Oregon's Spectacular Beauty Under Attack

I never cease to be amazed at the lengths some people will go to impose their will on others regarding subjects about which they know little. The text of the subject article fails the test of probity and is downright disingenuous in places. Moreover, it frames the subject in the most emotional way possible, presumably to discourage further examination.

First, the LNG pipeline to which the author refers is 231 miles long and runs through private, state and federal lands, very little of which is developed. The "abundance" of gas must come from either Wyoming, Colorado or the mid-continent area of Oklahoma, Texas and Louisiana, the closest of which requires a 650 mile pipeline but more likely would require one about 1800 miles long.

The article goes on to say the imported gas would come from Russia, Iran or Qatar, implying we are getting in bed with the undesirables of the world. In fact, none of these countries make the list of most probably suppliers. Australia, Indonesia and Malaysia are the most likely sources, all friendlies.

One of the beauties of this project is that there are NO, repeat NO, taxpayer dollars involved. The risk and rewards lie entirely with private investors. So, if there is no need for the gas, it is the investors that lose, not the taxpaying public.

The article goes on to suggest that ocean and estuarine habitat will be destroyed by the tankers bringing in this chilled gas. In fact, the tankers are smaller than most container vessels that bring huge quantities of product of all types from China and other countries in the Far East and there will be only 80 or so ship calls per year in a port that a dozen years ago saw well over 300 ship calls hauling logs and lumber out of Oregon. The terminal dock is actually in a cove in the bay and NO, repeat NO, beaches will be destroyed. Neither will whale routes, salmon runs or other habitat be destroyed. The terminal will be located in an industrial area out of sight of tourists.

What the project does bring are about 150 family wage jobs, local tax revenues in the millions per year and commerce to an area that is under seige economically and currently suffers with an unemployment rate of nearly 18%!

And lastly, the "activists" that are working so hard to stop this project are very well funded by several environmentalist groups which enjoy the benefits of having professional fundraisers and lawyers aplenty raising money from well-meaning folks from all over the country, but not locally to fight this and other projects. With the exception of a few hardy and highly vocal folks, whipped up by professional organizers, and who for the most part are retired and have come to this community from out of area, the local community overwhelmingly supports the project. They are not as visible because they are too busy working to support themselves and their families.

So, before you jump blindly to the rallying cry of a of activists seeking causes, check out all the facts and make an informed decision. I might also add that it would be helpful if you tended to your own back yard and let me tend to mine.

Sorry Jon don't believe a word of it. Allowing foreign companies to develop LNG on the Columbia River will not help local families, will not help the economy, will definitely have adverse impacts on fisheries, recreation, natural resources and the visceral and visual resources of the region and, worst of all, will merely exacerbate our continuing dependence on filthy, finite, fossil fuels at the expense of transitioning to sustainable energy sources for future generations.

Don't a shill for the petrol companies, Jon. Think of your grandchildren. They don't deserve a burned out overheated planet.

We have killed at least 5 LNG proposals in California over the last decade and our coalition of 10,000 is ready for the next assault. It isn't worth it and we're not gonna let it happen..... Good Luck to activists in California!

My remarks are largely focused on the Coos Bay project. I have not read the EIS for the Colombia River projects so I have facts on which to base comment.

I totally support the quest for renewable fuel sources. I did starting in 1973 following the Arab oil embargo and begged our legislators to require a durable, comprehensive energy plan. It didn't happen. It didn't happen when the Shah of Iran fell in 1979 and it didn't happen with the collapse of the oil industry in 1982. It still hasn't happened.

Unless we are all willing to pay more, much more for our energy, we are not going to have a sustainable source of alternative energy for at least two to three decades. Of course paying a lot more for our energy would be ruinous for the economy and it would hurt poor and working class families far more than it would bother the idle rich who tend to be the largest benefactors to causes such as yours.

In the meantime, I would submit that the environment would be very well served by converting coal fired generation to gas and automotive transport from gasoline and diesel to gas. That could happen in a few years and reduce carbon emissions by a very significant amount. If technology catches up and renewable energy sources become available at reasonable cost and that has the effect of making obsolete the LNG projects, so be it. I don't have a dime invested there and neither do you (presumably). The risk is entirely on the capitalists funding the projects, be they foreign or domestic or a combination thereof.

We still need a rational, comprehensive and durable plan to develop and provide our nation's energy needs for at least the next century.