LNG: The questions


Thursday, November 20, 2008 | 3 comment(s)

Font Size: Shrink Font Enlarge Font | Submit your news

Related Links

Results from Moore Information survey. Responses are in percentages and may not add up to 100 percent.

• 1. Over the past few months have you seen, read or heard anything about a proposal to build a liquefied natural gas terminal near Coos Bay?

Yes: 62

No: 37

Don’t know: 1

• 2. Liquefied natural gas is often referred to as LNG. The gas is transported on ships and unloaded into an LNG terminal. Would you favor or oppose building an LNG terminal near Coos Bay? Do you feel strongly about that?

Strongly favor: 33

Favor: 23

Total favor: 56

Don’t know: 29

Total oppose: 16

Oppose: 6

Strongly oppose: 9

• 3. What is the major reason you favor the LNG terminal near Coos Bay

Creates jobs: 28

More source of energy: 17

We need industry: 11

Cost/savings: 10

Helps the economy: 10

Good idea: 10

Helps community: 2

Work in industry: 2

Clean energy: 1

Necessary: 1

Doesn’t affect me: 1

Good location: <1

Growth <1

LNG terminal is safe <1

More accessible to West Coast <1

Need alternative fuels <1

I don’t live nearby <1

Natural gas is safe <1

Pipeline already laid out <1

Accessible <1

None/nothing: 1

Don’t know: 2

• 4. What is the major reason you oppose the LNG terminal near Coos Bay?

Dangerous/not safe: 22

Environmental reasons: 19

Location: 17

Not needed: 7

Need more information: 5

Ships will use waterways: 4

Cut back on jobs: 3

Other alternatives: 3

Not maintained/monitored: 2

Will take land away from landowners: 2

Takes away from natural beauty: 1

Not being approached in the right way: 1

Have had problems in other areas using pipelines 1

We should be self-reliant: 1

Importing fuel from other countries: 1

None/nothing: 2

Don’t know: 8

• 5. Over the past few months have you seen, read or heard anything about a proposal to build a natural gas pipeline from Coos Bay to the Klamath Falls area?

Yes: 51

Don’t know: 3

No: 46

• 6. Would you favor or oppose such a pipeline? Do you feel strongly about that?

Strongly favor: 27

Favor 27

Total favor: 54

Don’t know: 29

Total oppose: 16

Oppose 7

Strongly oppose 10

• 7. What is the major reason you favor the natural gas pipeline?

Creates jobs: 20

Cost efficient: 14

Availability to other energy sources 12

Necessary: 9

Good for the economy 9

It’s natural gas: 6

Convenience: 4

Good idea: 3

Pipeline is already in place 3

Self sufficient: 2

Depends on safety issues: 2

Need new industry: 2

Would relieve pressure on Avista gas: 1

Clean resources: 1

More advantages with terminal: 1

Keep up with growth: <1

For our future: <1

Landowners should be compensated: <1

Does not affect me: <1

Have had pipeline run through my property: <1

They are going to build it anyway: <1

None/nothing: 4

Don’t know: 5

• 8. What is the major reason you oppose the natural gas pipeline?

Dangerous/not safe: 18

Environmental concerns: 14

Already have a pipeline: 6

Location: 6

Use of private land: 6

Takes away from natural beauty: 5

Expense: 4

Property owners oppose it: 4

Not a good idea for this area: 4

Too far/length too long: 4

In case of an earthquake 3

Need more information 3

Takes jobs away: 2

They aren’t maintained: 2

Need to support renewable energy: 2

Material is being shipped out, not in: 2

They lied to us: 1

Pollution: 1

None/nothing: 4

Don’t know: 9

• 9. If additional sources of natural gas would decrease Oregon’s use of coal, how would that affect your feelings about an LNG terminal or pipeline project?

Much more likely to favor: 25

Somewhat more likely to favor: 51

Total more likely to favor: 56

Total more likely to oppose: 15

Somewhat more likely to oppose: 11

Much more likely to oppose the projects: 5

Don’t know: 29

• 10. If some of the natural gas shipped into Oregon were transferred to other states, how would that affect your feelings about an LNG terminal or pipeline project?

Much more likely to favor: 23

Somewhat more likely to favor: 26

Total more likely to favor: 49

Total more likely to oppose: 23

Somewhat more likely to oppose: 11

Much more likely to oppose: 12

Don’t know: 27

• 11. Pipelines carrying natural gas can be operated safely.

Strongly agree: 50

Somewhat agree: 32

Total agree 82

Don’t know: 10

Total disagree: 9

Somewhat disagree: 5

Strongly disagree: 3

• 12. A natural gas pipeline would not be a safety risk to neighboring landowners.

Strongly agree: 32

Somewhat agree: 31

Total agree 63

Don’t know: 12

Total disagree:  25

Somewhat disagree: 17

Strongly disagree: 8

• 13. A natural gas pipeline is not a major risk to the environment.

Strongly agree: 37

Somewhat agree: 26

Total agree 63

Don’t know: 11

Total disagree:  25

Somewhat disagree: 13



Previous
Next

Have you checked out The World Link Forums?

Comments

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.
Comment Policy

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

Thomas wrote on Nov 21, 2008 7:40 AM:

Why does THE WORLD give front page coverage to a survey so bogus that Jordon Cove rightfully should have paid your advertising rates to run ........ or did it?

Ron wrote on Nov 20, 2008 11:58 AM:

I am undecided about LNG at this point, but this thing claiming to be a poll really makes my blood boil. The public needs good objective data, not this junk.

The World needs to check with some professional pollsters and have them score these poll questions. My bet is this will be shown to be one of the all time most pre-loaded farces ever.

The World should be in a position to warn its readers when someone claims valid data from such a jacked up questionaire. That is, if it then decides to give the phony poll any print coverage at all.

Common Sense wrote on Nov 20, 2008 11:58 AM:

World newspaper,

Stop with your confusing unimportant info garbage & start with listing ALL the facts pro vs con of this LNG SCAM in one big article objectively explaining it to ALL!

Bottomline: If you want to do something for the area as well as the state of Oregon, then propose to con man Bob Braddock & our pathetic so-called state leaders like Gov Ted & his Port commission clown puppets that a Oregon state wide vote is needed immediately to decide if this should go forward or to fight it anyway it can be to get rid of this California LNG SCAM once & for ALL!


*Member ID:
*Password:
 

Not already registered?

Do not use usernames or passwords from your financial accounts!

Note: Fields marked with an asterisk (*) are required!



*Create a Member ID:
*Choose a password:
*Re-enter password:
*E-mail Address:
*Year of Birth:
 

(children under 13 cannot register)

*First Name:
*Last Name:
Would you like to be added to our mailing lists?
Daily Headlines
Breaking News
Special Offers
 
Advanced Search
Web Search powered by YAHOO! SEARCH

Blogroll

Most Popular

Polls

» View Past Poll Results
» Suggest a Poll

Marketplace

Special Sections

More Special Sections