LNG & the Columbia - www.ifish.net
The Oregonian's Bill Monroe!

Go Back   www.ifish.net > Ifish Fishing and Hunting > Ifish Community

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 07-15-2007, 05:36 PM   #1
tallon
Steelhead
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 179
Default LNG & the Columbia

What's the thinking here on LNG on the lower river?I've lived on the lower river for 33yrs just downstream from Clifton Channel& Bradwood and I'm
opposed to that project for what seems obvious reasons to me but I am
curious about how others who fish the lower river feel.The dredging the
proposed security measures and all that comes with it,I can't believe it will
work in the favor of the fish,the region or the fisherpeople.I've spoken
with many boaters here and I've yet to find a good reason to have it here.
So let's here your thoughts! Thanks

PS.the latest plan includes a pipeline that connects to Madres and goes
to the state below us.They(bradwood landing) aren't saying this but it's
clearly on the map.

tallon is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 07-15-2007, 06:00 PM   #2
JustCallMeDave
The Mods Must Be Crazy!
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Casting between the waves where dinner lies waiting
Posts: 24,995
Default Re: LNG & the Columbia

Northern Star (the folks behind the Bradwood plan) say that there will be 120 ships per year going to this facility. That means that every three days the river will be closed that entire stretch for many hours while this 200,000 cubic meter bomb comes in with full Coast Guard protection. What will that do to sturgeon fishing down here? How about Buoy 10? Cruise ships? Crabbers?

There are many other issues, but I'm going to only bring up the fishing-related ones for now. This should be on everyone's radar, and sadly it's proven to be barely more than a blip.



__________________

Last edited by JustCallMeDave; 07-15-2007 at 07:59 PM.
JustCallMeDave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2007, 06:11 PM   #3
freespool
King Salmon
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: woodstock
Posts: 18,267
Default Re: LNG & the Columbia

Who are these knumbskulls in Washington DC? Are they all brain dead?
Bring the LNG down through Canada via the Transcanada pipeline, stop letting special interests run this country.







April 11, 2005

Alaska LNG ship proposal moves forward
A plan to ship Alaska North Slope LNG to the U.S. West Coast via ship is moving forward and a U.S. maritime union is playing a part in trying to get an exemption from the Jones Act requirement to build the needed LNG tankers in the U.S.
On April 1, 2005, the Alaska Gasline Port Authority filed an offer for purchase of natural gas from the North Slope of Alaska with the North Slope producers (Exxon Mobil, ConocoPhillips, BP, Chevron Texaco, Forest Oil) and the State of Alaska.
The producers and Transcanada have been proposing plans to bring North Slope gas to the lower 48 via a new piepline to Canada.
The Alaska Gasline Port Authority has an alternate proposal to build an 800 gas pipeline in parallel with the existing oil pipeline from the North Slope to Valdez. There the gas would be liquefied then transported to the U.S. West Coast via LNG carriers. In December the port authority said it had signed an agreement with Sempra LNG, a unit of San Diego-based Sempra Energy, to assist in developing the project and to market the related LNG.
What would seem to be an obstacle to this plan would be the high cost of building the required ships in the U.S. in accordance with Jones Act requirements.
In fact, the port authority's offer to purchase the North slope gas, indicates that prior to liquefaction of the methane component of the gas, the propane and butane would be stripped out to be sold as LPG. The LPG would be shipped to "the best markets available in Asia, or the United States. Currently, the premium market appears to be Japan."
The offer document says that "the Project requires a waiver from the Jones Act for the construction portion of the ships. The Project includes costs of ships being U.S. flagged and crewed. However, U.S. shipyards cannot deliver on time and at sufficiently competitive prices for the modern larger membrane containment ships necessary for the Project to be successful. AGPA and Sempra Alaska have executed an MOU with the Marine Engineers' Beneficial Association ("MEBA") for cooperation in the pursuit of an exemption from the construction portion of the Jones Act for Project LNG ships. Both LNG and LPG ships carrying product to domestic ports would be US crewed and US flagged. The LPG ships would also be U.S. built."
So far as the LNG ships are concerned, the offer document indicates that the project would require eight 160,000 cu.m diesel powered ships at a price of $220 million apiece






__________________
salmon hugger





"A curious thing happens when fish stocks decline: People who aren't aware of the old levels accept the new ones as normal. Over generations, societies adjust their expectations downward to match prevailing conditions." Kennedy Warne
freespool is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Old 07-15-2007, 06:43 PM   #4
tallon
Steelhead
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 179
Default Re: LNG & the Columbia

Well now I know what two of you think,both well said.But I'd think that with river closures more would be not only concerned and speaking out
against it.Are we in an age where people are too busy to think about the
implications of such a project.Are we going to allow texans and speculators
decide what happens in our nortwest?
tallon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2007, 06:52 PM   #5
IDWITHELD
Sturgeon
 
IDWITHELD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Portland OR
Posts: 4,103
Default Re: LNG & the Columbia

Don't tread on me! (large corporations)

Another bad idea about to be force fed to Oregonians (and Washingtonians).
__________________
Practice Catch and Release on All Sizes of Sturgeon
IDWITHELD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2007, 07:47 PM   #6
roadsend
King Salmon
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Astoria
Posts: 11,041
Default Re: LNG & the Columbia

Quote:
Originally Posted by JustCallMeDave View Post
... That means that every three days the river will be closed that entire stretch for many hours while this 200,000 gallon time bomb comes in with full Coast Guard protection. What will that do to sturgeon fishing down here? How about Buoy 10? Cruise ships? Crabbers? ...
The only good thing I see coming from this is that estuary Sturgeon retention might last well into July.(sarc.)
__________________
�Conservation means the wise use of the earth and its resources for the lasting good of men.�
Gifford Pinchot
roadsend is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2007, 07:55 PM   #7
Smach
Fry
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Warrenton OR
Posts: 8
Default Re: LNG & the Columbia

Has anyone had the privilege of hearing where our politicians who represent us stand on this issue? Even the newspapers of this great state seemed to have been muzzled regarding LNG. No wonder the house and senate's approval rating is less than the prez's.

I hope that this is not out of line for this forum, but the lack of conviction by the D.C. dodgers should be a major source of worry for all that love the Columbia.
Smach is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2007, 08:08 PM   #8
roadsend
King Salmon
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Astoria
Posts: 11,041
Default Re: LNG & the Columbia

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smach View Post
Has anyone had the privilege of hearing where our politicians who represent us stand on this issue? Even the newspapers of this great state seemed to have been muzzled regarding LNG. No wonder the house and senate's approval rating is less than the prez's.

I hope that this is not out of line for this forum, but the lack of conviction by the D.C. dodgers should be a major source of worry for all that love the Columbia.
I would expect them to posture and pander to public opinion until the big bucks come rolling in from the corporate giants and the party leaders put the squeeze on them.
I don't know any locals who support this except for a few of the union folks.
I am more concerned about the proposed Warrenton terminal than Bradwood although neither of them thrill me.
__________________
�Conservation means the wise use of the earth and its resources for the lasting good of men.�
Gifford Pinchot
roadsend is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2007, 08:09 PM   #9
tallon
Steelhead
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 179
Default Re: LNG & the Columbia

I've been hearing 4 ships a week,what'll that do for the bouy 10 fishing?And
I live at Aldrich Pt. and have fished Clifton Channel for spring fish many years.Northern star( i hate to even use their name) contends they'll improve the fishing.I resent fishing while being watched by security or being followed by blackwater security.Why not put it in texas or calif. if
they need the gas?During the sping season there are many ifish people
fishing that channel,it'll be gone if we don't speak out!
tallon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2007, 08:27 PM   #10
tallon
Steelhead
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 179
Default Re: LNG & the Columbia

I'm thinking the politicians are much like the other"believers" their standing
with their hands out.These "energy companies" are like enron and we need
to learn from experience.And I'm thinking that wasn't such a great experience.....
tallon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2007, 08:37 PM   #11
freespool
King Salmon
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: woodstock
Posts: 18,267
Default Re: LNG & the Columbia

I guess if you have enough faith in companies like these to make our future energy decissions, there is no problem.

(Exxon Mobil, ConocoPhillips, BP, Chevron Texaco, Forest Oil) and the State of Alaska.

This would seem like a classic example of what is wrong with our government, which is a total dissconnect with reality.
__________________
salmon hugger





"A curious thing happens when fish stocks decline: People who aren't aware of the old levels accept the new ones as normal. Over generations, societies adjust their expectations downward to match prevailing conditions." Kennedy Warne
freespool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2007, 08:46 PM   #12
fish_on
Sturgeon
 
fish_on's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Columbia City
Posts: 3,505
Default Re: LNG & the Columbia

I have no problem with it and wish they would build more. They should also put a nuke power plant or 2 next to the LNG plants. If we don't build it where we get power from?
fish_on is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2007, 08:51 PM   #13
tallon
Steelhead
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 179
Default Re: LNG & the Columbia

We are our government and we need to do better.The washington state reps. have come out against it and Wu has shown some life lately but
others need some talking to for sure.Betsy Johnson remains silent and
others too.Pockets are being lined as we sleep and watch the reruns of
happy days.I want to keep fishing and want to be able to teach my
grandson to fish.Where I've done it for the past 33yrs....
tallon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2007, 09:01 PM   #14
tallon
Steelhead
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 179
Default Re: LNG & the Columbia

Hey fish on,
Aren't we still paying for trojan? The point is the power is going to calif.or
I should say one of the points.There are people fighting for our way of life
and I'm saying we need to live more wisely.And it's not wise to crap in
your own bed...
tallon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2007, 09:01 PM   #15
JustCallMeDave
The Mods Must Be Crazy!
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Casting between the waves where dinner lies waiting
Posts: 24,995
Default Re: LNG & the Columbia

Quote:
Originally Posted by fish_on View Post
I have no problem with it and wish they would build more. They should also put a nuke power plant or 2 next to the LNG plants. If we don't build it where we get power from?
The LNG shipments are going straight to the pipeline to California, nonstop. Strange, but California didn't want an LNG plant down there, citing environmental and safety concerns. Same result when LNG plants were proposed in Mexico.

Personally, I'd rather not industrialize any part of the lower reaches of the Columbia River, where so many of our salmon and steelhead pass twice before they get to our dinner tables.



__________________

Last edited by JustCallMeDave; 07-15-2007 at 09:04 PM.
JustCallMeDave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2007, 09:06 PM   #16
freespool
King Salmon
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: woodstock
Posts: 18,267
Default Re: LNG & the Columbia

Quote:
Originally Posted by fish_on View Post
I have no problem with it and wish they would build more. They should also put a nuke power plant or 2 next to the LNG plants. If we don't build it where we get power from?

Just curious, why would you think water born LNG transport is better than a consortium pipeline running down the Canadian shield?

And as far as building a new nuclear power plant, when the old ones are paid off, then we'll talk.
__________________
salmon hugger





"A curious thing happens when fish stocks decline: People who aren't aware of the old levels accept the new ones as normal. Over generations, societies adjust their expectations downward to match prevailing conditions." Kennedy Warne
freespool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2007, 09:15 PM   #17
tallon
Steelhead
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 179
Default Re: LNG & the Columbia

Quote:
Originally Posted by freespool View Post
Just curious, why would you think water born LNG transport is better than a consortium pipeline running down the Canadian shield?

And as far as building a new nuclear power plant, when the old ones are paid off, then we'll talk.

Right On! No argument from me but we're talking big bucks for a select
few and I'm sure there are tariffs for are neighbors to the north that these
lng folks are trying to avoid.
tallon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2007, 06:23 AM   #18
freespool
King Salmon
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: woodstock
Posts: 18,267
Default Re: LNG & the Columbia

Quote:
Originally Posted by tallon View Post
Right On! No argument from me but we're talking big bucks for a select
few and I'm sure there are tariffs for are neighbors to the north that these
lng folks are trying to avoid.


The gas field on the North Slope is the largest known on earth, although the US controls the larger portion, Canada controls a sizable amount.
It would seem mutually beneficial for both countries to partner in the pipelines construction.
__________________
salmon hugger





"A curious thing happens when fish stocks decline: People who aren't aware of the old levels accept the new ones as normal. Over generations, societies adjust their expectations downward to match prevailing conditions." Kennedy Warne
freespool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2007, 06:42 AM   #19
tallon
Steelhead
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 179
Default Re: LNG & the Columbia

Quote:
Originally Posted by freespool View Post
The gas field on the North Slope is the largest known on earth, although the US controls the larger portion, Canada controls a sizable amount.
It would seem mutually beneficial for both countries to partner in the pipelines construction.
Agreed,that makes the sense.However we're talking money for weasels
here and the weasels don't have a way into that venture.A few texans
show up with a breifcase full of cash and it seems everything is "for sale".

ps. did you notice there's a nuke plant leaking in japan due to an earthquake? We've had three quakes since I've lived here.
tallon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2007, 08:01 AM   #20
Jerry Dove
King Salmon
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: tillamook or
Posts: 5,630
Default Re: LNG & the Columbia

You folks that say elected folks are getting their pocket lined,,,,DO YOU KNOW THAT FOR A FACT?? I sure see a lot of signs in Astoria saying it's a good idea. Before we bash any one or any project we should have ALL the facts. Last year we saw barges coming up the lower river with gun boats front and rear,,,we did not see any river closed. We fished right along side. I know,,,NIMBY,,,,not in my back yard.
Jerry Dove is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2007, 08:17 AM   #21
freespool
King Salmon
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: woodstock
Posts: 18,267
Default Re: LNG & the Columbia

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry Dove View Post
You folks that say elected folks are getting their pocket lined,,,,DO YOU KNOW THAT FOR A FACT?? I sure see a lot of signs in Astoria saying it's a good idea. Before we bash any one or any project we should have ALL the facts. Last year we saw barges coming up the lower river with gun boats front and rear,,,we did not see any river closed. We fished right along side. I know,,,NIMBY,,,,not in my back yard.

Good question Jerry, according to this study, the pipeline alternative seems cheaper and safer.
So tell me again why you think being Californias LNG connection is a good idea?
What's good for Alaska, might not be what's good for the rest of America.

http://rwbeck.com/news/RWB_LNGJournal1006.pdf
__________________
salmon hugger





"A curious thing happens when fish stocks decline: People who aren't aware of the old levels accept the new ones as normal. Over generations, societies adjust their expectations downward to match prevailing conditions." Kennedy Warne
freespool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2007, 08:27 AM   #22
Chrome Bumper
King Salmon
 
Chrome Bumper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Redd
Posts: 9,914
Default Re: LNG & the Columbia

I work next to an LNG plant in Portland. They are good neighbors, I see their tank out my window.

Every one wants A/C and a big truck and no one wants anyone to build a power plant
__________________
Tight lines

Last edited by Chrome Bumper; 07-16-2007 at 08:28 AM.
Chrome Bumper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2007, 09:00 AM   #23
JustCallMeDave
The Mods Must Be Crazy!
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Casting between the waves where dinner lies waiting
Posts: 24,995
Default Re: LNG & the Columbia

...in an environmentally sensitive, non-industrial part of the lower Columbia River. You kinda forgot that part.



__________________
JustCallMeDave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2007, 09:01 AM   #24
Farfish
Tuna!
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Portland
Posts: 1,330
Default Re: LNG & the Columbia

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrome Bumper View Post
I work next to an LNG plant in Portland. They are good neighbors, I see their tank out my window.

Every one wants A/C and a big truck and no one wants anyone to build a power plant
The LNG facility in Portland is a storage facility. I think you are right, it should be considered a good neighbor. It is a relatively small facility compared to what is being proposed in Bradwood. It also has no effect on river traffic since they are not shipping any product in or out of the facility. Basically what it does is store enough product to deal with peaks in local/regional demand so they don't over tax the local pipelines. There is also a storage facility in Newport. In my opinion these facilities have very little bearing on whether a huge import facility should be built in Bradwood.

There are a lot of safety and environmental concerns with this project. A lot of folks have brought up the concerns about boating exclusion zones. This will likely have an impact on the Buoy 10 fishery and other lower river fisheries. It will impact the ability of people to get into or out of the Clifton Channel when these boats will be docked. The proponents have suggested there could be three trips a week. They can only put one of these tankers in the river at a time. Some of them are enormous - around 1000 feet. The only place to turn them around will be at the plant. So if they do three boats a week (three round trips). And if it takes presumably several hours to unload one. They could be running a tanker either upstream or downstream 6 days out of seven. That could really play hell with sport fishing especially in narrow parts of the channel where they may close the entire river.

The will also have to dredge a turning basin at the head of Clifton Channel and do maintenance dredging which may change the currents in Clifton Channel and affect that areas' function as a rearing area for juvenile salmon and steelhead. Additionally, one more giant industrial plant that is lit up 24-7 along the river will likely increase the ability of predators to hunt for junvenile salmon in this area. These ships will also take on a lot of river water as ballast for their trip home. The proponents have never been clear about how much water they need and how they are going to properly screen their intakes to avoid sucking up juvenile fish. Some of these impacts are similar to ones that already occur with industries and shipping along the river, but do we need to add to it just so we can build a plant to bring natural gas to California. Don't be fooled. That is where the gas is going. The Pacific Northwest has enough gas from existing sources. It is the demand in places like California that they are trying to fill.
Farfish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2007, 09:01 AM   #25
freespool
King Salmon
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: woodstock
Posts: 18,267
Default Re: LNG & the Columbia

This reminds me of the ship breaking thread we had a few months ago, California outlawed non-dry docked ship breaking, so they tried to find a place in Oregon.
California has refused to allow LNG tankers access, so now they are trying the Oregon connection, are we that dumb?
The state of Alaska, and the oil companies are pushing this LNG tanker idea, even though it's dangerous and more expensive than a pipeline.
__________________
salmon hugger





"A curious thing happens when fish stocks decline: People who aren't aware of the old levels accept the new ones as normal. Over generations, societies adjust their expectations downward to match prevailing conditions." Kennedy Warne
freespool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2007, 09:01 AM   #26
RiverMan
Sturgeon
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,809
Default Re: LNG & the Columbia

Everyone in America is about "more and bigger". I have said it before on IfISH and will say it again, how about thinking about conservation? Instead of looking for "more power and more fuel" lets figure out how to make what we have already go further.

RM
RiverMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2007, 09:31 AM   #27
tallon
Steelhead
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 179
Default Re: LNG & the Columbia

Quote:
Originally Posted by RiverMan View Post
Everyone in America is about "more and bigger". I have said it before on IfISH and will say it again, how about thinking about conservation? Instead of looking for "more power and more fuel" lets figure out how to make what we have already go further.

RM
I couldn't agree with you more! I just took the skiff and went through Clifton channel and around Tenasillahe Island( there were 9 poles on the beach) then I went by Brookfield (4 poles out there) And 6 at Jim Crow.
So all these folks have to go someplace else to satisfy security if a tanker
comes by?Let alone the people camping,kayakers and folks just sight seeing!This is my back yard and that's exactly why I care,we can and in
time we'll have to live differently!
tallon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2007, 10:49 AM   #28
JustCallMeDave
The Mods Must Be Crazy!
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Casting between the waves where dinner lies waiting
Posts: 24,995
Default Re: LNG & the Columbia

So far it seems that the consensus of those folks who don't live over here is that it's not their problem, as it's not in their backyard.

However, they're going to be upset when they can't fish down here during B10 or the sturgeon fisheries. They're going to be ticked when they can't go out of Hammond, Warrenton, Ilwaco, or Chinook when they wanted to because one of those floating bombs is passing through sometime in the next 6 hours. And they'll cry yet again when the salmon and steelhead runs are smaller still because those 120 ships a year are sucking smolts in with the ballast water.



__________________
JustCallMeDave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2007, 11:03 AM   #29
freespool
King Salmon
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: woodstock
Posts: 18,267
Default Re: LNG & the Columbia

What are you talking about Dave, the Columbia River bar is a logical choice, given it's history.
The worlds most dangerous bar is a no brainer, great place to locate this LNG terminal, winter crossing will be a breeze.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_Bar
__________________
salmon hugger





"A curious thing happens when fish stocks decline: People who aren't aware of the old levels accept the new ones as normal. Over generations, societies adjust their expectations downward to match prevailing conditions." Kennedy Warne
freespool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2007, 11:13 AM   #30
Flatfish
King Salmon
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Mulletville
Posts: 12,636
Default Re: LNG & the Columbia

Many times during poor conditions, ships will sit and wait before crossing the bar.

Nobody wants to sink a multi million dollar boat in the name of staying on time.
__________________
A curious thing happens when hatchery fish stocks decline: People who aren't aware of the old levels accept the new ones as normal. Over generations, societies adjust their expectations downward to match prevailing conditions
Flatfish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2007, 12:08 PM   #31
freespool
King Salmon
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: woodstock
Posts: 18,267
Default Re: LNG & the Columbia

With a nice safe pipeline as a alternative, why are we talking about floating hydrogen bombs crossing the Columbia River bar?
Why are we planning to use the most expensive and dangerous way to transport natural gas?
If the pipeline is a bad idea, let's hear why.

http://www.abanet.org/environ/pubs/n...sue/lebeau.pdf
__________________
salmon hugger





"A curious thing happens when fish stocks decline: People who aren't aware of the old levels accept the new ones as normal. Over generations, societies adjust their expectations downward to match prevailing conditions." Kennedy Warne

Last edited by freespool; 07-16-2007 at 12:18 PM.
freespool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2007, 12:30 PM   #32
Thumper
King Salmon
 
Thumper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Vancouver, WA
Posts: 12,322
Default Re: LNG & the Columbia

[QUOTE=freespool;1594879]
If the pipeline is a bad idea, let's hear why.
[QUOTE]


For those who wish to learn about this complex subject, rather than to simplify the issues of the pipeline vs LNG scenarios, see the following:

http://www.cedigaz.org/Fichiers/pdf_...%20further.pdf
__________________
Jack

Tillamook Anglers!!! Good people doing great things!
Thumper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2007, 12:52 PM   #33
Jerry Dove
King Salmon
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: tillamook or
Posts: 5,630
Default Re: LNG & the Columbia

I did not say I thought it was a good idea. I don't know if it is or not. All I said is,,, lets have all the TRUE FACTS.
Jerry Dove is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2007, 01:13 PM   #34
freespool
King Salmon
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: woodstock
Posts: 18,267
Default Re: LNG & the Columbia

[quote=Thumper;1594913][quote=freespool;1594879]
If the pipeline is a bad idea, let's hear why.
Quote:


For those who wish to learn about this complex subject, rather than to simplify the issues of the pipeline vs LNG scenarios, see the following:

http://www.cedigaz.org/Fichiers/pdf_...%20further.pdf
THE CHALLENGES OF FURTHER COST REDUCTIONS
FOR NEW SUPPLY OPTIONS (PIPELINE, LNG, GTL)

Sylvie Cornot-Gandolphe, International Energy Agency
Olivier Appert, International Energy Agency
Ralf Dickel, International Energy Agency
Marie-Franoise Chabrelie, CEDIGAZ
Alexandre Rojey, Institut Franais du Ptrole and CEDIGAZ

Jack I googled the main participants of this conference and it would appear they are the ones that would stand to profit the most from LNG transporting.
Got any information from a unbiased source?
These gas brokers, the state of Alaska and the oil companies, stand to make the most profit from this LNG tanker scheme.
So what's in it for Oregon? Why did California reject the LNG terminal plan?
How is a pipeline through Oregon to California a better idea?
__________________
salmon hugger





"A curious thing happens when fish stocks decline: People who aren't aware of the old levels accept the new ones as normal. Over generations, societies adjust their expectations downward to match prevailing conditions." Kennedy Warne
freespool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2007, 01:35 PM   #35
John Affolter
Steelhead
 
John Affolter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Oregon City/Astoria
Posts: 306
Default Re: LNG & the Columbia

TALLON.....PM sent
John Affolter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2007, 03:33 PM   #36
Chrome Bumper
King Salmon
 
Chrome Bumper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Redd
Posts: 9,914
Default Re: LNG & the Columbia

[quote=Thumper;1594913][quote=freespool;1594879]
If the pipeline is a bad idea, let's hear why.
Quote:


For those who wish to learn about this complex subject, rather than to simplify the issues of the pipeline vs LNG scenarios, see the following:

http://www.cedigaz.org/Fichiers/pdf_...%20further.pdf
Interesting, it concludes that LNG is the most cost effective mode of transportation under many circumstances.

So, ballasting ships will suck up all the smolt? It isn't like like are going to load it to the plimsoll line while running empty.
__________________
Tight lines
Chrome Bumper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2007, 05:31 PM   #37
tallon
Steelhead
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 179
Default Re: LNG & the Columbia

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry Dove View Post
I did not say I thought it was a good idea. I don't know if it is or not. All I said is,,, lets have all the TRUE FACTS.

True Facts!
The facts are that they(northern star) are spreading money around trying
to buy positions and votes so to speak.They're not from here and have no
connection to the area.The river isn't their's to monitor(security cameras
24-7) , dredging habitat that juvenile salmon&steelhead have used since
time began.Possibly widening a road right next to a class 1 stream using
dynamite.This as well as a whole lot more are facts.The county staff has
come out against it because of their concerns.There are many things that
just can't be bought and this river is one.Was Enron a good idea?Were the
folks that brought that reputable people,these folks are cut from the same
cloth.
tallon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2007, 05:58 PM   #38
freespool
King Salmon
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: woodstock
Posts: 18,267
Default Re: LNG & the Columbia

Unless someone can point out how Oregon prospers from this seemingly "Conduit To Cali" plan?
I don't see this as anything more than a place for them to connect to a distribution network, which would be California, who in fact rejected the LNG terminals in the first place, no thanks, but thanks for asking.
__________________
salmon hugger





"A curious thing happens when fish stocks decline: People who aren't aware of the old levels accept the new ones as normal. Over generations, societies adjust their expectations downward to match prevailing conditions." Kennedy Warne
freespool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2007, 06:33 PM   #39
SHLEPROCK
Chromer
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Bedrock
Posts: 781
Default Re: LNG & the Columbia

How much tax money would this produce for the county?


http://www.co.clatsop.or.us/default....=406&deptid=12
__________________
LEAVING THE AGE OF PISCES
ENTERING THE AGE OF AQUARIUS

Last edited by SHLEPROCK; 07-16-2007 at 06:58 PM.
SHLEPROCK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2007, 06:58 PM   #40
tallon
Steelhead
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 179
Default Re: LNG & the Columbia

Quote:
Originally Posted by freespool View Post
Unless someone can point out how Oregon prospers from this seemingly "Conduit To Cali" plan?
I don't see this as anything more than a place for them to connect to a distribution network, which would be California, who in fact rejected the LNG terminals in the first place, no thanks, but thanks for asking.
Once more your right on target Freespool,the palomor gas transmission line
is a project of transcanada and it conspicicuously ends at bradwood and it raises huge questions about northernstar's real intentions in clatsop county.
These people are not honest,it's a high risk energy market scam that's set
up to supply calif. that is already using far too much energy.We should not
have to sacrifice our fish,our saftey,our privacy or any part of our way of
life so others can live their over consumtive ways.
tallon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2007, 08:24 PM   #41
tallon
Steelhead
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 179
Default Re: LNG & the Columbia

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry Dove View Post
I did not say I thought it was a good idea. I don't know if it is or not. All I said is,,, lets have all the TRUE FACTS.
Fact!northernstar is a newly formed corporation which has never built anything and is a completely un-proven entity with no record of saftey.
northernstar recieved $100 million in financing from a new york corporation specializing in "high risk investments" Even northernstar admits that it lacks the estimated 1 billion it needs to build the proposed terminal.northernstar's willingness to cut corners on saftey is highlighted by their decision not to odorize the imported gas before sending it through at least 34-miles of pipeline crossing,clatsop,columbia and cowlitz counties.
Their faliure to adopt this basic and inexpensive saftey precaution says alot
about their concern for the public.
tallon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2007, 10:26 PM   #42
JustCallMeDave
The Mods Must Be Crazy!
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Casting between the waves where dinner lies waiting
Posts: 24,995
Default Re: LNG & the Columbia

[quote=Chrome Bumper;1595201][quote=Thumper;1594913]
Quote:
Originally Posted by freespool View Post
If the pipeline is a bad idea, let's hear why.

Interesting, it concludes that LNG is the most cost effective mode of transportation under many circumstances.

So, ballasting ships will suck up all the smolt? It isn't like like are going to load it to the plimsoll line while running empty.
Wow, hard to imagine that an International Natural Gas consortium would like LNG. Whodathunkit?

Tallon,

I doubt that Northern Star would do the construction. They're doing the footwork in order to sell the green-lighted project to the highest bidder, who would in turn never have to hold up the promises that Northern Star has made around town.



__________________
JustCallMeDave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2007, 02:22 AM   #43
shorthair
Sturgeon
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: wash.usa
Posts: 4,651
Default Re: LNG & the Columbia

Personally, I'd rather not industrialize any part of the lower reaches of the Columbia River, where so many of our salmon and steelhead pass twice before they get to our dinner tables.[/quote]

don't think I agree but isn't it kind of hypocritical to tell someone that now that I've got mine you can't have your's?
if we are going to use the arguement that we are protecting the enviroment then we should ALL leave & take everything we've done with us.
__________________
Simple Problems May Be Corrected in the Government Provided the Solution is Complex; Simple Solutions to Complex Problems Are Not Tolerated
shorthair is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2007, 05:31 AM   #44
tallon
Steelhead
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 179
Default Re: LNG & the Columbia

Quote:
Originally Posted by shorthair View Post
Personally, I'd rather not industrialize any part of the lower reaches of the Columbia River, where so many of our salmon and steelhead pass twice before they get to our dinner tables.
don't think I agree but isn't it kind of hypocritical to tell someone that now that I've got mine you can't have your's?
if we are going to use the arguement that we are protecting the enviroment then we should ALL leave & take everything we've done with us.[/QUOTE]

Hypocritical? NO,this lower river is critical to habitat for juvenile fish.We'
all hopefully learn from past mistakes and anytime we're endangering the
future generations from knowing what we "know" we're hurting ourselves
too.It's important to remember there are limits to what we can do without
grave consequences.
tallon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2007, 07:00 AM   #45
JustCallMeDave
The Mods Must Be Crazy!
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Casting between the waves where dinner lies waiting
Posts: 24,995
Default Re: LNG & the Columbia

Quote:
Originally Posted by shorthair View Post
don't think I agree but isn't it kind of hypocritical to tell someone that now that I've got mine you can't have your's?
if we are going to use the arguement that we are protecting the enviroment then we should ALL leave & take everything we've done with us.
It's easier to prevent a mistake than correct one.



__________________
JustCallMeDave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2007, 08:40 AM   #46
freespool
King Salmon
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: woodstock
Posts: 18,267
Default Re: LNG & the Columbia

What about terrorists, wouldn't these floating bombs make a good target?


Book Details LNG Terror Risk Former Counterterrorism Chief Says Threat of Massive LNG Incident in Boston Harbor Considered in Wake of Sept. 11 Attacks Prior to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, senior Bush Administration officials knew "that al Qaeda operatives had been infiltrating Boston by coming in on liquid natural gas tankers from Algeria," according to a new book by former White House counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke. The book further states "we had also learned that had one of the giant tankers blown up in the harbor, it would have wiped out downtown Boston." The Mobile Register has also discovered that LNG tanker simulator programs available for sale on the Internet are designed to instruct crews in every facet of the operation of LNG tankers. Terrorists who used these programs would be tutored in all aspects of running the vessels, including controlling the valves and gauges that regulate temperature and other critical factors that govern the integrity of LNG storage containers on the ships. Clarke indicates in the book that shutting down Boston Harbor was one of the administration's first priorities after the terrorist-commandeered planes hit the Twin Towers. He states that government officials learned that al-Qaida operatives were entering the country on LNG tankers "after the Millennium Terrorist Alert" in 2000. Federal officials have confirmed that LNG tankers sailing from Algeria were banned from Boston Harbor prior to Sept. 11, according to a report this week by the Boston Globe. Tankers sailing from Algeria still arrive at an LNG terminal in Cove Point, Md., which is three miles downriver from a nuclear power plant. Federal security officials told the Globe that they have taken steps to prevent stowaways on board the LNG ships. Simulators designed to teach all aspects of LNG tanker ship operation are widely available over the Internet. One such simulator provides instruction on driving the vessel as well as "the layout of the tanks, pipelines, valves and cargo handling machinery ... and cargo handling facilities in normal and emergency modes." Scientists contacted by the paper said a terrorist armed with such information would have a tremendous advantage in terms of using an LNG ship to cause a catastrophic accident. Clarke's statement about the devastation a terror attack on an LNG tanker might cause in downtown Boston runs counter to numerous statements from officials with the Department of Energy, the Department of Transportation and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission about the dangers such a fire might pose. A controversial study performed by a company called Quest Consultants Inc. and commissioned by the DOE after the 2001 terror attacks suggests that such an LNG fire would be about 475 feet wide. Several leading LNG scientists familiar with these government analyses said that a successful terror attack on an LNG tanker could ultimately cause a fire more than a mile wide and so hot that it would severely burn people two miles away. The status of two LNG terminals proposed for Mobile Bay remains uncertain. ExxonMobil Corp. has said it has put a facility planned for Hollingers Island, two miles south of the city limits, "on the back burner," but has not ruled out the possibility of eventually building there. http://www.al.com/search/index.ssf?/...eregister?nmet




__________________
salmon hugger





"A curious thing happens when fish stocks decline: People who aren't aware of the old levels accept the new ones as normal. Over generations, societies adjust their expectations downward to match prevailing conditions." Kennedy Warne
freespool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2007, 09:14 AM   #47
Fossil
Chromer
 
Fossil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Vancouver, WA
Posts: 712
Default Re: LNG & the Columbia

Below is what CCA and Texas did to prevent this type of plant. Don't know if the technology is the same or not.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE May 5, 2006

CONTACT: Ted Venker, 1-800-201-FISH
Open Loop LNG Vetoed

HOUSTON, TX Heeding the call of conservationists, Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco vetoed a liquefied natural gas terminal proposed by McMoRan Exploration that would have utilized open-rack vaporization technology just 16 miles off Louisianas coast. Alarmed by the potential for significant damage to the marine ecosystem from these open-loop systems, Coastal Conservation Association (CCA) has worked extensively to prevent use of the technology in the Gulf of Mexico and applauds the governors decision.
Last year, Gov. Blanco pledged to veto any facility using this technology, and she made good on that promise, said Fred Miller, CCA National Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman. Recreational fishermen across the Gulf applaud her strong stance supporting our marine resources.
McMoRan Exploration is one of several companies seeking permits for offshore facilities in the Gulf to receive and process LNG using an open-loop system to reheat the gas. The open-loop system heats liquefied gas back into a gaseous state by circulating seawater through a radiator-like system. This system can filter over 100 million of gallons of seawater per day and chlorinates it to prevent fouling of the intake pipe, creating the potential to kill billions of fish eggs, larvae and plankton annually.
The governors decision on the Main Pass LNG terminal does not prevent McMoRan Exploration from moving forward using other reheating technologies that carry less potential to harm the marine environment.
We recognize the need for these terminals to provide an important product for America. But we also realize that this goal can be achieved without taking such a huge risk with our marine resources, said Walter Fondren III, CCA National Chairman. As long as open-loop systems and the risk they represent to our marine life are off the table, CCA is not opposed to McMoRan Exploration developing this facility.
Through the past year, CCA has testified at public hearings, engaged its membership to send thousands of emails and worked with both state and federal agencies to remove open-loop technology as an option in the Gulf.
Gov. Blancos decision represents a major victory for good stewardship of our coastal resources. We thank her for her continuing commitment, said Jeff Angers, CCA Louisiana Executive Director.
__________________
"Don't tell me it can't be done, just tell me "you" can't do it.
Fossil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2007, 10:53 AM   #48
TrapperJohn
Steelhead
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: St Helens, OR
Posts: 338
Default Re: LNG & the Columbia

Wow, Im glad I finally opened this thread, I didnt have a clue about this issue, and will have to get educated fast!

A gut reaction and only that to the security implications. As we cruise up and down the river enjoying the scenery, it occurs that there are sooo many places inland where an RPG setup could take down one of the floating bombs. Thus, I dont care if the entire Pacific Fleet accompanies an in-bound tanker. Its a wicked large target and thats all there is to it.

It seems to me that opening up the river to this kind of tempting target is akin to what small children do when they cover their eyes. If we dont look at the problem, it cant possibly exist.
__________________
The fishing is always good. Sometimes, the catching is not so hot. If you think it's bad now, wait ten years.
TrapperJohn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2007, 02:41 PM   #49
Thumper
King Salmon
 
Thumper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Vancouver, WA
Posts: 12,322
Default Re: LNG & the Columbia

OK, I have read and read about this subject until my eyes are bleeding. I started out a conservative pro-business pro-LNG guy. Now I think it is a bad, bad idea. We don't need more juicy floating targets for the bad guys. And a modern RPG WILL penetrate both layers of these tanks.

Freespool, where do I sign up to be a card-carrying greenie river-hugging anti-LNG extremist. I am ready to come to the dark side....
__________________
Jack

Tillamook Anglers!!! Good people doing great things!

Last edited by Thumper; 07-17-2007 at 02:48 PM.
Thumper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2007, 02:52 PM   #50
freespool
King Salmon
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: woodstock
Posts: 18,267
Default Re: LNG & the Columbia

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thumper View Post

Freespool, where do I sign up to be a card-carrying greenie river-hugging anti-LNG extremist. I am ready.

No cards, but we do have some real cool hats and tee shirts.:smile:


Just got off the phone with a old friend of mine who skippers tugs for Foss, he said there is a plan to open a LNG terminal just over the border in Mexico, then pipe it to California.
I like that way better than having it at Gastoria.
If you read my links, it said the biggest market was the Midwest Chicago area, which would give the TransCanada pipeline idea some credibility.
__________________
salmon hugger





"A curious thing happens when fish stocks decline: People who aren't aware of the old levels accept the new ones as normal. Over generations, societies adjust their expectations downward to match prevailing conditions." Kennedy Warne
freespool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2007, 04:53 PM   #51
tallon
Steelhead
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 179
Default Re: LNG & the Columbia

At this point I'd like to say how pleased I am about the responce to this
post.The thoughtful discussion the knowledge and wisdom of many of you
almost is enough to make me feel hopeful. I am a bit disappointed in the
numbers of folks giving their thoughts or impressions.Being here for as
long as I have it's hard to believe more wouldn't respond.Many days during
spring season I've counted 100 or more cars at Aldridch Pt. and more from
westport fishng Clifton Channel.But Thanks to you that have responded so far and let's keep the discussion going....
tallon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2007, 06:25 PM   #52
Joel O
Steelhead
 
Joel O's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Milwaukie, OR
Posts: 462
Default Re: LNG & the Columbia

I believe the Columbia Bar being dangerous is a myth. The LNG ships will be fine. http://www.columbiariverbarpilots.co...seas/Page.html
__________________
"What happened to our fish and who or what is responsible?" one posting read last Friday.
Joel O is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2007, 07:02 PM   #53
tallon
Steelhead
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 179
Default Re: LNG & the Columbia

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joel O View Post
I believe the Columbia Bar being dangerous is a myth. The LNG ships will be fine. http://www.columbiariverbarpilots.co...seas/Page.html
Well Joel, Do you believe that dredgeing salmon juvenile habitat is a good idea too?Is the bar crossing your only concern?Is it a good idea for a plant
of this size to built in oregon to supply gas for calif?Does it concern you that
surveiliance cameras will be going 24-7 along the entire lower river?With a
"saftey zone" of 500 yrds. around every tanker(LNG) does it bother you that
all boaters will be removed (with force if nessessary)? Are you at all bothered by the fact that Abdul or anyone with a desire could very well buy or rent a condo on the water in astoria and with a rpg or other weapon blow
a 200,000 lb. tanker at will?These are just a few of folks that live here concerns.Seems to me like they deserve some consideration.
tallon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2007, 10:22 PM   #54
JustCallMeDave
The Mods Must Be Crazy!
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Casting between the waves where dinner lies waiting
Posts: 24,995
Default Re: LNG & the Columbia

I'm thinking there was sarcasm there, tallon.



__________________
JustCallMeDave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2007, 10:25 PM   #55
JustCallMeDave
The Mods Must Be Crazy!
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Casting between the waves where dinner lies waiting
Posts: 24,995
Default Re: LNG & the Columbia

Apparently this is going to be a tough fight, because the state not too long ago gave up the right to stop this sort of thing to the Feds. Some sort of backroom dealings to get something else passed. Now the only ones that can stop it are the folks at the county level, and it's not looking too good right now. Either they're still believing the myth about the jobs coming in, or the folks in charge around here are going to get nice jobs after their terms are over.



__________________
JustCallMeDave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2007, 10:45 PM   #56
Chrome Bumper
King Salmon
 
Chrome Bumper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Redd
Posts: 9,914
Default Re: LNG & the Columbia

Quote:
Originally Posted by tallon View Post
Well Joel, Do you believe that dredgeing salmon juvenile habitat is a good idea too?Is the bar crossing your only concern?Is it a good idea for a plant
of this size to built in oregon to supply gas for calif?Does it concern you that
surveiliance cameras will be going 24-7 along the entire lower river?With a
"saftey zone" of 500 yrds. around every tanker(LNG) does it bother you that
all boaters will be removed (with force if nessessary)? Are you at all bothered by the fact that Abdul or anyone with a desire could very well buy or rent a condo on the water in astoria and with a rpg or other weapon blow
a 200,000 lb. tanker at will?These are just a few of folks that live here concerns.Seems to me like they deserve some consideration.
500 yard safety zone? So I'll have to leave my place in Astoria whenever one goes by? Hope they don't go by during bath time.
__________________
Tight lines
Chrome Bumper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2007, 10:46 PM   #57
Fast Water
King Salmon
 
Fast Water's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: S.W. Washington
Posts: 11,269
Default Re: LNG & the Columbia



Have they started building it yet?

Most concerns are valid to an extent. Getting into RPG's and 200,000 gallon time bombs is a bit far fetched. Where is all the NG and LNG chaos in the news we should be hearing about if it is so bloody dangerous?

This image should give a perspective on why there would be a knee-jerk reaction to a LNG facility in our area. Where a significant portion of the country has a NG network (complete with LNG storage in quite a few places) we here in the PNW have but a couple main lines (one running through our neighborhood). We are just not used to it.



I think that the environmental and safety concerns need to be address with a focus on a zero emissions and public (land and marine) safety and get on with building the terminal.

__________________
Mark

Ifish Member #2421
Without humans, life flourishes.
Fast Water is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2007, 05:26 AM   #58
roadsend
King Salmon
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Astoria
Posts: 11,041
Default Re: LNG & the Columbia

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fast Water View Post
.....Getting into RPG's and 200,000 gallon time bombs is a bit far fetched. Where is all the NG and LNG chaos in the news we should be hearing about if it is so bloody dangerous?......
Not that far fetched. Just ask anyone who was in NYC on September 11, 2001.

The world is awash with numerous versions of the old standby RPG-7. I do not doubt that more than a few of these came back here as souveniers from Vietnam and other places. In any event, they are compact and easily smuggled. Their projectile, properly placed, will penetrate the armor of a MBT, so there is no doubt in my mind that they will penetrate the relatively thin skin of a LNG tanker.
Tallon is correct in pointing out that there are places in Astoria where this kind of weapon could be used with ease. Off the top of my head I could name fifty or so of these places.
__________________
�Conservation means the wise use of the earth and its resources for the lasting good of men.�
Gifford Pinchot
roadsend is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2007, 06:42 AM   #59
tallon
Steelhead
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 179
Default Re: LNG & the Columbia

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fast Water View Post


Have they started building it yet?

Most concerns are valid to an extent. Getting into RPG's and 200,000 gallon time bombs is a bit far fetched. Where is all the NG and LNG chaos in the news we should be hearing about if it is so bloody dangerous?

This image should give a perspective on why there would be a knee-jerk reaction to a LNG facility in our area. Where a significant portion of the country has a NG network (complete with LNG storage in quite a few places) we here in the PNW have but a couple main lines (one running through our neighborhood). We are just not used to it.



I think that the environmental and safety concerns need to be address with a focus on a zero emissions and public (land and marine) safety and get on with building the terminal.

The ONE thing we are used to here is loss of rearing habitat for smolts.On
the dredgeing grounds alone I believe it should be stopped.As a "fisherman"
I'm against ANY loss of habitat.
tallon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2007, 10:05 AM   #60
JustCallMeDave
The Mods Must Be Crazy!
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Casting between the waves where dinner lies waiting
Posts: 24,995
Default Re: LNG & the Columbia

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrome Bumper View Post
500 yard safety zone? So I'll have to leave my place in Astoria whenever one goes by? Hope they don't go by during bath time.
The safety zone around the tankers ends at the shoreline. Your ritual Sunday bath will go on unmolested.



__________________
JustCallMeDave is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Cast to



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:44 AM.

Terms of Service
 
Page generated in 0.61187 seconds with 81 queries