This Just In...

Busy news day today! Just got this from the people at Bradwood Landing and thought I'd share.




An urban legend, sometimes called a modern myth, is a story whose teller would have you believe is actually true, but is usually distorted, exaggerated or fabricated for sensational effect. Most people understand these stories for what they are: a myth meant to perpetuate a viewpoint, agenda or frighten the listener.
Some well known urban legends include stories of alligators living in the New York City sewer system, stolen kidneys and claims that the Apollo moon landing was actually filmed at a Hollywood studio. And when it comes to LNG, there seems to be no shortage of myths, all of which are easily refuted by facts.
Recently, Steve Forrester, editor and owner of a local newspaper and acknowledged project opponent, wrote an editorial speculating that Bradwood was secretly planning to export domestic natural gas.
Like anyone else, Mr. Forrester is certainly entitled to his opinion. Our initial response to this concern was straightforward: the idea was absurd, and we spelled out the reasons in detail why export could never happen in a rebuttal Opinion later published by the paper.

So you can imagine our surprise when, just one month later, a second editorial was published by Mr. Forrester that concluded again that Bradwood will export LNG, repeating the same story already shown to be false.

This sequence of events led us to take the unusual step of having to pay to place a full page ad in his newspaper explaining again the many reasons why Bradwood can never export LNG. That letter is reprinted below, together with the editorial.

So the next time someone tells you that Bradwood's LNG terminal is planning to export LNG, let them in on the real secret: it's just another urban legend, repeated by project opponents, and forward them this email.

PLEASE GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT.
An open letter to the Daily Astorian:
To Steve Forrester October 21, 2009
Publisher, The Daily Astorian

Your October 15 editorial, "Get real - U.S. natural gas inventory has been enlarged - terminals are for export", shows that you still don't understand how natural gas markets work.
You point to an increase in the amount of gas found in the U.S. as the reason for repeating your "LNG-as-export" claim, but you don't give your readers the details about how this gas costs more.
We have said plainly that Bradwood could never export liquefied natural gas. Here's a quick re-cap of the reasons why:

1. Oregon imports all of the natural gas it consumes and will continue to do so in the future. Oregon has no gas to export.

2. While the U.S. has large reserves of natural gas, much of this gas (such as shale gas) is more expensive to extract. And, none of the shale gas fields are near Oregon. Gas would have to be piped west thousands of miles, further increasing its cost. Piping gas to Oregon, liquefying it and exporting it into the Pacific Rim (which includes some of the world's largest exporters of low-cost LNG) makes no economic sense.

3. Because of the hills and cliffs, the Bradwood site doesn't have the space needed to build a liquefaction plant big enough to create enough LNG for export.

4. Bradwood is only permitted to import gas, not export it.

5. Bradwood will have no ability to make LNG, a process that requires completely different equipment than warming LNG back into a gas.

We've offered before to sign a contract with the State of Oregon stating that Bradwood Landing would never be an export terminal. This offer still stands.

Contrary to the claims of LNG opponents, Bradwood would benefit residential and industrial gas users by increasing competition among gas suppliers, and open the door to Alaskan LNG in the future.

Since January there have been 110 LNG cargoes delivered to the U.S. at an average price of $ 3.92 per Million British Thermal Units (MMBTU).

On October 15th, Northwest consumers were paying $4.76/MMBTU - a 20 percent increase over other U.S. regions with access to LNG imports.

* LNG is simply natural gas chilled to a liquid, making its transportation easier and cheaper. The fact remains that LNG imports are highly competitive with U.S. gas, which makes your export theory unsupportable.