One group of government experts say we have plenty another says we don’t. The question is which one’s argument makes more sense? The one basing their analysis on 146 new nuclear plants being built or the one saying that is a ridiculously optimistic goal?
Amusing is that nearly everyone of these same people who this year are touting the ODE report as the one true government report to rely on will be the ones next year actively working against any of these nuclear plants being built.
On Jun 19, 11:49 AM, Patrick McGee wrote:
And the point in your inane babble...DS?
Certainly you wouldn’t be so stupid as to base your judgement on the musings of one individual would you?
How “YOU” resolve the issue then since “YOU” seem to know how impossible it would be?
And some jerk thought we could put a man or two on the freaking moon.
On Jun 19, 10:01 AM, DS wrote:
McGee, if that is your birth name, in googling your name I see that you have criticized all forums except one Astorian Citizen Journal and not surprisingly it appears to be yours and the one that has the least amount of use and contributors. “Debate” with you appears to mean that you throw out a concept and tell the other person to do all of your work. You then throw out one line questions that mean nothing. Perhaps you might enjoy online debate with people if you put a little bit more effort into it. If you are so dead set on in knowing the person before debating them, why do you chose this type of medium to debate in?
You introduce a completely alien concept and then appear to be derisive as to why the community doesn’t jump on board. While I certainly do not agree with many concepts of either Ambrose, Hartill or Holcome what I admire about all three is that if they critisize they also are actually DOING something about the area that they critisize. As far as I can tell you have ran for one position and spent $10 doing so. An amount that surely shows the community what you think of them and the position you were supposedly making an honest run for.
You appear to know a lot about this type of energy that you would rather see being used and you state that you know the foibles of all the leaders of the communities involved. It would seem that a proactive problem solver would quit bitching already and get an organization together to bring a proposal to these communities. You supposedly know how government works, you supposedly realize how these kinds of things get done. Then you should know it gets done by a group of determined citizens that come with a proposal and get the ball rolling in a positive, progressive manner.
With your connections to the anti-LNG green leaning sustainable living group one you must know these people well enough by now to get the proper people together to get this off the ground.
Frankly, because you keep bringing this concept up in online forums and I see nothing happening in “real” life I have a feeling that the “green” sustainable living people don’t think this is a realistic goal in the near future. Most of them are pretty practical These concepts are something that need big money and big investments, not something small governments have the resources to deal with.
On Jun 19, 12:00 PM, Patrick McGee wrote:
On Jun 19, 10:07 AM, LNG works for me wrote:
One group of government experts say we have plenty another says we don’t. The question is which one’s argument makes more sense? The one basing their analysis on 146 new nuclear plants being built or the one saying that is a ridiculously optimistic goal?
Amusing is that nearly everyone of these same people who this year are touting the ODE report as the one true government report to rely on will be the ones next year actively working against any of these nuclear plants being built.
Nuclear energy today is much safer, predictable and modular than the old one-off nuclear plants like Trojan, Hanford and others.
I heard of one Alaska town went to nuclear power. The unit? The size of a refrigerator.
I guess Nuclear Energy to supply electricty, sitting in one remote location supplying electricity to a whole region, is a matter of trade-offs with LNG Transfer/Storage Terminals and huge tankers with live, vaporizing Natural Gas cooking of at a rate that they have to use it to fuel the tankers to control it in some and acting as a potential floating, moving bomb, to supply Natural Gas to primarily make electricity which the Natural Gas Supply industry frowns on as a solution.
To some the answer is simple....
On Jun 19, 2:25 PM, DS wrote:
What is your inane babble regarding, PM? Why haven’t you done something with this knowledge you portend to have if it is so apparent to you how easy it is to use and do?
I don’t believe it is. I believe that the energy you speak of is 20 to 30 years away from being developed to the stage that it is feasible for small local governments or co-ops to use for 30,000-50,000 people living in remote areas from one another. I believe that natural gas is the resource that is feasible for use until those other things come about. I don’t think it is feasible to drill in remote areas to hopefully find some NG. I support the use of importing LNG, especially from the Pacific Basin, where 80% of the LNG is coming from.
You, on the other hand, believe the idea is a reality just waiting for the right group of people to use it. So get off your keister and prove it.
On Jun 19, 5:02 PM, Patrick McGee wrote:
You, on the other hand, believe the idea is a reality just waiting for the right group of people to use it. So get off your keister and prove it.
What idea is that DS?
On Jun 19, 5:36 PM, igiveacrap wrote:
http://www.hgenergy.com/printedmedia.html
On Jun 19, 6:23 PM, Tom Peterson wrote:
Patrick McGee says: We have plenty of Natural Gas, so the experst say, the question is: Do we need LNG with accompanying pipelines?
I say: we may have plenty of Natural Gas if you can afford to pay for it. We do not want to limit our supply options. As demand increases and supply stays the same as now, what do you think will happen to the price?? It will go up and up. We need LNG. Pipelines should follow esisting right of ways and cross the land of willing land owners.
Another thing: We should be using natural gas to fuel our cars and nuclear for electricity.
Salmon eaters?
Fish protection would likely be taken into consideration on those systems I believe.
I say: You are right, but so will LNG ships, no big deal. This harming the salmon argument that I have been hearing doesnt hold water.
“Our River”?
“The River”?
“The River” was here long before “US” and will likely still be after we have extincted ourselves.
I say: Your right, lets call it “The River”
It is promised that God himself will destroy the earth, I dont think we will extinct ourselves. Let us be good stewards and responsibly manage what has been given to us.
On Jun 19, 7:52 PM, Patrick McGee wrote:
Well, Mr. Peterson the question is still there and yet to be answered and that is do we need more Natural Gas or LNG facilities and here lately that has been brought in to question.
The argument will still be divided pro and against.
God promising the demise of earth?
Maybe not God but, some mortal feeling the inspiration of a God may have, through one or more institutions of religion, written this, yes and we mortals are doing a pretty good job of helping that concept along to guarantee his prophecy.
On Jun 19, 8:44 PM, AnotherAstorian wrote:
Patrick...yes, we need Natural Gas here - even just to sustain the people we have in our area that use it.
The majority of our gas comes currently from Canada, but those supplies are declining because they are using more themselves.
We thought we’d get supply from the Rockies Express, but have since learned that the gas into that pipeline will go to the East, where the prices are higher.
So...over the course of the next decade, our need will expand and our supply will not, which will cause prices to skyrocket.
Our area is expanding...more people moving here, because it is a great place to live. That’s really great!
Except, that we’ll have to be able to provide power to all of these new residents.
Studies have shown, time and time again, that electical energy supplied by natural gas is much “cleaner” than the electrical energy supplied by the coal-fired plants which is where much of our electricity comes now.
Hydro is great - except that it kills Salmon, which are so important to our region, so I don’t consider that a viable option.
I have been studying LNG since the subject first came up, what? 4 years ago? And from what I’ve seen from around the world, this is our best bet.
NGH, which I know you’ve endorsed in the past is great too...but still, it isn’t economical at this point.
LNG is a worldwide commodity...MANY nations use it around the world, have multiple receiving facilities, etc...Hell...Japan has something like 13 LNG receiving terminals. In a recent major earthquake there, a nuclear plant was damaged, but none of the LNG terminals were.
Over the course of history, there have been VERY few incidents involving accidents at LNG facilities. Yes, there have been some, but not nearly as many as might happen at other industrial sites.
The reason for that is, they are very technologically advanced...which has helped make them very safe.
Just today I saw a comment somewhere about the possibility of “the big one”...a HUGE earthquake.
The storage tanks at Bradwood are going to be built to sustain a 9.0 magnitude quake.
Which tells me that if we ever DO have a 9.0 quake, just about the only thing that will be left standing is the tanks at Bradwood.
Patrick...you are never going to convince me that they don’t have public safety in mind. You like to rant about how there isn’t an Emergency Response Plan, but don’t like when you hear that those talks are going on as we speak (I have a friend at the County and yes, they are)....They WILL hammer out the Emergency Response Plan...They HAVE to, to proceed. So shut up. Most of it isn’t your business anyway
On Jun 19, 9:06 PM, Daniel "The Bowler" Plainview wrote:
Of course a pipeline can flow both ways...and engery moguls are cagey businessmen who’ll never show their cards until the time is right...For all we know, someone might be sitting on some pretty substantial yet untapped natural gas desposits that might be suitable and profitable for export in a world going increasingly hungry for gas. It’s certainly no secret that certain oil companies have been quietly keeping leases up to date on quite a bit of land in the inland Northwest for over 20 years now. The Columbia is the gateway to the markets of western Asia. Is anyone talking about how much natural gas is underground in the western USA? Where’s Japan going to be getting it’s natural gas in the next 3 to 5 decades? If you can unload and LNG ship in Oregon, you sure as hell can load one, too.
On Jun 19, 9:15 PM, Patrick McGee wrote:
It’s everybody’s business “AA” as to the impact Bradwood Landing has on the lives of each of us in Clatsop Coumyt and beyond and, no, I will not shut up under any circumstances as I have, as you do, every right ot express my view ans will continue to do so.
You sound a little threatened by all this and, no there is no emergency response plan in place at this time nor any escort plan in place along witht he rest of the “Hooey” being layed upon us as fact.
I just heard today “Hell” could freeze over tomorrow.
The tanks, yes, could withstand a 9.0 mag. quake but, the ground it sits on could be just as fragile as Skipanon. You seen the soils test data?
The question is still what do we need more Natural Gas or LNG Transfer Terminals and their accompanying pipelines.
Some sources say we have all we need without LNG and the high cost of siting those facilities.
Who’s right on this?
Of course NSNG/Bradwood is, right “AA”?
On Jun 19, 9:32 PM, AnotherAstorian wrote:
Patrick...I don’t feel threatend by any means, and don’t feel bad that there isn’t an emergency response plan in place at this very moment, because I know it’s coming.
All I know is that we need more energy...that is not an arguement, its a fact.
LNG is a worldwide industry...and yes, it’s had some problems coming into the USA because of our envrionmentalists....OMG, if I Had my way, they’d all be living in the woods and let US live our lives. But no, they’re all against energy for the masses. Very sad.
I would like to enlist all of these “enviros”....to please tell me what would be better...Natural Gas is just that...NATURAL...heck, it’s made every day in landfills! Not to mention the common mans compost heaps! Natural gas is emitted every day from our daily activity!
On Jun 19, 10:08 PM, Name (required) wrote:
Top Three Businesses In The World
1. Arms
2. Petroleum
3. Agriculture
Now, does anyone seriously believe that the number 2 most profitable industry in the world is going to be held at bay by some twobit twinks in Astoria Oregon? Think again. If the big oil boys can twist the arm of Washington D.C. hard enough to send an army half way around the world to secure by force, blood and treasure their next 50 years of high profits, they aint gonna be very intimidated by a bunch of sign waving old ladies in red Tshirts and a couple of pot bellied ponytailed California trustafarian “riverkeepers” paddling around the Skippanon slough in kayaks. When it becomes profitable for big oil to make a move, they make that move. There aint no politician, at least in this country, that they cant buy. Importing or exporting, it’s their world, we just live in it.
On Jun 20, 2:32 AM, Its enough that I know it wrote:
Where did you get the three top businesses in the world?
The richest people in the world:
Warren Buffet - made/making his money: value investing estimated net worth $62 billion In 2006, he announced a plan to give away his fortune to charity, with 83% of it going to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.In June 2006, Buffett gave approximately 10 million Berkshire Hathaway Class B shares to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (worth approximately USD 30.7 billion as of June 23 2006)making it the largest charitable donation in history.
Carlos Slim Helu - made/making his money: communications, technology, retailing, and finance. estimated net worth $60 billion has donated close to $7 billion worth of cash and stock to fund education and health projects, and to the revitalization of Mexico City’s downtown historical district.
Bill Gates - made/making his money: technology (Microsoft visionary)In 2000, Gates and his wife combined three family foundations into one to create the charitable Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which is the largest transparently operated charitable foundation in the world. The foundation’s grants have provided funds for college scholarships for under-represented minorities, AIDS prevention, diseases prevalent in third world countries, and other causes. In 2000, the Gates Foundation endowed the University of Cambridge with $210 million for the Gates Cambridge Scholarships. The Foundation has also pledged over $7 billion to its various causes, including $1 billion to the United Negro College Fund. According to a 2004 Forbes magazine article, Gates gave away over $29 billion to charities from 2000 onwards.
Lakshmi Mittal - makes his money in steel manufacturing. Heads world’s largest steelmaker, $105 billion (sales) ArcelorMittal. After witnessing India win only one medal, bronze, in the 2000 Olympics, and one medal, silver, at the 2004 Olympics, Mittal decided to set up Mittal Champions Trust with US$9 million to support 10 Indian athletes with world-beating potential.
And finally someone making their money in Petroleum. A middle-eastern sheik? No.
Mukesh Ambani - Asia’s richest resident heads petrochemicals giant Reliance Industries, India’s most valuable company. Net worth $43 billion. Set up free hospitals and other charitable institutions — Dhirubhai Ambani Hospital at Lodhivali and Sir Hurkisondas Nurrotumdas Hospital and Research Centre in Mumbai, to name just two. He is reported to be eyeing more such projects in 2008.
It would appear that the number one business in the world is technology, number two communications, and number three is investments. And it would appear that those people are using their money in a manner that would very much help the red shirts. George Soros is no one to sneeze at, either. The money is not going into fossil fuels. Not saying its going bye-bye any time real soon, but it is going sooner than most think. Buy mufflers and mittens for next year.
On Jun 20, 4:21 AM, Maynard G Krabbs wrote:
On Jun 20, 1:32 AM, Its enough that I know it wrote:
Where did you get the three top businesses in the world?
The richest people in the world:..Warren Buffet ..Carlos Slim Helu...Bill Gates ...Lakshmi Mittal...Mukesh Ambani...George Soros....It would appear that the number one business in the world is technology, number two communications, and number three is investments
Hey, Miley Cyrus is doin’ okay too, but I noticed you left her out. Anyway, God bless all those capitalist scum you mentioned, but you have to accept the fact that you are wrong. Think globally and not just Wall Street Journal hype. You throw around some big numbers up there with the names, but come on. More money changes hands in the world for military hardware than anything else. Petroleum is next and food is second. The world, dig it? Using the good old USA as an example, how much do you think is spent on military hardware(tech and R&D;included) such as planes(new bombers and fighters as well maintaining/upgrading existing stock), tanks, big guns, small arms, missles, Naval vessels such as aircraft carriers and other various modern war ships submarines, and every other form of modern offensive and defensive materiale? Buddy, that all adds up to one serious chunk of change. Sure, one nerd like Gates or some weasle like Soros doesnt have a monopoly on it-it comes from a plethora of manufacturers. Do you think the US government spent more on computers this year than they did arms? Come on! And that is just our country. Staggering amounts of money change hands in the arms trade. So, lets look overseas, shall we? Yes, lets. Wonder how much China spent on arms this past year? Russia? The UK?, Israel? Then add up every developed and struggling to be developed nation? Hey, who do you think is making more money in Africa these days, the cell phone salesmen or your friendly traveling small arms and rocket propelled grenade peddler?
And petroleum? The whole damn world runs on the stuff. You name a couple of people who are getting wealthy off of gadgets and gee whizz gizmos, but every day and every night in every country on earth someone is burning some gas or diesel. And then we get to number three. Agricultural. Everyone has to eat. From the poorest beggar in India, to George Soros, they are buying food, man. And someone is getting paid to produce, transport and market the food that feeds every man woman and child on earth. No, not everyone needs to invest with Georgoe Soros to live in this world. There’s probably quite a few people that Bill Gates hasnt made a nickel off of, but the countries they live in spend big on defensive and offensive military hardware and oil makes it all go-including the raising and transporting of food.
Arms
Oil
Agriculture.
Those are the three industries where the most money changes hands.
On Jun 20, 5:28 AM, Patrick McGee wrote:
On Jun 19, 8:32 PM, AnotherAstorian wrote:
Patrick...I don’t feel threatend by any means, and don’t feel bad that there isn’t an emergency response plan in place at this very moment, because I know it’s coming.
All I know is that we need more energy...that is not an arguement, its a fact.
LNG is a worldwide industry...and yes, it’s had some problems coming into the USA because of our envrionmentalists....OMG, if I Had my way, they’d all be living in the woods and let US live our lives. But no, they’re all against energy for the masses. Very sad.
I would like to enlist all of these “enviros”....to please tell me what would be better...Natural Gas is just that...NATURAL...heck, it’s made every day in landfills! Not to mention the common mans compost heaps! Natural gas is emitted every day from our daily activity!
Your sentiments “AA” are very well understood but, you seem to forget that fossil fuels are not an infinite resource and are being used up at an alarming rate and a $7-800 Million dollar LNG Transfer/Storage facility along with the cost of its pipeline is not the answer either in my view. At best it is nothing more than a stopgap measure for these speculators like NSNG to build and quite possibly unload to some cartel as soon as possible for a comfortable profit and to hell with what’s left in its wake, in my view.
By the way this is an analogy on the operational safety record
of LNG from Pipeline Safety Trust regarding the magnitude of proposed LNG facvilities being sited in the US: 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.
In other words there are no case studies to even compare of predict the safety of the kind of facilities NSNG and OLNG/P are proposing.
Nuclear, along with Coal and Hydro Electric Generation are still the best choices with Natural Gas space and water heating at the consumer level with emphasis on sustainable and practical alternative energy sources brought online as quickly as possible.
On Jun 20, 8:41 AM, Jon Dana wrote:
Seems to me I read that 33% of NG that is associated with oil wells is burned into the atmosphere already. Wouldn’t it be better to be used as heating energy or better yet in our automobiles. Just think that much NG used to replace gasoline, talk about a win win. Cause it’s already polluting the atmosphere. Stock in FSYS is shooting through the roof, it is a conversion from gas to NG company for cars.
On Jun 20, 10:52 AM, Tom Peterson wrote:
Patrick,
If Northern Star Nuclear Power Co. proposed a nuclear facility, there would be 10 times as many protesters against that happening.
I repeat: we need our cars to run on natural gas or at least have it as an option.
On Jun 20, 11:03 AM, Patrick McGee wrote:
Natural Gas to run autos is a viable option and why not?
Nuclear?
I would venture that if a current technology nuclear generator were proposed to reinstate Trojan around these parts, you wouldn’t hear a peep.
How long did we live with Trojan in our midst?
On Jun 20, 2:03 PM, Carl Jungsbay wrote:
On Jun 20, 10:03 AM, Patrick McGee wrote:
I would venture that if a current technology nuclear generator were proposed to reinstate Trojan around these parts, you wouldn’t hear a peep.
(Shaking head in disbelief) Mr. McGee, seriously now. You really need to try to gain or regain some connection to reality-even if it’s only the slightest shred or flimsiest thread-it might up your street cred as well as bring you some sort of inner peace. Do you ever interact with 3 dimensional people in our community or are all of your rlationships with the ..mmm..uhhh...well, you know, the “invisible people”?
On Jun 20, 10:03 AM, Patrick McGee wrote:
How long did we live with Trojan in our midst?
OMG!! Here we have the official self apppointed know-it-all of the Lower Columbia, someone who blathers about “vision” and
“our future” who doesnt even bother to learn of our recent past
Amazing. Simply amazing.
On Jun 20, 2:34 PM, Patrick McGee wrote:
Awwwww! Poor Mr. Jungsbay. Such a frightened individual to be so intimidated by the opinion of just one individual and clearly in acute denial to the possibilities outside his limited and one dimensional world with nothing to contribute to the issue but vitriole.
The nuclear equation, in its current technology, in satisfying our electric energy generating solution is popping up more and more these days in lieu of LNG development.
Could it be LNG development in the US could be outdated before it even gets started?
On Jun 20, 2:56 PM, Rick Balkins wrote:
Guys, back to Hydro-generators like Hydro-electric generators. Sometimes, adjust words in your search engine and you’ll find more.
We have already one up the river (Bonneville Dam and it’s hydro electric generator)
The mechanics of do this is simple and already exists.
You don’t always need high-speed currents. Just mass of water.
Take a paddle-wheel design and hook it up to a “dynamo” motor and you got power generating. If any of you, remember the dynamo-radios which generates power by spinning the lever in circular pattern. Take this basic principle to larger scale and the river current would essentially turn the wheel. As the wheel turns, power is generated.
If we place a referendum that says that we can’t have pipes and stuff in open parks and lands and of course. Then we are getting out of hand. Then the same tool would be used to stop electric lines from crossing public lands. That basically is the entire riverwalk front of Astoria. So how do we get that electricity to the homes? We can’t put the electric lines across the road-way.
Let’s not forget that there is NOT one single square nanometer of the entire river that isn’t being protected by ultra-activist environmentalists who doesn’t want a single thing put into the water. They are trying to get rid of EVERY single infrastructure of our country that is needed to keep our life-style.
If we bent-over to their whim, we would be rendered back to the stone age by the end of the month. Every dam, shutdown. Every power plant shut down. Everything shut-downed. There is NO “perfect” solution for energy. There is always pros and cons. The environmentalists are all teamed up to through humanity on earth back to the stone age.
Without these infrastructures, our schools would not have heat during 9 months of the year and nor would our homes. We can’t burn woods because we be cutting trees. In order to reduce wood harvests, we stopped being dependent on wood for heat and needed another source.
We went to natural gas and such. Because it was the same environmentalists “tree-huggers” that were complaining that our forests were being cut. What will make them happy?
90% of earth’s human population to die. Too many people to meet the footprint demand.
Every tree and plant protected forever from humans
Every animal protected from being killed
Now, we have no food. No heat to keep us warm.
Guess what, we are now on the road to self-extinction. Come on. We can’t be this ridiculous. So, lets stop all the b*tching and moaning about every development. Everything has an environmental footprint.
So, now with alternatives, there are cons to solutions. So, what is the realistic solutions?
Even the paddle wheel hydro-electric dynamo-generator has cons to it.
On Jun 20, 4:58 PM, cell phones wrote:
Some people complain about cell phones and the problems they cause, others can’t live without them because they help make them money. It’s a development for our age, just as lng would be a development for our age. The post above is so true!
On Jun 20, 11:30 PM, AnotherAstorian wrote:
Patrick...you seem to have forgotten all of the posts I’ve made where I cite Natural Gas as RENEWABLE
WE create it...methane is created in landfills, compost piles, heck even cows (wink), with not alot of time from start to finish.
It is a naturally occuring gas, created from things decomposing...which goes on, and on, and on. Haven’t you noticed how some companies are tapping into landfills to power their factories?
And I’m with JD on this one...if much of it is burned off into the atmosphere during oil production, why not channel that gas and USE it!
On Jun 21, 4:46 AM, Mon Labon wrote:
On Jun 20, 10:03 AM, Patrick McGee wrote:
I would venture that if a current technology nuclear generator were proposed to reinstate Trojan around these parts, you wouldn’t hear a peep
Well, son, why dont you put your venture where your mouth is?
How about you just head on over to those two massively popular websites like Grassroots People or Astoria Citizen’s Journal and start blowing your horn about “current technology nuclear generator”(actually, they’re called “nuclear reactors") proposals in the Columbia River valley? The world is waiting to hear about your vision to “reinstate Trojan around these parts”!!
Then just go to the following organization sites and link back to your brilliant visionary proposal and see if you hear a “peep” or two?
Hey, man, it would get you some traffic on those sites. You know, the ones nobody goes to?
Waterkeeper Alliance - http://www.keeper.org
Heart of America Northwest - http://www.heartofamericanorthwest.org
ATSDR Science Corner - http://atsdr1.atsdr.cdc.gov:8080/cx.html
Committee For Nuclear Responsibility CNR - http://www.ratical.com/radiation/CNR/
Government Accountability Project - http://www.whistleblower.org
Hanford Reach - http://www.3-rivers.com/hanford_reach/
Hanford Advisory Board - http://www.hanford.gov/boards/hab/index.htm
Hanford Watch - http://www.hanfordwatch.org/
Hanford USDOE - http://www.hanford.gov/
Human Radiation Experiments USDOE - http://tis-nt.eh.doe.gov/ohre/
Institute for Energy & Environmental Research - http://www.ieer.org/
Nukeinfo.org - http://www.nukeinfo.org/
Nuclear Control Institute - http://www.nci.org/nci/index.htm
Nuclear Information & Resource Service - http://www.nirs.org/
Oregon Office of Energy - http://www.energy.state.or.us
Physicians for Social Responsibility - http://www.psr.org/
Rad Waste.Org - http://www.radwaste.org/ngo.htm
The RadioActivist Campaign - http://www.radioactivist.org/
Washington State Dept. of Ecology - http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/nwp/index.html
Washington Toxics Coalition - http://www.watoxics.org/
On Jun 21, 4:58 AM, Reddy Kilowatt wrote:
On Jun 20, 1:56 PM, Rick Balkins wrote:
Guys, back to Hydro-generators like Hydro-electric generators.
We have already one up the river (Bonneville Dam and it’s hydro electric generator)
Oh come on, do you expect us to actually believe that? What are you going to try to hornswaggle us with next, I suppose you’ll try to get us to swallow that there’s hydro electric generators at The Dalles, John Day, McNary, Ice Harbor and Grand Coulee too?
Hydro electric generators at Bonneville! BAHH!
Whoever heard of such a thing?
On Jun 21, 5:24 AM, Patrick McGee wrote:
And this many named clown is up at 3:45 in the morning still obsessed with this BS and trying to make some inane point?
Somebody needs to reassess the quality of their life.
There’s a heck of a lot more to it than this crap.
On Jun 21, 3:46 AM, Mon Labon wrote:
On Jun 20, 10:03 AM, Patrick McGee wrote:
I would venture that if a current technology nuclear generator were proposed to reinstate Trojan around these parts, you wouldn’t hear a peep
Well, son, why dont you put your venture where your mouth is?
How about you just head on over to those two massively popular websites like Grassroots People or Astoria Citizen’s Journal and start blowing your horn about “current technology nuclear generator”(actually, they’re called “nuclear reactors") proposals in the Columbia River valley? The world is waiting to hear about your vision to “reinstate Trojan around these parts”!!
Then just go to the following organization sites and link back to your brilliant visionary proposal and see if you hear a “peep” or two?
Hey, man, it would get you some traffic on those sites. You know, the ones nobody goes to?
Waterkeeper Alliance - http://www.keeper.org
Heart of America Northwest - http://www.heartofamericanorthwest.org
ATSDR Science Corner - http://atsdr1.atsdr.cdc.gov:8080/cx.html
Committee For Nuclear Responsibility CNR - http://www.ratical.com/radiation/CNR/
Government Accountability Project - http://www.whistleblower.org
Hanford Reach - http://www.3-rivers.com/hanford_reach/
Hanford Advisory Board - http://www.hanford.gov/boards/hab/index.htm
Hanford Watch - http://www.hanfordwatch.org/
Hanford USDOE - http://www.hanford.gov/
Human Radiation Experiments USDOE - http://tis-nt.eh.doe.gov/ohre/
Institute for Energy & Environmental Research - http://www.ieer.org/
Nukeinfo.org - http://www.nukeinfo.org/
Nuclear Control Institute - http://www.nci.org/nci/index.htm
Nuclear Information & Resource Service - http://www.nirs.org/
Oregon Office of Energy - http://www.energy.state.or.us
Physicians for Social Responsibility - http://www.psr.org/
Rad Waste.Org - http://www.radwaste.org/ngo.htm
The RadioActivist Campaign - http://www.radioactivist.org/
Washington State Dept. of Ecology - http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/nwp/index.html
Washington Toxics Coalition - http://www.watoxics.org/
On Jun 21, 3:58 AM, Reddy Kilowatt wrote:
On Jun 20, 1:56 PM, Rick Balkins wrote:
Guys, back to Hydro-generators like Hydro-electric generators.
We have already one up the river (Bonneville Dam and it’s hydro electric generator)
Oh come on, do you expect us to actually believe that? What are you going to try to hornswaggle us with next, I suppose you’ll try to get us to swallow that there’s hydro electric generators at The Dalles, John Day, McNary, Ice Harbor and Grand Coulee too?
Hydro electric generators at Bonneville! BAHH!
Whoever heard of such a thing?
On Jun 21, 10:01 AM, Rick Balkins wrote:
Reddy Kilowatt:
You are a blunt idiot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonneville_Dam
Doesn’t “Bonneville Power” ring a bell.
There are multiple ways to design and make hydroelectric generators with varying output capacity.
Essentially a hydroelectric generator is a hydro-powered “dynamo”. It spins this wheel which in turn turns the crank/drive shaft of the electric generating motor which in turns electricity is generated.
With continuous flow of water, there would be a continuous generating capacity.
With 4 units running 6-hours. Each unit capable of supplying the electric need of the local area for about 6 or even 8 hours. With 4 units, you got the whole day covered and a few hours of reserve electricity generated and stored in battery banks. We wouldn’t expect the high wattage per unit per unit of time as the Bonneville generators. Certainly, it can provide some energy resources for the locality. Say, a quarter of Astoria. Maybe, all of Astoria.
The cons to such are there but I don’t think you answered to anything meaningful or contributing.
On Jun 21, 10:26 AM, Patrick McGee wrote:
Who Owns the Tides?
Alaska’s Fast-Tracked Wave Permits
Just over a century ago, the arrival of
gold miners bearing shovels and mining
claims stunned peaceful native residents
along the Yukon River near the
Alaska-Canada border. Now, an alternative
energy rush is quietly sweeping the
nation’s backwaters. The Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) is handing
out preliminary permits to pursue a
hot new form of “hydrokinetic” energy.
The permits are exclusive property-use
rights, legally similar to gold mining
claims.
FERC defines hydrokinetic energy as
produced by ocean waves, tides, ocean
currents and river flows not involving a
dam. Since last February, FERC has
granted 47 permits to study hydrokinetic
technologies for ocean, wave and tidal
projects with 41 pending, as well as 40 inriver
permits (55 more are pending).
Developers holding these permits automatically
get preference for a FERC
license, which lasts up to 50 years. FERC’s
“first come, first served” system is
designed to let private industry cut
through red tape without input from
communities.
Eagle Native Village Chief Mark Malcom
was taken aback last March when
FERC granted exclusive rights to study
the Yukon for three years to the developer
Hydro Green Energy, based in far-off
Houston, Texas. “AP&T;[Alaska Power &
Telephone] is going to put a turbine in
the river and they asked us to send a letter
supporting that,” Chief Malcom says.
“We did.” Three miles down the frozen
Yukon, his non-Indian counterparts in
the City of Eagle were equally unaware of
the Hydro Green permit.
The two Eagles, with less than 200 people,
were united in support for the AP&T;licensing effort, which they hoped would
reduce rising energy bills in the two
communities, which are powered
solely by diesel generators. Eagle
City Clerk Linda Nelson says
the local electricity rate is
44 cents per kilowatthour,
very steep compared
to the average
of 10 cents in
the lower 48. “We
now have people who
are paying hundreds of dollars
per month in electrical
bills, which is more than their
salaries,” Malcom says.
AP&T;spokesman Glen Martin says
the utility still plans to test its project. The
company’s river turbine would generate
100 kilowatts. If the test works, AP&T;would install three turbines, providing
300 kilowatts to power both the tribe and
the town.
Hydro Green’s preliminary permit
envisions five arrays anchored to barges
1,000 feet apart with each array consisting
of 10 100-kilowatt hydrokinetic turbine
units, for a total installed capacity of
five megawatts. To Martin, that scenario
demonstrates that the Houston company
doesn’t understand the absence of a grid
in remote Alaska. Mark R. Stover,
spokesman for Hydro Green, says the
company isn’t prepared to comment.
Preliminary FERC permits already
issued include plans to claim more than
1,000 square miles of the ocean off the East
Coast of Florida, to put turbines in the Niagara
River below the falls and to place tens
of thousands of devices in the Mississippi
River. Wave energy proposals now
cover much of the Pacific Coast
north of San Francisco, the
Columbia River and Puget
Sound. Hydro Green is
proposing more than
a dozen projects,
which would develop
hundreds of miles of
the Yukon, starting with
the Eagle project 1,300 miles
from the Atlantic Ocean and
ending with a massive tidal energy
development in the ocean at the river’s
mouth.
But selling all that power in remote
Alaska might be a problem beyond the
lack of an interconnected grid. “They
would have to come to us, have to sell us
the energy, have to have some community
support,” says Martin.
CONTACTS: Electric Power Research
Institute, http://www.epri.com; Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, http://www.ferc.gov;
Hydro Green Energy
On Jun 21, 1:34 PM, Beverley Chatsworth wrote:
On Jun 21, 9:01 AM, Rick Balkins wrote:
Reddy Kilowatt:
You are a blunt idiot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonneville_Dam
Doesn’t “Bonneville Power” ring a bell.
Please, it’s really rude and bad nettiquette to call people names. Remember the golden rule and the old saying that when you point a finger at another person you have four pointing back at you.
Perhaps that person is a newcomer just moved up here from California and thinks all those big funny looking cement things that span the river from Bonneville to the Canadian border were put there to give tourists something to take pictures of and make nice lakes to waterski on.
When I moved up here from Los Angeles way way back in July 2006, I didnt know very much about the Columbia River either, but now, thanks to this site and the contributers, I’m becoming very informed. Im fascinated by the idea there is such futuristic technology being dreamed up that could actually avail the river current to produce enough electricity to meet the demand for a full 25% of Astoria and maybe in the distant future all of Astoria! I imagine it will somehow be integrated with that big bridge that goes to Washington. Maybe they’ll put those wheely things between all those cement bridge piers and make electricity that way.
On Jun 21, 2:25 PM, night shift wrote:
LOL, I do believe y’all missed Reddy Kilowatt’s “duh” point.
Many of us get off work at 2 AM. We are still winding our “day” down at 3 am and that’s when we hit these boards before going to sleep at four or five am. or again when we get up at 1 or 2 pm. The economic input we add by working these shifts is what makes this little bit of “heaven” go round. We would appreciate it if you didn’t kick us in the teeth for contributing to the dialog when we can. Keep your foot in your own mouth, please.
On Jun 21, 3:04 PM, Patrick McGee wrote:
And this many named clown, night shift worker is up at 3:45 in the morning still obsessed with this BS and trying to make some inane point?
Somebody needs to reassess the quality of their life.
There’s a heck of a lot more to it than this crap.
Sorry about that “Many Named Clown” and don’t forget, the other shifts and day workers contribute their share as well and you keep your ass off your shoulders...ya here?
On Jun 21, 6:02 PM, yaaaawwwn wrote:
duh, the person is still up after their night shift or just getting up for their early morning shift. What does the time of day that they’re posting have to do with the relevance of their post? PM’s the grammar police, the spelling patrolman and now he’s the clock keeper? Good god, man, talk about the post and quit always attacking the community of people posting. Your whining is becoming quite the bore.
Rick, are you in agreement that if the referendum fails then those that proposed the referendum in the first placed have screwed themselves as well? Meaning, no way to get the electricity being produced by ocean waves, river current, wind or solar to the people without crossing open spaces, recreational lands or parks with CABLES of some sort?
I do not like the way Matyas or Marquis wrote the referendum. Personally, a referendum should be if you like the way something is being done you vote no on changing it. The way this referendum is written you have to vote yes on it to keep things status quo. Thats back asswards.
On Jun 21, 6:41 PM, Rick Balkins wrote:
Ok, I know the wordage is tricky and was designed to be so.
So guys, to put it simply....
If the referendum decision by vote is NOT in favor of the Commission’s decision - then the folks that proposed the referendum could essentially screw themselves over.
If the referendum decision by vote is in favor of the Commission, then these folks that proposed the referendum would not be causing themselves a roadblock for alternative solutions.
So voting against the Commissioner’s would actually cause a road block from alternatives energy solutions. As this would be prohibitive to running electric lines and such in “open parks,lands,ect”.
The referendum would not stop the Bradwood project and could be a waste.
I’ll most likely vote in favor of the commission in order to not shoot alternative energies like hydroelectric generators in the foot. The referendum decision can be used to prohibit those solutions if the vote is not in favor of the decision of the Commission.
I can’t say that I agree or disagree with the Commission as I have not decided my feeling on the situation nor care to. It would be about longer term points. As I try to keep a sensible outlook on the matters.
On Jun 21, 7:08 PM, AnotherAstorian wrote:
And the bottom line is, even if the referendum fails, it doesn’t stop the Bradwood project...they would simply have to move their pipeline slightly over that small piece of property. Which is why it’s a meaningless vote.
The people that proposed this referendum think that just because the Commission gave a CONDITIONAL USE permit to Bradwood, that it automatically “changes the law”...and it doesn’t. It’s just a delay tactic on their part, and a huge waste of OUR time and the counties money.
I for one, will be voting in favor, and will be encouraging everyone I know to do the same. Any future variance request will have to be approved on its own merit, and no way is any Commission going to give approval to go through a REAL park.
On Jun 21, 8:47 PM, Patrick McGee wrote:
The referendum passes to disallow pipelines as outlined, the next move will be to shut down the proposed Palomar pipeline right of way through Mount Hood National Forest I betcha.
To think no damage or setbacks will occur top NSNG or OLNG as well, if this refendum is successful, is extremely naive on anybody’s part.
On Jun 21, 10:37 PM, Rick Balkins wrote:
There really wouldn’t be any real damage. As for setbacks, that won’t be much if any because while they are working on issues with the pipelines, they’ll be moving forward in other ways on stuff not too contigent on these matters.
As we are talking about it and given that there is still a few months away til September, the Bradwood LNG company has already and currently working on alternative paths for the pipes in preparation in case. So the setbacks is a small anthill.
Oregon LNG won’t be affected in any particular way in regards to the pipeline in any immediate case. However, it could be a problem later.
The biggest and hardest hit would be us who wants to provide alternative energy solutions. What constitutes an open park,land,spaces? What constitutes open spaces. The most ambiguous term. Does that mean any open field or even a forest. It is just an issue that I am concern with.
If this was written better without possible impact on other projects. These referendums also makes it illegal for the county commissioners or any planning commission to authorize “conditional uses”. In fact, conditional uses might be rendered illegal without a vote of the entire public vote. Making trouble for many other unrelated projects.
That would be an issue, I hope not to see. I hope that it won’t cause that but it might open a pandora’s box.
On Jun 22, 2:07 PM, Beverley Chatsworth wrote:
On Jun 21, 2:04 PM, Patrick McGee wrote:
And this many named clown, night shift worker is up at 3:45 in the morning still obsessed with this BS and trying to make some inane point?
Somebody needs to reassess the quality of their life.
There’s a heck of a lot more to it than this crap.
Mr. McGee’s insight is so correct on this. It’s obvious that someone who expresses original thoughts and sick attempts at humor at the ungodly hour of 03:45 is suffering from some sick obsession and maybe some form mental illness. The thought of what kind of quality of life that person lives is horrific. He or she is probably an alcohol and drug addled and paranoid filthy lonely person dwelling in some dingy vermin infested hovel getting perverse pleasure making inane comments at 03:45. I guess one should feel compassion for someone so obviously devoid of decency and normalcy in their pitiful dysfunctional life. I will pray for him, as I encourage any one else with compassion in their hearts, and for all those who suffer amongst us. Maybe God will work one of His miracles and restore this person to sanity and productivity and make them whole and a contributing member of society. Who knows, the hand of The Almighty might even move that lost unfortunate soul to do something really positive for our community and society by cutting and pasting old articles from the Daily Astorian on a website?
Mr. McGee is right, there is so much more to life than “this crap”.
On Jun 22, 2:48 PM, Patrick McGee wrote:
Ms. Chatsworth, you left out the part about the other three shifts and other day workers doing the part as well.
How bout the part about getting your ass off your shoulders?
So now you just sound like some maladjusted nutbag.
So be it but, aren’t you attempting to disrupt this discussion?
Andf I truly thought there was some hope for this site.
On Jun 22, 4:22 PM, Submit A Comment wrote:
On Jun 22, 1:48 PM, Patrick McGee wrote:
How bout the part about getting your ass off your shoulders?
So now you just sound like some maladjusted nutbag.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On Jun 21, 5:02 PM, yaaaawwwn wrote:
PM’s(patrick mcgee) the grammar police, the spelling patrolman and now he’s the clock keeper? Good god, man, talk about the post and quit always attacking the community of people posting
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Would it be safe to assume is also in charge of administering the ever popular and necessary vitrole when he deems it appropriate?
On Jun 22, 7:56 PM, Patrick McGee wrote:
And I.....sniff......apologize for my comments.
Totally untoward and in bad taste.
Sorry.
On Jun 22, 8:57 PM, pdx observer wrote:
This appears to be the only site that is giving both sides of this issue using primary sources such as both the PUC and the ODE reports, FERC filings, letters and releases by the LNG corporations and the opponents, with both sides of the issue are being vigorously debated by those who are involved at the “grassroots”.
It is very interesting, even the sidebars into what amounts to hair pulling, fisticuffs and name calling. Pretty human reactions to very real issues in the dynamics of social relationships.
It is interesting to observe how the Astoria area handles this situation.
What hasn’t seemed to be addressed, yet, is the politics and policies of the two parties. How do locals feel about a blue governor w/blue legislators appearing to be snubbing an, essentially, red county commission? Do locals acknowledge this is a political battle more than an environmental battle?
On Jun 22, 11:40 PM, Jeff wrote:
pdx observer: From my perspective as one of the “red county commissioners”, I don’t see this as a political battle with the governor. This was a land use decision by the commission. We took the emotions out of it and based our decision on the facts before us as required by quasi-judicial process.
Jeff Hazen
On Jun 23, 12:50 AM, Peter Huhtala wrote:
The site is interesting, although far from representative of the county grassroots thinking. The sentient, by the numbers, here was way off the vote on Richard Lee’s recall, for example. Most sensible sorts that I know are content to let Pat and a few others venture into these debates. That said, the opportunity for those that still misunderstand the reality - that LNG import would harm our environment and economy, and intrinsically diminish the quality of our lives - to explore and express alternate and sometimes challenging points of view.
The politicians, with a few exceptions such as Congressman Brian Baird, didn’t come anywhere near the LNG issue until the grassroots groups and regional conservation groups made rejecting LNG terminal and gas -lines the preferred political stance.
I agree that the ultimate decisions will be political, as with nearly every natural resource dispute. But politics without sound science equals lawsuit upon lawsuit.
Both Oregon LNG and Northern Star have squandered their investors’ yen and whatever currencies are playing this game. Bradwood is by far the worse site from an environmental point of view, as well as from public safety and national security perspectives, yet NoStarr has certainly out-lobbied Oregon LNG, a venture ballyhooing the social graces of a hagfish. Leucadia could replace the inept and pour on the juice, but with a new administration on the way that would be throwing good money after bad, and would damage the reputation of the corporation.
By the way, Democrats outnumber Republicans in Clatsop County, and the County has pretty consistently voted for the more progressive candidates in federal and statewide races for the last couple of decades. as best as I recall, at least moreso than the state average. There are probably some exceptions of which I shall probably soon hear,,,
On Jun 23, 2:05 AM, point defiance wrote:
Peter Huhtala said: “The site is interesting, although far from representative of the county grassroots thinking.” What I “love” is that PH believes that there is only one group that is “grassroots” and that is his group. I have met many anti-lng folk who wouldn’t have anything to do with PH or any of his group. Don’t they count as “grassroots”? They write in here. There is not an organized pro lng group that I know of so everyone here speaking for it is grassroots and they pretty much sound like they all have different reasons why. Aren’t they all grassroots? FAR from representative? Don’t think its all that “far”.
I have gone back and forth on this issue as new information has become available. The things that sway me the most is the attitude of the people involved. Watching Deb Twombly, someone I had admired for many years, go from a compassionate, reasonable person to someone I no longer recognize has made me look twice at the organization that she has become involved with.
The fact that PH says that “Most sensible sorts that I know are content to let Pat and a few others venture into these debates” proves to me that my concerns do not matter to these people. The only time they care about me is when they are knocking on my door to get me to sign another one of their petitions otherwise they could not care that some character was attacking people who have questions or don’t agree on certain points. PH doesn’t care that what someone is doing here is ensuring that I will not only be voting for the referendum but I will be voting against any sort of supposedly newfangled renewable energy whatchamacallit because of the treatment that someone representing his viewpoint expressed here, with PH’s full support.
Arrogance. That is really what is turning me completely against the anti lng stance.
On Jun 23, 5:32 AM, Patrick McGee wrote:
So, I suppose “Point Defiance” we are all supposed to agree on all points?
Is that it?
As long as they are yours?
I really appreciate it that Peter Huhtala deems it appropriate and OK that someone like “Lowly Little Me” should be allowed to be let into the deabte on something that has so much impact on our lives and life quality but you know, I don’t need to ask his or your permission to express my views here, nor will I.
Obviously what I have to say is intimidating you to a point that causes you to weigh what I say with some fear and importance and garnering some respect from Peter but, I am still not asking either of you for apporval.
Why is that?
Truly it would be nice to live in harmony under one view, one religion, one government, one police satate wouldn’t it as an ideal?
That’s been unsuccessfully tried before, I believe.
On Jun 23, 8:50 AM, Jon Dana wrote:
--""Obviously what I have to say is intimidating you to a point that causes you to weigh what I say with some fear and importance and garnering some respect from Peter"-- Don’t you know there is 10,000 comedians out of work.-- You do more for the pro-LNG than all of Bradwoods advertising. So keep up the good work, have a nice day.
.
On Jun 23, 9:13 AM, Patrick McGee wrote:
And thank you Dana for continuing to reinforce the importance of what I have to opine on the issues and that which causes you to react.
Better this than preaching to the choir.
On Jun 23, 10:19 AM, Rick Balkins wrote:
Yes, those “one view” state of governments were attempted MANY times.
Lets see, Hitler rings a bell?
Idi Amin (spelling in question)
terrorist sects
Taliban
Get the idea very quickly.
This fails because of the nature of every living being. That is in the root of having our own brains, mind, concious and if you are religious (go to church or place of worship) - even a soul.
This is part of being our own identity,
That said, the beauty is that we live in a country founded (and thankfully still to some degree) with the principle values of being able to speak about one’s own viewpoints without prosecution.
However, this can often get abused in mannerism that leads to disrespectfullness. That is when the individuals are emotion driven not information driven.
The same kind of emotion driven “panic” that was caused by “Doom’s Day” threats. Going about it as if it is THE END OF THE WORLD.
Earth has tooken on 7-times the carbon level that it is in present day Earth back 65 Million years ago and guess what, the rise of the mammals.
What is the difference in carbon level today from say 1 Million years ago. Or even 500,000 years ago.
So, I’m not worried about things being the END of the World. Just a period of change as it always been. Everyday, change occurs. So we can be facing a climatic shift but that is an inevitable fact before human existed and after humans no longer exists as it is part of the Earth’s nature.
Earth does its own clensing. All we can do is try to survive. Sustainable/Renewable energies are just methods that can be used to improve survival (or postponing the inevitable) of the changes that occurs.
Don’t base sustainable/renewable energy practices on the individuals who doesn’t respects other people. Base it on the information and facts. The referendum on the otherhand can be evaluated on the facts as well as looking at what the situation/consequences of the votes made. Try to be “objective” about the issues. Respect other viewpoints and strive to hold back emotion and keep it from controlling the decision process.
On Jun 23, 11:31 AM, Beverley Chatsworth wrote:
On Jun 22, 11:50 PM, Peter Huhtala wrote:
the reality - that LNG import would harm our environment and economy, and intrinsically diminish the quality of our lives
Well that settles it for me! Being a concerned and ardent environmentalist, I fully understand how ships going by and those big tank things that hold the gas will damage the environment. That is a fact proven by experts. But can someone please explain how someone in Astoria, Seaside or Cannon Beach is going to have the quality of their life degraded and economy diminished? Im not quite clear on that
On Jun 23, 11:45 AM, Kate Johnson wrote:
Balkins didn’t agree with quite a few people both on the DSM energy forum debate and here, rarely if ever bringing the debate down to an attack onto people (whether or not they chose to be anonymous) he was/is discussing the issues with. Could careless if you agree with people or not. PMs constant belittling of people until he has the satisfaction of them finally poking him back and his (and PH & SRs) arrogant attitude have done more towards turning me off anti LNG sentiments than anything else. They have not proven any points that I have seen that they have stated. ALL energy businesses, including solar, wind, and current, are speculative so beating that drum is a moot point unless you don’t want anyone daring to do anything.
Over 250 miles of gas pipeline was abandoned in Washington because of leaks in 2003-2005 and the only reason it was discovered was production was down for NW Natural gas. No one died, no fires broke out, no mass destruction, nada, nothing. Scenarios of massive destruction are blown out of proportion to truth. No US LNG plant has never been hit by a terrorist organization nor have any credible threats been made against it.
Many of us have come to the table regarding LNG with open minds, and yes, ignorant of both sides of the issue. Being called, essentially, idiots who allow “crooked” local politicians to line their pockets or in some other way be inticed by the LNG corporations has turned us off to the anti lng voice. These are people we have elected, from amongst ourselves. Essentially you are calling us crooked by default. The anti lng force has never produceed any evidence of how these locals have or would personally benefit from an LNG corp comming in.
Although Commissioner Hazen has spoken up to state that he doesn’t feel it is politically motivated, Senator Johnsons comments in public and private have left little doubt that she has little regard for our county commission. The governor should have commended the commissioners for their hard work on the behalf of the county (and the state) in working with an LNG corporation towards high safety standards and instead he chose to ignore the local efforts. The new AG has already stated his stance on LNG and intentions to sue the federal government if they allow the process to proceed in “his” state. All three of these people are democrats.
It does seem politically motivated especially when the rest of the world (most of which signed the Kyoto treaty) endorse and use LNG as a clean source of energy. The local supposedly environmental, globally warming, conscious people don’t even want us supporting the countries who have endorsed the Kyoto treaty. Want to box us in with a referendum that will keep us from being able to use any new energy source, and vilify anyone who has any idea that does not originate with them. Since it doesn’t make any other sense, it must be for power which equals politics.
On Jun 23, 1:00 PM, Patrick McGee wrote:
You seem to spaek Ms. Johnson as if the U.S. has priority on all the presumed LNG to flow through Bradwood and Skipanon but, you might want toread the little snippet below regarding what these LNG Speculator/Pirates are inferring is such a great thing for you and the rest of us.
Friday, January 25. 2008
Gas Prices and LNG
I am often asked about the relationship between US natural gas inventories and imports of liquefied natural gas (LNG). The key point to remember here is that unlike oil, gas has not traditionally been a globally traded commodity. Most gas historically has moved by pipeline so it’s a regional market. So, for example, North America was one market connected by pipelines and Europe another.
LNG is starting to change that because gas can be shipped anywhere in the world where prices are most favorable. So, for example, if gas prices are higher in the EU than the US, more LNG flows to Europe.
However, at this time LNG liquefaction and regasification capacity isn’t sufficient to meet all needs. Because of that limitation, gas prices can still differ widely between regions of the world; there isn’t enough LNG capacity to abitrage away those discrepancies. Check out my chart below for a closer look at relative global gas prices.
On Jun 23, 5:22 PM, Rick Balkins wrote:
Where is the chart?
Provide a URL to the site OR a URL with a photo of the chart used. I prefer the original article.
On Jun 23, 5:32 PM, Tom Peterson wrote:
Yes Patrick, that is how the market works. Thank you for cutting and pasting that educational piece. Maybe China or Japan are willing to pay more for LNG than the U.S. You can also buy LNG from whoever sells it for the least. Maybe Canada starts piping their gas to the coast and sending it to China on LNG ships driving the price up for Americans.
You dont think that building a LNG terminal, and expanding our options will make the price go up, do you?
In my opinion, competition is usually a good thing for the consumer.
On Jun 23, 7:22 PM, Jon Dana wrote:
Cap and trade / Carbon footprints,-- so explain it to me, Obama or McCain both in favor of cap and trade. Won’t that make using coal for electric power generation more expensive. Pushing them to use or build more natural gas electric power plants, driving up natural gas prices????------ just asking.
On Jun 23, 8:37 PM, Patrick McGee wrote:
http://attheselevels.com/archives/834-Gas-Prices-and-LNG.html
Sorry, above is the link to the chart.
Hell yes Perterson and you got Gloria to thank for bailing your sorry ass out of debt and shame on you!
“Cut and Paste” over your “Presumed Literary Drivel”?
Anytime.
On Jun 23, 8:48 PM, Rick Balkins wrote:
I think that the article snippet misses a few points.
It isn’t so much about where the prices are the highest but more simple. Something more conventional - there is supply and the gas goes where the DEMAND is. Supply & Demand. Very straight forward. They are looking at where they will get the most money overall not where the price is the highest but where they will get the most “sales”. The product is the volume of supply.
Example: One marketplace has 1000 customers (requiring a demand on 1 Million cu.ft. a year) There marketplace price is $2/cu.ft.
Supply is 2 Billion cu.ft. a year from the natural gas/LNG company.
The other market has 1 Million customers (requiring a demand of 1 Billion cu.ft. a year) There market price is $0.60 per cu.ft.
NOTE: The numbers maybe unrealistic and not intended to reflect an actual marketplace but illustrate a point.
So which marketplace would you choose?
If I do the math of the illustrative example. Marketplace one would require 1 Million cu.ft. @ $2 per cu.ft. That would equate to $2 Million. Marketplace 2, requires 1 Billion cu.ft. at price of $0.60. That would equate to about $600 Million. I go with marketplace 2.
Sure Marketplace 1 has a higher price per volume BUT the demand is so low that it doesn’t attract so much. Marketplace 2 would has a lower price per volume but the demand (volume requirement) is so much more and therefore, provides alot more money at the end of the year.
The more money I can make, the more attractive. That is the principle of capitalism. To make money. Sure -> DUH !!!!
If there enough volume, remaining, then I’ll take both the above markets and other markets in decending order from gratest product value of demand/price combo to the least. Looking to the greatest profits. It’s all in the numbers.
On Jun 23, 11:41 PM, Tom Peterson wrote:
Keep Gloria out of this....very funny, but thats a diferent Tom Peterson
You must be refering to this “sorry ass”
http://www.resiliencycenter.com/stories/story04.shtml
On Jun 23, 11:49 PM, Tyack Wilson wrote:
Thank-you Mr. Balkin, excellent points and nice refrain, once again, from attack.
Mr. Petersen - good point, LNG can be imported and exported out of Bradwood, can it not?
Ms. Johnson - can you please provide a link or source for the abandoned gas lines? BTW, your comments did not seem to imply that US has priority on all the LNG, don’t know how anyone got that out of what you wrote. Looked more like they just wanted to segue into their topic.
Jon Dana - I agree with you, it will make coal more expensive. With climate changes ahead and the cost of fuel sky rocketing we are in for a very cold winter. Remember those woodstoves we all tossed out? We will regret that. And talk about leaving a HUGE footprint if all of those go back into use! I honestly think a lot of these green-type people do not care how many old people, children and poor die because of inadequate heating during the winter and black mold.
Mr. McGee - why didn’t you finish quoting the rest of the article? This is bullish for gas. With London traded prices rising steadily, the ratio remains depressed making it unlikely we’ll see much of an uptick in LNG imports. Over the longer term, North American gas supplies are insufficient to meet domestic demand; the US must attract LNG imports. To attract those imports, the marginal US cost will have to rise to equal prices in the UK. Sort of sounds like what the PUC was saying, don’t it?
IMHO if we follow the path the Democrats seem determined to send us spiraling down with a refusal to actively secure an LNG market from our allies in the Pacific Basin this country will be crippled with an extremely high energy bill that the poor and the elderly in our country will not be able to foot, thereby our health system will be swamped with the dying. This will force the new technologies of wind, solar and hydro to be used on a massive scale before they are ready possibly ruining any chance of them being a viable option because of the damage done through communities wasting limited resources on them before they work properly. First impressions are lasting impressions. In the end, inevitably, we will go back to LNG, but at what cost?
On Jun 24, 7:27 AM, Patrick McGee wrote:
“Old People”, “Children”, “The Poor”?
The last throes of a losing argument.
Good going Wilson is showing the desperation of the “Pro-LNG” element.
Add that to Joe Desmond’s recent moe to try to undermine Oregon LNG’s project with some lame right of way issue on “The Skipanon”, it would lead some to think somebody sees trouble for LNG in Clatsop County on the rise.
Maybe there’s more of a threat to that pipeline referendum than some wish to admit.
On Jun 24, 9:40 AM, Tom Peterson wrote:
Patrick,
This is how business works.
Bradwoods actions with Oregon LNG are very similar to what Oregon LNG did with Clifton Road. Who can blame either one of those companies, they are simply trying to beat or at least slow the competition.
It is no different than Martin Nygaard obstructing the new Costco site or Randy Stemper obstructing the Home Depot site. Sometimes business does this just because it has that right.
This referendum is a joke and if it passes, as far as I know, it will not effect Bradwoods pipeline. There is something called the “goal post rule.” This pipeline was approved under current planning laws. If you change the rules (move the goalpost), it will not effect past approvals, only future ones. For example, we will no longer be able to place septic systems or waterlines in our parks. The new fiber optic cable that crosses the Delaura beach recreational property could not be done in the future. Sound like a good idea?? I think not.
p.s. I think it will pass anyways because of a misleading campaign about what this referendum will really do.
On Jun 24, 10:59 AM, Patrick McGee wrote:
Thanks for the lesson in how business works and yes, could be right....then again you could be dead wrong.
Still trying to justify the failure of the referendum will not make it any different than what the outcome will be and trying to compare fibre optic cable running through DeLaura Beach with a 30-36 inch diameter natural gas pipeline running through a park place makes you look kinda silly as well, betraying your presumed business acumen as well.
Tell us a little bit more about how business works would you?
On Jun 24, 12:37 PM, Rick Balkins wrote:
Could the referendum prohibit all pipelines (that includes pipelines for fiberoptics). Is the language that discrete and only limited to natural gas?
These rulings effectively becomes laws. As a “case study rule”. These can become problematic for us later for other infrastructure.
As the public doesn’t discriminate between natural gas pipelines from something else if all they hear is pipelines. There is problems when having uneducated people making decisions on stuff that requires an education on the subject matter.
Self-proclaimed experts without qualifying education or experience with working on this subject matter is the biggest danger to public.
Is it about the salmon? Is it about terrorists? It is always a round robin of stories, fear tactics and all. That is the part we need to basically sit down and look at the situation objectively not emotionally.
Same thing with discussing alternative energy concepts, solutions, debates and ideas. I’m more interested in discussing these ideas and whatever happens with Bradwood or Oregon LNG, so be it. We can still do more. We can still work on sustainable living, ideas and practices and build these infrastructures. Even if the LNG facilities are built. We still have the means to provide neighborhood wide public utilities districts to supplement energy to neighborhoods. Like wind generated energy can pull some folks completely off the electric grid for periods of time. Supplementing their year round energy needs and reducing draw on the existing grids. Another is hydro-electric generators. Another is passive solar heating. Some supply electricity while the other supply heat. Some times of the year, a person maybe totally off the grid.
That is some of the interesting stuff that can be done.
Not all folks who look at green living solutions are wackos.
I look into the solutions for practical purposes but weigh the cost situation. It all depends on the situation. Not all property sites are situated in the best manner for such implementation.
Others are.
Solutions depends on specific places.
Rick Balkins
Building Designer
On Jun 24, 1:19 PM, Tom Peterson wrote:
Rick said:
“Not all folks who look at green living solutions are wackos.”
Here is something that is wacko.
Mill Pond Village in Astoria claims to be built using green building techniques, yet many of the homes are second homes or vacation homes that sit vacant the majority of the time. In other words, these homes make the owner feel good about their footprint, but in reality they are making much more of an impact by having a house that is completely unneccessary.
I tell ya, the only way to build a truly green home is to build a log house out of renewable trees.
Patrick: My problem with the referendum is the language, and I believe it will have far reaching, unintended consequenses. You can choose to ignore this, or you can recognize that this is not a good solution for those who are seeking to stop LNG. I’m not comparing fiber optic lines to gas lines, but this referendumb will have the same effect on all lines, it does not descriminate AND It will not stop Bradwoods pipeline.
Want to put in a new restroom at Cullaby Lake Park? Cant be done because people dont like any kind of lines in the ground. Its rediculous.
The way the rules are now with pipelines as a conditional use, if a commissioner makes a “wrong” decision on this issue in the eyes of the people, he might get recalled. There is accountablity and no need for this foolish referendum.
And another thing… whats to stop the commissioners from doing a zone change to something that does allow pipelines, instead of a conditional use. Will this referendum stop that too?
Dont worry, no matter what happens here, FERC will ultimately have the say anyways, so I dont know why we are debating any of this.
On Jun 24, 1:49 PM, Patrick McGee wrote:
How many Mill Pond Homes Peterson are second home with absentee owners?
Can you tell us?
On Jun 24, 2:24 PM, Rick Balkins wrote:
Well, that I would disagree with you partly.
The part I disagree with is that a log house is not the only truly green way to design a home. In fact, to live green is to use wood (a renewable energy and use stone masonry. Then live an Amish style living. Our big footprint is in the technology that we live. Amish is the most “sustainable” style living in America. However, how many people want to live in such living conditions.
There is various options and methods to improve and apply sustainable living. It is ridiculous to build tract projects in communities that has high unemployment rates and mostly part-time minimum wage jobs. People with minimum wage couldn’t afford to buy a house if they were to save up a conservative 50% of there income for the next 100 years. Why, they don’t make enough money a year. Prices go up every year due to inflation. Saving 50% of the income is unrealistic because half of the minimum wage goes into paying for rent and food and the most basic of utilities. About 15-20% goes to paying taxes and saving for unemployment periods. What remains goes into some of the amenities like being able to watch a movie, new clothes and other stuff. So, what is left is - a mediocre $1,000 or so a year.
Those people who wants to own a house will either be given it by a will OR they have to get college education and get a job that pays 2-3 times that of minimum wage. Guess what, more often then not, you have to move to Portland or other jobs.
I prefer to apply sustainable practices on renovations of existing buildings OR designs for clients who is going to live in these homes.
Some of the ideas of applying ‘green living’ pratices is somewhat ridiculous and most people won’t be caught dead living in such a building because it looks wacked.
However, most of the houses on the Mill Pond site doesn’t look bad but the site has issues that most folks who lives here knows about. High liquefaction and other issues. I rather live up on the hill. Most people who live in this area likes to live up on the hill. ANother problem is the houses were built without a prospective buyers who are going to live in the homes year roung.
Astoria gets too many part-time residents. why? The community doesn’t attract full-time residents except retirees and they mostly buy the homes on the hill. Full time residents that are younger wants to be able to work. Especially your 30s-something folks with young kids. They want work. They want homes in the $100,000-200,000 because that is all they can get in loans from a bank at their income level. Trying to get $500,000 without collateral and with only a $30,000-60,000 a year is nearly impossible. Mostly they are teachers, government workers (city, county,state and federal) or professionals working for the hospital or independent professionals and it is a tough place to live with limited work.
I typically avoid tract development but of course if some developer is investing money and hire me to design a couple dozen houses then damn skippy I’ll design them. It’s work. It’s money in my pocket. It is up to the “developer” to figure out how to sell them. It’s not my responsibility. I don’t guarantee the sales of any of the houses that I may design. It is outside the professional scope of services that I could warrant.
On Jun 24, 5:07 PM, Ned S wrote:
PM, can you at least publish your rule book so the rest of us know how to play your game? Concern for elderly, infirm and children are now signs of losing an argument? Have to write that one down as it doesn’t yet seem to be in any other argument handbook. Hehehe, you do say the darnedest things.
On Jun 24, 5:07 PM, Tom Peterson wrote:
cant say for sure Patrick, but many.
Good points Rick......I’m with ya
On Jun 24, 6:13 PM, Patrick McGee wrote:
Play my game Ned S?
That’s a petty endeavor isn’t it?
There’s more important issuse here than playing somebody else’s silly game.
Why would you deem that important?
“The Poor”, “The Children”, “The Infirm”.
They are called “Catch Words” Ned S.
On Jun 24, 6:15 PM, Patrick McGee wrote:
On Jun 24, 4:07 PM, Tom Peterson wrote:
cant say for sure Patrick, but many.
Good points Rick......I’m with ya
Awwwww! Tom...Tsk, Tsk, Tsk.
On Jun 24, 11:21 PM, Tom Peterson wrote:
Sometimes even I can find things to agree on.
On Jun 24, 11:45 PM, Ned S wrote:
On Jun 24, 6:27 AM, Patrick McGee wrote:“Old People”, “Children”, “The Poor”? The last throes of a losing argument.
On Jun 24, 5:13 PM, Patrick McGee wrote: “The Poor”, “The Children”, “The Infirm”. They are called “Catch Words” Ned S
Posted by Patrick McGee at 12:44 PM: A Press Release By Clatsop County Citizens for Common Sense Marc Auerbach, Don West Vice President, Columbia River Business Alliance, Brent Foster Executive Director of Columbia Riverkeeper:
“As a community we implement laws that aid in the protection of our children. How, in good conscience, could we as a community allow a 36-inch, high-pressure, interstate gas pipeline three feet below where our children play?” said Teri Sund, an Astoria mother of two.
Thank-you PM, for letting us know how to identify the last throes of a losing argument.
On Jun 24, 11:45 PM, Name (required) wrote:
On Jun 24, 1:24 PM, Rick Balkins wrote:...most of the houses on the Mill Pond site doesn’t look bad but ....
..but they’re built too close together?
On Jun 25, 12:58 AM, Rick Balkins wrote:
Well… that is called detached “rowhouses”. There is nothing in code or law that says that buildings can’t be located as close together as they are. Houses can be built as close as 5-ft apart. There maybe setback issues regarding side-yard setbacks. Those can be dealt with through variance.
Any house that is built within 5 or 6 feet of each other shall have a 1-hour fire-rated wall. That means the inside wall within 5 feet of the neighboring building shall have 5/8-inch Type-X Gypsum board (sheetrock/drywall). There is also a requirement of NO windows on any wall faces within 5-feet of the neighboring building.
I addressed this issue before with a detached garage adjacent to the main residence. It was to be located within 5-feet of the house. Provided that there is a 1-hour fire rated law, it is legal.
As a building designer, I have nothing against that. The density is tighter then standard in Astoria but it was not unheard of in Victorian era to have houses cloasely located. However, they were usually placed a little over 5-feet apart in order to provide some meausre of safety. From aesthetic standpoint, it can be argued as far as density and spacing between the houses. Maybe a little too dense in some of the houses.
I’m not going to argue too much about the layout. It was prepare in accordance with established master plan visioning of the site o the client. As of date, I haven’t designed any of the houses on the Mill Pond site.
From a professional stance as a building designer, I haven’t noticed any major issue with the buildings. They seem to be reasonable houses. At the same time, I haven’t done any extensive look-through of the buildings to make thorough inspections to determine if there is any issues.
As a building designer, I wouldn’t locate a house very closely to another house or building IF the client doesn’t want his/her house to be built less then say 10-15 feet of another house - provide the site doesn’t force me to. It is all part of what is called an “architectural program” ( sometimes called “master plan","space program” - which in itself is usually just part of the architectural program, or even called a “facility plan” ). The “architectural program” would contain the information about the scope of services to be rendered, the project budget, the desires and dislikes of the client, information about the needs of the client, the spatial requirements of each function area of the house (eg. of a function area of a house would be the bedroom, kitchen, garage, living room, bathroom, work shop, home office, ect.). These are some of the basic information necassary in order for the building designer (or architect) to prepare a design for the client (eg. you) so that the design can meet the needs and desires of the client.
Not always will EVERYTHING desired or needs can be met for a variety of reasons. Some reasons maybe the budget, lot area, CC&Rs;, ect.
As a designer, it would be my responsibility to be straight forward and tell you like it is. Explain your options and try to achieve the best results possible. It is not always what you like to hear but what you need to hear. We are bearers of good and bad news. It also is our responsibility to look at alternatives options when possible and explain them.
You have $200,000, you want to build a house. You don’t often want to give up quickly. The decision is yours to make but my job is to provide you with honest information. Both good news and bad news. Sometimes, a client may raise the budget level if the financial resources are there for them. Sometimes they can’t and have to reduce things. Often, I’ll start with reduction of amenities. So instead of hardwood floors, you might have to live with softwood flooring and linoleum or carpeting. Instead of granite top counters, you might have o live with an simulated granite top counter.
Sometimes, you can’t have that 40x60-ft workshop and have to live with a 20x40 ft workshop. Instead of 5 bedrooms, you might have to live with 3 or 4 bedrooms. Just some of the things that you might face if the budget is low but have lots of WANTS and DESIRES.
Some of the common scenarios faced with projects.
Rick Balkins
Building Designer
On Jun 25, 7:21 AM, Ron wrote:
I suspect the reason of the close siting of homes in “Mill Pond” was and is monetary. I for one cannot fathom at my age having to try and climb all the stairs to reach the upper levels. They may look nice but I presume don’t appeal to most. Anyone know what the monthly home/owner fees are? This has to my limited knowledge never been published.
On Jun 25, 8:08 AM, Patrick McGee wrote:
On Jun 24, 10:45 PM, Ned S wrote:
On Jun 24, 6:27 AM, Patrick McGee wrote:“Old People”, “Children”, “The Poor”? The last throes of a losing argument.
On Jun 24, 5:13 PM, Patrick McGee wrote: “The Poor”, “The Children”, “The Infirm”. They are called “Catch Words” Ned S
Posted by Patrick McGee at 12:44 PM: A Press Release By Clatsop County Citizens for Common Sense Marc Auerbach, Don West Vice President, Columbia River Business Alliance, Brent Foster Executive Director of Columbia Riverkeeper:
“As a community we implement laws that aid in the protection of our children. How, in good conscience, could we as a community allow a 36-inch, high-pressure, interstate gas pipeline three feet below where our children play?” said Teri Sund, an Astoria mother of two.
Thank-you PM, for letting us know how to identify the last throes of a losing argument.
And in the bogus testimonial ads on KAST Radio, from Bradwood, one testifier says because of Bradwood, all of our children will not move out of county and some new restaurants might open up.
Like I said, “Catch Words”
Geeeeesh!
On Jun 25, 8:15 AM, Patrick McGee wrote:
Mill Pond Sideyards:...6’-0” one side 1’-0” the other thereby negating the need to for 5’-0” or less fire separation.
On Jun 25, 10:17 AM, Rick Balkins wrote:
However, you were still required by code to employ a 1-hour rated wall on the side where there would only be 2-ft. seperation.
Code is independent of zoning setbacks. I would not be able to tell just from walking along the sidewalks.
On Jun 25, 10:44 AM, Ned S wrote:
All communication that one doesn’t care to hear is “catch words” or