A D V E R T I S E M E N T
A D V E R T I S E M E N T
ADVERTISEMENTS
<< Prev. Page 1 | 2
In addition to calling on Kelliher to review alternatives to the LNG facilities, Kulongoski said he had directed Oregon’s Department of Energy to conduct its own evaluation.
Further, Kulongoski said he has asked Oregon Attorney General Hardy Myers to see whether the state has the legal authority to stop progress on the federally regulated projects until FERC completes the requested review.
Finally, the governor said he was asking members of the Oregon Congressional delegation to seek a repeal of the laws that gave the FERC the authority to “preempt” Oregon’s facility siting process.
Note: An earlier version of this article erroneously stated that the governor's letter was sent on Wednesday.
<< Prev. Page 1 | 2
Hooray for the Gov! This is a step in the right direction. Anyone who believes that this gas is the answer to Oregon's energy needs has not studied the projects. We are being set up to provide gas to California, at the cost of our clean water, air and public safety. Put the skids on these speculators' dreams.
(email verified)
Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 01:24 PM
Oregon plans and plans until opportunity fizzles. We can't plan public transit that people want to ride. We can't plan to expand into Bio-Technology. Natural Gas is among the most abundant clean burning fossil fuels. Why not jump at an opportunity to generate private income, and employment by the "Big Bad Oil Companies". We plan to kill and maim residents by "planning" not expanding roadways to accommodate traffic. What a pathetic "State" we have got ourselves into.
(email verified)
Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 02:13 PM
Hip hip hooray! Thank goodness! We can finally stop the yahoo redneck good-old boy contingent that has had a stranglehold on Astoria and Warrenton. The River will be saved from greedy TEXAS developers wanting to destroy MY livelihood while at the same time bribing and paying off the very greedy locals. I am so proud of Oregon for standing up to these pirates! And yes, I do use Natural Gas, but that does not mean I want a gas plant in my backyard. We were never even going to get that gas, it was all going to CALIFORNIA!
(email verified)
Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 02:40 PM
Thank you, Governor Kulongoski. We very much need your leadership as the Bush administration attempts to pay off its Big Dirty Energy buddies in the last throws of a nightmare reign. Please continue to fight for Oregon's environment, economy, and the safety of our citizens. Bravo!
(email verified)
Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 02:43 PM
Thank you Governor Kulongoski. The carbon footprint of the total process to get this LNG shipped from the other side of the world is almost as much using coal to make electricity. Help us by funding other renewable energy alternatives that won't affect so many property owners and thier livelyhoods. There are so many reasons to oppose this project: much of the LNG would be destined for California, the resulting large swath for pipeline construction, the risk of disasterous explosions from earthquake damage or terrorist activity, the additional greenhouse gasses from more fuel used to deliver and process and use LNG from the other side of the world. California's Governer has capped greenhouse gases and so should we. Thank you for considering the cost.
(email verified)
Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 04:30 PM
hey kulongoski start worrying about jobs and the economy instead of this garbage.start getting out in the public eye like schwarzenegger in california is instead of you always being so darn invisible.start showing some leadership because other than the no more drivers licenses for illegals you have not done anything for the average person in your 5 to 6 years in office and you have not done squat to better the state of oregon.
(email verified)
Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 04:59 PM
Thanks Governor, for recognizing that LNG destined for Calif. should be located in Calif. Save Oregon and stop the terminal...
And build more public transit (that's one just for you, mark).
(email verified)
Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 12:27 AM
INSANE LIBERALISM, I wonder where you get your energy from?
Oh that's right, it just appears when you ESDLS turn on you light switches, or when you turn up your thermostat!
If you want to live in the "dark ages" then keep on fighting progress!
If you want to live like the "Californicators do" then MOVE back there where you came from and take your failed Bezerkley mentality with you!
(email verified)
Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 12:35 AM
Mark, Matthew Vantress, Liberalism is a Mental Disorder,
I could not agree with you more! Portland and Oregon in general claims to be such a "Progressive" state, but it is quite the opposite. Traffic congestion, a very weak job market, failing schools, torn up roads, and questionable politics to start with contribute to an oppressive and restrictive atmosphere.
Does anyone know how infeasible it is to power a whole state using only "green" energy, besides being much too cost prohibitive? Most states would welcome a project like this, but not Oregon. Oregon would rather pay hand picked consultants premium dollars until an opportunity has passed or is no longer affordable.
Kulongoski is a joke. He is another Goldschmidt pawn who is disconnected from reality.
Oregon needs to realize that it is part of the United States and not its own little country and start contributing to this great nation.
(email verified)
Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 01:47 AM
When your cold and your unempolyed remember this was a brilliant idea !
and "" go crawl under a rock
(email verified)
Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 02:23 AM
"...If you want to live like the "Californicators do" then MOVE back there..."
Actually, if you want to live like a Californian, just stay here until the LNG project is finished and the LNG is shipped through our state to CA...it won't be quite the same as living in CA (we have better public transit, less congestion, less smog, and higher home prices) but it will be close...
We have something CA will never have though, and that's hydropower. We actually have a great source of power for the state. That's why building an LNG terminal and running an LNG pipeline through Oregon to serve CA makes zero sense.
I think the argument might be better stated - if you want to be cold and can't find a job here - go to CA...
As the recent poll found, most of us are pretty happy here in PDX...sure, there's some fringe gripers but they don't make up more than a few percentage points.
(email verified)
Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 05:14 AM
Yet another "stupid" idea from the governor’s office, who knew!
(email verified)
Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 06:16 AM
what a bunch of whackos. No wonder the rest of the world is passing America by while we hold ourselves back. NIMBY freaks win again to the detriment of the rest of us trying to progress.
(email verified)
Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 06:34 AM
Has anyone looked at the life cycle of the proposal? As with oil, we are now on the decline for this resource. Just how much money are we going to invest in squeezing the turnip?
Lets see, in another newspaper today, we have learned that asphalt has DOUBLED in cost in the last few years.
So, can our society here in Oregon and around the country continue our ways?
What's the alternative?--especially if we want to perpetuate our families and future generations?
A world of finite resources and consequences.
By the way, did everyone notice the article in the paper about the gas line fire on the Texas/Mexico border?
How much can the Oregon as we know it today (its natural beauty and sustainable resources if used wisely and sustainable) remain the same Oregon tommorrow?
Pretty impressive of a liberal governor to insist on planning while letting the DEQ adrift from the inception of his term. What's wrong with that picture?
(email verified)
Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 08:42 AM
news flash to the whacked out, there is a huge supply of natural gas remaining especially in the north part of the globe. We need to build energy infrustructure like this to secure our energy future.
(email verified)
Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 12:02 PM
Hey Matt hew van tress: -- Kulongoski did a good thing and he is thinking about jobs. The ones that would get displaced by lack of portage and import traffic on the columbia Riverto name a couple. Schwartzenneger goes with the flow. Until recently he was stomping for the electricity to be supplied by coal fired generator plants that Sempra and our good old Joe Desmond , now of NorthernStar ,thought they had suckered Idaho and Nevada into building. That flopped, but the idea is that the gov works hard to keep anything but the gravy out of California.. You know like their own infrastructure to provide their own energy with.
(email verified)
Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 01:04 PM
It is great to see a Governor who cares about his state
and not let the FEDs run over Oregon. Keep up the pressure.
(email verified)
Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 02:22 PM
grams wahat has your pal kulongoski done in 6 years to make oregon more business friendly?has he lowered taxes,fees and regulations?no.do you see kulongoski regularly mingling in public with the average citizen?no.he is the worst governor in my 37 years on this earth.keep on voting for democrats gramms and watch the jobs and companies continue to rellocate to more business friendly states like washington.dont complain when your schoolchildren have to move out of state after high school because of the lack of jobs here.what big corporation grams has kulongoski attracted to oregon in six years?tell me because i dont see any.kulongoski could care less about private sector jobs,he only cares about his buddies the fatcat govt class and their fat pers pensions.
(email verified)
Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 05:11 PM
Hi "m att hew vantress"
Surprise, Surprise , the governor is not my friend, nor is he my governor. I am a conservative , I am from Washington. I stood on the capitol steps and demonstrated to get his attention. Many people did, and not all of them were "liberals" .or Oregonians.
This issue is about putting the cart before the horse. This issue is about the 2005 energy bill that took away states rights to determine how, when , and what kind of energy resources they want to develope in their state. This issue is about energy speculators and international energy corporations who are in the business to make money, not the business of seeing that the shoe fits the foot. I am all for industry in both Washington and Oregon, I am all for using the cleanest energy source available to us at this time, I am also for splicing that with renewable energy sources were ever it is sensible. I am not for bending over and grabbing my ankles so that more foeign countries can provide more foreign fossil fuels for another century while Alaska sits there trying to legislate a way to tap their trillions of gallons of domestic natural gas .
As a conservative I know that my party loves oil , loves natural gas, but they have the bit in their mouth and that is going to change when a new administraton shoots down the 2005 energy bill, and they will. That is why the cart is before the horse my friend. and in the wisdom of my old age I believe that "haste makes waste. Hope that clarifies my position.
(email verified)
Sat, Feb 16, 2008 at 02:33 AM
to- a native and disgusted Oregonian:
Don't you mean California needs to realize its responsibility to take care of itself rather than depending on Oregon, or Washington to do it? Come on disgusted.. Oregon contributes to this country every day. And to the world beyond. And over 40% of the northwest grain crop that is exported to the world is shipped down the Columbia River. That is part of Oregon my friend. and it stands threatned. Oregon has the most patriotic, the bravest and some of the deepest rooted citizens of anywhere in this country, as does Washington. You demean too much!
(email verified)
Sat, Feb 16, 2008 at 03:21 AM
Sorry people, the FERC exists to keep the states from passing the buck around with their NIMBY mentality hurting the nation as a whole. I'm glad we have the feds to keep the rascals in line. These terminals are for everyone on the west coast as they will plug into local and regional gas lines.
Stop letting the tiny% of elitist obstructionists and their posse from keeping the working man down. I don't buy their bull for one second and its sad that Teddy K finally did. Don't force your problems on me, if I want cheap gas to heat my home its my choice.
(email verified)
Sat, Feb 16, 2008 at 08:50 AM
"PG" Well you are right in one respect... FERC used to exist to consider the reasonable placement of not just LNG facilities but other types of energy structures also,like Coal Fired Energy Plants! Any Federal Agency which has been given as much power as the IRS , and is controled by appointment from within the ruling political party ,does not sound to me like an agency which cares one damn bit about individial states- or the nation. That kind of agency cares about power and control period. That agency wants to follow the mandate given it by those who put it in power, and unfortunately that was my party! NIMBY is a word that fits many different situations. And it is personal. Well this gets personal. And in this country those of us who don't agree with total power can still do something about it if we want to. It is not as easy as sitting at home and posting comments, and sometimes we lose but - no pain -no gain. You can put any spin you want on this LNG terminal - pipeline issue "PG" it does not negate the fact that Washington nor Oregon needs this infrastructure for their own use so why are we going to allow it for the use of other places.. When NorthernStar refers to the Northwest "PG" they mean THE NORTH WEST, ALL OF THE NORTH WEST.. WE ARE THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST. And you are for putting in an intrusive infrastructure that uses foreign fossil fuel , and hobbles us to unfriendly nations? Gosh do you work for FERC? How many of those other states would put up with that to serve us? California? HAH. We ,as Americans, owe this country "PG" -but that starts in the home, in the neighborhood, in the city or town, in the county, in the state ,and then to the combined states when we have an enemy that threatens all of us.. So go away with your "nation as a whole issue". OR tell that to the Pork Barrelers.
(email verified)
Sat, Feb 16, 2008 at 10:15 AM
Wow, nobody has ever called me an "elitist obstructionist" before!!You are right about one thing, PG, I am an obstructionist in the LNG fight, and damned proud to be one! I guess if being a subsistence farmer is elitist, that shoe fits,too. But I do have one thing: time; time to investigate the facts behind this grab for our way of life. The Pacific Northwest does NOT need this gas. We all know where it is going. If you thought the Enron manipulation of energy markets was something, stay tuned for ACT II. Do you possibly think that the best way to site these facilities is to let the market decide who survives? We need a national energy policy, but we will never get it from these pawns of the energy companies who are in office now.
(email verified)
Sat, Feb 16, 2008 at 10:32 AM
grams, nice bogeyman you dreamed up there but I don't buy it one bit. We need to diversify our energy sources not hamper our future growth. You guys want to see what happens to our economy when our power costs twice as much as in other countries? Oh yeah, it already does. You wonder why China is booming and we are petering? Its cheaper to make things there, that's why. And the less we invest in our infrastructure and energy supplies, the more expensive it becomes and the future does not look bright.
If you want to argue about using natural gas, that's one thing but to fight against supply terminals? That is ridiculous and harmful to the rest of us. They are going to bury a pipe under your farm gimpy and pay you for it. Sorry that you feel infringed upon but that's how things work. We can't allow the fringe to put a stranglehold on the rest of us who just want to live normal properous lives.
And please, spare us with the foreign fossil fuel BS. 100% of the fossil fuels we use in the pac northwest is domestic or from canada. That means oil gas and coal. This LNG would be coming from new fields in the Alaska region, with maybe some from the Russian side of the strait. Who cares where it comes from, if it is cheap and abundant energy? That helps our economy not hurts it.
(email verified)
Sat, Feb 16, 2008 at 03:36 PM
Based on the above article it appears that Oregon is on the theshhold of either being in on future growth or out of it by going "green." Based on the majority of the posts on this thread, many people don't really care what Uncle Ted has/had to say and let us not forget that jobs are sinking in this state and the budget is due for a huge shortfall if anyone has been paying attention. If the the State of Oregon negotiates this right, it could more than make up for the purported shortfall based on the the short sightedness of the current morons than run this state...
(email verified)
Sat, Feb 16, 2008 at 04:00 PM
Hi PG. thanks for the response. I could not agree with you more that we need to deversify our energy sources, and we do have resources to do that, but like all good things that takes time. And are you aware of the fact that China is "booming" on Coal Fired electric generator plants, and could care less about the polutant factor? Of course it is cheaper to make things there..MONEY TALKS -you want to leave your comforts here, go there and try to live on what you would earn making those things? And as for natural gas- I am all for natural gas, Domestic Natural Gas ,and if we invest in the trillions of cubic feet of natural gas that exists in our good old "U. S. of A." we will create an uplift in our economy AND we will have more control over our own destiny. What is wrong with off shore LNG terminals , and our own marine fleet, which can supply us with LNG from Alaska? What is wrong with forcing our leaders to stop holding hands with countries that don't like us but control us with their oil and gas? What is wrong with thinking ahead and deversifying by integrating wind power, wave power, solar power, ( and that IS working in the Pacific Northwest) geothermal power, and maybe bio-mass, though I am not to thrilled with that right now. and "PG" when it comes to supply terminals you are talking about apples and oranges.. We have supply terminals all over the place in the good old Pacific Northwest, including two LNG storage facilities in Oregon..But, they operate on Domestic Gas taken off Domestic pipelines from Domestic sources. No hot foreign gas, no LNG tankers, and no hobbles on our ankles . As for my bogeyman---Have you really done any reseach on THE POWER OF FERC?
And lastly, no ,the LNG committed to the present and purposed terminals is not, nor will ever be ,coming from domestic natural gas. just check out the contracts that Shell has, and other importers.. The Mid East, Indonesia, Russia, Catar etc etc etc. That is just why we should not allow this KIND of supply terminal. But MONEY TALKS. I appreciate your input "PG" and I encourage you to do some deeper research into the Big Picture here. We in the Pacific Northwest have always been acknowledged as an independant, inovative, and determined culture. That is why we in this part of the states don't have a huge pipeline infrastructure. We don't need it! We may never need it. Why would we allow private companies to take advantage of eminent domain to establish an infrastructure that we don't need to serve areas who will not build their own infrastructures? That is the big question.------And John
putting all our energy eggs in one basket is the answer??? This is not black and white, this is about keeping our legislators on point and demanding more for less not less for more. Bradwood Landing and Oregon LNG are bad ideas. and will be less for more and the more won't benifit us!-- and fellas and gals please forgive my spelling.. I am a flaming dyslexic. Regards to all of you who think this is important enough to take the time to post about what ever your opnion.
(email verified)
Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 01:50 AM
Festinger's Theory of Cognitive Dissonance postulates that individuals,when presented with evidence contrary to their worldview or situations in which they must behave contrary to their worldview, experience
"cognitive dissonance."
MODE 2 THINKING
There is a connection between mode 2 thinking and cognitive dissonance.
Emotionally based thinking is much more susceptible to facts and logic which contradict the justification for that thinking or emotional worldview. Factually or logically inconsistent cognitions are countered not with consistent factual/logical cognitions, but with
emotional cognitions.
For the mode 2 thinker, the universe is not a
matter of logic and fact, it is a matter of emotion, and when presented with logic or facts that contradict a strongly held emotion, they respond not with a logical/factual refutation of that contradiction, but
with an emotional refutation.
The mode 2 thinker refutes emotionally,not logically.
This is why one cannot debate or discuss logic and facts
with mode 2 thinkers. Any reasoned discussion or debate is met with emotional discussion or debate. It is like trying to debate with a child...they simply don't hear you.
How can one counter emotional arguments?
Answer: It is not possible.
Mode 2 thinkers cannot be persuaded rationally...i.e. with facts and logic that contradict their worldview. Only rational individuals can be persuaded with contradictory facts and logic.
(email verified)
Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 12:24 AM
Grams,
You did not hit on any of my points as to why Oregon is falling behind....a weak job market, traffic congestion, torn up roads, failing schools, and poor public leadership that is creating an "anti-business" atmosphere.
You mentioned shipping grain down the Columbia River and while farming is very important, Oregon needs more than agriculture to have a robust economy. Where is the job growth in Oregon? What is Oregon doing to interest companies to this state?...NOTHING. Oregon is dying a slow death from tax, fee, and regulate more politics that are even driving current companies away.
Your statement, "Don't you mean California needs to realize its responsibility to take care of itself rather than depending on Oregon, or Washington to do it?" further proves my point of Oregon thinking of itself as its own little country.
I do agree with you though that Oregon does have SOME patriotic residents, but the way many people from this state treat soldiers is down right pathetic.
Oregon politicians fight every effort that does not sit well with their "progressive" and "green" ideology. These same politicians though do not show any leadership in seeking plausible alternative solutions. It is also these same public servants that have created the current budget short fall, continue to approve pay raises for themselves, and push agendas through that the public has repeatedly voted down.
Below are some of the main issues that should be on our politician's minds, but I drought these issues even occur to them.
Why is Oregon's unemployment rate usually the highest in the nation?
What can be done to change Oregon's "antibusiness" reputation?
What cost should be cut in order to lower taxes?
Why is road maintenance and expansion ignored while trams, trolleys, and max lines expanded even though roads serve more than 90% of the population?
How can a 58 million dollar jail be built, but never opened?
Ect. ect. ect.
(email verified)
Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 01:25 AM
disgusted... As in Washington State, there is much that needs being done that is not being done and there is no doubt about it. And it is a sad fact that both on the conservative side and the liberal side, there is no middle isle! And that is why this LNG issue is pushing through at this time. And Washington , like the tail of the cow gets dragged along. I have no quarrel with your points. I have a son and family who are Oregonians. I lived in Oregon for decades and I love it still. Your point about traffic congestion is well taken for more than just local reasons. the interstate grids that flow through Washington and Oregon to the rest of this country are a problem.. There are too many bottlenecks that slow down interstate truck traffic, and that traffic often comes from Washington and Oregon ports. That is a major Oregon /Washington issue ( bridges, bridges, bridges)and should be addressed post haste. Oregon liberals might fight anything that does not look or smell green but on the other hand, huge international corporations do a reverse phychology with that fact and try to shove an LNG terminal up our Columbia River by getting everyone mad at the tree huggers and nimbys. You know mis-directed anger, And your point about oregon driving companies away could not be more accurate in regard to the LNG issue. Without the Governors stance on this issue those LNG terminals would be far closer to fact than possibiliby. And then you would really see this entire Lower Columbia Basin in trouble. I don't think any of us really realize how much we depend on our ports for out economy. Even the fishing industry has to heave to in order to get their product to market. In our instance Washinton and Oregon share a very narrow river (600 ft. wide) shipping channel and all of our ports clear up to Portland can not function without clear and constant ingress and egress on that channel. In the shipping industry time is money. When Mt. St Helens closed the river down for two weeks Tacoma and Seattle got all of our port traffic.--- Disgusted, it took twenty (20) years for us to recoupe that traffic. the 96 floods also put a big kink in our port traffic. And you must believe that on a 600 ft. wide channel with a fifteen hundred foot wide safety corridor and safety miles in front of and behind, not to mention that these ships have to dock on a high tide, there will be stoppages on this river. That is one reason why I suport the Governors decision..And finally, why do you think he made that decision?... Civic Activists.... So when you have a problem with your city or state government start a movement friend. There is power in the people! We can complain all we want but unless we are willing to attend city and county meetings and contact our legislators both state and federal , for sure , nothing will change. and that is why I love the freedom of the press that allows us to speak out on subjects like this through our newspaper media. Thanks for your response.
(email verified)
Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 04:44 AM
I've been reading the comments on the gas drilling. I live in Texas and they drill all the time around here. When they come in to drill the big trucks tear up the roads and try sleeping at night if one is up next to you. The roar of the gas burn-off is just incredible. Don't bother calling the police about the noise because you will be told that the noise has been tested and is at an acceptable range. Also be aware, if any you try to buy a house in Texas the seller will most likely retain the mineral rights. I built a new house on 1 acre and don't own the gas under it and am now finding out that the owner is going to allow drilling. Should have read the fine print in my contract.
(email verified)
Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 07:15 AM
Governor Kulongoski is in a tough spot because he has to acknowledge the not-in-my-backyard (NIMBY) sentiments against new energy projects (not just Liquefied natural gas terminals) while at the same time understanding natural gas will remain a pivotal fuel in heating homes and industrial processes. I hope the governor can find someway to bring more natural gas supply diversity to the Willamette Valley because as it stands right now this region is supplied by one pipeline which runs through Vancover, British Columbia and Seattle and the demands at these upstream spots leave a shrinking amount of natural gas available to Portland and points south. The benefit of building one of the three proposed LNG facilities is they can receive natural gas supply from overseas or Alaska when demand is seasonally or cyclically low. Then too the supply risks are mostly with the investors in these projects. Furthermore, on the supply front, there is a huge surplus of natural gas sitting up in Prudhoe Bay which is being reinjected into the ground currently for lack of a market. Moreover, a number of countries producing natural gas still flare it to the atmosphere, and LNG facilities could represent new markets to place otherwise reinjected or flared natural gas. So, it's hard to criticize the governor on the LNG issue because he's trying to balance the political will of a large segment of the Oregon electorate while trying to bring a realistic balance to Oregon's longterm energy plans.
(email verified)
Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 07:17 AM
I applaud efforts to conduct intensive reviews of the LNG project. However, to be of value, the review should be conducted objectively and without political direction-pointing. As I now read of the governor's views, he has committed to a particularly strong anti-LNG stance, will likely have major input into who is chosen to conduct the Oregon study, and may be in a position to affect the career progression of some of the reviewers. It seems unlikely to me that an objective evaluation can take place.
I'm not truly able to assess all the factors involved. But, looking ahead, I expect worsening energy shortfalls for today's children and their children. Oregon should consider carefully the risk that by the time Oregon decides that it wants an LNG terminal--should it so decide--that we may be too late. California's population is growing and we may find ourselves buying some very costly and supply-restricted California-sourced LNG, if we can buy any.
I urge the study participants to conduct a truly long-range study that incorporates future energy supply constraints, Oregon's own population growth, and the risk that alternative energy sources will also come under high demand and limited expandability.
(email verified)
Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 09:09 AM
Bob, You have made so many correct statements in regard to natural gas and its waste. And what we need to change that is indeed- a new infrastructure. And the powers that be , the international energy mogules are the ones right now who control infrastructure. It will be costly to construct new infrastructure say- from Alaska into Canada and the US but it is by far the best solution to long term national independance, and economic and human needs. The powers that be are fighting Alaska's governor right now and she could use support from the lower 48, but I doubt that will happen.. It could be one good answer to Governor Kulongoski's delema, a good goal to set, and once the work is planned , the plan can be worked. The thing about this particular LNG happening is that out of state speculators , and international investors are trying to force the Pacific Northwest into accepting an infrastructure that may not at all be what is best for us on down the road. and certainly is not good for the Columbia River now. And though some people think we need to consider other states,or the national need, we must care for our own first. And that was why there was such a hue and cry in regard to the governors statement about "bridge energy". I am proud that he did what a real statesman should do, challenged the pusher and slowed down the proccess to give our own intelligent and educated people a chance to help work out this future need.
And Marvin - If in fact in the future we still need fossil fuel to interstice with our renewables we can get it from Alaska, but only if we have our own American LNG tanker fleet to carry it. The Jones Act saw to that. What would be wrong with that.. off shore LNG terminals meshed into existing infrastructure using domestic natural gas from our own country? If we can take years to plan space flights and bullet trains why can't we plan an energy infrastructure that is from America to America?
this has been a facinating posting experience and I really appreciate the interaction shown here. I am from Washington and we have had to learn more about LNG and enegy speculators than we ever wanted to know. And why doesn't some genius figure out a way for us to clean up the emissions from coal? We have tons and tons of it in the US. But that is another story.
(email verified)
Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 11:23 AM
There have been dozens for proposals for LNG terminals in North America recently, many close to the destination market (Los Angeles) and so far all have been rejected by those communities due to safety and environmental concerns.
If the consumers of the product (LA) won't accept the risk for themselves, do you who get little if any benefit from having terminals, re-gassification plants and pipelines in your backyard really want it?
For a bit more background on LNG see :
http://www.texadalng.com/
http://www.texadaactionnow.org/
(email verified)
Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 11:40 AM
Has anyone on this thread that writes so much stuff ever thought about "brevity?" Who is going to read the long-winded opining of people that have no clue as to what is really going no matter what you do, this will go through and will create revenue and jobs...
(email verified)
Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 05:59 PM
What does Oregon Government do really well?
Shut down business!
I am so glad my wife and I moved out.
Look, tax revenue and jobs! Quick! It wasn't our idea (nor debated in the city club, NPR, OPB or the Oregon Fish Wrapper).
Quick! Shut it down!
(email verified)
Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 08:45 PM
And by the way, if there ever was a place that could be shot at with little collateral damage, why not the uninhabited coast?
(email verified)
Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 08:46 PM
Sorry John YOU tell us what is really going on. Have you attended city council meetings? County commissioner meetings? Have you had personal appointments with Congressmen and Senators? Have you been to the Government funded pipeline safety group meetings. have you spent hours and hours in research and hundreds of dollors in gas money going to meetings all over two states? Have you gone to Washington D.C and spoken to the legislators there about LNG? Have you gone to the New York Stock Exchange and susbmitted a legal action against one of these energy speculators, who as yet doesn't not have their spot on the market? have you spent personal time with Governor K? Well, those in my coalition and I have been doing that for almost three years now and we have a pretty good idea about what is going on.. If you people want to know some of that history with out having to play catch up before the pipelines gouge through your properties, but don't have the time to read a longer post then go read "See Spot, See Spot run"
(email verified)
Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 12:20 AM
Grams;
I am wondering if this more about turning Oregon and specifically Clatsop County into a park. I have heard no objection to the regasification plant in Linton industrial area. Granted it is significantly smaller, but it is also next to fuel storage and near a metro population area. It has been in operation for decades with no apparent public safety issues. This anti LNG bandwagon makes no sense to me. Do you guys support nuclear power as an energy alternative? I doubt it. All I hear from you is warm fuzzy wind power. This same coastal crowd now seems to be gearing up to oppose the tidal energy project near Newport. I say, get a life and relax, or better yet encourage LNG and be involved with oversight of the safety of it. I am worried about the future of this country when we take all the energy options off the table. No drilling near anything, no nuclear, no LNG, no dams, and on and on. Your views are not the majority and in my opinion are already given too much weight.
(email verified)
Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 01:04 AM
common sense.-- I guess you haven't read my earlier postings. And it is not LNG itself that we are fighting. Much of the world depends on it. It is not the safety factor, it is excellent. It is the fact that this shoe doesn't fit the foot! Wave Energy? it has a foot print that may be envasive at first. the first computer took up a whole building.. We must bear with these first attempts in order to balance our renewable resources. Some people don't understand that. There will be extremes on ever side of a controversial issue. I espouse the middle ground and shoes that don't fit remind me of form over function. Common sense in this case would be a blessing. learning ALL the pros and cons is how one uses common sense. Believe me the Columbia River does not fit this agenda! And THAT is the botton line.
(email verified)
Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 04:14 AM
"grams" - it's "john" and not "John," OK? Thanks for actually reading the article and I am glad that you have done so much for the good of the state of Oregon and you have my gratitude. The long and short of it is that it will go through whether or not you were there or not. Only an imbecile would spend that much time and effort on a no win situation. I for one hope it goes through because I don't even live in Oregon and you folks deserve what you get because of your arrogance.
(email verified)
Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 04:17 PM
"john" Excuuuuuuse me. Carefull who you call an imbecile, and you are telling me that citizen activists, of which I am but one of many, should not preform their civic responsibility by fighting for what they believe in? Just roll up in a fetal ball and let the powers kick you around ? And, had you read my other postings you would know that I live in Washington and Washington and Oregon share a common economic driver in the lower Columbia Basin.. The Columbia River! Oregon has come into this fight late but there must be a lot of imbicles out there because Oregons Grass Roots elements are sure being heard from. And the spin you put on this makes me think that you would be the first one to give up if some one knocked on your door and said sorry, we need your property, and , Oh yes, your voice and your vote don't count because this is no longer a democracy. Go away with your half empty glass.
(email verified)
Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 01:08 AM
Find a paper
Enter a street name
or a 5 digit zip code
Browse archive
The Forest Grove News-Times
News feed
Facebook
Digg
Del.icio.us
Newsvine
Stumbleupon
Reddit
Re: Kulongoski slams feds’ gas pipeline review
MORE DEMORAT OBSTRUCTION!
Hey Sleep Ted........ What is your plan?
"Where do you think our enegy comes from?"
(email verified)
Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 11:25 AM