Note: There is a maximum of 200 words per comment. If you wish to post more, please visit our forum.
m00npenny wrote on Jan 10, 2008 9:28 PM:
No idea there SD. Why dont you go do some work on that idea and get back to us. Like how many have been blown up so far ?
S.D.JONES wrote on Jan 6, 2008 6:03 PM:
Are LNG facilities and LNG Tanker Ships considered prime terrorist targets???
And would the proposed JCEP facility and LNG Tankers be considered a terrorist target even though the facility is located in the Coos Bay Estuary?? Well folks it turns out that our own Department of Homeland Security, The U.S. Government and the United States Coast Guard all FULLY AGREE that the answer is a resounding YES and Yes. NOT MY CALL, NOT YOUR CALL,, Just a FACT!!!
THE OTHER FACT is that there will NEVER be an LNG IMPORT TREMINAL here in Coos Bay..Find out about the RUBY Pipeline from Wyoming to Malin Oregon.
Now WHY would Californias Pacific Gas & Electric Company(the partners with Williams pipeline in the Pacific Connector pipeline proposed from Coos Bay to Malin Or.) invest in another pipeline going to the EXACT same place??? Could it be that PG&E is a bit worried about the Jordan Cove Facility failing to become a reality?? Even Bob Braddock told me (personally)that he doesn't know where the JCEP will get their Gas. If they can get Gas at all... Then there is the Fact that Domestic Natural Gas is much much CHEAPER than Imported LNG.. Wyoming looks Better and Better all the time,, maybe at least from PG&E's view.
Could be maybe we just might let Jordan Cove shove off into the sunset and be more Self Dependent and LESS DEPENDENT on FOREIGN FOSSLE FUILS..
And would the proposed JCEP facility and LNG Tankers be considered a terrorist target even though the facility is located in the Coos Bay Estuary?? Well folks it turns out that our own Department of Homeland Security, The U.S. Government and the United States Coast Guard all FULLY AGREE that the answer is a resounding YES and Yes. NOT MY CALL, NOT YOUR CALL,, Just a FACT!!!
THE OTHER FACT is that there will NEVER be an LNG IMPORT TREMINAL here in Coos Bay..Find out about the RUBY Pipeline from Wyoming to Malin Oregon.
Now WHY would Californias Pacific Gas & Electric Company(the partners with Williams pipeline in the Pacific Connector pipeline proposed from Coos Bay to Malin Or.) invest in another pipeline going to the EXACT same place??? Could it be that PG&E is a bit worried about the Jordan Cove Facility failing to become a reality?? Even Bob Braddock told me (personally)that he doesn't know where the JCEP will get their Gas. If they can get Gas at all... Then there is the Fact that Domestic Natural Gas is much much CHEAPER than Imported LNG.. Wyoming looks Better and Better all the time,, maybe at least from PG&E's view.
Could be maybe we just might let Jordan Cove shove off into the sunset and be more Self Dependent and LESS DEPENDENT on FOREIGN FOSSLE FUILS..
Thomas wrote on Jan 6, 2008 4:27 PM:
to ANOTHER CURRENT STUDENT: If you do nothing else, at least read the summaries of the Lockheed-Martin run Sandia National Laboratory's reports. Those are from the US government, which if it does have any bias under the current administration, that certainly ought to be pro-LNG. The danger from an LNG tanker is real, and it is difficult to come up with a more perfect scenario for terrorists than by simply diving an explosive-loaded plane into one in Coos Bay with our usual onshore wind, cause unimaginable damage and massive loss of innocent lives. Anyone who would knowingly put others at that kind of risk is not sane.
Another Current Student wrote on Jan 6, 2008 12:10 PM:
Thanks for that list from sources that are anti-LNG. There is no source that isn't biased to a certain side. All information is propaganda in some way. I happen to believe that the pro-LNG information is both more believable and beneficial. Now I ask for another list. With all of the weather disasters the US goes through each year, I want a list of major LNG accidents in which people have been severely injured or killed.
Jody wrote on Jan 6, 2008 3:01 AM:
In response to "Another Current Student", you really need to do your homework on LNG as it is very apparent that you have not done so. I suggest for starters you read the following reports:
Both Sandia National Laboratory Report's on LNG - Jan 2006 and Dec 2004;
ABS Consulting Report - 2004 "Consequence Assessment Methods for Incidents Involving Releases from Liquefied Natural Gas Carriers";
Richard A Clarke Report (Former U.S Counter-terrorism official) May 2005 - "LNG Facilities in Urban Areas: Security Risk Management Analysis for Attorney General Patrick Lynch, Rhode Island";
Brittle Power - Energy Strategy for National Security - 1982;
United States GAO Report to Congressional Requesters - Feb 2007 - Maritime Security - " Public Safety Consequences of a Terrorist Attack on a Tanker Carrying Liquefied Natural Gas Need Clarification";
Cabrillo Port Liquefied Natural Gas Deepwater Port Revised Draft EIR" - March 2006;
"An Assessment of the Potential Hazards to the Public Associated with Siting an LNG Import Terminal in the Port of Long Beach" - Dr. Jerry Havens, Sept 2005;
CRS Report for Congress - "Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Infrastructure Security - Issues for Congress -March 2005;
Council on Foreign Relations / LNG Report - Feb 2006;
The Whole Bay Study of Passamaquoddy Bay - A Comprehensive study of the effects from proposed LNG terminals on the economy, environment, culture, recreation, and tourism. - June 22, 2006;
"A Study for Prevention of Unconfined Vapor Cloud Explosion from Spilled LNG Confined in Dike" Won Kim - Seoul National University, Korea & Hans-Christen Salvesen, Dr. Scient., GexCon, Norway;
"Vapor Cloud Exclusion Zones for Spills from LNG Import Terminal Transfer Systems" - Analysis of Eleven Environmental Assessment and Environmental Impact Statements for LNG Import Terminals - April 2005 - Professor Jerry Havens;
Site Selection and Design for LNG Ports and Jetties - Information Paper 14 - Society of International Gas Tanker and Terminal Operators Ltd 1997.
The problem is if you only get your information from those who have money ties to this project, you will never learn the true facts about LNG. Placing one of these import terminals in an earthquake subduction zone, in a red tsunami zone, at the end of an active airport runway, in the flight path of the airport, in a floodplain, on dredging spoils, on a spit (an unstable sand dune), in an area known for high winds and ship disasters, right next to a very large wood chip facility and less than a mile from where people live and work, is to say at the very least an insane idea. When you combine this also with the fact that this facility will have a 231 mile pipeline that will condemn and confiscate hundreds of people's private property and all without proof by this company that we even need this gas, the idea gets even crazier. Foreign LNG currently soars at $18 a Therm. Do the math. It's a lose / lose situation no matter how you look at it! Green collar jobs are a far better way to go.
Both Sandia National Laboratory Report's on LNG - Jan 2006 and Dec 2004;
ABS Consulting Report - 2004 "Consequence Assessment Methods for Incidents Involving Releases from Liquefied Natural Gas Carriers";
Richard A Clarke Report (Former U.S Counter-terrorism official) May 2005 - "LNG Facilities in Urban Areas: Security Risk Management Analysis for Attorney General Patrick Lynch, Rhode Island";
Brittle Power - Energy Strategy for National Security - 1982;
United States GAO Report to Congressional Requesters - Feb 2007 - Maritime Security - " Public Safety Consequences of a Terrorist Attack on a Tanker Carrying Liquefied Natural Gas Need Clarification";
Cabrillo Port Liquefied Natural Gas Deepwater Port Revised Draft EIR" - March 2006;
"An Assessment of the Potential Hazards to the Public Associated with Siting an LNG Import Terminal in the Port of Long Beach" - Dr. Jerry Havens, Sept 2005;
CRS Report for Congress - "Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Infrastructure Security - Issues for Congress -March 2005;
Council on Foreign Relations / LNG Report - Feb 2006;
The Whole Bay Study of Passamaquoddy Bay - A Comprehensive study of the effects from proposed LNG terminals on the economy, environment, culture, recreation, and tourism. - June 22, 2006;
"A Study for Prevention of Unconfined Vapor Cloud Explosion from Spilled LNG Confined in Dike" Won Kim - Seoul National University, Korea & Hans-Christen Salvesen, Dr. Scient., GexCon, Norway;
"Vapor Cloud Exclusion Zones for Spills from LNG Import Terminal Transfer Systems" - Analysis of Eleven Environmental Assessment and Environmental Impact Statements for LNG Import Terminals - April 2005 - Professor Jerry Havens;
Site Selection and Design for LNG Ports and Jetties - Information Paper 14 - Society of International Gas Tanker and Terminal Operators Ltd 1997.
The problem is if you only get your information from those who have money ties to this project, you will never learn the true facts about LNG. Placing one of these import terminals in an earthquake subduction zone, in a red tsunami zone, at the end of an active airport runway, in the flight path of the airport, in a floodplain, on dredging spoils, on a spit (an unstable sand dune), in an area known for high winds and ship disasters, right next to a very large wood chip facility and less than a mile from where people live and work, is to say at the very least an insane idea. When you combine this also with the fact that this facility will have a 231 mile pipeline that will condemn and confiscate hundreds of people's private property and all without proof by this company that we even need this gas, the idea gets even crazier. Foreign LNG currently soars at $18 a Therm. Do the math. It's a lose / lose situation no matter how you look at it! Green collar jobs are a far better way to go.
Another Current Student wrote on Jan 5, 2008 8:59 PM:
READ IF YOU THINK LNG IS EXTREMELY EXPLOSIVE: When cold LNG comes in contact with warmer air, it becomes a visible vapor cloud. As it continues to get warmer, the vapor cloud becomes lighter than air and rises. When LNG vapor mixes with air it is only flammable if it's within 5%-15% natural gas in air. If it's less than five percent natural gas in air, there is not enough natural gas in the air to burn. If it's more than 15 percent natural gas in air, there is too much gas in the air and not enough oxygen for it to burn.
As a liquid, LNG is not explosive. LNG vapor will only explode if in an enclosed space. LNG vapor is only explosive if within the flammable range of 5%-15% when mixed with air.
The people who construct LNG facilities are not retarded. They are well aware of the dangers this area is prone to which is why an incredible amount of safety precautions will be taken (and I say WILL BE because the facility will happen, regardless of who the next president is). Safety measures such as triple-plated walls, emergency spill containment, inspection, 24-hour watch, etc. (since I don't have extensive technicle knowledge on LNG, I am sure I am leaving out some big ones).
Coos Bay is not on Al Qaida's to-do list, even if the facility blew to its highest possibility, they still would have many more attractive targets. Terrorists have their hands full in the Middle East, I predict another attack on the United States will not be anytime soon. I am finished argruing this point for good.
I have yet to see any valid refutions to any of my points except the terrorist attack argument, which in my opinion, is the weakest argument for anti-LNG'ers. I have a flexible opinion, I urge someone to change my mind with facts, not ranting.
As a liquid, LNG is not explosive. LNG vapor will only explode if in an enclosed space. LNG vapor is only explosive if within the flammable range of 5%-15% when mixed with air.
The people who construct LNG facilities are not retarded. They are well aware of the dangers this area is prone to which is why an incredible amount of safety precautions will be taken (and I say WILL BE because the facility will happen, regardless of who the next president is). Safety measures such as triple-plated walls, emergency spill containment, inspection, 24-hour watch, etc. (since I don't have extensive technicle knowledge on LNG, I am sure I am leaving out some big ones).
Coos Bay is not on Al Qaida's to-do list, even if the facility blew to its highest possibility, they still would have many more attractive targets. Terrorists have their hands full in the Middle East, I predict another attack on the United States will not be anytime soon. I am finished argruing this point for good.
I have yet to see any valid refutions to any of my points except the terrorist attack argument, which in my opinion, is the weakest argument for anti-LNG'ers. I have a flexible opinion, I urge someone to change my mind with facts, not ranting.
Jethro Bodine wrote on Jan 5, 2008 5:52 PM:
My dad Jed Campett wanted me to let Thomas know that its really unrealistic that a terrorist would like to attack Coos Bay. Terrorists mostly attack symbols of America. WTC = greed. Pentagon = Military arrogance. LNG = Not a American Symbol.
I live in Beverly Hills though so I don't know much. But I think that anything bringing jobs to Coos County is pretty good. It's energy related and that's not an industry thats fading... It's going to be around for a very long time.
Thanks Thomas for your time.
I live in Beverly Hills though so I don't know much. But I think that anything bringing jobs to Coos County is pretty good. It's energy related and that's not an industry thats fading... It's going to be around for a very long time.
Thanks Thomas for your time.
gene 2 wrote on Jan 4, 2008 11:12 PM:
To Gene. I Believe opponents to the terminal use the example of a potential terrorist attack to make the point that you make inadvertently, that right now there is almost an impossibility of such an attack. You put it here and you suddenly make it a possibility. With world tensions rising due to the energy crisis we are in, the risk increases further because blowing the tanks or a ship will make great headlines the world over for the extremists that want us out of the middle east. The location here might be even easier to hit than one guarded by the air force . But we should just trust you and the other people who want it here. Someone making a lot of money is more important than public safety and must make you wiser than the rest of us. The Saudi's are constantly repelling attacks on their oil fields, but no it couldn't happen here. It is not to hard to imagine a timed delayed explosive device planted on a huge ship from the middle east arriving to kiss our new tanks. Naaw couldn't happen here. The potential threat from terrorism is just one of many reasons to oppose this boondoggle. How about the Tsunami threat, global warming, citizens losing their property rights for corporate greed. No matter how well opponents argue against this thing, proponents just yell bah humbug, just a bunch of radical hippies, go back to California, ect, ect. All that type of noise is used to fire up the people who feel oppressed by the local economic hardships this area has endured, its one of many tactics used to sway public opinion towards their side, again just so some people can make a lot of money.
Its obvious at least to me that the only way to stop this thing is through political pressure so that's what a lot of us are doing and there's nothing you can do to stop that tactic. It will be a fight that I suspect will be over when we elect our next president who reverses the 2005 energy bill that the politicians would have us believe takes away our right to oppose these LNG projects. A house cleaning is in order. All the politicians who are giving their support by being silent or saying constantly their hands are tied are going to be handed their pink slips. Just wait and see. One thing this is doing is exposing these crooked politicians in all levels of our government. But hey that's just my opinion.
Its obvious at least to me that the only way to stop this thing is through political pressure so that's what a lot of us are doing and there's nothing you can do to stop that tactic. It will be a fight that I suspect will be over when we elect our next president who reverses the 2005 energy bill that the politicians would have us believe takes away our right to oppose these LNG projects. A house cleaning is in order. All the politicians who are giving their support by being silent or saying constantly their hands are tied are going to be handed their pink slips. Just wait and see. One thing this is doing is exposing these crooked politicians in all levels of our government. But hey that's just my opinion.
Gene wrote on Jan 4, 2008 8:23 PM:
I can't understand why anyone would really consider a terrorist wanting to blow up anything in Coos Bay. What is it with you people, who do you think you are? There are literally thousands of targets for them before Coos Bay would ever be mentioned. I remember when the Cuban missile crisis was started and the technicians were aiming each of the multiple war heads on the minuteman missiles and not one of those sites ever got to a town the size of Coos Bay. They want to kill people, not clams.
gene 2 wrote on Jan 4, 2008 7:35 PM:
EARTHQUAKE, TSUNAMI, that's the number one threat to the tanks and the pipeline. Its not if it will happen, its when. Just watch the video on the December 2004 tsunami. Everything in the water will become a torpedo and the land will be wiped clean at water level. Where will those tanks be after the debris hits them, if those tanks even survive the earth quake. What will happen to one of those ships if its in the bay when the tsunami hits. We know that no government agency can stop a terrorist attack if they want to do it. So that should be enough reason to let common sense prevail and stop the insane notion of putting this boondoggle here. Remember we don't have this threat now why invite it. And no I'm not trying to scare anyone. There's enough scientific evidence to prove to just about everyone that its just a matter of time. We that live here know it and will accept the challenges of survival after the quake and tsunami, but your chances of survival are going to be reduced if your anywhere near an LNG catastrophe.
Thomas wrote on Jan 4, 2008 2:55 PM:
Reply to ANOTHER CURRENT STUDENT: A loaded LNG tanker cruising slowly through Coos Bay would be an ideal target for terrorist attack, and it could be so easily done as to be unstopable. Depending on where it happens and the weather conditions, the result could far exceed 9/11 in casualties, and only a fool or worse would put us in such a danger for questionable economic benefit to a very few residents. That said, you are right that I do consider Dubya's 'War on Terrorism' to be a total fraud, callously designed and propagandized on a fearfully gullible American public for ignoble purposes, but since 9/11 actually did occur, then why is it inconceivable to you that we face the real threat of another such attack?
citizen wrote on Jan 3, 2008 7:07 AM:
This Idea of making Oregon California's gas station is something that should be considered. But when we consider that issue lets put all the other players on the table. Wave energy, where the locations don't interfere with commercial fishing. grid-tied solar power everywhere, statewide. Wind generators along our windy coastline. Yes I would put one in my yard. Electrons are easier to transport to California, than gas. If we create the energy the jobs will come. Will we need to dredge the bay to use the ocean for its commercial opportunities, Yes, most likely, but the reasoning must be sound. The people that live and work and own property in Oregon deserve a vote in issues this important. Why was this right taken from us? As adults we will abide by majority rule.
Here locally we need to focus on what type of coastal community we want to be. One with pride in its heritage, abilities and beauty. One that will welcome new businesses, that wont add harm to the environment, or a town that can fit in anywhere along the Texas gulf coast, booming with temporary jobs that leave pipes,tanks,smells and noise.
Now if we must have LNG, then put it offshore near its market, don't let energy speculators ruin it for everyone else. Just because its easy for them to manipulate our system, doesn't make it right.
Here locally we need to focus on what type of coastal community we want to be. One with pride in its heritage, abilities and beauty. One that will welcome new businesses, that wont add harm to the environment, or a town that can fit in anywhere along the Texas gulf coast, booming with temporary jobs that leave pipes,tanks,smells and noise.
Now if we must have LNG, then put it offshore near its market, don't let energy speculators ruin it for everyone else. Just because its easy for them to manipulate our system, doesn't make it right.
Another Current Student wrote on Jan 2, 2008 9:13 PM:
Thomas: First of all, please don't speak down to me because I am a student. People of this area need to realize that students, like me who care about such matters, are the same people who will be running this country in the near future. Second of all, I think you need to go back and interpret the research that you have done. The chance that a terrorist will attack an LNG terminal in Coos Bay, Oregon is minimal. And as a person that spouts off words like "far-right agenda" I am sure you are not one to take verbal threats from Al Quaeda very seriously. Terrorists do not want to attack facilities anyway, they wish to attack the tankers and ships. Due to extensive security, terrorists could not reach the LNG storage facility. The only way that LNG would become volatile is when it changes into its gaseous state. Once in a gaseous state, it has to be lit on fire. Some experts have said that extreme heat could be projected 1200 feet, yet I am not sure how much substance needs to be applied to reach that distance. Also, the are not any homes within 1200 feet of the site.
The ships and tankers are the more attractive target, however chances of explosion are slim as well. Ships have to provide a notice 96 hours prior to docking. During this 96 hours, police boats, helicopters, divers, and fire-fighting tugboats surround the vessel preventing any unauthorized personnel from nearing it. In addition, all nearby flights are canceled and bridges are closed temporarily. Then, tankers are boarded and inspected for explosives. As long as all procedures are followed, damaging an LNG tanker would be almost impossible.
In the many wars the US has contributed in, there has not been a single attack on an LNG facility. And, to correct my previous comment, there has actually been only ONE liquid natural gas accident in the history of the United States. The accident was in 1944. Needless to say, safety has improved since. I am not denying the fact that LNG is capable of producing massive damage; I am saying that the chance of that happening is slim to none. A terrorist attack on a packed Seattle Seahawks game would do more damage than an LNG spillage.
Many lucrative industries risk lives every day. Logging, fishing, factory-workers, are all lethal jobs when procedures aren't followed. Look at the fishermen in Alaska, they risk life and limb every year just so high end restaurants can sell king crab meat!
As for qualifications of the commissioners, they know our area better than any politician from Portland or Eugene. They are long-time residents who have worked in a variety of industries throughout the Bay Area. The commissioners are not politicians, which is a good thing. Politicians care abound money, fame, and personal agendas. They are detached from the real world. I would rather have someone that understands my point of view. A person doesn't need a degree to have knowledge on Coos Bay and what it needs to improve.
And I can see that Thomas is definitely one of those people that has nothing better to do with his time than complain about LNG and correct his spelling of Jed Campett on worldlink.myspace.com.
The ships and tankers are the more attractive target, however chances of explosion are slim as well. Ships have to provide a notice 96 hours prior to docking. During this 96 hours, police boats, helicopters, divers, and fire-fighting tugboats surround the vessel preventing any unauthorized personnel from nearing it. In addition, all nearby flights are canceled and bridges are closed temporarily. Then, tankers are boarded and inspected for explosives. As long as all procedures are followed, damaging an LNG tanker would be almost impossible.
In the many wars the US has contributed in, there has not been a single attack on an LNG facility. And, to correct my previous comment, there has actually been only ONE liquid natural gas accident in the history of the United States. The accident was in 1944. Needless to say, safety has improved since. I am not denying the fact that LNG is capable of producing massive damage; I am saying that the chance of that happening is slim to none. A terrorist attack on a packed Seattle Seahawks game would do more damage than an LNG spillage.
Many lucrative industries risk lives every day. Logging, fishing, factory-workers, are all lethal jobs when procedures aren't followed. Look at the fishermen in Alaska, they risk life and limb every year just so high end restaurants can sell king crab meat!
As for qualifications of the commissioners, they know our area better than any politician from Portland or Eugene. They are long-time residents who have worked in a variety of industries throughout the Bay Area. The commissioners are not politicians, which is a good thing. Politicians care abound money, fame, and personal agendas. They are detached from the real world. I would rather have someone that understands my point of view. A person doesn't need a degree to have knowledge on Coos Bay and what it needs to improve.
And I can see that Thomas is definitely one of those people that has nothing better to do with his time than complain about LNG and correct his spelling of Jed Campett on worldlink.myspace.com.
ANOTHER PARROT wrote on Jan 2, 2008 6:36 PM:
HI THOMAS, read THIS:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LNG#LNG_safety_and_accidents
YOURE WRONG SON
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LNG#LNG_safety_and_accidents
YOURE WRONG SON
Richard wrote on Jan 2, 2008 2:07 PM:
I for one am very happy to hear SOMETHING is coming to this area.
Thomas wrote on Jan 1, 2008 5:02 PM:
Reply to ANOTHER CURRENT STUDENT: Since you are a student, please do some real research into LNG, and not just parrot the propaganda from Jordon Cove et al. The risk of catastrophe in Coos Bay from a terrorist attack on an LNG tanker is well examined by Sandia and other respected agencies. Hundreds, maybe thousands of local residents could die or be seriously injuried, in addition to substantial property damage, all because of this questionable development. NO AMOUNT OF MONEY IS WORTH THE RISK OF A SINGLE LIFE! LNG terminals do not belong in a place like here, and even the sane, responsible LNG industry elsewhere agrees ......... which says all we need to know about the nature of those trying to force one on us here.
Another Current Student wrote on Dec 29, 2007 8:02 PM:
How will an LNG Terminal and storage facility hurt the Bay Area? It is not a danger as LNG is not a volatile gas and spillage has not occurred in over 50 years of transportation between the US and China. There have been about 3 actual "explosions" in the history of the United States and only employees and immediate bystanders were injured. It is not dangerous. And people say that the previous pipeline put them at such an inconvenience; I'm sorry it took an extra 5 minutes to get to work because you had to pass through construction zones. It's a small price to pay to help our community grow. And those that say 90 percent of the public doesn't want an LNG terminal need to re-think their statistics. The reason that most citizens attending meetings are against LNG is because a majority of the people that attend the meetings are older, retired citizens who support a no-growth agenda for the Bay Area. Most residents actually have something to do with their time besides complaining about topics that ultimately will not have a large impact on their life. These attendees wish for Coos Bay to remain small, quiet, and unproductive. Younger residents (and older residents who wish for our town to flourish) want Coos Bay and North Bend to improve and to create a more successful economy. Right now the Bay Area economy is growing weaker. The Charelston port used to receive over 300 ship calls per year; this number has shrank to about 20 per year. Even unrelated markets are being affected by the economy with retail stores going out of business or not even attempting to start a business in the first place. So much of the community's money is outsourced to Eugene, Portland, and through online transactions. This money needs to be invested in local business. If the Bay Area is to succeed, the no-growth supporters need to stop scaring away revenue. The LNG facility will take years to complete, this means excavation jobs, truck driving jobs, construction jobs, investment jobs, etc. These businesses will need more people, which means a larger population, which means more money invested throughout the community. Larger, more experienced development businesses will be very busy with this terminal which will clear the way for newer, smaller businesses to take the jobs the bigger businesses left behind. Projects like the LNG terminal create revenue. Ever heard of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal? Bingo.
If you would like to read a full story about this topic, visit www.myspace.com/marshfieldtimes.
If you would like to read a full story about this topic, visit www.myspace.com/marshfieldtimes.
gene 2 wrote on Dec 21, 2007 9:49 AM:
If anyone is interested in posting more dialog about this LNG project, I invite you to go to http://groups.msn.com/BayAreaLNG/homepage and share your thoughts.
gene 2 wrote on Dec 20, 2007 2:51 PM:
Janice W That's good advice for people who plan to stay. But I had in mind a different scenario. If you leave the area because you refuse to accept the risk (proponents say minimal) associated with an LNG terminal nearby and tanker ships going past your home. Who will compensate these owners for their loss of equity when they try to sell their home. Your pursuit of happiness, the third right behind life and liberty have been robbed along with your equity. And I believe you will be able to prove a direct correlation between terminal and equity. Again just a scenario
Janice W wrote on Dec 20, 2007 11:28 AM:
In the event that property values decline, especially in areas of North Bend closest to the LNG terminal, property owners should investigate the following website for an appeal of their property tax assessed values: http://www.oregon.gov/DOR/PTD/Appeal_P.shtml
Have the commissioners considered the loss of revenue from residents demanding that their property taxes be lowered to accurately reflect the reduced value of their property?
gene 2 wrote on Dec 20, 2007 10:52 AM:
LNG siting and property values are about to be the hot topic
in North Bend and Coos Bay. You better give thought to what this project will do to the value of our homes. I don't hear anyone saying they will go up.
1. I would never buy a home in a town that has an LNG plant on its shores.
2. I don't know anyone that wants to live near this thing
3.Who will be held accountable for the lowering of our homes value?
4.Who will represent us in the inevitable lawsuits.
Homesick..? wrote on Dec 20, 2007 9:54 AM:
We moved away from our home in the Bay area 3 years ago temporarily due to family considerations with the intent on coming back, which we are in the process of now. We went thru all the TRASH that came with the pipeline debacle and Mastec. The same stonewalling and misinformation campaign that came with the pipeline is happening again with the LNG Dock, will the sheriff be threatening people this time too? Nothing has changed, the commissioners were wrong about Mastec, they do not serve the public. I can't come back HOME (Coos County) now, nothing has changed. I urge the citizens of Coos County to Vot'em Out!! Get some responsible representatives.
Good bye Coos County, you will be missed..
Thomas wrote on Dec 20, 2007 9:28 AM:
Reply to Janice W: The Commissioner's meeting at which they approved of Coos County uniquely in Oregon signing on to that Far-Right-agenda driven, Pacific Legal Foundation lawsuit had the largest public attendance of any ever held to that date. Howsoever, if you search the public records in the Courthouse, you will find no mention of that fact, nor of any public comments made that day, which were 90% against it. These Commissioners run our county like a feudal fief, and have scant respect for democratic pprocesses.
Janice W wrote on Dec 19, 2007 10:59 PM:
It seems our commissioners have thrown up their hands and declared that they can do nothing about the siting of the LNG terminal in Coos Bay. They have said it is the FERC's decision. They have refused to allow an advisory vote and virtually eliminated public input. However, several years ago the Coos County Commissioners were quite willing to legally challenge the federal government. Their lawsuit against the Department of the Interior and The Fish & Wildlife Service states, "State and federal government have intentionally excluded the public from having any input in beach management for the snowy plover." and, "Fish and Wildlife Service must analyze the economic and other relevant impacts of including specific areas in Critical Habitat Designations, and that those analyses be done before designating specific areas as critical habitat." Rather than take a similar approach for the economic and environmental well-being of the county, their rubber-stamp approach is insincere and hypocritical at best.
Micha McCarthy wrote on Dec 19, 2007 10:37 AM:
Again "We the People" have no say and get to pay for it. Oregon citizens will have huge pipelines run thru their property, destroying the property values and the property. The pipeline is so dangerous to live next to that people are fighting this tooth and nail. Californina benefits, Oregon pays, and the gas isn't compatable to exisiting appliances in the US. Go figure. Please stop the insanity. I feel so sorry for Coos Bay residents!.
Norm wrote on Dec 18, 2007 2:26 PM:
Looks like your commissioners have been bought and paid for. Depressing...
gene 2 wrote on Dec 18, 2007 1:35 PM:
I grew up with a believe that it was against the law to bribe a puplic official. Guess what, now its called lobbying. Who hires a lobbiest?
gimme a break, this thing was paved before the port announced it.
kristen wrote on Dec 18, 2007 10:58 AM:
I'm having a hard time understanding what the payoff is for the county commissioners to make this decision in direct opposition to their hired expert and most of their constituents. It is so obviously wrong, for so many reasons. Even the Douglas County Commissioners could agree to stand against the project, and they never agree on anything! The destruction of Coos Bay and large swaths of southern oregon are apparently immaterial to these people, so I ask again - what is the payoff here? It won't bring more jobs, or cheaper energy for Oregonians; it will cause permanent damage to the environment - why is this a good thing?
Ruby wrote on Dec 17, 2007 6:09 PM:
I attended the Coos Bay and Empire city planning meeting several months ago. There was great concern from the merchants who are fighting, some for a long time, like the Yarn Shop, Katrinas', Pasta Bella and other wonderful businesses. THIS IS COOS BAY. THESE ARE OUR PEOPLE. In this meeting it was agreed that 101 is impassible and we need to free it up so the merchants can bring customers to their businesses. BUT, the myopic, Cheny-minded commissioners want to DESTR0Y many businesses. The commissioners are talking with forked tonges. They want big heavy trucks and building materials to bottleneck our downtown and kill local residents wages, but at the same time they want 101 to open up to bring customers to our wonderful shops. WHICH IS IT? Our hard working long term business owners or 60 jobs hired from Canada? I do have several degrees and have build several towns. I know what I am talking about. These Cheny wantabees don't. We have told you all to go away. So go already. Also, the measurement of our tiny bay will not sustain ships 4 football fields long. Million dollar homes will be lost on Arago. You commissioners do not have the knowledge to run MY TOWN.
suzanne wrote on Dec 17, 2007 10:53 AM:
Let me get this straight, if the LNG terminal is built and there is a conflict between an oyster farmer or a commercial or sport fisherman over the usage of Coos Bay the commissioners will be the ones who dicide the case?
Our commissioners were not elected because they are land-use experts they were elected to represent the citizens of Coos County. As part of this representation, they hired and then disregarded the findings of an expert in land-use laws.
How can our commissioners expect us to believe that they will listen to both sides of the issue when they have ignored their own hand picked expert. The blatant disregard by the commissioners for the recommendation and the issues that Corcoran-Briggs surfaced in her report doesn't bode well for the process outlined in condition number twelve.
gene 2 wrote on Dec 16, 2007 8:53 PM:
My advice to all Political office holders.
As you consider your retirement from public service, I recommend you plan to purchase some property in Coos Bay or North Bend. The property values are sure to be at bargain prices when the LNG project is approved. Some good homes with stunning ocean views will soon be on the market as service professionals will move away to safer areas. Its not the threat of tsunamis or earthquakes that will move them, but the stupidity and greed of energy corporations and over lobbied government representatives combined with the threat of a natural disaster or a terrorist attack that will tip the balance towards exodus.
Just like a war torn Iraq , the wealthy will be able to pay the price to relocate, the retired and the economically challenged will be stuck with the results of your inactions as an elected representative.
So stay silent, plug your ears and all your dreams of a stunning view could be yours very soon. Hopefully your constituents will help you retire on your next re-election attempt.
Thomas wrote on Dec 16, 2007 6:20 PM:
Reply to Carol: According to their public filings, our three Commissioners only have a few Community College courses in their educational backgrounds. In any more populous county, none of them would probably ever stand a chance of being considered for such an important governmental position, and it doesn't speak well of us that Coos elects such people to its highest office.
Carol A. wrote on Dec 16, 2007 12:48 PM:
I am wondering what plans are in the works to compensate homeowners near the proposed terminal site for losing, probably all, of their home values if the terminal goes in? Landowners where the pipe will go through their properties will be somewhat reimbursed for their loses, but I have not heard anything about reimbursing those who are close to the proposed terminal who won't have a chance of getting any value out of their houses with this arrangement.
Carol wrote on Dec 15, 2007 7:02 PM:
Gosh. I think I would feel better about the commissioners' recommendations if they had backgrounds in any of the areas in which they are passing out recommendations. Does anyone know what the backgrounds are of these commissioners? Like, are they geologists? Engineers? That kind of thing?
Anita C. wrote on Dec 14, 2007 11:12 PM:
These commissioners have no regard for their constituents. We definitely need a reliable new set of five (not three) who have such important decisions to make.
In looking over proposal/confdition #13, it seems that there is no official ROADMASTER at this time. Mr. Stufflebean is the ACTING roadmaster, and is also one of the voting commissioners. Conflict of interest? It seems that way to me!
Julie wrote on Dec 14, 2007 3:09 PM:
The DOE has determined that a release of LNG could result from a vessel collision. It has been estimated that the minimum beam-on striking speed to penetrate LNG cargo tanks is 3 knots. Can the Coast Guard protect us? Are they going to search these ships before they enter the harbor? What about internal sabotage? A LNG tanker accident could set off a fire so hot it would burn skin and damage buildings a mile or more away. A vapor cloud from a ruptured LNG tanker could potentially travel up to 7 miles, depending on wind speeds, before igniting. What is the benefit of this LNG terminal? During construction people will be brought in to build it and they will spend money at the hotels and restaurants, then when they are done and gone there might be 30 permanent jobs at the plant. So for that we are willing to put 16,000+ lives at risk. Seems like our public officials views have been skewed due to sitting on fattened wallets.
Clarence Adams wrote on Dec 14, 2007 3:04 PM:
Any short term gain is not worth the long term impacts the oregon land owners. Are the Coos county Commissioners going to turn their backs on Hard working Oregonians? They need to follow The Douglas County Commisissoners lead and listen to their voting public
re: Tom Freeman wrote on Dec 14, 2007 12:13 PM:
I did not see much "anti-LNG rhetoric" in the posted comments, most of them had to do with the actions of the county commissioners in ignoring their hired hearings officer's recommendation to deny the terminal land use application. The land use application process was short-circuited by the hiring of the hearings officer. There was public input then, and Ms Briggs made her decision to deny the marine terminal based on the application, public input, CCZLDO. Then to have the commissioners ignore Ms Briggs' recommendation?! What is the sense of public input and review, if all that ends up happening is a rubber-stamp approval of land use applications, especially if the project MIGHT be "good for the economy"? It is not the terminal itself which is a bad idea; but its design and configuration, which is specifically to accommodate LNG tankers. A marine terminal for a container facility would work just as well parallel to the shipping channel, and not interfere with recreational and commercial use of the Coos Bay waterway.
And how do the county commissioners, or Tom Freeman, know what the majority of the citizens want?
Gene wrote on Dec 14, 2007 11:26 AM:
I love to see this kind of response. Please keep it up, good or bad, it lets the powers in charge know our feelings. The working people who would benefit from this project don't have the time to comment, if they can afford a computer, which most can't.
konajack wrote on Dec 14, 2007 11:06 AM:
Griffith is a despot. This project is a railroad job. it will be interesting to see who, among the local politicians, ends up benefiting from this in the end.
T. Mills wrote on Dec 14, 2007 10:53 AM:
I'm sorry but I must disagree with Gene (so many Gene's)regarding your comment that "The proposals and conditions look good."
These are some of my observations:
#8. Second sentence contains the use of the word "conflict" twice. The second "conflict" might be substituted with "arises," but should be reviewed by Commissioners and by the county legal advisor to assure preservation of the county representative's intent.
#9. The word "should" is very weak in it's usage here. These are county stipulated conditions for approval and need to clearly state that a parking plan shall or shall not be developed and approved by the Coos County Highway Department.
#10. There are probably better ways to phrase this sentence without the use of both "applicant" and "applicable," and it really must include at least some small amount of description about what CCZLDO 4.5.100 is. This is a public document, and by law, if not by consideration, the public must be reasonbly informed about what elected representatives are doing on our behalf (even if behind closed doors, without our consent).
#11. This is a good condition, but is poorly worded and lacks a much needed statement about when permits will be obtained. May the applicant operate for 10 years before obtaining DEQ permits, or shall the applicant be required to obtain these permits prior to commencement of activities which will cause impact?
#15. By the time I got to this one, I'd lost all pretense of objectivity. I have to agree with Thomas' statement above that suggests that Jed or Jethro Clampett must be on the Coos County payroll. For cripe-sake, this is a legally binding public document, and item #15 looks like it was drafted by someone with ADHD whose gone off their meds.
gene 2 wrote on Dec 14, 2007 10:13 AM:
Would all of the "majority" thats wants this project for our town please get your signs made up and let us know by placing them in your yards.
gene 2 wrote on Dec 14, 2007 9:59 AM:
Tom Freeman. You hit the nail on the head when you bring up the choice we HAD. This area is being torn by the option of tourism and retirement, or industrial commerce by big coporations that care about a profit line more than they do about the populace. We do need to decide our fate by the elected officials we have and a vote.
kay wrote on Dec 14, 2007 9:51 AM:
to Gene: glad to see you're so congratulatory about receiving a project the citizens - and government of Tijuana, Mexico refused to allow. But then, theybe BEEN a third world country for some time. I guess it's going to take us Americans some time to adjust. Remember, even a dog doesn't excrete in his own back yard.
Nicole wrote on Dec 14, 2007 9:27 AM:
The county commissioners must be accustomed to making their decisions in private. It appeared that they did not want to finalize their decision in front of members of the public. Voters, remember this farce when you vote in the next election!
Tom Freeman wrote on Dec 14, 2007 9:13 AM:
To those reading the comments. Do NOT be confused by the SMALL anti-LNG rhetoric. They would have you believe that democracy is dead. However, if you truly have your finger on the pulse of Coos County, you would know that the commissioners did, in fact, act accordingly with the majority of citizens. I'm sorry to inform the bleeding hearts, but Coos County, especially Coos Bay and North Bend, is going to be industrial, NOT a resort destination.
Jenny wrote on Dec 14, 2007 8:51 AM:
I find it difficult to believe the county commissioners did not take the recommendation from their (the publics) hearings officer for economic reasons. Are we going to through tax payers dollars out the window again? Yes, it's easy to spend money when you haven't earned it for a project(s) that are not economically feasible. Shame on you!
fred kirby wrote on Dec 14, 2007 8:15 AM:
And, you thought that you elected representatives of ALL the people - not two kings and a queen of their own little Coos County fiefdom. After Commissioner Griffith is defeated by Bob Main or another qualified candidate early next year, let's encourage - through a recall effort - the other two comminssioners to hit the road and let's elect two who at a minimum listen to the peoplewho they represent.
Thomas wrote on Dec 14, 2007 7:09 AM:
[spelling correction on earlier post]
gene 2: Check out the lousy contract our county legal staff drafted and the Commissioners signed for that Coal Bed Methane project and its royalties sometime, because it is really simple too ......... Jed Clampett simple!
Liz wrote on Dec 13, 2007 10:29 PM:
I'm one of the ones who may have been okay with this, had we the people been given a VOTE on the matter. The fact that we didn't takes away whatever legitimacy it may have otherwise deserved.
Gene L. wrote on Dec 13, 2007 7:35 PM:
Please don't confuse me with the other Gene's.
My thoughts are more in line with a recall vote for three commissioners, especially the little lady who thinks we should attend every meeting which they have. She and the other two members of the panel were not interested in what any citizen had to say yesterday. Mr. Griffith went as far as to say that he wanted to leave before anything we said made it into the record.
"Of the people, by the people, for the people"? Not in Coos County.
Thomas wrote on Dec 13, 2007 6:58 PM:
gene 2: Check out the lousy contract our county legal staff drafted and the Commissioners signed for that Coal Bed Methane project and its royalties sometime, because it is really simple too ......... Jed Campett simple!
Camby Collier wrote on Dec 13, 2007 5:05 PM:
The County Commissioners have done the citizens of Coos County a disservice by approving the berth permit that their hired hearings officer denied.
The berth will break up the bay FOREVER and violate the public trust. If it was a normal maritime business it could have its dock like Roseburg Forest Products, parallel to the bay. For many reasons the siting of the LNG Terminal is a detrement to the people of Coos County and there is no public benefit.
If you would like a copy of the reasons for 'having' and 'not having' the LNG Terminal, please send me an email with "Please send LNG report" in the subject line. This report was sent to all elected officials that would be concerned with Coos County including the governor, the Oregon Department of Energy, and the Coast Guard.
My email is: honorGod@gmail.com
Come to the meeting next Wed, Dec 19 at 9:00 am at the Planning Dept in Coquille. We cannot speak, but you can be there to know what is going on. This can be stopped. No one has even seen the WSA (Water Suitability Assessment) yet by the Coast Guard and if they follow proper risk management they cannot approve our bay for MANY reasons, and all this activity is for naught.
cynic wrote on Dec 13, 2007 5:00 PM:
The county commissioners did work hard to get the results they wanted, even if it meant shopping for their desired recommendation from the county planning department, when their carefully selected hearings officer gave them a negative recommendation! Shame on Whitty, Griffith, and Stufflebean!
gene 2 wrote on Dec 13, 2007 2:50 PM:
Looks like typical contract legaleze for any public works project. Of couse they dont mind sharing THIS info, its as simple as a form letter for their legal staff to produce.
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