Note: There is a maximum of 200 words per comment. If you wish to post more, please visit our forum.
Jane wrote on Apr 5, 2008 6:04 PM:
Crazy talk in here by people that obviously have some kind of benefit from this California LNG proposal, because anyone that thinks this area is small (45,000 ppl) and thinks this can withstand a 9.0 or larger earthquake only 50 miles out to sea located in the sand dunes at Jordan Cove must be either insane or going to make some money off of this PERIOD! Since this is NOT safe (In Tsunami zone), Since this is NOT offering Oregon the gas (California gets the gas going thru 230 miles of pipeline), Since there is little or NO jobs (The few jobs created will probably be offered to friends or family of the foreign investor & NOT this area ppl), then you add it up & then any sane person says you must be INSANE or making $$$ off this California LNG at Jordan Cove to support it!
P.S. I'm a registered Republican also!
Say NO to California LNG!
P.S. I'm a registered Republican also!
Say NO to California LNG!
Biff wrote on Apr 5, 2008 3:44 AM:
Any democrat who voices any concern over unemployment rates is an absolute hypocrite. Every time any job producing company so much as considers locating to southern Oregon, the democrats in our area shuts them down faster than a pit bull eating warm spam.
Camby Collier wrote on Apr 5, 2008 12:56 AM:
Here are the reasons for not siting the proposed Jordan Cove Energy Project.
There is 1 Reason to have it, and 73 Reasons Not to Have it:
http://citizensagainstlng.googlepages.com/LNGterminalinCoosCounty.pdf
There is 1 Reason to have it, and 73 Reasons Not to Have it:
http://citizensagainstlng.googlepages.com/LNGterminalinCoosCounty.pdf
Another viewer here wrote on Apr 4, 2008 11:09 PM:
Hi Fellow Coasties,
Gosh, I have heard that the LNG folks just failed to locate a couple terminals in Calif?
Seems that they were unable to meet basic air quality and safety standards required to locate the terminals 10 to 14 miles offshore in the ocean.
But, these same LNG folks want us to think they can safely locate these terminals on sand a mile or three from downtown Coos and bring the same huge ships right up our bay.
Anyone know of good deals on mud huts a long ways from this proposed terminal site?
Here is a link to more information:
http://timrileylaw.com/LNG_PROLIFERATION.htm
Gosh, I have heard that the LNG folks just failed to locate a couple terminals in Calif?
Seems that they were unable to meet basic air quality and safety standards required to locate the terminals 10 to 14 miles offshore in the ocean.
But, these same LNG folks want us to think they can safely locate these terminals on sand a mile or three from downtown Coos and bring the same huge ships right up our bay.
Anyone know of good deals on mud huts a long ways from this proposed terminal site?
Here is a link to more information:
http://timrileylaw.com/LNG_PROLIFERATION.htm
Person wrote on Apr 4, 2008 9:23 PM:
3) Coos Bay would be an isolated community in the event of a natural disaster, so I'd LIKE to have more manpower here in the Coast Guard. Heck, that could be used as a way to entice ocean-going business to this area.
4) Anyone pulling the "terrorist attack" angle can have their arguments voided, because they're pulling the weakest, lowest-common-denominator "fact" in the books. George W Bush has about as much (as little, that is) intelligence.
5) We will benefit from this, as well as California. This particular non-working, lower-class, poor economy community is a high crime, highly drugged community. That needs to change.
6) We are not going to have the LNG terminal in the middle of a populated area. We are lucky in our geography, that we will have sand, spit, the bay, distance, and an elevation change between that facility and nearly every citizen in the Bay Area.
4) Anyone pulling the "terrorist attack" angle can have their arguments voided, because they're pulling the weakest, lowest-common-denominator "fact" in the books. George W Bush has about as much (as little, that is) intelligence.
5) We will benefit from this, as well as California. This particular non-working, lower-class, poor economy community is a high crime, highly drugged community. That needs to change.
6) We are not going to have the LNG terminal in the middle of a populated area. We are lucky in our geography, that we will have sand, spit, the bay, distance, and an elevation change between that facility and nearly every citizen in the Bay Area.
Person wrote on Apr 4, 2008 9:22 PM:
Common Sense, you're a biased individual when it comes to this, so please admit that your "facts" are coming with a bias.
Let's get to the facts:
1) High population density establishments cannot be constructed in tsunami zones due to the potential loss of life. That isn't because there is no way to engineer an earthquake/tsunami-safe building, but because people cannot breathe water! And many of these areas are far from tsunami-safe zones.
2) Any approved LNG terminal will need to be designed to surpass estimated earthquake/tsunami forces. These buildings need to be stronger than essentially anything constructed in the history of the Oregon coast. In fact, their basic cylindrical design MAKES THEM stronger than most constructions on the coast. Mind you, if the contractors or business owners will not adhere to the STRICTEST of environmental and strength standards, then this, again, will not happen, and it does not deserve to happen. Keeping an open mind, as intelligent elected officials like DeFazio do (unlike many officials in the Bay Area, or many of the citizens for that matter), is the best for all parties.
Let's get to the facts:
1) High population density establishments cannot be constructed in tsunami zones due to the potential loss of life. That isn't because there is no way to engineer an earthquake/tsunami-safe building, but because people cannot breathe water! And many of these areas are far from tsunami-safe zones.
2) Any approved LNG terminal will need to be designed to surpass estimated earthquake/tsunami forces. These buildings need to be stronger than essentially anything constructed in the history of the Oregon coast. In fact, their basic cylindrical design MAKES THEM stronger than most constructions on the coast. Mind you, if the contractors or business owners will not adhere to the STRICTEST of environmental and strength standards, then this, again, will not happen, and it does not deserve to happen. Keeping an open mind, as intelligent elected officials like DeFazio do (unlike many officials in the Bay Area, or many of the citizens for that matter), is the best for all parties.
K-Falls wrote on Apr 4, 2008 6:26 PM:
I'm agreeing with observer on this. I don't live in the Bay Area, and the LNG terminal doesn't effect me one way or another. The pipe line does. Since I live in Klamath Falls, it goes right by my property to the town of Malin. Still, we have had natuarl gas here for many years and have no problems. There has been very little problems with LNG terminals around the world. Those terminals will be Tsunami and Earth quake proof. So while you claim danger hovering over your head, I think it is without fact. Like I said, I have just as much concern as anyone and I say go forward with the LNG terminal.
Jane wrote on Apr 4, 2008 4:55 PM:
It's kinda strange, how pro California LNG supporters tell 1/2 or flat out mislead people in here! You are correct Common Sense about the 50 mile out fault from Oregon's coast that has & will in the future produce 9.0 or larger earth quakes, with up to 100 foot tidal/Tsunami waves (Says that in Oregon's hand out Tsunami booklet), but I read the shaking can last OVER 10 minutes with an earth quake over 9.0! I really don't see how this California LNG storage unit could stand up to that at Jordan Cove in the sand dumes! I also believe this area would not be supported fully in case of a explosion big or small (cause by leakage caused by earth quake, Tsunami tidal wave, Oregon's tough winter weather, etc., then started by lighting or terriorist bomb or whatever), since this pipeline will travel 230 miles in the wilderness of Oregon. Kinda weak argument that Oregon needs this LNG storage unit when almost all the gas is traveling to California through that 230 mile long pipeline from Jordan Cove to Northern California! I also wonder what motivation these pro LNG people have for these misleading UNTRUE facts in here?
Mr. Smithers wrote on Apr 4, 2008 4:38 PM:
How about some wind energy? We have plenty of free wind blowing 365 days a year and last time I checked you don't have to worry about windmills blowing up half the county if something goes wrong. But that is probably too simple and eco-friendly for anyone around here to think of plus it won't make fat wallets for as many people so LNG it is.
The smart one. wrote on Apr 4, 2008 4:21 PM:
To all you NAY SAYERS, Energy is ENERGY our Country needs ENERGY to operate.Weather it be our hydro power to california,to be brokered off for profit.Or natural gas from overseas.Quit griping or sell all your material crap and move into a mud hut some where.
Common Sense wrote on Apr 4, 2008 3:10 PM:
Sorry observer....
1) Your FACT of 1964 Earth quake as the biggest is NOT true & besides the fault that is only about 50 miles out from us produces 9.0 or bigger Earth quakes that will produce up to 100 foot tsunami waves & will produce OVER 5 minutes of NON-SHAKING movement along the coast! Sorry but that's the reason Oregon created that tsunami zone law in the 1st place!
2) Knowing how poor this state is & how the Coast Guard is undermaned, sorry but it adds UP to NO additional help for this California LNG SCAM! That's WHY many Coast Guards around the country aren't in favor of it & have said so publically!
I just don't believe you have NOTHING to gain from this California LNG SCAM or you wouldn't be trying to tell UNTRUE facts in support of such a SCAM...just doesn't add up....SORRY...
1) Your FACT of 1964 Earth quake as the biggest is NOT true & besides the fault that is only about 50 miles out from us produces 9.0 or bigger Earth quakes that will produce up to 100 foot tsunami waves & will produce OVER 5 minutes of NON-SHAKING movement along the coast! Sorry but that's the reason Oregon created that tsunami zone law in the 1st place!
2) Knowing how poor this state is & how the Coast Guard is undermaned, sorry but it adds UP to NO additional help for this California LNG SCAM! That's WHY many Coast Guards around the country aren't in favor of it & have said so publically!
I just don't believe you have NOTHING to gain from this California LNG SCAM or you wouldn't be trying to tell UNTRUE facts in support of such a SCAM...just doesn't add up....SORRY...
Just An Observer wrote on Apr 4, 2008 2:43 PM:
To CS:
1-The tsunami of 1964 coming from the most powerful earthquake we have had didn't do much to us. The LNG facility is built on the bayside, not the oceanside.
2-If the USCG and other agencies need more manpower, don't you think they will speak up? When a new business wants to locate on a major highway, ODOT bills them for the needed improvements. LNG's impact will result in costs that get passed along to the companies involved and their ratepayers if this model gets followed. If it doesn't, then I'll squawk.
3-I am in none of your categories. Your CS is more like BS it seems. Stick to FACTS or at least informed speculation instead of making wild personal attacks.
1-The tsunami of 1964 coming from the most powerful earthquake we have had didn't do much to us. The LNG facility is built on the bayside, not the oceanside.
2-If the USCG and other agencies need more manpower, don't you think they will speak up? When a new business wants to locate on a major highway, ODOT bills them for the needed improvements. LNG's impact will result in costs that get passed along to the companies involved and their ratepayers if this model gets followed. If it doesn't, then I'll squawk.
3-I am in none of your categories. Your CS is more like BS it seems. Stick to FACTS or at least informed speculation instead of making wild personal attacks.
Thomas wrote on Apr 4, 2008 2:27 PM:
"... regulators said they intend to let the market decide whether any of the pending LNG projects move forward."
Good ......... ergo there will be no subsidies of any sort, period.
That should stop this insane LNG scheme cold, since absolutely nothing ever comes to Coos county without our generous tax payers "helping them out" in the name of economic development; AKA fascism.
BTW, just one catastrophic LNG blow-up is more than enough, even if we accept that most of these tankers won't be attacked by terrorists.
Good ......... ergo there will be no subsidies of any sort, period.
That should stop this insane LNG scheme cold, since absolutely nothing ever comes to Coos county without our generous tax payers "helping them out" in the name of economic development; AKA fascism.
BTW, just one catastrophic LNG blow-up is more than enough, even if we accept that most of these tankers won't be attacked by terrorists.
Common Sense wrote on Apr 4, 2008 1:40 PM:
Well observer, how about the following FACTS about safety on this California LNG SCAM:
1) This purposal is going to be located in a Tsunami zone, that according to Oregon's OWN law says no new Schools, Hospitals, Police stations, Fire stations, etc. can't be built there!
2) Coast Guard & state agency's have said they would need MORE man power/money to prevent future problems or possible major explosion problem (Due to Earth Quake, Tsunami, leakage of gas along 230 miles of pipeline, Terrorist attack, etc)?
Bottomline: You either are a self serving union construction worker, Port commission member or better yet a LNG foreign investor/owner, because ANYONE that has any sense looking at the above 2 items, knows this makes NO SENSE!!! Sorry...
1) This purposal is going to be located in a Tsunami zone, that according to Oregon's OWN law says no new Schools, Hospitals, Police stations, Fire stations, etc. can't be built there!
2) Coast Guard & state agency's have said they would need MORE man power/money to prevent future problems or possible major explosion problem (Due to Earth Quake, Tsunami, leakage of gas along 230 miles of pipeline, Terrorist attack, etc)?
Bottomline: You either are a self serving union construction worker, Port commission member or better yet a LNG foreign investor/owner, because ANYONE that has any sense looking at the above 2 items, knows this makes NO SENSE!!! Sorry...
Holly wrote on Apr 4, 2008 1:28 PM:
One of the problems in "letting the market decide" is the threat of eminent domain. This threat will hang over private property owners for YEARS while the market makes up its mind just whose property it's going to steal in order to benefit foreign energy schemes. FERC is behaving in a VERY un-American way.
Just An Observer wrote on Apr 4, 2008 1:05 PM:
We can "grapple" with safety and environmental concerns when the marketplace decides they want to locate an LNG shipping facility here. Until then, keep your powder dry and don't spend a dime.
"Grapple" means ramping up legal and procedural barriers via lawsuits. Lawyers are expensive. There's no need to use them until they're needed. DeFazio can use his office as a Congressman to work towards put any needed rules and regulations in place at no extra cost to the taxpayers via the legislative process.
I have no envirnonmental concerns in regards to LNG facilities at this time. They seem to be simple, straightforward and safe facilities for the overseas shipping of LNG. The "people against everything" crowd is raising a stink over this issue with overblown "concerns" instead of anything truly valid. Should something come up that is REALLY a clear danger, then I'll listen to what is being said. So far I have yet to see anything REALLY dangerous for LNG facility history to lead me to believe we are all going to have a disasterous moment as a likely event.
"Grapple" means ramping up legal and procedural barriers via lawsuits. Lawyers are expensive. There's no need to use them until they're needed. DeFazio can use his office as a Congressman to work towards put any needed rules and regulations in place at no extra cost to the taxpayers via the legislative process.
I have no envirnonmental concerns in regards to LNG facilities at this time. They seem to be simple, straightforward and safe facilities for the overseas shipping of LNG. The "people against everything" crowd is raising a stink over this issue with overblown "concerns" instead of anything truly valid. Should something come up that is REALLY a clear danger, then I'll listen to what is being said. So far I have yet to see anything REALLY dangerous for LNG facility history to lead me to believe we are all going to have a disasterous moment as a likely event.
Common Sense wrote on Apr 4, 2008 12:06 PM:
Wake UP Oregon leaders & fight this legally to the Supreme court if necessary before you are OWNED by the Federal Government!!!
P.S. The MAJOR of people in Oregon don't want this California Gas SCAM here (Every poll takin from every newspaper in Oregon showed MORE people against LNG then supported it!!!)! Get rid of it or Oregon will get rid of YOU in next election!
Bottomline: Pathetic how you wait until the 11th hour to do ANYTHING...
P.S. The MAJOR of people in Oregon don't want this California Gas SCAM here (Every poll takin from every newspaper in Oregon showed MORE people against LNG then supported it!!!)! Get rid of it or Oregon will get rid of YOU in next election!
Bottomline: Pathetic how you wait until the 11th hour to do ANYTHING...
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