Kulongoski says he is open to LNG plants


Friday, November 30, 2007 | 15 comment(s)

Font Size: Shrink Font Enlarge Font | Submit your news
ASTORIA (AP) — Gov. Ted Kulongoski is open to the idea of liquefied natural gas terminals, but he has told state agencies to “fully assert Oregon’s concerns and interests” as they are considered, according to a memo to state agency directors.

The Daily Astorian said Kulongoski’s memo spelling out his position on LNG terminals and pipelines was circulated at a meeting of the Columbia County Democratic Central Committee and confirmed by the governor’s natural resources expert, Mike Carrier.

In the memo, Kulongoski, a Democrat, says Oregon could benefit from the addition of LNG to its energy portfolio, even if a “large quantity” of the LNG processed here is used in neighboring states.

“Liquefied natural gas must be considered in the context of diversifying and shoring up energy supplies for Oregon and the Pacific (Northwest) and the potential for LNG to help reduce over-reliance on other sources of energy, especially coal and hydropower, which have other environmental impacts,” the memo says. “LNG must also be considered in light of its potential to serve as part of an essential ’bridge’ to a future energy portfolio that is more dependent on renewables.”

Three LNG terminals are proposed in Oregon: one at Bradwood Landing 20 miles east of Astoria, one in Warrenton and one in Coos Bay.

Kulongoski “doesn’t have a preference at this point,” Carrier said. “They each need to be evaluated individually on their own merits and put through the FERC process as well as the state process.”

Carrier said the governor would be “weighing in” on the Bradwood Landing project before Dec. 24, when the federal agency finishes taking comments on the environmental assessment.

The newspaper said the Democratic committees from both Columbia and Clatsop counties have taken stands against the Bradwood Landing project.
Tags »
Previous
Next

Have you checked out The World Link Forums?

Comments

The comments below are from users of theworldlink.com and do not necessarily represent the views of The World or Lee Enterprises. Participation Guidelines

Note: There is a maximum of 200 words per comment. If you wish to post more, please visit our forum.
Comment Policy

The World welcomes your comments about stories, and we encourage a robust dialogue on this site. All comments must meet reasonable standards of decency and civility.

Please follow these basic rules:

  • No defamatory comments about individuals or businesses.
  • No deliberately false information.
  • No obscenity or racially offensive language.
  • No harassment, verbal abuse, threats or personal attacks.
  • No information that invades another person's privacy.
  • No business solicitations or charitable solicitations.
Comments that violate these standards will not be posted. Users with repeated violations may be banned from future posting.

Comments will be approved throughout the day during business hours. After hours and weekend comments may not appear until the following business day. It may take a couple of hours before comments are approved.

The World generally does not edit comments, but we reserve the right to edit any comment that does not meet our standards.

Close Guidelines

Seymour Glassamn wrote on Dec 29, 2007 6:24 PM:

Our public officials are negligent. It is the first responsibility to protect the
lives and safety of the public. One should read the policy of the government suggests. The plant not to be located in a
populated area. CB & NB is one of the most populated places on the coast.Jordan Cove is a partnership that lacks honesty. They make a promise to day and the next meeting
the promise ( plan) turns to a change in plan.Look at areas that have energy depot. They became depressed area. The little tax benefit becomes a loss.When unloading LNG leeks are expected. when it mixes with water . It is toxic . WE will have more people with respitory
problems. WE need commissioners and planers that have common sense an can
read and research. How can we trust a
partnership owned by a Foreign Company ,
supplied by foreign sailors and ships of
foreign registry.The intent of the zoning was to protect the timber industry. There is no safe building code
in effect for coastal construction. This
company a partnership that could go bankrupt could just close the door and walk away. Who will pay . Who at the port is getting rewarded at our expense.

grant freeman wrote on Dec 24, 2007 1:55 PM:

...and just WHO is going to benefit locally from LNG? noone seems to be able to give a straight (particularly HONEST) answer to THAT question..

Camby Collier wrote on Dec 19, 2007 11:01 AM:

The FERC process is backwards. There needs to be a NEPA Needs Analysis: Regional and Nationwide. The fact that FERC (our Federal permitting process for these projects), doesn't consider this is crazy. Put them in wherever, tear up land, take land, and if they don't make it, 'Oh, well, we don't consider the market and the best location IF needed'. After being involved in this, going on 3 years, I have written our Senators, Governor, and Coos County representatives on How the FERC process IS, and how it needs to change. Verger said she would help with the process, but we need the Senators to do something on a Federal level. It is too bad any change will not help those of us now climbing the unattainable peak of the FERC Mountain. I have a paper on the FERC process that I sent our Senators. If you would like a copy write me at: HonorGod@gmail.com and put in the subject line: FERC Process, and I will send it to you.

Carol wrote on Dec 16, 2007 2:21 PM:

I haven't seen anything on how the county commissioners, or any other group, is going to compensate the homeowners who have homes near the proposed site of the LNG terminal for a loss in the value of their homes, since I can't imagine anyone willingly buying a house anywhere near where one of these things might wind up. Landowners will apparently get something for the pipeline going through their land, but what about home owners near the site getting some kind of compensation?

Linda wrote on Dec 12, 2007 12:21 PM:

Wow, all those typically Oregon coast comments. nothing has changed since I left about 35 years ago. Steady work is still hard to find, The young people of the area give up and leave as soon as they can. Is it easier or better to grow pot and cook meth than to allow a legit economy to grow?As for investing? How many Coos Bay/North Bend people would be jumping on that one? Especially all the unemployed ones.

Ann wrote on Dec 11, 2007 1:39 PM:

My mistake, the people that died in the remote area in the 90's were in Algeria, not Peru. Good job boys, good catch! Now how about the other facts, or are you Canadian?

RICH wrote on Dec 10, 2007 4:56 PM:

O MY GOSH... TED IS FOR LNG.NOW THERE IS ONE THING THAT HE AND I HAVE IN COMMON.NEVER THOUGHT, THAT, THAT WOULD EVER HAPPEN.YES TO LNG!

Thomas wrote on Dec 9, 2007 9:03 PM:

Philip: The Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi LNG sites are located far away from endangering populations, unlike this one in Coos Bay. How about mentioning Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Maryland and Claifornia, which more wisely have chosen to oppose any more such LNG terminals? I don't think Oregon wants to be more like those former States in any way.

Philip wrote on Dec 1, 2007 12:31 AM:

This is the right decision and follows the lead taken in Texas, Louisiana and Mississipi, who now have new LNG terminals under construction. Communities in those states are welcoming them with open arms - check it out for the real story. LNG is needed in the US to keep natural gas costs down. LNG has been delivered safely globally since 1964 (including for almost 40 years from Alaska). Many of you need to get your facts straight about the real risk and stop listening to the Californians, who reject all new energy assets without being informed. These terminals are an excellent business opportunity for Oregon.

curtclay@gmail.com wrote on Nov 30, 2007 10:48 PM:

Coos Bay does not need or want this economic and environmental boondoggle! Where is the "green governor" when you need him?

steve wrote on Nov 30, 2007 7:55 PM:

Ann, you along with most people NEED to educate yourselves before opening your mouth. Maybe you should just move to Peru when the LNG gets here

Thomas wrote on Nov 30, 2007 6:14 PM:

Well, looks like Ted will be unique amongst US governors by welcoming LNG to his State. Heck, didn't even Romney oppose any more of it coming to Massachusetts?

Leo wrote on Nov 30, 2007 5:50 PM:

Ann: Peru has never had an LNG plant??? Get your facts straight.

Well Halli-Lu-Yah wrote on Nov 30, 2007 2:16 PM:

It Ted is behind this, it must be good for the state, county and city! Where do I sign to support his support.

Ann wrote on Nov 30, 2007 1:37 PM:

To bad the company putting in the LNG plant is from Canada, and not the USA. Even if an American wanted to buy stock in this company, they couldnt, you would have to be canadian. Plus the land grabbing of over 160 acres is sickening, plus the fact that if there were an accident and it blew up (which happened in Peru in the 90's killing 47 people in a remote area), it would take out an apx. area of 2.5 mile radius, killing way more than 47 people, because its not going to be in a remote area. Arent you glad we could provide other states this resource? Sounds like such a great deal.


*Member ID:
*Password:
 

Not already registered?

Do not use usernames or passwords from your financial accounts!

Note: Fields marked with an asterisk (*) are required!



*Create a Member ID:
*Choose a password:
*Re-enter password:
*E-mail Address:
*Year of Birth:
 

(children under 13 cannot register)

*First Name:
*Last Name:
Would you like to be added to our mailing lists?
Daily Headlines
Breaking News
Special Offers
 
Advanced Search
Web Search powered by YAHOO! SEARCH

Blogroll

Most Popular

Polls

» View Past Poll Results
» Suggest a Poll

Marketplace

Special Sections

More Special Sections