[Grovenet] Gas Lines are not fun

Tue Jan 29 15:54:51 PST 2008

Anyone know how much the landowners are reimbursed 
for the land taken?
Ed
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Martha Khoury
  To: 'Forest Grove local interests list'
  Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 3:41 PM
  Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Gas Lines are not fun

  One of the problems with this LNG pipeline which 
is to take LNG from
  Astoria through Oregon to California, is the 
property upon which the
  pipeline(s) would be sited. The notification has 
been limited and many
  of the small farmers are struggling as it is, 
without having significant
  chunks of their land torn up and taken out of 
production. This is one of
  the main concerns for the Forest Grove area --  
and I speak of our
  neighbors as those rural landowners around town. 
Selfishly, I would like
  to continue to buy the produce grown on some of 
these small farms.
  --Martha

  -----Original Message-----
  From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com 
[mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
  Behalf Of Ron D'Eau Claire
  Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 3:15 PM
  To: 'Forest Grove local interests list'
  Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Gas Lines are not fun

  We already have LNG facilities in Oregon. 
There's one right here in
  Newport, and another in Portland, both operating 
efficiently, cleanly
  and safely for decades.

  Neither is considered a danger or 'dis-amenity' 
to the local properties.
  The Newport facility is close to new 
million-dollar homes, a huge marina
  filled with yachts and fishing boats and 
surrounded by businesses. The
  other in Portland is only five miles from 
downtown in an industrial area
  where businesses have eagerly added new 
construction.

  The issue today is that there's not enough local 
natural gas, or it's
  not cheap enough, to compete with gas brought in 
by ship, so the
  obvious, sensible thing to do is to bring in gas 
and the safest, most
  efficient proven way to do that is LNG. 
Northwest Natural is meeting its
  obligation to the public with the safest 
technology known: a technology
  with a near-perfect track record working with a 
fuel, LNG, that is
  inherently far less dangerous in the event of a 
problem than either
  gasoline or propane.

  For facts about the new facility whose pipeline 
would run west of Forest
  Grove, there's a web site that will pop up in 
any web search:

  http://www.oregonlng.com/

  For facts about the new facilities planned for 
Coos Bay see:

  http://www.scdcinc.org/documents/ECONW-SCDC-LNG-Impacts.pdf

  Okay, maybe it's not good to take their word for 
what's so. There's a
  wealth of LNG safety information on the WEB 
based on actual experience
  with the stuff that documents an excellent 
safety record for LNG that
  far exceeds many other energy sources, including 
coal, oil and gasoline.
  It's a proven technology with proven regulatory 
standards that have
  protected the public for decades. There are some 
links to on-line
  information below.

  Let me be clear that I don't like using LNG, 
just like I don't like
  using fossil fuels including natural gas in any 
form such as liquefied
  gas, ethanol, oil in all of its forms, wood, or 
any other carbon-based
  fuel, but not for the idiotic reasons given by 
many of the naysayers. I
  don't like using those fuels because they all 
produce greenhouse gasses
  and represent limited, non-sustainable energy 
sources. But I am grateful
  we have them and, like most Oregonians, use them 
every day because my
  options are very limited. Like the rest of us, 
some mix of all of the
  above is economically and functionally essential 
for me to earn my way
  in society.

  I agree that we need to pursue alternative forms 
of creating energy.
  Pumping and importing oil and gas are only 
stop-gaps to meet critical
  energy needs.

  I have a hard time being patient with those who 
simply say "No". Any
  darn fool can offer a reason why not to do 
something. And sometimes
  their reasons are as foolish and nonsensical as 
their thinking.

  For example the claim that LNG will increase 
greenhouse gasses in Oregon
  while saying that most of it won't be used here 
in Oregon. Say again? If
  we don't burn it, it won't add to greenhouse 
gasses! And why would our
  energy consumption go up? More industry, more 
jobs, more incomes, that's
  what will increase energy demands here. If so, 
is that bad?

  And what's wrong with bringing industry to 
Oregon to bring our people
  money? Would the naysayers rather we opened up 
the forest preserves for
  clear-cutting to produce wood products and then 
strip the lands looking
  for coal?

  No, they do not. Indeed that's the problem. The 
naysayers have no
  alternatives to offer. All they know how to say 
is NO!

  Any idiot can make a case for not doing 
something. It takes brains and
  expertise to offer a solution with a careful 
assessment of the risks and
  benefits, such as those below.

  Ron D'Eau Claire

  Just a few studies by various universities and 
other agencies include:

  http://www.beg.utexas.edu/energyecon/lng/documents/CEE_LNG_Safety_and_Se
  curi
  ty.pdf

  http://www.energy.ca.gov/2005publications/CEC-600-2005-002/CEC-600-2005-
  002.
  PDF

  http://www.energy.ca.gov/lng/documents/2004-05_FERC_CONSEQUENCES_ASSESSM
  ENT.
  PDF

  http://www.energy.ca.gov/lng/documents/2004-12_SANDIA-DOE_RISK_ANALYSIS.
  PDF

  -----Original Message-----
  From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com 
[mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
  Behalf Of Vickie Madeoneup
  Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 8:28 AM
  To: Forest Grove local interests list
  Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Gas Lines are not fun

  I have not been able to find much concrete 
information on the pipeline,
  but surfing the web this is what I did find. It 
is all fairly one sided
  as I did not find any information for the 
pipeline. I will add that a
  personal friend of mine that will have the 
pipeline going through his
  land said the high pressure pipe that this 
pipeline will have is 36"
  where as the pipeline that exploded in 
Washington was much smaller, so
  he feels if there was an explosion it would have 
a far greater impact.
  He also said he will not be able to build or 
grow anything on the
  easement of the pipe which would be 50-100'. One 
of his objections is
  that he doesn't feel as if he has a choice, even 
though it is a private,
  for profit company it can claim eminent domain.

  NO LNG Rally at the Capital in Salem
      Wednesday, February 6, 11:00 am - 2:00 pm
  Lobbying: After the rally Oregon residents will 
fan out into the Capitol
  building to lobby legislators. Meet Oregon 
friends there and ask them to
  make an appointment with their representatives 
and senator. Appointments
  are very important because construction 
apparently has the Capitol in a
  mess. Can't Make the Rally? On February 6, CALL 
Governor Ted Kulongoski
  at 503.378.4582. Demand that he stand up for 
Oregonians, and to veto all
  LNG terminals. Tell him that you would rather 
see an investment in
  clean, renewable energy for Oregon. Also 
contact: Tim McCabe, Gov.'s
  Energy Advisor
  (503) 9866520
  tim.mccabe at state.or.us      (503) 378-5690
  Michael Carrier, Gov.'s Natural Resource Policy 
Advisory (503) 9866525
  michael.carrier at state.or.us

     Sponsoring Organizations: Citizens Against 
LNG, Columbia Riverkeeper,
  Friends of Living Oregon Waters (FLOW), 
Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands
  Center, Landowners and Citizens for a Safe 
Community, No California
  Pipeline, Oregon Citizens Against the Pipeline, 
Oregon Wild, Pacific
  Green Party, Pacific Environment, Ratepayers for 
Affordable Clean Energy
  (RACE), Sierra Club of
      Oregon, Southern Oregon Pipeline Information 
Project/No California
  Pipeline, Wahkiakum Friends of the River.
     For more information: Pacific Environment 
website announcement, RACE
  website or email nolngrally at verizon.net.
  http://www.willamette-riverkeeper.org/documents/WRK_LNG_ALERT.pdf
  "The proposed LNG projects would use 
supertankers to ferry natural gas
  from countries such as Russia, Iran and Peru in 
supercooled liquid form.
  At the processing plant, the imported LNG would 
be offloaded,
  revaporized and as much as 1.5 billion cubic 
feet per day would be
  pumped in a new pipeline across six Oregon 
counties to a point on the
  main transmission line serving California. This 
project threatens the
  environmental health and safety of Columbia 
River and Willamette Valley
  residents, as well as habitat for all species in 
the area. There is no
  demonstrated need in Oregon for this new gas, 
which has up to 40%
  greater carbon impact than domestic natural gas. 
This pipeline would
  cross over 1000 creeks, streams and rivers, cut 
swaths of ancient
  forest, and destroy Willamette Valley farms." 
Come to an informational
  session about LNG with Dan Serres from Columbia 
Riverkeeper January 29
  at 7 pm, Willamette Riverkeeper Office, 1515 SE 
Water Ave, Suite 102

  http://www.friendsoffrenchprairie.org/pdf/Pipelinetapsresidents_11-16-07
  .pdf
  "Many landowners fear the property and 
environmental damage that could
  come with a 50- to 100-foot right-of-way across 
their property. Their
  concerns range from the increased risk of 
wildfire and introduction of
  noxious weeds to destruction of valuable farm 
and timberland."

  http://groups.google.com/group/cascadeclimate/browse_thread/thread/f6186
  bef2
  dc356b0
  "NW
   Natural has become an active participant in 
this scheme by proposing to

   build the 220-mile long Palomar pipeline that 
would rip across Oregon
  from
   the key salmon habitats of the Columbia 
Estuary, across the family
  farms of

   the Willamette Valley, through the wildlife 
habitats of the Mt. Hood
   National Forest and over the Wild and Scenic 
Deschutes River *- all
  this in

   order to send gas from the proposed LNG 
terminals on the Columbia River
  to a
   California-bound pipeline near Madras. 
*"www.lngpollutes.org

  Why should you care about this?
     . There are 3 LNG projects proposed for the 
Oregon coast.

    . If even one should get built, it will 
increase Oregon's greenhouse
  gas emissions by millions of tons per year.

    . These projects will cost billions, money 
that could be spent on
  clean, renewable energy.

    . The terminals and pipelines linking them to 
California will endanger
  communities, cross and condemn hundreds miles of 
land, and destroy
  habitat.

    . LNG is not needed in Oregon; even the 
Governor admits that most of
  the gas is going out of state.

    . Ask yourself: Why is Oregon being chosen for 
LNG that will go to
  California?

  Newstimes:
  Citizens Against the Pipeline
  "At least one city councilor said he'd like the 
chance to weigh in. Pete
  Truax, in an interview after the meeting, noted 
that the proposed
  pipe-line paths would cut a swath between the 
city and its municipal
  watershed in the coast range." " Do you know 
that the proposed path for
  the pipelines carrying this very explosive fuel 
lies just west of Forest
  Grove and will run though Gales Creek and Gaston 
on its way to
  California?
   Do you know that about 90 percent of this gas 
is destined for
  California? Do you know how dangerous this fuel 
is? Do you understand
  the impact the construction of these projects on 
our
  land/water/wildlife?"

  _______________________________________________
  GroveNet mailing list
  GroveNet at rdrop.com 
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet

  _______________________________________________
  GroveNet mailing list
  GroveNet at rdrop.com
  http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet