The product is controversial. The company is controversial. The proposal is opposed by Columbia Riverkeeper and the Oregon Sierra Club. It is questioned by fishing groups. The proposal would offer jobs in a community with a high unemployment rate and double the tax base. Environmentalists argue the plant would take valuable resources and damage a scenic area with it's mere existence. Those who are fighting it question the need for the product and say the company has a bad environmental track record. Some argue the company is offering very little in exchange for the profits it will likely see and is taking advantage of a down economy and a struggling community.
Sound familiar?
It should, but we are not talking about LNG on the Columbia. It's a water bottling plant proposed by Nestle for Cascade Locks.
Under the proposal the corporation would build a $50 million plant on the site of an old gravel pit. The source of the water is a spring that since the 1930's has fed a small fish hatchery operated by ODFW. Under the proposal ODFW would trade the city the spring for well water to feed the hatchery. The city would then sell the spring water to Nestle at a very low rate by all accounts. The trade off would be about 50 jobs and the tax value of the plant. ODFW says having access to well water should allow for increased fish production but at this point they are guessing.
Think of every objection you have heard about LNG and it's just amazing how easily those same objections fit into protesters arguments on bottling water.
Comments expressed
March 31, 2010
March 25, 2010
Log Logic
The Port has some interesting logistical issues with going back into the log export business. That doesn't mean it can't happen. It does make things more complicated. Jack Crider has his hands full with this one.
I don't agree with those who are giving the message that the log export proposal is incompatible with Astoria. To the contrary. It fits very nicely with what people would expect to see in a town surrounded by a wealth of natural resources. It fits us historically. It fits us economically because we have a underemployed trained workforce readily available.
I would also point out that we really don't know how big this will be. We don't really know how many log trucks we're talking about. A traffic study is being performed that will make that part clear.
No, I'm just not worried about those issues. I am concerned about how the Port will end up handling it's current occupants. In a story today commissioner Holcom said he talked with Ted Bugas about it and Bugas told him that the tenants should hammer out a working arrangement
amongst themselves. He said essentially that Crider should facilitate a meeting with all the parties involved. That makes sense. Up to this point if it were not for our coverage the current tenants wouldn't have a clue about any of this.
We should also be very cautious about that agreement with the log handling outfit in view of the port's history of being less than careful about the leases it signs. I'm also concerned about just how much background checking has been done on Westerlund Log Handlers. The Port generally does a poor job in that area as well so historically they've ended up holding the bag more than once. It's important to perform this due diligence before any agreement is made.
I don't agree with those who are giving the message that the log export proposal is incompatible with Astoria. To the contrary. It fits very nicely with what people would expect to see in a town surrounded by a wealth of natural resources. It fits us historically. It fits us economically because we have a underemployed trained workforce readily available.
I would also point out that we really don't know how big this will be. We don't really know how many log trucks we're talking about. A traffic study is being performed that will make that part clear.
No, I'm just not worried about those issues. I am concerned about how the Port will end up handling it's current occupants. In a story today commissioner Holcom said he talked with Ted Bugas about it and Bugas told him that the tenants should hammer out a working arrangement
amongst themselves. He said essentially that Crider should facilitate a meeting with all the parties involved. That makes sense. Up to this point if it were not for our coverage the current tenants wouldn't have a clue about any of this.
We should also be very cautious about that agreement with the log handling outfit in view of the port's history of being less than careful about the leases it signs. I'm also concerned about just how much background checking has been done on Westerlund Log Handlers. The Port generally does a poor job in that area as well so historically they've ended up holding the bag more than once. It's important to perform this due diligence before any agreement is made.
March 24, 2010
Johnson's Worthy Opponent
Republican Bob Horning is running for the Oregon Senate seat now held by Betsy Johnson in District 16.
At first glance one might be prone to say "gutsy move".
Johnson is well entrenched here and has earned the right to be thought of as as a "local" even though she makes her home closer to Portland than to the coast. She has spent an incredible amount of time making herself a part of nearly everything that goes on here. I've never seen anything quite like her commitment to every part of the district she represents. If you were to ask nearly anyone if they could name their state legislator most would be at a total loss but they know Betsy. People may not be familiar with how she votes but they certainly know she comes to the local fundraisers and annual events. She contributes.
For Bob Horning it's going to be Johnson's accessibility and personal involvement that will be hard to beat. Voters are unlikely to accept anything less so this can't be a typical campaign. He will have to be as present as Johnson.
At first glance one might be prone to say "gutsy move".
Johnson is well entrenched here and has earned the right to be thought of as as a "local" even though she makes her home closer to Portland than to the coast. She has spent an incredible amount of time making herself a part of nearly everything that goes on here. I've never seen anything quite like her commitment to every part of the district she represents. If you were to ask nearly anyone if they could name their state legislator most would be at a total loss but they know Betsy. People may not be familiar with how she votes but they certainly know she comes to the local fundraisers and annual events. She contributes.
For Bob Horning it's going to be Johnson's accessibility and personal involvement that will be hard to beat. Voters are unlikely to accept anything less so this can't be a typical campaign. He will have to be as present as Johnson.
On the political philosophy front....
Horning has been working on a website where he lays out his position, his way of thinking about Oregon. He asks "Where is the Oregon I remember?" Here's an excerpt:
"The people of Oregon are the greatest resource we have, yet our leaders:
Have worked to save the farmland but not the farmers;
Have worked to save the forest but not the loggers;
Have worked to save the salmon but not the fishermen;
Work at congregating everyone into large cities and have abandoned our small communities.
Oregon's land-use laws encourage corporate farming and have forced many family farms out of business.
Oregon is 1 of only 11 states that had fewer farms in 2007 than in 2002, despite farm land use laws that are the most restrictive in the United States.
Oregon imports lumber from Canada despite abundant forest resources that can be managed in an environmentally responsible way.
Oregon manages fisheries in a way that does not fully take advantage of our abundant streams, leading to diminishing salmon returns and reduced access to fisheries.
Oregon can not have a healthy economy if our smaller communities are not healthy also. Without strong small communities, large communities have no support, thus Oregon suffers wild swings when it comes to the economy. The smaller communities in our state have suffered at the hands of politicians who do the bidding of Portland and the larger cities.
All of these points and more need to change if we are to have a healthy and vibrant Oregon."
Horning is laying groundwork on his site that should make for an interesting debate with the incumbent Johnson in the next election but the question remains: Is he capable of becoming part of the community he hopes to represent?
March 22, 2010
Port Takes Little Action
Putting aside the tiny detail of adequate notice, the Port of Astoria Commissioners have taken steps to renew the 30 year master lease with the State of Oregon for the Oregon LNG site.
The meeting Friday was marked by an emotional outburst by local political organizer Ted Thomas charging that the Port is giving way to blackmail by notifying the state of it's intention.
The issue is not at rest as yet and will not be until the Port actually signs the 30 year lease renewal and a negotiated settlement takes place been Oregon LNG and the Port regarding the various expenses that have been generated by the company. Those expenses are considerable with nearly a half million dollars in attorney fees and various damages that do not take into account the port's own legal bills. As we predicted months ago it's quite a mess. A very expensive mess.
There is little hope that Oregon LNG will throw out many of these damages since the company can't trust the Port in any negotiation to follow through on any promises it may attempt to make in trying to secure a better outcome.
This move on the part of the Port while hopeful for the hundreds of local people who would rather be working and the local businesses that are struggling to survive actually represents little movement on the part of the Port to resolve this issue. They could do far more and far more quickly but continue to drag their heels.
The meeting Friday was marked by an emotional outburst by local political organizer Ted Thomas charging that the Port is giving way to blackmail by notifying the state of it's intention.
The issue is not at rest as yet and will not be until the Port actually signs the 30 year lease renewal and a negotiated settlement takes place been Oregon LNG and the Port regarding the various expenses that have been generated by the company. Those expenses are considerable with nearly a half million dollars in attorney fees and various damages that do not take into account the port's own legal bills. As we predicted months ago it's quite a mess. A very expensive mess.
There is little hope that Oregon LNG will throw out many of these damages since the company can't trust the Port in any negotiation to follow through on any promises it may attempt to make in trying to secure a better outcome.
This move on the part of the Port while hopeful for the hundreds of local people who would rather be working and the local businesses that are struggling to survive actually represents little movement on the part of the Port to resolve this issue. They could do far more and far more quickly but continue to drag their heels.
March 19, 2010
I'd Love To Tell You...But...
Some have asked the key question in the Warrenton School Board recall: Why?
The answer seems to be: "I'd like to tell you, but it can't get back to me" or " The decision to not renew Brewington's contract was a witch hunt and I know why but there is probably someone better to answer that question"
No one will go on the record directly explaining why after nine years of favorable reviews the four members of the board suddenly change direction on their opinion. At least not yet.
The issue revolves around the demand that Brewington fire one of his principals and his refusal to do so. According to sources, that do not wish to be identified, this is not the first time there has been an issue between one of the school board members and this particular principal. Brewington's refusal was apparently met with a threat. He still refused to comply. According to other sources there is a witness to an exchange between Brewington and the unidentified school board member where he was offered the opportunity to resign. Reportedly he refused.
The result of that refusal apparently led to the outcome at the school board meeting. There are further reports from those who do not wish their identities revealed that this particular school board member went so far as to seek the help of another staffer to dig up more dirt on Brewington prior to the school board meeting. Reportedly that person refused. The end result was a employment review throwing everything including the kitchen sink against Brewington.
No wonder he was shocked.
This is the information that is floating around amongst insiders in the district. If true it would seem that there are still more questions than answers.
Why was the board member demanding the principal be fired? Was there sufficient reason to do so? Obviously Brewington didn't think that was the right direction but why? Why would the majority of the board decide he doesn't fit into Warrenton Schools future plans leaving a respected and knowledgeable board member so opposed he resigns? Does this sequence of events justify a radical recall effort or is this recall just an emotional reaction to be ignored?
Is it a matter of a simple difference of opinion? Should elected people be recalled because they make a decision some do not agree with? Is there sufficent reason to believe that something unsavory happened here? I'd love to tell you...but....
The answer seems to be: "I'd like to tell you, but it can't get back to me" or " The decision to not renew Brewington's contract was a witch hunt and I know why but there is probably someone better to answer that question"
No one will go on the record directly explaining why after nine years of favorable reviews the four members of the board suddenly change direction on their opinion. At least not yet.
The issue revolves around the demand that Brewington fire one of his principals and his refusal to do so. According to sources, that do not wish to be identified, this is not the first time there has been an issue between one of the school board members and this particular principal. Brewington's refusal was apparently met with a threat. He still refused to comply. According to other sources there is a witness to an exchange between Brewington and the unidentified school board member where he was offered the opportunity to resign. Reportedly he refused.
The result of that refusal apparently led to the outcome at the school board meeting. There are further reports from those who do not wish their identities revealed that this particular school board member went so far as to seek the help of another staffer to dig up more dirt on Brewington prior to the school board meeting. Reportedly that person refused. The end result was a employment review throwing everything including the kitchen sink against Brewington.
No wonder he was shocked.
This is the information that is floating around amongst insiders in the district. If true it would seem that there are still more questions than answers.
Why was the board member demanding the principal be fired? Was there sufficient reason to do so? Obviously Brewington didn't think that was the right direction but why? Why would the majority of the board decide he doesn't fit into Warrenton Schools future plans leaving a respected and knowledgeable board member so opposed he resigns? Does this sequence of events justify a radical recall effort or is this recall just an emotional reaction to be ignored?
Is it a matter of a simple difference of opinion? Should elected people be recalled because they make a decision some do not agree with? Is there sufficent reason to believe that something unsavory happened here? I'd love to tell you...but....
March 18, 2010
School Board Recall
The abrupt dismissal of Warrenton Schools Superintendent Craig Brewington has spurred a recall campaign for the four board members who voted in favor of not renewing the ten year veteran's contract to lead the district.
Recalls are not something I would usually support except in cases where an individual has broken laws, or acted against the best interest of the public for personal gain. The state of Oregon makes no distinction this specific. One can be the subject of a recall for nearly any reason the disgruntled wish to bring forward.
After a fairly recent series of recall campaigns Clatsop County voters should be quite familiar with the process. This one shapes up to be four separate recalls and is in the petition gathering stage. Only residents of the Warrenton School District will be making this decision and hopefully organizers can complete their process in time for a regularly scheduled election to avoid the additional costs of a special election ballot.
Warrenton may have another problem. If the recall is successful it may be rather difficult to find people who want to serve on that board. They have had a vacant seat for some time appearently.
Recalls are not something I would usually support except in cases where an individual has broken laws, or acted against the best interest of the public for personal gain. The state of Oregon makes no distinction this specific. One can be the subject of a recall for nearly any reason the disgruntled wish to bring forward.
After a fairly recent series of recall campaigns Clatsop County voters should be quite familiar with the process. This one shapes up to be four separate recalls and is in the petition gathering stage. Only residents of the Warrenton School District will be making this decision and hopefully organizers can complete their process in time for a regularly scheduled election to avoid the additional costs of a special election ballot.
Warrenton may have another problem. If the recall is successful it may be rather difficult to find people who want to serve on that board. They have had a vacant seat for some time appearently.
March 16, 2010
Head On
The majority of the Warrenton School District Board and the district Superintendent have had a head on crash resulting in Craig Brewington losing his position.
There are several things about this situation that are troubling. Brewington took the reins of the district in 2000 and every year the board reviewed his performance giving him high marks in all areas. Then very suddenly the review turned nasty.
At the last board meeting the review was delivered in closed door session. In public session Brewington stated that board chair Linda Dugan had come to his office and asked for his resignation otherwise the board would fire him. She denied that, twice, stating that she has all the paperwork to support her version of the chain of events that led to the firing.
KAST news asked Brewington to comment on the review to which he replied he had only just received it some 30 minutes before and wasn't prepared to comment. He mentioned it had something to do with "low test scores".
If Dugan had asked for Brewington's resignation "or else" why would the outcome of the review come as any surprise to Brewington? It appears Dugan gave him the opportunity to fall on his own sword, although she denies it.
One would think that one poor review in ten years would form the basis for an improvement program not a firing. It is puzzling that the board would even consider summarily firing the man if he broke no laws or engaged in some illegal activity.
If for some reason the board and the Superintendent had reached a differnce of opinion on district policy then it's odd that it wasn't discussed at length and in public.
Here's the other part that is puzzling. Somebody knew Brewington was going to be fired that night because the room was packed and the media was tipped off. Yet he seemed surprised.
Frankly, the whole thing doesn't pass the smell test.
There are several things about this situation that are troubling. Brewington took the reins of the district in 2000 and every year the board reviewed his performance giving him high marks in all areas. Then very suddenly the review turned nasty.
At the last board meeting the review was delivered in closed door session. In public session Brewington stated that board chair Linda Dugan had come to his office and asked for his resignation otherwise the board would fire him. She denied that, twice, stating that she has all the paperwork to support her version of the chain of events that led to the firing.
KAST news asked Brewington to comment on the review to which he replied he had only just received it some 30 minutes before and wasn't prepared to comment. He mentioned it had something to do with "low test scores".
If Dugan had asked for Brewington's resignation "or else" why would the outcome of the review come as any surprise to Brewington? It appears Dugan gave him the opportunity to fall on his own sword, although she denies it.
One would think that one poor review in ten years would form the basis for an improvement program not a firing. It is puzzling that the board would even consider summarily firing the man if he broke no laws or engaged in some illegal activity.
If for some reason the board and the Superintendent had reached a differnce of opinion on district policy then it's odd that it wasn't discussed at length and in public.
Here's the other part that is puzzling. Somebody knew Brewington was going to be fired that night because the room was packed and the media was tipped off. Yet he seemed surprised.
Frankly, the whole thing doesn't pass the smell test.
March 12, 2010
Is Somebody Else Footing The Bill?
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 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.
What Else Do They Need?
Judge Mossman has adopted Judge Jelderks' findings and recommendations as his own and has issued an order directing the Port of Astoria and the individual commissioners to immediately enter into a 30 year agreement with the division of state lands for the Skipanon property. He further orders that the port make that available to Oregon LNG.
The attorney for the Port has sent a letter to Judge Jelderks renewing his request for a Judicial Settlement Conference. Thane Tienson attaches a copy of a letter from OLNG's lawyers stating that the injunction orders will be personally delivered to each of the commissioners and the Port swiftly. OLNG's lawyer says unless the Port and the commission immediately comply with Judge Mossman's injunction and renew the Master Lease commissioners will be faced with civil contempt charges. Both the Port and the individual commissioners will face substantial daily dollar fines until they comply.
So Mr. Tienson wants a settlement. I don't blame him.
Just to be clear, the issue is about responsible government. It's not about pointless debates on the need for LNG terminals, or whether or not people want them sited here.
There just hasn't been a shred of commonsense on the part of the Port evident in any of this legal wrangling.
The Port has a sublease in breach with a private investor. The Port has massed a huge public debt over it. That debt continues to grow with every passing day. The only way out is for the commissioners to call a special meeting within 24 hours and sign a proper lease for 30 years with the State. Then, maybe, OLNG will sit down at the table and negotiate.
It's not complicated and hasn't been from the start.
The attorney for the Port has sent a letter to Judge Jelderks renewing his request for a Judicial Settlement Conference. Thane Tienson attaches a copy of a letter from OLNG's lawyers stating that the injunction orders will be personally delivered to each of the commissioners and the Port swiftly. OLNG's lawyer says unless the Port and the commission immediately comply with Judge Mossman's injunction and renew the Master Lease commissioners will be faced with civil contempt charges. Both the Port and the individual commissioners will face substantial daily dollar fines until they comply.
So Mr. Tienson wants a settlement. I don't blame him.
Just to be clear, the issue is about responsible government. It's not about pointless debates on the need for LNG terminals, or whether or not people want them sited here.
There just hasn't been a shred of commonsense on the part of the Port evident in any of this legal wrangling.
The Port has a sublease in breach with a private investor. The Port has massed a huge public debt over it. That debt continues to grow with every passing day. The only way out is for the commissioners to call a special meeting within 24 hours and sign a proper lease for 30 years with the State. Then, maybe, OLNG will sit down at the table and negotiate.
It's not complicated and hasn't been from the start.
March 05, 2010
Just The Facts Please
In the Research Department today you will find two new court documents that represent the facts in the case of Oregon LNG v.s. The Port of Astoria and the individual commissioners named in the OLNG suit.
In an eariler rant I wrote that comments made on the air by Port President Bill Hunsinger don't square with the facts.
As you will see from the documents, OLNG has asked for Discovery (depositions) and the Port has asked for a Protective Order in order to avoid such depositions. The Port has asked for settlement talks and OLNG has responded that such talks may be held only after the Master Lease has been renewed, since that item is non-negotiable.
Mr. Hunsinger stated that he and his fellow commissioners were ready to give those depositions when in fact it was his attorney that blocked them. Mr. Hunsinger as late as last Thursday afternoon told the community that he and the other commissioners are waiting for OLNG to set up those depositions (discovery). Mr. Hunsinger stated it was the judge who called for settlement talks when it was his own attorney that called for them.
There are only two possibilities here. One, that Hunsinger and Pfund have no understanding of the actual case and have not personally read the court filings and decisions and have little or no understanding of the predicament they are in or, two, they have full knowledge and are attempting to use the media to misdirect the public.
It is also important to understand that the Port Commission decided to ignor the advice of their own attorneys in this entire matter of extending the master lease with the State of Oregon and dealing with the lawsuit that followed. Instead the commission hired an outside firm and an attorney with strong ties to Columbia Riverkeeper.
Read the OLNG demand letter in the research department to get a real feel for what we are facing as a result of these port decisions.
In an eariler rant I wrote that comments made on the air by Port President Bill Hunsinger don't square with the facts.
As you will see from the documents, OLNG has asked for Discovery (depositions) and the Port has asked for a Protective Order in order to avoid such depositions. The Port has asked for settlement talks and OLNG has responded that such talks may be held only after the Master Lease has been renewed, since that item is non-negotiable.
Mr. Hunsinger stated that he and his fellow commissioners were ready to give those depositions when in fact it was his attorney that blocked them. Mr. Hunsinger as late as last Thursday afternoon told the community that he and the other commissioners are waiting for OLNG to set up those depositions (discovery). Mr. Hunsinger stated it was the judge who called for settlement talks when it was his own attorney that called for them.
There are only two possibilities here. One, that Hunsinger and Pfund have no understanding of the actual case and have not personally read the court filings and decisions and have little or no understanding of the predicament they are in or, two, they have full knowledge and are attempting to use the media to misdirect the public.
It is also important to understand that the Port Commission decided to ignor the advice of their own attorneys in this entire matter of extending the master lease with the State of Oregon and dealing with the lawsuit that followed. Instead the commission hired an outside firm and an attorney with strong ties to Columbia Riverkeeper.
Read the OLNG demand letter in the research department to get a real feel for what we are facing as a result of these port decisions.
Commissioner Confusion
Comments made by Port of Astoria Commission President Bill Hunsinger on KAST don't square with the facts. That doesn't mean it's a lie but it does indicate a communication problem somewhere in this process.
Hunsinger says he was ready to sit down at the table and negotiate a settlement with Oregon LNG "a couple of months ago". He states this was at the request of Oregon LNG. CEO for Oregon LNG, Peter Hansen told me a couple of months ago that while his company would be more than willing to sit down with the port he also said that wasn't going to happen until after the Port extended it's lease with DSL for the full 30 year term for the LNG project site in Warrenton. I asked Hansen if Oregon LNG had made overtures to the Port about a negotiated settlement. Hansen said that very early on in the process this had been suggested by a judge but the Port was told at that time OLNG would not negotiate any matter until the lease with the state was properly extended.
It seems to me under these circumstances that it wasn't OLNG that was talking settlement. Considering the number of rulings against the Port on the lease stretching back to November of 2009, it would seem unlikely Oregon LNG would have any desire to settle.
Are Port Commissioners getting accurate information?
It seems not.
Hunsinger says he was ready to sit down at the table and negotiate a settlement with Oregon LNG "a couple of months ago". He states this was at the request of Oregon LNG. CEO for Oregon LNG, Peter Hansen told me a couple of months ago that while his company would be more than willing to sit down with the port he also said that wasn't going to happen until after the Port extended it's lease with DSL for the full 30 year term for the LNG project site in Warrenton. I asked Hansen if Oregon LNG had made overtures to the Port about a negotiated settlement. Hansen said that very early on in the process this had been suggested by a judge but the Port was told at that time OLNG would not negotiate any matter until the lease with the state was properly extended.
It seems to me under these circumstances that it wasn't OLNG that was talking settlement. Considering the number of rulings against the Port on the lease stretching back to November of 2009, it would seem unlikely Oregon LNG would have any desire to settle.
Are Port Commissioners getting accurate information?
It seems not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)