Note: There is a maximum of 200 words per comment. If you wish to post more, please visit our forum.
curt wrote on Feb 1, 2008 10:59 PM:
know that there is debate about this - see http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Is there oil beneath your feet?
Nevertheless, Bradbury, regardless of past record, is spot on this one: Oregon, and especially
Coos Bay, does not need the environmental, economic, and health/safety boondoggles
presented by LNG terminals. California, where all this gas is headed, has kicked these
speculators off its' coast, so they come up here and propose placing it on an active fault zone,
in a tsunami prone area? That's just crazy!
And that's just the beginning of a long list of problems for us, from loss of marine habitat, pollution,
potential explosions, airport interference, 231 miles of stream, river, and forest devastation 90ft wide
for the pipeline (Douglas County on record as opposed), to the demonstrated lack of need for the gas,
and the offhand rejection of the hearing officers report by our commissioners.
We have our own stooges right here.
SEP wrote on Feb 1, 2008 6:17 PM:
Robert Godfrey
Save Passamaquoddy Bay 3-Nation Alliance
PO Box 43
Eastport, ME 04631
His post above is boiler plate. Check it out on the web. He is a professional chicken little, poking his nose into other people's buisness. He sites all the same arguments in every one of his posts. He is a broken record and he is trying to stop LNG at any cost; even misquoting and misusing information.
Bradbury is another matter. He is an interloper from the east - just like Godfrey, but he is an elected official. He says that LNG s a dirty fuel. He lies. LNG is Liquified Natural Gas. That is natural gas in a liquid state. It is not under pressure, it is refrigerated to -260 degrees and becomes a liquid. It is the same gas that you cook with and use to heat your home.
Don't be fooled by the NIMBY crowd. Just because they say or quote somnething, doe not make it real. Check things out for yourselves.
Robert Godfrey wrote on Feb 1, 2008 2:34 PM:
When the LNG industry, itself, recommends against siting LNG terminals under irresponsible speculators' project conditions, for politicians and regulators to permit such projects is suicidal for the industry, the public, and US energy security.
Richard wrote on Feb 1, 2008 1:03 PM:
Gene wrote on Feb 1, 2008 11:44 AM:




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