Note: There is a maximum of 200 words per comment. If you wish to post more, please visit our forum.
Potential LNG conflict concerns fed commission
Tuesday, December 25, 2007 | No comments posted.
ASTORIA (AP) — Federal officials say they are concerned about a potential conflict of interest with an environmental consulting group that’s working on two linked energy projects in the northern Oregon Coast.
Staff from the Natural Resource Group is working on both the Bradwood Landing liquefied natural gas project and the Palomar Gas Transmission pipeline.
The two projects are linked by a segment of the Palomar line that’s slated to serve the Bradwood LNG terminal, proposed for a site 20 miles east of Astoria.
In a letter sent to the company this week, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission official Richard Hoffmann noted the relationship between the two projects as an ethical hurdle requiring “additional measures ... to assure the public that the work is being carried out in an impartial manner.”
“NRG’s work on the Palomar pipeline could appear to provide it with a financial interest in seeing that the Bradwood Landing LNG Project gets approved,” he wrote.
Natural Resource Group’s Douglas Lake said his company has no financial interest in either project, but he can see why FERC is treading carefully.
The federal government’s scrutiny echoes questions about whether the two projects are mutually dependent, as some environmental groups have suggested.
“The reality is these projects are one and the same, and what FERC really needs to do is pull its head out of the sand and acknowledge they ought to be evaluating the Bradwood project and the Palomar project at the same time,” said Brent Foster, executive director of Columbia Riverkeeper.
Palomar and Bradwood officials say the two projects are separate and aren’t reliant on each other.
Though Bradwood has its own pipeline running east to a Williams Northwest mainline near Kelso, Wash., project developer NorthernStar Natural Gas Co. has also accepted an option to send gas from Bradwood through the Palomar pipeline.
The 212-mile Palomar line aims to join the gas distribution networks of TransCanada National Corp. and Northwest Natural with 109 miles of pipeline running from near Madras to Molalla and then 103 miles running north to meet the Bradwood Landing project pipeline at Wauna.
The 103-mile segment of the Palomar pipeline isn’t likely to be built unless the Bradwood terminal is approved.
NRG’s work for the Bradwood and Palomar projects has, in effect, put the company on both sides of the FERC permitting process. The company works for FERC, the LNG siting authority, on the Bradwood project, helping FERC staff scrutinize the environmental impacts of the project at the developers’ expense.
On the other hand, NRG is working directly for Palomar Gas, helping that project proceed through the FERC permitting process.
In his letter, Hoffmann told Lake that individual NRG employees cannot work on both projects.
Lake said his company plans to meet all of FERC’s requirements.
Staff from the Natural Resource Group is working on both the Bradwood Landing liquefied natural gas project and the Palomar Gas Transmission pipeline.
The two projects are linked by a segment of the Palomar line that’s slated to serve the Bradwood LNG terminal, proposed for a site 20 miles east of Astoria.
In a letter sent to the company this week, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission official Richard Hoffmann noted the relationship between the two projects as an ethical hurdle requiring “additional measures ... to assure the public that the work is being carried out in an impartial manner.”
“NRG’s work on the Palomar pipeline could appear to provide it with a financial interest in seeing that the Bradwood Landing LNG Project gets approved,” he wrote.
Natural Resource Group’s Douglas Lake said his company has no financial interest in either project, but he can see why FERC is treading carefully.
The federal government’s scrutiny echoes questions about whether the two projects are mutually dependent, as some environmental groups have suggested.
“The reality is these projects are one and the same, and what FERC really needs to do is pull its head out of the sand and acknowledge they ought to be evaluating the Bradwood project and the Palomar project at the same time,” said Brent Foster, executive director of Columbia Riverkeeper.
Palomar and Bradwood officials say the two projects are separate and aren’t reliant on each other.
Though Bradwood has its own pipeline running east to a Williams Northwest mainline near Kelso, Wash., project developer NorthernStar Natural Gas Co. has also accepted an option to send gas from Bradwood through the Palomar pipeline.
The 212-mile Palomar line aims to join the gas distribution networks of TransCanada National Corp. and Northwest Natural with 109 miles of pipeline running from near Madras to Molalla and then 103 miles running north to meet the Bradwood Landing project pipeline at Wauna.
The 103-mile segment of the Palomar pipeline isn’t likely to be built unless the Bradwood terminal is approved.
NRG’s work for the Bradwood and Palomar projects has, in effect, put the company on both sides of the FERC permitting process. The company works for FERC, the LNG siting authority, on the Bradwood project, helping FERC staff scrutinize the environmental impacts of the project at the developers’ expense.
On the other hand, NRG is working directly for Palomar Gas, helping that project proceed through the FERC permitting process.
In his letter, Hoffmann told Lake that individual NRG employees cannot work on both projects.
Lake said his company plans to meet all of FERC’s requirements.
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.
Note: There is a maximum of 200 words per comment. If you wish to post more, please visit our forum.
Not already registered?
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