On occassion we get a comment post that is worthy of highlighting on the blog. The following is one of those as a cautionary tale for those who might consider signing one of the commissioner recall petitions. This is in response to my previous post regarding the city of Warrenton. tf
I wondered the same when my wife and I stopped to chat with the people in front of the Astoria Post office last week. It ended up with a friendly goodbye and a smile. It started out by my simply asking the fellow why he wanted to recall the commissioners and of course he indicated the issue was their LNG decision. When I asked him what his no. 1 issue with that development was, he said that it would cause tremendous shipping restrictions on the river because the river would be essentially closed to shipping while an LNG ship was in transit. I said I found that rather incredulous if true, and he allowed as how he too felt it hard to believe, but had "looked it up" to find out it was. So I said I would certainly look into that, and he appreciated my willingness to be open to his facts as he said he understood them. I got him to admit then that this was indeed the major reason he was objecting the LNG development, and that the other objections we've all heard were not so important. I told him that if true, that I would also find it an important and troubling restriction, but that I hadn't heard that one before. But at any rate I said the LNG decision still shouldn't make the commissioners subject to recall, they were just voting their conscience, not doing anything worthy of recall, and he said he appreciated the sentiment.
Two days later I caught up with the same guy. I had done some investigation by reading the actual Coast Guard. In it the CG clearly states that as a matter of "routine" they will allow other ships to pass within the 500 yard restriction zone around an LNG ship, and that it will be similar to what is now done in coordinating passing cruise ships; all that will be required is coordination between the river pilots guiding the ships as they do routinely now.
So I told this fellow the good news, privately wondering what can he say if this was his main objection. He immediately jumped to a previously unmentioned issue ...well, the market for natural gas is so limited there's no need for LNG so we don't need one in Clatsop county. I asked him if he was an expert on the world's natural gas market, or if he used natural gas in his house to which he replied that Bradwood's gas would only be going to California etc. We exchanged more rhetoric, but the discussion was over. Basically his whole approach was disingenuous; he was misinforming people, he was purposely lying to himself and others about his motives, and his approach was dishonest. In other words, he became a caricature of the economic ignoramuses who seem to be running things in politics these days.
So we parted laughing again, except that this time for me it was a laugh of contempt and sadness for this country to have met local people who are willing to deceive in order to promote their wishes. He probably has a great future as a liberal politician if he applies himself.
Art Hyland
Astoria
January, 2009 From Palomar's own website;“The Palomar East pipeline would provide the NW Natural system [Oregon’s largest distributor of natural gas to homes, businesses, and industry] with benefits in terms of added capacity and options for North American gas, whether or not any of the LNG terminals [proposed for Oregon] were built,”
ReplyDeleteThis likely will not see the light of day considering Freel's/KAST's alignment, but it is valid information and other NG pundits are supporting the thinking as well, even trashing the inane theory of justification of LNG transport to the lower 48 out of Alaska when Alaska has just announced a new overland pipeline to the midwest through Canada's Alberta Province and then, the new Sunstone Pipeline out of Wyoming, slated to start construction in 2011 and terminating in Stanfield, Oregon to tie into both the Williams Pipeline, a partner and the TransCanada Pipeline to keep the West Coast NG Market sound for a long time to come as that alleged bridge to Sustainable and Renewable enrgy sources.
And there's Northwest Natural Gas out there trying to be friendly with all involved simply because, in my view, they are playing the old "Tribal Ethic" game of absolute loyalty to the victor, whoever that may be as they will be a winner no matter with a reliable supply of Natural Gas to go to their consumers.
Good try Art but you are, in your own right, just pumping your own load of pro-LNG Gas.
That petitioner is right in his/her thinking in that the "LNG Process" and its end result may just indeed not be needed here at all.
Amen Art. I think that most of the anti-LNG people do not consider the fact that having an LNG terminal in the area that will service Oregon and charge California for natural gas will lower our costs. People that use natural gas have seen an increase in prices because it comes from Canada. It must be nice to be able to afford the increase. We have so many people on fixed incomes that the programs to help them with their bills will dry up in no time. Most of us are not as lucky as the Choppings or the Paulsons or other pillars of this county. Don't get me wrong, I adore these people as my dad worked for one and I went to school with the other. This recall is definitely the work of those who refuse to change with the times and to help the community grow and prosper. Astoria, Warrenton, and other communities will become ghost towns if the Bradwood LNG terminal is not built. I guess for the anti-LNG folks, ingnorance is bliss.
ReplyDeleteGreat description of the misinformation being distributed by the anti LNG group. It is clear that the Coast Guard is NOT going to shut down the river for an LNG ship and, indeed, river traffic will not be restricted at all. The USCG Captain of the Port went on the radio about two years ago to explain this exact thing. That information was also printed in the news paper. On top of that, why would the Coast Guard, whose mission is to keep the river open, shut it down? There is no reason and they simply would not do it, even if they could. The USCG agrees with this position. All this information over the past couple of years and yet a person wrote a letter to the editor of the Daily A just last week reciting the misinformaton that the river would be shut down. Anyone figure what is going on here? It seems like LNG is not the issue, it's now the feeding of the egos of the anti everything group, so they will feel empowered. We should remember that in their view empowered means to ensure that nothing happens in Clatsop County.
ReplyDeleteBelow is a big chunk of "The USCG Water Suitabilty Report" and what they say must be done to get LNG upriver to the proposed Bradwood Landing site.
ReplyDeleteThere's a link at the bottom that will circumvent me and Art Hyland's "Truths" and take you to the complete "Water Suitability Report" so you can separate the facts from the "Equine Scat"
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Bradwood - Waterway Suitability?
Information taken directly fron USCG Waterway Suitability Plan for Bradwood Landing and of course, the question; Who's Going To Pay For All This?
All This Going On 2.5 Times A Week?
500 yard(1500 feet) radius around tanker, moving safety/security zone to shoreline.
200 yard(600 feet) radius security zone while tanker is moored at off-load pier.
50 yard(150 feet) security zone around Storage/Transfer Terminal when no vessel is at dock.
2 Pilots required at least first six months throughout tanker transit
All daylight transits for the first six months unless approved by Captain of the Port
All Pilots must board 5 miles before Columbia River Bouy.
Overtaking by or of the LNG tanker prohibited without approval of COTP
All meetings of commercial vessels and LNG tanker must be pre-arranged via Channel 13VHF and limited to;
* CR Bouy to Tongue Point excepting commercial vessels shall avoid meeting at turns betweens bouys 22 and 29 and bouys 33 and 42.
* Vessels may arrange meetings from Tongue Point to Rice Island between bouys 42 and 54.
* Altoona to Pillar Rock. Miller Sands light#11 to light #17
* Price Island to Puget Island bouy 32 to Bradwood.
Coast Guard, FBI, Bar and River Pilots, Escort Tug Masters and other Escort Assets must meet 24 hours before an incoming tanker to coordinate incoming and outgoing transit.
Vessel transits and bar crossings will be coordinated to minimize conflicts with other deep draft vessels, recreational boaters, seasonal fisheries, and other Marine Events.
A Camera System with complete coverage of the transit route must be installed.
An additional AIS (Automatic Identification Systems) Repeater must be installed in Astoria to provide complete coverage of the Lower Columbia, requiring a fully staffed VTS(Vessel Transit Services) station with either 2 watch standers and a supervisor or 20 personnel to maintian round the clock coverage.
Three 60 Bollard Ton Tractor Tugs with Class 1 firefighting equipment.
* Due to confined channel and high wind conditions, each LNG Carrier must be escorted by two tug with at least one being a tractor tug which will join the vessel as soon as safe to do so. The primary tug will be tethered at the direction of the pilot. The third tug will assist with turning and mooring.
* Based on on the Maneuvering Simulation Study of November 4, 2005, vessels over 140,000 cubic meters will be limited to transiting during periods of 25 knot winds or less.
* Additionally, extreme wind and weather conditions may require a third tug escort for any LNG vessel. While unloading, all three tugs will remain on standby to assist with emergency departure procedures.
Meanwhile: You want to read the entire USCG Water Suitability Report, go to the link below
http://clatsopcounty.us/Assets/Dept_12/PDF/Coast%20Guard%20Waterway%20Suitability%20Report.pdf
Mr. McGee,
ReplyDeleteYour report is, as you undoubtedly know, the maximum safety required. It is not the anticipated safety requirement, as the Captain of the Port has explained many times. Also, as you undoubtedly know, since you are such a well informed person, is that most of these requirements, including the 1500 foot safety (not security) zone applies to most everything that goes up and down the River right now. Sorry this does not fit the model that supports your anti everything attitude. I can imagine you will continue your course of disinformation because that is the kind of person you are, but you are simply wrong.
Well, I wrote about my encounters with the anti-LNG recall people only because of the misinformation I discovered they were providing passersby at the Post Office. Only upon a later chance meeting did I learn that he wasn't interested in reaching a factual meeting of the minds but only in promoting an agenda by ignoring facts.
ReplyDeleteMr. McGee, in an apparent effort to speak for the recall people, in two posts above, ignores his fellow supporter's distortion of the facts by immediately launching into the secondary issue of the market need for an LNG terminal in the Northwest, just as happened to me as I explained above. I sense a pattern here. So I take it that the issue of river traffic stoppage is now moot? Oh, Mr. McGee's second post lists some of the Coast Guard saftey requirements for LNG tanker transit but so what? I'm glad they are thorough, but it does not prove that shipping will be impaired by the addition of LNG tankers, anymore than cruise ships, which I do not think are being objected to by these same people. So I'll take this most important issue as now moot.
So Mr. McGee and his friends wish to discuss the market for gas instead, so let's do that.
Mr. McGee quotes a competing gas provider, Palomar, in an effort to support his contention that there is no need for LNG, because Palomar's proposed new gas pipeline will supply gas for all demand. What a surprise to hear that a competitor might dare assert it can supply all the gas the northwest needs. Maybe they could, maybe they couldn't. As an end user of gas I prefer more ompetition as it always produces lower prices; I find that prospect rather appealing and so would almost anyone who uses energy. Interestingly, the quote he refers to above was NOT Palomar's but actually their repeat of a quote from the Oregon Department of Energy report to the Governor. So the real source of the we-don't-need-this-gas assertion in this secondary argument against LNG is the State of Oregon whose authors(always anonymous) are fully committed to reducing carbon dioxide emissions more than providing energy to this state. Now that's just my opinion, but given the state's push for alternative energy that is incredibly inefficient relative to any of the traditional sources, it is clear this is their bias. Given this bias, I would not consider them to be an objective source of knowledge about the national or regional supply or demand market for a product they are biased against to begin with.
I don't know what the market for natural gas is or will be, although I really like it as a cheap source of energy, but when a company or investors, free to invest in anything they want to (so far) choose to invest their own money(not mine, not yours, not Congress's or should I say China's) in an LNG terminal because they believe it will be profitable to supply gas they feel is going to be demanded, what right do we have to restrict their taking that risk, if reasonable safeguards and protections to the environment are provided? We can debate those protections, but those weren't the arguments I heard as most important. I suspect they'll come next in this little series of posts.
Art Hyland
Astoria
Thank you for a factual post, Mr. McGee. The Coast Guard Waterway Suitability Report is as close as we'll get to the actual situation that we would face. Understandably, the Coast Guard is not divulging all security measures.
ReplyDeleteThere is spin and "interpretation" on both sides of this issue, but at least for this aspect we can read the official report.
All those words Art and nothing but more speculation and conjecture as opposed to any fact, new or otherwise and you boast of outwitting a petition nametaker?
ReplyDeleteGive us one fact Art, something new that isn't out of the LNG Speculator's Book of "Forward Reaching B.S.
I gave you facts and you refuse to accept them. The United States Coast Guard's Water Suitability Report of which any aspect, when put into use, violated will get your ass blown out of the water or jail time and fines and you, as well, want to pooh-pooh it?
A true gift for words you got there Art.
"It is not the anticipated safety requirement, as the Captain of the Port has explained many times. Also, as you undoubtedly know, since you are such a well informed person, is that most of these requirements, including the 1500 foot safety (not security) zone applies to most everything that goes up and down the River right now.
ReplyDeletePost the verse and chapter that says this specifically "Anonym 11:27AM"
The USCG has 7 items that require this kind of heavy and costly security to my understanding and that is LPG, LNG and 5 other serious chemicals but, I'll be more than happy accept your facts on tanker escort security.
Please!
Go ahead, present your information