Note: There is a maximum of 200 words per comment. If you wish to post more, please visit our forum.
Thomas wrote on Aug 14, 2008 6:38 AM:
"There is such a thing as percieved reality and true reality." EVERYMAN
Profound ........ I think??
The real threat to all of us from LNG tankers is a terrorist attack, which the available and proposed security never will be capable of preventing.
Coos Bay will become America's most ideal target for a quite simple operation that would result in massive casualties and spectacular damage. Why do you pro-LNG guys think they would pass up such an obviously easy chance to blow up a big bomb that we conveniently provide?
Profound ........ I think??
The real threat to all of us from LNG tankers is a terrorist attack, which the available and proposed security never will be capable of preventing.
Coos Bay will become America's most ideal target for a quite simple operation that would result in massive casualties and spectacular damage. Why do you pro-LNG guys think they would pass up such an obviously easy chance to blow up a big bomb that we conveniently provide?
Kay wrote on Aug 1, 2008 10:46 AM:
Everyman: Wow, methinks the paper has got a new sheriff in town. They ain't gonna allow no "bad" talk on their site! How transparent can you get there World? Can't take the publics' outrage? Then stop running cover for the people who outrage us, okay? Your talking points are gettin old already.
Jane wrote on Jul 29, 2008 4:04 PM:
Sorry everyman,
My number of tourists & Baby Boomer aren't made up, for example Arizone draws OVER 5 million people a year to visit a desert called Pheonix! That's not counting the MILLIONS of baby boomers that are starting to retire as we speak with the numbers increasing yearly for the next 10 years at least! You may "con" a few locals to this area with your 1/2 truths, but NOT the majority, because it's too obvious to most on this benefitting a foreign rich investor & a few others while the rest/majority see their gas bill go UP! Just ask & read Oregon's dept of energy's report issued to the public on may 09, 2008 saying LNG is twice as expensive as natural gas used today by Oregon citizens & pollutes more too & finally concluded LNG is NOT needed in Oregon!
My number of tourists & Baby Boomer aren't made up, for example Arizone draws OVER 5 million people a year to visit a desert called Pheonix! That's not counting the MILLIONS of baby boomers that are starting to retire as we speak with the numbers increasing yearly for the next 10 years at least! You may "con" a few locals to this area with your 1/2 truths, but NOT the majority, because it's too obvious to most on this benefitting a foreign rich investor & a few others while the rest/majority see their gas bill go UP! Just ask & read Oregon's dept of energy's report issued to the public on may 09, 2008 saying LNG is twice as expensive as natural gas used today by Oregon citizens & pollutes more too & finally concluded LNG is NOT needed in Oregon!
everyman wrote on Jul 29, 2008 1:45 PM:
www.iomosaic.com/docs/whitepapers/Managing_LNG_Risks.pdf
Please read this, or have someone read it to you.
Please read this, or have someone read it to you.
everyman wrote on Jul 29, 2008 1:43 PM:
Thomas; There is such a thing as percieved reality and true reality. Just because you believe the threat is dire does not make it so. I agree that there are risks involved in building an LNG distribution plant to the south coast. Those risks are simply not as dire as some would have me think.
I'm afraid your "nanny-nanny boo-boo, I'm rubber, you're glue, everything you say bounces off me and sticks to you" defense is just that...childish.
I'm afraid your "nanny-nanny boo-boo, I'm rubber, you're glue, everything you say bounces off me and sticks to you" defense is just that...childish.
Thomas wrote on Jul 29, 2008 1:23 PM:
EVERYMAN: "I want LNG here anyway...is my opinion less valuable than yours, simply because we disagree?"
Yes.
You are the one proposing that everyman and everywoman and everychild and everythingelse face living and possibly dying with the constant threat of an LNG tanker catastrophe hanging over us here ......... so therefore the burden of argument is upon you to justify to everyone why we all should?
You haven't.
Yes.
You are the one proposing that everyman and everywoman and everychild and everythingelse face living and possibly dying with the constant threat of an LNG tanker catastrophe hanging over us here ......... so therefore the burden of argument is upon you to justify to everyone why we all should?
You haven't.
everyman wrote on Jul 29, 2008 10:44 AM:
tsk, tsk, Jane and Common...you know what happens when you ASSUME...So millions of tourists and baby boomers will avoid the South Coast like the plague because of a LNG distribution plant, huh? MILLIONS?? Where are these millions now, without the LNG plant? Made up numbers will get you nowhere, Jane. As for the costs involved...let the market decide. Give people choice, and if it is as expensive as you say, noone will buy it, and the plant will go out of business. But don't keep yelling "LNG SCAM" and all of your other rhetoric.
As for the risks from explosion or terrorist attack...they are real, but manageable. Our country has not only survived, but thrived, when we stop allowing fear to be our primary motivator.
Stop the fear-mongering.
I am everyman, and I approved this message.
As for the risks from explosion or terrorist attack...they are real, but manageable. Our country has not only survived, but thrived, when we stop allowing fear to be our primary motivator.
Stop the fear-mongering.
I am everyman, and I approved this message.
Common Sense wrote on Jul 29, 2008 7:56 AM:
Anyone comparing Logging with this LNG SCAM is either Bob Braddock or a Tug boat, union construction worker that will be one of the FEW profiting from this California LNG SCAM. You are 100% correct Jane when you said tourist/Baby Boomers are in the MILLIONS & will NOT show up IF by miracle this California LNG SCAM shows up. I guess with the LUBA decision ole Bob & his fans are gettin pretty desperate in here on the big "con" of tryin to convince anyone & anyone how great this SCAM is! Great for a foreign rich investor named Bob Braddock & a few that will profit from it, but BAD for the majority of Oregon's citizens especially when their gas bill goes UP at least 2 times their present rate if by miracle this California LNG SCAM makes it!
Jane wrote on Jul 29, 2008 7:46 AM:
everyman,
WEAK comparing logging with LNG, because logging created MORE jobs then 45 (Increase gas prices also) & would NOT have a 2 mile BURN zone! LNG is twice as expensive as domestic gas used by Oregon citizens as we speak also, thus average gas bill will go up if LNG is sold here in the future & probably will go up due to the fact it is around & other company's will raise their rates due to greed (According to Oregon's Dept of Energy report on 5-9-08)! Again of course you avoid the FACT 45 people to the area because of LNG vs MILLIONS of new tourists/Baby boomers that don't want to see/live near LNG! The new tax money & 45 new people do NOT = the MILLIONS of new tourists/Baby Boomers that don't want LNG! Add it up & this California LNG SCAM is a ZERO for Oregon & the USA!
WEAK comparing logging with LNG, because logging created MORE jobs then 45 (Increase gas prices also) & would NOT have a 2 mile BURN zone! LNG is twice as expensive as domestic gas used by Oregon citizens as we speak also, thus average gas bill will go up if LNG is sold here in the future & probably will go up due to the fact it is around & other company's will raise their rates due to greed (According to Oregon's Dept of Energy report on 5-9-08)! Again of course you avoid the FACT 45 people to the area because of LNG vs MILLIONS of new tourists/Baby boomers that don't want to see/live near LNG! The new tax money & 45 new people do NOT = the MILLIONS of new tourists/Baby Boomers that don't want LNG! Add it up & this California LNG SCAM is a ZERO for Oregon & the USA!
everyman wrote on Jul 28, 2008 7:44 PM:
So, Jane, let me get this straight....Logging had, at it's beginning, many of the same risks associated with the current lng debate (most of the workers came from outside the local area at the beginning, the product was shipped all over, not just local, and danger abounded both in the logging and distribution...and talk about scaring off tourists...). Believe me, I am pro-logging and pro-lng. If this area could thrive shipping logs all over the west coast and the world, it could thrive sending liquified natural gas. ANY industry in the USA will have risks, and I'm not denying them. They are, however, managable. And to say the local community won't benefit from the plant just because most of the jobs won't be taken by locals is ridiculous (hello, taxes?!?). But more than that, wouldn't it be nice to have a local industry for our kids to strive to work at? You say most jobs won't go to locals due to thier educational shortcomings; what better way to encourage our college grads to come back or stay here...JOBS THAT REQUIRE A HIGHER STANDARD!!! Bring it...
There is no jobs for local residents from Lng wrote on Jul 28, 2008 2:28 PM:
What I've read, the average is around 30 - 50 for full time new jobs per Lng storage station with high education requirements along with the necessary experience to even get considered for those jobs. I see NO local resident qualifying for these jobs, thus makes no sense to me or to this area on this expensive Lng, that California is only going to use after it goes 230 miles through Oregon!
Port Commissioners wake up & have someone else outside of the area/state buy this rail line with their OWN money also!
Port Commissioners wake up & have someone else outside of the area/state buy this rail line with their OWN money also!
Jane wrote on Jul 28, 2008 2:15 PM:
Everyman,
I'm I too emotional or just have too many FACTS to dispute? You argue with ZERO facts to support this SCAM, except for 45 possible jobs from this (Of course NO local resident will qualify for due to education & experience requirements) vs MILLIONS of tourists/Baby boomer retirements that don't want to see/live around this California LNG SCAM? Let's see now, you'll take 45 new people & I'll take MILLIONS of new people, it's a tough comparison I know, but I think Oregon is a little better off with the MILLIONS sorry!
P.S. I might be emotional, but NEVER argue without FACTS to back it UP!!! SORRY, but you better pick on a easier opponent, because you make a WEAK argument for this California LNG SCAM!
I'm I too emotional or just have too many FACTS to dispute? You argue with ZERO facts to support this SCAM, except for 45 possible jobs from this (Of course NO local resident will qualify for due to education & experience requirements) vs MILLIONS of tourists/Baby boomer retirements that don't want to see/live around this California LNG SCAM? Let's see now, you'll take 45 new people & I'll take MILLIONS of new people, it's a tough comparison I know, but I think Oregon is a little better off with the MILLIONS sorry!
P.S. I might be emotional, but NEVER argue without FACTS to back it UP!!! SORRY, but you better pick on a easier opponent, because you make a WEAK argument for this California LNG SCAM!
everyman wrote on Jul 28, 2008 11:52 AM:
Jane and Nonsense...Do you both honestly believe that there is only one way to see this issue; your way? How arrogant can you get?? Agreeing on a fact, but NOT agreeing on it's potential impact (out-of-area employess brought in will still spend their $ here, still be paying taxes here, still be eating/drinking/fishing/etc here) is what this is about, right? For one, I don't believe all of your supposed "facts" Jane. You are too emotional about this issue to be trusted. So have a nice heaping plate of perspective, with maybe a side of patience, and then ask me to listen to your one-sided, bloated viewpoint.
And Nonsense...leave out the political jabs and stick to the issue at hand. I know it's hard to focus, but lets do our best...
And Nonsense...leave out the political jabs and stick to the issue at hand. I know it's hard to focus, but lets do our best...
Nonsense wrote on Jul 28, 2008 9:08 AM:
EVERYMAN wrote on Jul 27, 2008 9:01 PM:
Dear Jane...(I've always wanted t type that), I understand all of it. I want LNG here anyway...is my opinion less valuable than yours, simply because we disagree?
This is kind of like voting for George Bush after the first four years. You know he has the potential to ruin the country because the facts are there but, you go ahead and vote for him anyway.
Dear Jane...(I've always wanted t type that), I understand all of it. I want LNG here anyway...is my opinion less valuable than yours, simply because we disagree?
This is kind of like voting for George Bush after the first four years. You know he has the potential to ruin the country because the facts are there but, you go ahead and vote for him anyway.
Jane wrote on Jul 28, 2008 7:34 AM:
Everyman & Bob,
If you agree to my FACTS everyman then you must be against it too or you must be Bob Braddock or one of the few that will PROFIT from this California LNG SCAM! This issue is black & white, either it doesn't make sense (Against it) or going to PROFIT from it (Support it) PERIOD!
Now Bob, unless you are an native american Indian, you are a NEW to the area also, besides length of time means little, it's all about the present & going forward that counts!
Basically trashing an beautiful area just so some foreign rich investor can get richer makes ZERO sense to Oregon & it's future!
If you agree to my FACTS everyman then you must be against it too or you must be Bob Braddock or one of the few that will PROFIT from this California LNG SCAM! This issue is black & white, either it doesn't make sense (Against it) or going to PROFIT from it (Support it) PERIOD!
Now Bob, unless you are an native american Indian, you are a NEW to the area also, besides length of time means little, it's all about the present & going forward that counts!
Basically trashing an beautiful area just so some foreign rich investor can get richer makes ZERO sense to Oregon & it's future!
optimist wrote on Jul 28, 2008 7:26 AM:
C'mon folks , you want jobs? Then make Verger, Roblan, Stufflebean, Whitty, the SCDC, the Gov (the one who can reappoint the port people), Smith, DeFasio ,Wyden, and anyone else who has hands in the public's money. Push them in writing that you want them to oppose this LNG energy path and get going getting wind power established in our coastal counties. Lets get competitive with the one approved for Oregon's northeastern counties. This current project has been making a lot of us ill long enough now. The majority of the people aren't so greedy or dumb enough to want this, they just need to get a different vision for jobs that we all want for this area. Get people who know what green collar jobs can be brought to this area, remove any elected official standing in their way. We can't over harvest wind and the sun. We have to put behind us the pain of declining industries this area has been experiencing, and start looking forward to new opportunities that wont divide us like this project seems to be doing.
everyman wrote on Jul 27, 2008 9:01 PM:
Dear Jane...(I've always wanted t type that), I understand all of it. I want LNG here anyway...is my opinion less valuable than yours, simply because we disagree?
Bob wrote on Jul 26, 2008 8:50 PM:
There hasn't been any common sense in this area since the loggers had to leave. You won't understand that if you are new to here.
Real tired wrote on Jul 25, 2008 9:07 AM:
Uh, please, don't try to compare retiring in Coos County to Florida.
Florida has the nation's most generous "homestead" protection, low taxes and warm, sunny weather!!
Florida also has Floridian Natural Gas
Florida has the nation's most generous "homestead" protection, low taxes and warm, sunny weather!!
Florida also has Floridian Natural Gas
gene wrote on Jul 25, 2008 7:01 AM:
Its simple. We delay the building of this LNG project, until we elect people smart enough to see that renewables are the only bridge to an energy independent USA. In the meantime we can share dialog here and feel the pulse of the whole ant hill.
Maybe we should encourage the building of this boondoggle and take as much of their investors money as we can without letting it open for business.
If there were no tax $$ involved and only private foreign investors money then it could be laughable. Unfortunately this mess is rooted deep into our political system, in both party's and at all levels of our government.
There is no doubt that a FEW business people locally could stand to profit immensely if this thing gets built. That's why the local politicians have been paving the way, ELECT new representatives, the old ones are too corrupted by the corporate lobbyist that are immersed in government, not just by the LNG /energy people. WAKE UP NEO.. Its our money their spending.
Maybe we should encourage the building of this boondoggle and take as much of their investors money as we can without letting it open for business.
If there were no tax $$ involved and only private foreign investors money then it could be laughable. Unfortunately this mess is rooted deep into our political system, in both party's and at all levels of our government.
There is no doubt that a FEW business people locally could stand to profit immensely if this thing gets built. That's why the local politicians have been paving the way, ELECT new representatives, the old ones are too corrupted by the corporate lobbyist that are immersed in government, not just by the LNG /energy people. WAKE UP NEO.. Its our money their spending.
another point wrote on Jul 24, 2008 5:54 PM:
the railroad has abandoned the line and some of it has already been taken to the scrap yard. I'd hurry up before more of it ends up missing.
pie in the sky wrote on Jul 24, 2008 5:48 PM:
like someone else has already said. There are no quick fixes for this area. If we want this area to change then lets start by replacing some of the people that we have intrusted to make decisions for us. The word "recall" might motivate a few people to change their ways!
Howard wrote on Jul 24, 2008 11:35 AM:
Dear Gene: Try fried. Dangling participle. From the Kentucky Colonel. What you will be if you are in a LNG cloud when that cloud finds an ignition source.
Thomas wrote on Jul 24, 2008 8:35 AM:
Both the LNG and railroad schemes are turning into farces, as inevitably do almost all of these ballyhooed public/private hodgepodges hereabouts, and neither now will likely come to pass.
Regardless, have any such thingamabobs in recent decades worked out well for us?
Something is very amiss in the local mindset that our unenlightened leaders so often fall prey to each and every huckster hitting town with another pie-in-the-sky scam to peddle ........ or even worse, concoct them themselves.
Regardless, have any such thingamabobs in recent decades worked out well for us?
Something is very amiss in the local mindset that our unenlightened leaders so often fall prey to each and every huckster hitting town with another pie-in-the-sky scam to peddle ........ or even worse, concoct them themselves.
jane wrote on Jul 24, 2008 8:05 AM:
Bob Braddock's fans, what part of the following didn't you understand about this California LNG SCAM:
1) Twice as expensive as domestic gas,
2) Pollutes more then domestic gas,
3) Violates Oregon citizens land rights (Forced to sell their land of 80 ft wide section in order to put a 36 inch LNG pipe through just so California can get the gas)
4) Located in Tsuami zone
5) People live within the 2 mile BURN zone if LNG ship catches fire & blows UP
6) Local fisherman will NOT be allowed in bay or near jetty MANY times of the day due to LNG ships coming or going,
7) This will produce about around 45 jobs, which NO local will qualify for due to education & experience requirements.
Add it up & it's a ZERO for Oregon & the USA. Now you know WHY California & HUNDREDS of other areas across the USA have rejected this LNG SCAM!
1) Twice as expensive as domestic gas,
2) Pollutes more then domestic gas,
3) Violates Oregon citizens land rights (Forced to sell their land of 80 ft wide section in order to put a 36 inch LNG pipe through just so California can get the gas)
4) Located in Tsuami zone
5) People live within the 2 mile BURN zone if LNG ship catches fire & blows UP
6) Local fisherman will NOT be allowed in bay or near jetty MANY times of the day due to LNG ships coming or going,
7) This will produce about around 45 jobs, which NO local will qualify for due to education & experience requirements.
Add it up & it's a ZERO for Oregon & the USA. Now you know WHY California & HUNDREDS of other areas across the USA have rejected this LNG SCAM!
From the east coast wrote on Jul 24, 2008 7:54 AM:
No one I know likes Lng on the east coast (I know several people from DC area also) & if read the papers & follow the news, most are trying to get rid of it as we speak! Sorry mark, your obvious pitch for Lng doesn't fool me, because only the oil companies want this stuff since it offers few jobs & alot of headaches! I moved here from the east coast to get rid of industrial & the whole too many rats in a cage situation on the east coast! If Lng was such a great thing, then why did the Republican party take away state rights for placement of Lng? Answer is states did NOT want it period!
gene wrote on Jul 24, 2008 7:38 AM:
Neither LPG or LNG form a "poisonous" cloud. Both are considered asphyxiants; however, they are not poisonous.
asphyxia [ass-fix-ee-a]
Noun
unconsciousness or death caused by lack of oxygen [Greek a- without + sphuxis pulse]
A condition in which an extreme decrease in the concentration of oxygen in the body accompanied by an increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide leads to loss of consciousness or death. Asphyxia can be induced by choking, drowning, electric shock, injury, or the inhalation of toxic gases.
asphyxia [ass-fix-ee-a]
Noun
unconsciousness or death caused by lack of oxygen [Greek a- without + sphuxis pulse]
A condition in which an extreme decrease in the concentration of oxygen in the body accompanied by an increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide leads to loss of consciousness or death. Asphyxia can be induced by choking, drowning, electric shock, injury, or the inhalation of toxic gases.
howard wrote on Jul 23, 2008 7:50 PM:
Mark, your post is appraciated by this opponent of local LNG - for safety reasons - and it is further indication that after four years discussion many locals do not understand what may soon be in their back yard. It is time to inform the locals about LNG. The World paper, where the prior publisher clearly stated the papers support for the planned LNG facility, should seize the opportunity to lead a debate with a knowledgeable about LNG moderator, with both sides presenting facts about the merits and hazards of LNG. And, even the LNG developer has stated in quoted remarks in this paper that a catastrophic event some day somehwhere is possible. If a majority of the people of Coos Bay and North Bend want local LNG then we oppoosed should step aside.
gene wrote on Jul 23, 2008 6:59 PM:
Opinions are like noses wrote on Jul 22, 2008 Without the creation of new jobs, the best you can hope for your children is that they will be able to say "Would you like fries with that?
Put the LNG here and your children may say "Why was I fried like that?
Put the LNG here and your children may say "Why was I fried like that?
mark wrote on Jul 23, 2008 3:08 PM:
i'm not picking a side so please don't attack me.(i see some of you are happy to do that to each other)but, i have a question.I have a brother that lives in Maryland near an LNG facility and he says no one there has any complaints,and NO ONE there calls it a SCAM. what i would like to know, as a home grown local,(my whole life in north bend)why do people call this a scam.again not picking a fight just want facks presented to me so i can make an informed desision. thank you
Common Sense wrote on Jul 23, 2008 2:51 PM:
This article has to be the silliest I've read in awhile due to the following:
1) Port Commissioners can't even run what they have now (Keep raising fees to fishermen & others), thus unless they win the national lottery for MILLIONS, they'll just have their hand out to taxpayers after 1st day of ownership!
2) This California LNG SCAM is going to NEVER happen due to the many appeals/issues that will NEVER be resolved (Tsuami zone, Native American artifacts/burial ground, land owner violated land rights, rivers, wild life, etc.)
Add it folks & this whole fairy tale is just another failed attempt to get something for NOTTA at taxpayer's expense!!!
P.S. You don't trash an beautiful area & except tourist or retired people to come & spend their $$$ here, thus IF by miracle this California LNG SCAM makes it....the state loses anyways!!!
1) Port Commissioners can't even run what they have now (Keep raising fees to fishermen & others), thus unless they win the national lottery for MILLIONS, they'll just have their hand out to taxpayers after 1st day of ownership!
2) This California LNG SCAM is going to NEVER happen due to the many appeals/issues that will NEVER be resolved (Tsuami zone, Native American artifacts/burial ground, land owner violated land rights, rivers, wild life, etc.)
Add it folks & this whole fairy tale is just another failed attempt to get something for NOTTA at taxpayer's expense!!!
P.S. You don't trash an beautiful area & except tourist or retired people to come & spend their $$$ here, thus IF by miracle this California LNG SCAM makes it....the state loses anyways!!!
Opinions are like noses wrote on Jul 23, 2008 12:59 PM:
OOPS! My post yesterday had an error (OK, so math is not my strong point) - the Cleveland LNG explosion was nearly 64 years ago.
Resident wrote on Jul 23, 2008 12:11 PM:
We must ask these port commissioners where they will get the money to repair the tunnels after purchasing the rail.
ronop wrote on Jul 23, 2008 12:06 PM:
Dear Opinion are like noses: "Technology"? It was improper tank material. Forget the 128 people who fried or 400 who were injured in Cleveland 64 years ago if you must. If the people of North Bend dont care that they are in harms way, why should we. But, what about the people who fried in LNG terminal disaters in Australia, Belguim, Algeria, and elsewhere since the year 2002 where it was present day "technology"? Or the hundreds who got fried being too close to large natural gas pipelines in New Mexico and Nigeria in recent years. Forget the new airport sliding down the hill when the next big earthquake arrives, With a minor blast at the LNG terminal a few feet away every window will be shattered.
If only the Port Commissioners had a brain wrote on Jul 23, 2008 7:54 AM:
Another spend now & tax payer bail out later scheme (Or is that scam)! Raises fees for fishermen & others, but can afford to buy, repair & maintain a rail line??? On top of it supporting an Lng project that Oregon doesn't need or want! If Gov Ted had a brain, he would replace these useless inexperience individuals wasting taxpayers money with someone else that couldn't do any worse!
Opinions are like noses wrote on Jul 22, 2008 3:17 PM:
Ronop - the Cleveland LNG explosion was nearly 34 years ago. Are you still relying on 1944 technology anywhere in your home or workplace?
I am one of many in this community who are in favor of the development of an LNG terminal along the North Spit. Without it, the new terminal facilities at SORA, the rail lines, etc., our community has a very dim future ahead of it. As I have said before: Without the creation of new jobs, the best you can hope for your children is that they will be able to say "Would you like fries with that?" in more than one language.
I am one of many in this community who are in favor of the development of an LNG terminal along the North Spit. Without it, the new terminal facilities at SORA, the rail lines, etc., our community has a very dim future ahead of it. As I have said before: Without the creation of new jobs, the best you can hope for your children is that they will be able to say "Would you like fries with that?" in more than one language.
NB resident wrote on Jul 22, 2008 2:57 PM:
I don't get it, this area & state think they can come up with anything, yet they have no money for other worth while needed things! Sounds like the goodoleboy system is going full speed ahead into a brick wall as usual! Wake up, because it's so pathetic on how you run things in this area!
Taxpayers are tired of your dreams wrote on Jul 22, 2008 2:53 PM:
Port Commissioners, Gov Ted & the rest of Oregon leaders supporting this dream (Soon to be a another failed nightmare), stop wasting tax payers & get educated on basic successful economics101! Try visiting a success state (Florida, Arizona, etc) & LEARN finally how it works in the real world!
P.S. I don't believe a word this obviously desperate foreign business man (Bob Braddock) has to say also!
P.S. I don't believe a word this obviously desperate foreign business man (Bob Braddock) has to say also!
Does Bob Braddock ever hold to his word wrote on Jul 22, 2008 2:44 PM:
I remember when Bob Braddock said a long time ago the following statement:
If you (Oregon) don't want me or Lng, just tell me & I'll be gone!
Maybe this LUBA decision should give you a black & white hint on how Oregon feels about your Lng SCAM that we don't need or want!!! We don't need or want you Bob Braddock or your USELESS Lng!!!!!
If you (Oregon) don't want me or Lng, just tell me & I'll be gone!
Maybe this LUBA decision should give you a black & white hint on how Oregon feels about your Lng SCAM that we don't need or want!!! We don't need or want you Bob Braddock or your USELESS Lng!!!!!
Jane wrote on Jul 22, 2008 2:38 PM:
Sounds like Bob Braddock is starting to get pretty desperate on his California LNG SCAM since being rejected by LUBA? Now trying to convince/CON this area in believing that LNG ships won't be needed & everything will be railed in? I don't buy it for a second, it's just more of the same from a desperate foreign business person trying to cash in on Oregon!
TO MUCH wrote on Jul 22, 2008 2:20 PM:
TO MR. E:::::::::Don't know where you came from, but this area don't need people with your way of thinking.You must really like the idea of the LNG,to the point that you are blowing gas out both ends.
ronop wrote on Jul 22, 2008 10:38 AM:
Mr. E. You are very wrong. There have been many LNG accidents with death and injury in the US. If you are computer literate Google a few key words or save your time and ask Jody McCaffree to guide you to a few unbiased state and federal websites that discuss LNG accidents. There have also been deaths onboard LNG tankers. And, remember the worst was one square mile of Cleveland incinerated - yes people and property cooked beyond recognition. Hopefully somewone will be serving those stale leftover airport open house cookies at the LNG open house.
Barview wrote on Jul 22, 2008 9:05 AM:
The new bridges across 38 are almost done. They've straighten 42 up and if we have rail service, giddy up!
I am all for container ships, Cruise liners and yes, LNG.
Coos Bay will never be a Carmel. You have to drive 9 miles to see the ocean from 101!
The river views are blocked by Fred Meyer, chips, and The Mill Casino.
Re-read Mr E's comment, it's very insightful.
I am all for container ships, Cruise liners and yes, LNG.
Coos Bay will never be a Carmel. You have to drive 9 miles to see the ocean from 101!
The river views are blocked by Fred Meyer, chips, and The Mill Casino.
Re-read Mr E's comment, it's very insightful.
Lives in Coos wrote on Jul 22, 2008 5:35 AM:
An LNG terminal in Coos Bay and downtown North Bend? Gas piped over 200 miles into California? Scrap gasses off loaded at the terminal?
Majority benefit is to California.
But wait, California says they are not safe or clean enough to be placed
"10-14 MILES OFFSHORE!"
What miracle technology makes them clean enough and safe enough to go in downtown North Bend?
Wake up locals, California's dirty laundry is being shipped into Oregon.
Majority benefit is to California.
But wait, California says they are not safe or clean enough to be placed
"10-14 MILES OFFSHORE!"
What miracle technology makes them clean enough and safe enough to go in downtown North Bend?
Wake up locals, California's dirty laundry is being shipped into Oregon.
Blue River wrote on Jul 21, 2008 11:22 PM:
We need a rail line but not LNG. We might as well re-name North Bend KA-Boom as folks will be scared away. Has nothing to do with safety, but all to do with perception - and fear. Is this FEAR worth adding 35 jobs to the community? Not to mention, shutting off crabbing for the most part, as a security zone whenever a tanker comes in, as well as possibly the N Spit. Now, how many summer OHV'ers are we going to fence out, and deny a staging area?
Reasonable man wrote on Jul 21, 2008 6:32 PM:
The Port of Coos Bay and the LNG people are in each others pockets and we shouldn't trust either of these entities. LNG and the Port are out for themselves and couldn't care less about the citizens of Coos County.
Reasonable Man wrote on Jul 21, 2008 6:30 PM:
Coos Bay Residents - Don't be fooled by the port. They are empire building and couldn't care a bit about the local people here.
They will get us to buy into the rail line which has obvious jobs attached. There agenda is to take over the Port of Bandon and the rail and hold us all hostage. They will build their empire on the citizens backs and your tax bill will reflect the fact that the citizens will pay for supporting a failing rail line.
They will get us to buy into the rail line which has obvious jobs attached. There agenda is to take over the Port of Bandon and the rail and hold us all hostage. They will build their empire on the citizens backs and your tax bill will reflect the fact that the citizens will pay for supporting a failing rail line.
Stay informed wrote on Jul 21, 2008 5:42 PM:
..and get your facts straight. What this area needs are informed citizens who can form an intelligent opinion on whether or not LNG is a good idea or a bad one for this area. This area is in a bad way, and I'm undecided on the terminal. But LNG does not come only from the Middle East, and while I don't agree with the exorbitant cost ($1000, not $150) of garbage cans at the new terminal, the board has provided an explanation of why they feel that expense was justified. Using facts one can then vote or form a cogent opinion accordingly.
Tired of FOOLS RUNNING THINGS AROUND HERE wrote on Jul 21, 2008 5:20 PM:
To Diligent, BOY YOU SAID A MOUTH FULL IN YOU COMMENT. I totally agree, we pay for everything and its all a bunch of garbage. The people who run everything in this area are a bunch of FOOLS, and are dumber than a post. They know nothing about how to help our area at all. They just keep spending our tax money that WE PAY for things that do US NO GOOD AT ALL. Where did this area ever get all these FOOLS ? ?
Wyrd wrote on Jul 21, 2008 5:14 PM:
I don't want anyone's garbage or toxic waste dumped here. I don't want our forests stripped. I don't want toxic mining here. And I sure don't want LNG. How bout some job's that don't destroy our beautiful home?
Edward wrote on Jul 21, 2008 5:05 PM:
Sorry folks, it doesn't matter what you think anyway. FERC was developed to stop the stupid bickering on the local level and force much needed energy sources on industrial areas that resist industry. Call it against the constitution, but this is what our great country has come to. Just 30 years ago, this plant would have been built along with ten others...people would have been working and buying good and services and been VERY happy. The CAVE people of this area disgust me.
NO LNG wrote on Jul 21, 2008 5:03 PM:
I don't think LNG should come into an area where they will be passing so many people. They need to be out of any populated areas, and this is not that place. Sure you can say they haven't had any or very few accidents so far, BUT they are not in earthquake and tsunami zones either. We are here...in both. And anyone living along the water could be in real danger. How many of you live by the water in Charleston, Barview, Empire and North Bend, and WANT the LNG coming in ? ? ? ? ? ?
OBSERVER II wrote on Jul 21, 2008 4:42 PM:
TO MR. E::::::::Longshoreman could have pursed other cargo to work with years ago but they didn't.Sure, they would need help, but it still can happen.There's lots of different cargo ,besides dangerous,toxic products that can be received or exported from this port.THIS A IS A PORT.Not one next door to Washington,but centrally located,and easy access.What happen to that new highway proposed from here to central Oregon?
Rick wrote on Jul 21, 2008 4:10 PM:
Well whats next? Fill in ths Bay and road blocks on 101. We are losing our transportation hubs , Air service to the north , train service, bus service. If it takes a LNG plant here to get rail service maybe it will bring back some others.
Kay wrote on Jul 21, 2008 4:06 PM:
Diligent: What ARE you thinking? $150.00 garbage cans? Why, you jest ! Try $1,000.00 per can.
And now the PR campaign begins, all the fluffy, nice, positive articles in the paper.
This is a major screw-up, and someone has to be held accountable.
There are too many of us really angry tax-payers to be swept under this rug.
And now the PR campaign begins, all the fluffy, nice, positive articles in the paper.
This is a major screw-up, and someone has to be held accountable.
There are too many of us really angry tax-payers to be swept under this rug.
diligent wrote on Jul 21, 2008 3:50 PM:
I have to agree with Blue eyes. We got stuck paying for a gas line and will be paying for it on our tax bills for years to come. We have not heard of all those jobs it was supposed to bring to the area and you won't either.
I do not want LNG terminals here. Why import more stuff from the middle east that will cost us dearly.
By the way we got stuck with the airport on our tax bills too and now look what they do $150.00 garbage cans.
Ye Gods where will it all end.
My taxes are high enough and cannot understand why I am paying the bill for the naturla gas company and now the airport.
I do not want LNG terminals here. Why import more stuff from the middle east that will cost us dearly.
By the way we got stuck with the airport on our tax bills too and now look what they do $150.00 garbage cans.
Ye Gods where will it all end.
My taxes are high enough and cannot understand why I am paying the bill for the naturla gas company and now the airport.
To Mr E wrote on Jul 21, 2008 3:43 PM:
Just for the record, My husband and I both have very good jobs working for private companies in Coos Bay and we are both in favor of LNG
just my opinion wrote on Jul 21, 2008 3:27 PM:
I was born at Coos Bay hospital in 1974. I've lived in Coos county for 28 of those years. The retirees and others who have moved here in the last 15 or 20 years have no idea what this area used to be like. There were more jobs, there was more people, Happy People mind you more business and yes it was more beautiful than it is today. The move ins don't know what has been lost here. The people who lost it were not them. They do not feel it the same way "locals" do. It's our families and friends who have suffered. This is our home. A place to raise our children, not a place sit and watch the world pass us buy. I personally don't agree with an LNG terminal here or anywhere near populated areas. What we need is EVERYONE thinking of new ideas and someone to find a way to organize all the ideas. A web site a, weekly meeting at a library, anything is better than just bickering on this forum!
Mr E wrote on Jul 21, 2008 3:13 PM:
So you believe that LONGSHOREMEN control what products go in and out of the port of Coos Bay? HA! That's like telling a WalMart register clerk that the store needs to start selling sulfuric acid.
Container ships or vehicle ships in Coos Bay? It's obvious that some people really don't have a clue about the industry, the logistic requirements to set up such an endeavor, nor do they realize how silly it would be to ship containers/cars to (via ship) and from (via rail or truck) a small port that's pretty well isolated from the rest of the state. This certainly isn't the 1980s... the longshoremen are pretty much gone, and those who still "live" here are making money in other ports or are pretty-much retired.
Container ships or vehicle ships in Coos Bay? It's obvious that some people really don't have a clue about the industry, the logistic requirements to set up such an endeavor, nor do they realize how silly it would be to ship containers/cars to (via ship) and from (via rail or truck) a small port that's pretty well isolated from the rest of the state. This certainly isn't the 1980s... the longshoremen are pretty much gone, and those who still "live" here are making money in other ports or are pretty-much retired.
Bonnie wrote on Jul 21, 2008 1:56 PM:
I totally agree with "Coos Resident"!!!
I couldn't express my opinion any better than he/her did.
I couldn't express my opinion any better than he/her did.
Dave A. wrote on Jul 21, 2008 1:44 PM:
Right now the two major growth industries in Coos County are welfare and meth sales. An area cannot thrive financially by the people taking in each other's laundry. Everytime any commercial venture is proposed for the area, there is an automatic negative response from the same little group of people. I just wonder if this area is ever going to develop again.
Mr E wrote on Jul 21, 2008 1:34 PM:
If we do get LNG here, we are lucky to have a person like DeFazio as our area Representative, because he's one of the few politicians out there who seem to be able to balance the environment with the economy. There will not be a duct-taped LNG facility put here on his watch.
Mr E wrote on Jul 21, 2008 1:34 PM:
This seems to be a case of haves vs have-nots. The people who have a decent job and home in the area (or retirees) hate the LNG idea, and block any information from entering their brains that might make them second-guess some of their misguided ideas (this fantasy of "the terrorists" coming to Coos Bay is laughable). They ignore that this isn't a third-world nation, and that we have incredible engineering practices over here, and there have NOT been accidents with LNG in the US.
The people who want LNG (who are struggling in this depressed economy) ignore the fact that it very well could be dangerous to have such a facility if there's an earthquake or tsunami. They ignore that the few jobs created directly by the facility won't be going to locals (though, unlike a simple gas pipeline going under the streets, a LNG facility could be the spark necessary to re-develop the bay for commercial use, especially noting that the bay would be dredged deeper and wider for these ships).
The people who want LNG (who are struggling in this depressed economy) ignore the fact that it very well could be dangerous to have such a facility if there's an earthquake or tsunami. They ignore that the few jobs created directly by the facility won't be going to locals (though, unlike a simple gas pipeline going under the streets, a LNG facility could be the spark necessary to re-develop the bay for commercial use, especially noting that the bay would be dredged deeper and wider for these ships).
Bonnie wrote on Jul 21, 2008 1:05 PM:
I totally agree with "Coos Resident"!!!
I wanted to comment but couldn't have done a better job than you did in expressing my opinon
I wanted to comment but couldn't have done a better job than you did in expressing my opinon
OBSERVSER II wrote on Jul 21, 2008 12:47 PM:
TO COOS RESIDENT:::::Excuse me,there are a few of you out there that would like to see certain development of projects that have potentioal of total disaster to our area.Container cargo and new vehicles would be a much better option.I mentioned this to longshoreman 20 years ago, but their heads was in the chips,and dips.
Gene wrote on Jul 21, 2008 12:42 PM:
Coos Resident, this area is going to continue to suffer because none of the projects mentioned will ever be here. Therefor, what is the use of a railroad?
Kay wrote on Jul 21, 2008 12:38 PM:
Coos Resident: I'd like to see some of these millions and millions and millions of dollars go into sustaining livable wage jobs. You know, like the ones promised us over and over and over again. No jobs on the pipeline. Horizon employees losing their jobs in the second terminal worth $25,000,000.00, LNG, railroads. All these ventures are making millions for someone, and it ain't us, the taxpayers is it?
This state cannot support any more Port, Airport, SCDC, projects. Please stop !
This state cannot support any more Port, Airport, SCDC, projects. Please stop !
Mike wrote on Jul 21, 2008 12:22 PM:
OBSERVER II, you do not speak for "WE THE PEOPLE". There is a small but shrill group of people who are against LNG. And I mean small.
Perhaps the amount of energy you people use to try and down everything happening in this community should go to something more positive. Maybe you could come up with a replacement plan instead of LNG.
I think that might be asking too much. Folks like you would rather file your protests and throw tomatoes from afar.
Perhaps the amount of energy you people use to try and down everything happening in this community should go to something more positive. Maybe you could come up with a replacement plan instead of LNG.
I think that might be asking too much. Folks like you would rather file your protests and throw tomatoes from afar.
everyman wrote on Jul 21, 2008 12:22 PM:
Be careful, observer..."We" may be true of you and your friends...but rest assured is DOES NOT represent ALL of the people of Coos Bay, or even Coos County. I, for one, hope LNG moves in, takes up shop, and starts pumping ASAP! And no, I don't know, work for, or gain any financial gain, from Mr. Braddock, the port, or the city.
Coos Resident wrote on Jul 21, 2008 12:09 PM:
Observer, not sure who all you speak for but I would like to see LNG here. And if it helps to get the rails running again even better. I would also like to see a container port. All of those could bring much needed economic relief to this area. If not then this place will continue to suffer.
Blue Eyes wrote on Jul 21, 2008 11:59 AM:
I bet those same cookie eaters are the ones that promised alot of new jobs once we got gas to the area. We all know how that turned out.
OBSERVER II wrote on Jul 21, 2008 11:46 AM:
We the people don't want the LNG here.Again ,the only ones pushing this issue is the very ones that don't even use the bay .To busy eating their cookies at their new airport.
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