It just occurred to me that there may be a connection between the carefree attitude the Port seems to have about the giant bill coming due on the Oregon LNG lease mess and the reason the Port avoided giving depositions on the lawsuit.
I should have seen it before but there's been a lot of smoke blowing out of the commission since this started.
Somebody else must be planning to write a big check.
But who would benefit from all this? The anti-LNG crowd is capable of just about anything (they've proved that without doubt) but they don't have pockets deep enough to cover the kind of money OLNG talks about in their demand letter. I know they are loving this but probably realize it's just an expensive delaying maneuver and doesn't stop anything.
If it were the anti-crowd they would be focused on something to make building an LNG plant as time consuming and expensive as they possibly can. There are other ways to do it without amassing public debt so I find it hard to point the finger at them. While it's interesting that the Port would ignore their own legal council in this matter and instead hire a famous environmental attorney to defend against the suit, it still doesn't wash as an effective anti-LNG strategy.
Let's go back to the depositions. The lawyers for the LNG company were looking for those depositions to gain a clear understanding of the Port Commissioners motivation for failing to honor the lease as they had previously agreed. They wanted to ask questions under oath about possible outside influences although they don't specify what those influences might be. The Port
blocked that move.
Now the Port's lawyer is going back to the federal magistrate renewing his request for a judicial
settlement process. The problem with that move is the Port has no bargaining chips. We have to assume this is just another attempt to delay the inevitable outcome.
So the question here is who has the money to pay the lawyers, pay off whatever the final settlement might be, and would stand to gain significantly from the delays affecting OLNG moving forward?
Wish I knew.
Then again maybe our Port Commission is just as completely irresponsible as they appear to be.
I thought of this sometime back. I don't believe it to be the case. It would be too risky for a public agency to get caught up in something like that (and possibly criminal)
ReplyDeleteOr sly as a Fox and know that there will never be an OLNG shovel to hit that site to start anything and also Mossman's order is going to be immediately appealled to 9th District.
ReplyDeleteOnce again, where is DSL on this or and their 2 year extension order?
Looks to me somebody's trying to bully somebody into blinking and that soembody isn't.
NNB shouldn't start thinking about spending all that prospecive revenue just yet Tom.
The Port hires a director to give EXPERT advice. It also hires lawyers to give EXPERT advice. Is the Port Commission ignoring this advice or is the advice simply just bad. In any case, the Commission either needs new advisors or we need a new Commission. Maybe it would be good to have a Commission that was not in bed with the Longshoremen Union. The Longshoremen are just a bad bedfellows and have long outlived their usefulness (if they were ever useful).
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately I don't think this Port Commission ever thinks that far ahead. It appears their decisions are based largely on ego and impulse. I'm guessing any attempt to inject thought, reason and research into the decision-making process has been ignored. And now, they are seeing the fruits of it. They've usually voted 5-0 on this so it would seem they don't even have one person on the commission with enough foresight, responsibility or discernement to even question the road they have headed down.
ReplyDeleteIt would be nice if the money for any settlement came out of their individual pockets but I'm sure they will run for the "indemnity" cover clause so that we the taxpayers pick up the tab for their bungled decision-making.
However, one must also seriously question the quality of the legal advice they are receiving from their present attorney. If I remember correctly, none of the motions he has filed on their behalf has been decided in their favor.
This Kathy Sanders person is not very credible. I went to a port commission meeting once and she was clueless about nearly everything that was happening.
ReplyDeleteAgain, if you read this blog, You can't really understand what she is complaining about, the commission or their lawyer.
A disgruntled individual is what I read.
Anon: I think she's complaining about both the commission and the legal advice. It's painfully obvious the commission has decided to fight OLNG and the point of this blog is the commission has continually lost every opinion (also obviously) because of what appears to be bad legal advice.
ReplyDeleteWhat is most troubling, they had the opposite legal advice prior from their own attorney and dismissed him from this proceeding. Had they taken this advice, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now.
My take is Ms. Sanders is spot on.
It's a sad waste of taxpayer money.
"G"
ReplyDeleteYour comments appears to be inside information. How could you know what the Attorneys have recommended to the Port?
And again, your tainted relationship and self-serving status at the Port equates your credibility with Kathy Sanders, disgruntled.
Both of you have much better things to do than to persist to engage your failed relationship with this public agency.
Your continued comments on this Blog also equate the quality of this Blog, which I have failed to see any quality since I have moved to Astoria. Humerous, nevertheless.