View
Contact Details 
Add
Mobile Alerthttp://www.bammm.org/Consider_LNG_risks.htm
| Date: | Fri, 16 Feb 2007 10:43:03 -0800 |
| From: | "Jody McCaffree" <mccaffrees@verizon.net> View
Contact Details Add
Mobile Alert |
| Subject: | Consider LNG risks, benefits for yourselves http://www.bammm.org/Consider_LNG_risks.htm |
| To: | Undisclosed-Recipient@, |
Opinion - The World Newspaper
Consider LNG risks,
benefits for yourselves
With
most things, there are pluses and minuses, black chips and white chips,
risks and benefits, so to speak. The same is true with respect to liquefied
natural gas. Count them up and see where you come out.
The following are, I believe, the risks:
LNG is a volatile gas, like propane, gasoline, etc.
A terminal or tanker could be a target for terrorists.
Accidents could happen.
There may be occasional disruptions to small boat traffic in the bay and
entrance to the harbor when tankers call this port; perhaps as often as
seven times per month for a couple of hours each occasion.
The
following are what I believe will be the benefits.
Many people will not view the completed LNG terminal as a thing of beauty,
but while agreed that it will not be aesthetically pleasing to all, it will
be at least as attractive as a sawmill and it will be isolated on the North
Spit in an area zoned for industrial use, not high-dollar homes, churches
and the like.
LNG in its liquid state cannot burn without the presence of oxygen. It is
about 80 percent methane and therefore much lighter than air when it
vaporizes to gas from the liquid form, and will quickly rise and dissipate,
if it is leaked. It cannot explode unless it turns to a gaseous state and is
touched off, with oxygen, in a contained environment.
LNG is maintained in a sealed, tightly controlled and secure environment,
unlike propane and gasoline, both of which are everywhere - in people's cars
and backyards, and often in the hands of people who don't know what they are
doing. Unlike refineries and chemical plants, to say nothing of pulp plants,
LNG does not emit odors and noxious fumes, precisely because it is kept in a
totally sealed environment.
There
has never been an accident with a LNG marine terminal that damaged property
or injured or killed people outside the LNG plant area. In fact, its safety
record far surpasses logging and fishing, the two industries we know best.
It is said that LNG won't benefit us locally because it is all going to California.
To be sure, most of the imported LNG will go outside our local area. But
then so does almost everything we receive by ship from overseas. That is the
nature of ports. Also, remember that our logs are sawn to lumber and shipped
elsewhere. The fish we catch goes all over the world, so do our mushrooms,
our cranberries, etc. That's what commerce is all about.
Revenues from the land transportation of LNG will pay for the county
pipeline and provide an ongoing source of revenue for the county. This is in
addition to the proposed pipeline.
An LNG terminal will attract a planned 88 tanker cells per year, providing
employment for pilots, longshoremen and many others in addition to those
employed by the terminal itself. Each ship call brings an estimated $300,000
to $400,000 into our local economy, or about $35 million per year. Just a
few years ago, we had more than 340 ship calls at this port. Today, we have
about 40.
The LNG terminal will spawn additional businesses such as machine shops,
valve repair facilities and others.
A local LNG terminal will help keep the cost of energy down in this area.
The West Coast
currently gets much of its natural gas from Canada.
Canadian supply is declining by 1 percent to 2 percent per year. At the same
time, Pacific Northwest
consumption is growing by 3 percent to 5 percent per year, and even more
rapidly in Nevada and California.
Without alternate sources, there will inevitably be upward pressure on
pricing. Remember, propane prices are directly influenced by natural gas
prices.
Disruptions to air traffic will be nonexistent, per the Federal Aviation
Agency.
Disruptions to commercial and sport fishing due to tanker traffic should be
little, if any, different than with any other ship call. Small boats are
always required to stay out of the way of big ships. Pilots and U.S. Coast
Guard will be on security alert and will demand small boats clear the area
only if they appear suspicious. Even so, that would be limited to about two
hours each of the seven times per month we may have a tanker call this port.
Natural gas is the cleanest-burning of all fossil fuels. To the extent
natural gas can be used to generate electricity and be a fuel source that
substitutes for coal or oil, the environment is well served.
To the extent there are costs arising from additional security requirements
or other issues, they are to be borne by the LNG terminal operators, not the
taxpayers.
The availability of natural gas, unburdened by pipeline transportation
costs, will enhance the attractiveness of our area to environmentally
friendly industries that provide family wage jobs and career opportunities
for our youth.
Those are the facts. Virtually every one can be independently verified from
any one of several sources. Those interested parties can learn volumes by
accessing the FERC, iMosaic, IELE and other Web sites. Don't rely on hearsay
and innuendo. Do the research and draw your own conclusions.
Is there risk? You bet. But keep the risk in perspective to all the other
risks we face each day and weigh them against the benefits.
Down with hysteria. Up with independent thought.
(Jon Barton lives in Coos Bay.)
*****************************************************************************************************
Mr. Barton:
Thanks for your (below) kind reply to my e-mail message to airport
Executive Director LeTellier. I read your World newspaper 10 February Op
Ed piece several times before I wrote - as your Op ED piece encouraged me
to investigate and verify. Your photo reminded me of a person who is
trying very hard to be a nice guy, especially with the children and
grandchildren. Frankly, while we may never agree on the benefit of LNG to
Coos County, I enjoyed what you wrote. Unlike others who have a vested
interest in local LNG and who attempted to masquerade as private citizens
writing to the paper Editor; what you wrote appeared to come from the
heart, not from the wallet. Thank you.
Thank you for acknowledging that what the World paper printed as fact - that "disruption of air traffic will be nonexistent per the Federal Aviation Agency" is not fact. We may be about the same age as I still call the FAA - the Agency - a name that it has not had since 1966. Some of my life long friends in the aerospace world still call it the CAB; the FAA name prior to 1958. Hopefully, you will inform the World newspaper Editor and the World readers that what you stated to be a fact in your Op Ed piece, something that could be easily independently verified, is not fact.
Perhaps if I lived as far away from the planned LNG tanker route and LNG facility as your three local properties are located; or if the LNG terminal were offshore; or if I did not have a grandchild at Madison School; or if I did not have friends in the local Coast Guard; I would not care as much. It is too easy to verify what people say about LNG. There has been misinformation flowing both ways. My primary interests are the safety of children, the safety of the Coast Guard and first responders, and assuring that nothing jeopardizes the county airport that is crucial to the development of the county.
I have invested more than 1,000 hours in the LNG subject
matter. Fortunately or unfortunately, I had much free time while traveling
extensively for the past two years. I have a small web site that discusses
LNG. During about an 18 month period, I have received more than 700,000
hits form folks in 48 different countries, the US DOD, Coast Guard, other
state and federal agencies, many folks in academia, and many tens of
thousands of private citizens. I have at least two credible sources for
anything that I have stated.
I have absolutely no criticism, constructive or otherwise, about your Op Ed piece. As I said above, I thank you. I do have in my possession a letter from a high level DC FAA person who states that airport arrival and departure as I described in my message to Mr. LeTellier may be a problem. We agree that over flights will not be permitted. Because of prevailing Coos County winds, it will most often be impossible not to overfly the LNG terminal, the moored LNG tanker, or a LNG tanker transiting the channel. I was told that the FAA intends to comment when Jordan Cove files in a month. You are going to have some mighty potent and furious Bandon golfers who may be unable to depart North Bend. Perhaps that is why the golf course developer is buying so much land - for a needed runway.
I am certain that you relied on others when you wrote your piece. After spending more than 20 years outside of the US, waving the flag, believing that what I was doing was the proper thing to do, and making peoples lives miserable, I share your belief that LNG tankers and terminals will soon be attractive terrorists targets. I believe that Al Qaeda and others will not attack for another five years - at least - when there are LNG terminals from coast to coast. Accidents have happened at world wide onshore LNG terminals and aboard LNG tankers in transit. Fortunately only six crew members have died on LNG tankers to date. Many hundreds have been incinerated or severely injured at LNG terminals.
Some other thoughts after reading your Op Ed piece. I also believe that the planned disruptions in the Charleston Harbor and in the bay may be the final nail in the coffin of the local fishing fleet. I agree that the LNG facility will be unsightly. Large global companies siting LNG terminals have repeatedly said that they should not be near population areas. North Bend is a population area. The local LNG facility will not be "isolated". It will be looking directly at North Bend and greeting every airport arriving visitor. And, when the LNG developer and the Port carve out parts of the North Spit, with the North Spit sand barrier gone, the next tsunami may also be looking directly at North Bend. The LNG tankers will pass within 1/2 mile of more than 1,000 school children. The communities of Charleston, Bar View, Empire, and North Bend, including the airport, two water treatment facilities, the Charleston based fishing fleet, and two Coast Guard facilities are within Zone 1 - what the Department of Homeland Security considers to be the most hazardous zone. Government, academia, and industry, experts agree that LNG will not quickly rise and dissipate as you suggest. Yes, LNG is not odorized, but not because it is stored in a sealed environment - it isn’t. It is not odorized because the odorizing element would freeze. LNG constantly boils and saying kept in a totally sealed environment may not be accurate. You may be unaware that there will be a very large flare at the LNG import terminal site that arriving and departing airport traffic must avoid. May be difficult in bad weather. I have been in the aviation and aerospace industry most of my adult life. I follow accidents at slackdavis.com. I anticipate a North Bend LNG facility related incident will be listed there some day. It is well documented that both of the catastrophic LNG facility accidents of 2004 damaged property as far as six miles away. The state of Oregon and every seller of natural gas (including the President of Northwest Natural) in Oregon has stated in writing that, contrary to what you have stated, having a local LNG terminal and pipeline will not cause lower rates locally. And, rates are service area wide not local. Regarding your statement that natural gas consumption in the Northwest US is growing by 3% - 5% annually; that is not accurate. Many years of data is available for you at the DOE EIA web site. It's current through October of last year. I agree that California and Nevada are growth areas. So is Arizona. Phoenix and Las Vegas are the fastest growing areas of the US. More than 5,000 folks move to the Las Vegas area weekly. Assuming that you consider Oregon, Washington, and Idaho, to be the northwest; you will find that Oregon consumption of natural gas was 7% less in 2006 than in 2004 and 1% less in 2005 than in 2004. In Idaho it was 1.5% less in 2005 and 3.5% less in 2006. In Washington it was 1% less in 2005 and 3% more in 2006. You must be aware that there are four large LNG import terminals planned for the Columbia River area to satisfy the nonexistent Washington natural gas needs. The combined states of Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, and Montana, consumed 6% less natural gas in 2005 than in 2004. Oregon has consumed less natural gas in every year since 1999 between years 2000 and 2005. And, regarding the need for a new pipeline, you are probably aware that the current pipeline can send out enough natural gas daily to satisfy the needs of every Oregon natural gas user - and then some.
Two other points. In areas where there is minimal local opposition to LNG, terminals that are larger than the planned local LNG facility are expected to employ about 350 temporary people at peak and 35 to 40 permanent workers. You may recall that the stated number here was 250 until Ms. McCaffree started organizing opposition. Then rapidly it went to 500, then 800, and then almost overnight it went to 1,000. If Ms. McCaffree continues her efforts, the local LNG facility may employ every human in the state. And, don’t be too certain about the income. I also heard Mr Braddock state, in response to a question from the audience at the January LNG debate, that the law now requires the LNG developer to pay for all security of the LNG tanker and facility - including hospitals. I thought that I had missed something and the morning following the meeting I received from FERC a statement that there is no such law, and there is no obligation for the LNG developer to pay all costs of doing business. In Long Beach, the LNG developer offered the community $500 million not to oppose siting a LNG terminal - the community refused to put a price on human life and rejected the LNG terminal. In Astoria, it was $20 million. In Perry Maine it is $20 million. How many million have the people of Coos Bay been offered? What's a life here worth? It appears that the Port has offered the LNG developer everything except the partridge in a pear tree. If you have read the contract between the Port and the LNG developer, two things should become evident rapidly. The not so wealthy people of the state of Oregon are prepared to pay for too much that the $4 billion annual sales Canadian LNG developer should be paying as a cost of doing business. And, second, the Port has lost control. It's the tail wagging the dog! And, the LNG developer's ability to comply with existing Port Ordinances that have been in effect for many years should be interesting.
I have communicated with elected representatives at most levels across this planet. Many wrote words of encouragement. I believe that your North Bend neighbor Jody McCaffree is second to none when it comes to knowledge of the dangers of LNG. I urge you to have a private meeting with her and safeguard the interests of the people who you were elected to represent.
Thanks for letting me ramble and respond to your message.
With kindest regards,
Fred Kirby
Coos County
---- Jon Barton wrote:
from the desk of . . . . . . . . . . . . Jon A. Barton
February 13, 2007
Mr. Kirby,
Gary Letellier has forwarded your letter to me. Please note that the Op-Ed piece to which you refer was written by Jon Barton, private citizen, and not Jon Barton, Board Member of CCAD or SCDC. Accordingly any questions or criticisms you may have should be made directly to me.
I am unsure as to your source for the comments made in the second paragraph of your letter but I think you are correct, insofar as I know, in your statement that the FAA has taken no position, one way or the other, on the LNG terminal facility as it relates to the Southwest Oregon Regional Airport. I am informed from several sources and from personal experience with the Cabot LNG facility on the Charles River near Boston, that the FAA imposes no restrictions except that direct fly-overs are not permitted. In other words, if a plane’s approach takes it directly over a LNG tanker, the plane must divert around the ship. At 200 miles per hour, give or take, that hardly constitutes a disruption to air traffic. I also assume, though I don’t know with certainty, that this is only necessary below a certain flight altitude. After all, it would hardly be relevant at 35,000 feet.
I hope the foregoing clarifies my position on the matter. Thank you for reading the OP-ED piece, and for doing the research necessary to enable a rational and sensible decision, on whichever side of the fence you end up.
Sincerely,
Jon Barton