I am vehemently opposed to the construction of the proposed LNG export facility in
Warrenton, OR FERC Docket Numbers: PF12-18-000) and the associated Williams pipeline
(FERC Docket Number PF12-20-000). I live in the neighboring town of Astoria directly
across Young's Bay from the proposed site. I believe that natural gas should play a
significant role in providing clean energy to the US and reducing our dependency on
foreign oil. However, the proposed site for the LNG export terminal just does not make
sense. If we look at the risks versus the rewards we can clearly see why permits for the
construction should be denied.
Risks
1. Socioeconomic impacts: Astoria is a town that has worked diligently over many years to
maintain its historic character. It is the oldest US town west of the Rocky Mountains. The
growing tourist industry depends on that historic character. The large proposed industrial
facility will destroy that historic character. The presence of huge storage tanks, the huge
clouds of vapor produced by the liquefaction train condensers, the pipeline, and even gas
flaring within the Astoria viewshed and airshed will fundamentally alter the character of
the community and have devastating impacts on the tourist industry. The exclusion zone
for the approximately 250 days/year when LNG tankers will be entering of leaving the
Columbia River estuary will also impact the fishing and tourist industries. The number of
jobs promised by Oregon LNG during the construction phase should be scrutinized and the
data and analysis used to arrive at those numbers should be made public. Any analysis of
the value of adding a small number of jobs (149) during the operational phase of the LNG
export facility must be balanced by an analysis of the long term socioeconomic impacts of
the fundamental change in the character of Astoria, including the economic effect on the
tourist and fishing industries and the ability of the town to attract businesses that would
not affect the towns character. Just look at the location of the proposed facility in relation
to the surrounding communities:
Fort Columbia
State Park
Commercial and
sport fisheries
Salmon
Cruise Ships
Tourism
LNG Export
Astoria
Fort Stevens
State Park
Tourism
Warrenton
Astoria Regional Airport
Fort Clatsop National
Historic Park
Oregon LNG's terminal would degrade local air quality at the terminal and in the
surrounding communities of Astoria and Hammond. LNG terminals emit air pollution from
compressors, vaporizers, gas-turbines, construction dust, and other sources. LNG tankers
and the security vessels that accompany them run their engines during the entire cargo
loading cycle, spewing exhaust and air pollutants that would impact surrounding
communities. LNG-related pipelines also require large compressor stations that generate
air pollution and noise. FERC must analyze how LNG will compromise clean air and the
quality of scenic vistas in the Columbia River Estuary including impacts on the tourist
industry.
2. Environmental: We must learn to produce natural gas responsibly i.e. without giving
producers exemption from important environmental regulation. There are significant
environmental impacts associated with the mining, production, transportation and
liquefaction of natural gas. We must consider the LNG production lifecycle environmental
impacts and not just the emissions produced during combustion. The well injection
chemicals include several known carcinogens (actually the chemical mixes remain
"proprietary") and yet the mining of natural gas from shale deposits thru hydraulic
fracturing is exempt from regulation by the EPA under the Clean Water Act. This is a very
short sighted policy. Yes, we need to overcome our dependence on foreign fossil fuels, but
we should do so responsibly, considering the impacts on domestic water supplies for our
children and not focus entirely on the economic benefits to corporations. The
transportation of natural gas thru pipelines in areas of substantial earth quake risks such as
the NW risk the leakage of substantial amounts of potent greenhouse gases such as
methane (72 times more impact than CO2). The liquefaction of natural gas at the proposed
facility extracts dangerous chemicals in the process, including mercury, hydrogen sulfide
and carbon dioxide. Furthermore, the Columbia River is one of the few large salmon runs
remaining and consists of many sensitive wetland habitats. The impacts on fisheries and
the aquatic environment of the initial dredging of 1.2 million cubic yards and 300,000 cubic
yards every 3 years in high quality salmon habitat of the Columbia should be addressed.
LNG tankers and terminals wreak havoc on water quality. For example, LNG tankers expel
hot water from their engines and chemically treated water from their re-gasification
terminals. LNG tankers also discharge ballast water containing invasive species. FERC must
evaluate how Oregon LNG’s terminal and tankers would impact water quality, endangered
salmon, and other aquatic life in the Columbia River.
3. Safety: The "blast zone" from a pool fire or dispersion event includes Warrenton grade
school and the as well as significant parts of the towns of Warrenton and Astoria.
Both the LNG export terminal and LNG tankers present significant risks due to intentional
(terrorist) and natural catastrophic damage. The proposed site is within a tsunami zone
and consists of sand dredge tailings that present an extreme risk of liquefaction with
subsequent severe damage to the pipeline and the facility during a significant earthquake
that the geologist assure us may happen at any time. In fact, a 7.7 magnitude earthquake
just occurred off the Queen Charlotte Islands yesterday (Oct 27th). A large subduction
zone earthquake could produce and extremely large tsunami with very little warning. This
site just does not make sense for this kind of facility even you favor the general economic
arguments for LNG export. In any case, providing plans, equipment and training for
emergency fire and medical services must be addressed.
4. Power: The extremely high power consumption, in the range of 350 MW per day, of the
liquefaction and export terminal is a significant concern. They do not plan to produce
their own power - where will it come from? There are no power plants large enough to
produce that amount of power locally. What are the environmental and socioeconomic
impacts of supplying that much energy to the proposed facility?
Benefits
1. Economic benefit- is it real?: Our country is still in a recession and our community is
hurting. The prospect of jobs is alluring to say the least. Oregon LNG claims over 3000
jobs will be created during the construction and about 150 jobs during operation. They
have provided no sound data or analysis that would let us validate these numbers, but let’s
use their numbers to take a look at that benefit a little more closely. Many experts and
common sense tells us a decrease in LNG domestic supply due to export will raise the price
in the US. Paul Cicio, president of the Industrial Energy Consumers of America, stated, “In
the end, it's going to be every homeowner, every farmer buying fertilizer, and every
manufacturer trying to create jobs who is going to be hurt by this.” FERC must consider the
economic impacts of LNG export on ratepayers. Let’s, very optimistically, assume that
each of those jobs paid $100,000/year that would be a $300,000,000 benefit. That seems
wonderful but if the annual cost for the approximately 60% of the US households that use
natural gas went up by only $10/year the cost to the US consumers would be about
$680,000,000. A net loss of $380,000,000. So do we, the people benefit from this? The
answer is a clear no!
The jobs at this highly complex facility (both construction and operation) are highly skilled
jobs. Most will be filled from outside our community. The idea of increase taxes and jobs
sounds good to many and I can fully understand the desire for both. However, turning our
community from a sleepy little historic fishing and tourist town into an industrial port is
not worth it. I challenge Oregon LNG to show me a thriving tourist town with even decent
environmental quality THIS CLOSE to an LNG export and liquefaction terminal or an oil
refinery and perhaps I will change my mind. Should we sell the soul of our community?
2. Economy- who really benefits?: The US has no coherent accepted energy strategy for the
future. We are over-producing now and there is a glut of LNG in the US. According to
experts we are exceeding our capacity to store LNG in the US. Why are we doing this when
we are borrowing money from China to pay for Middle Eastern fossil fuel? There are
severe environmental consequences associated with production, transportation and
liquefaction of natural gas. The Warrenton Export Terminal and the Williams Pipeline put
landowners and communities at risk. The US is being exploited as much as if it were a 3rd
world country by global corporations who would bleed our country dry as long as it lined
their coffers! What amount of environmental degradation and destruction of our
communities are we willing to accept to line the pockets of global corporations? Didn't we
learn that they are not working for our benefit in 2008? Why should we support making
those companies rich at the expense of the environment and future energy supplies of our
country?
Conclusion
I look at this list of risks and benefits and I see a global corporate venture to create wealth for
the few on the backs of the many without concern for the environment and the character of my
town and with no long lasting economic benefits. Do we want to become the indentured
servants of the new feudalism of global corporations? The reserves of natural gas in this
country are a strategic asset that may help us reduce our dependency on foreign oil. Let’s not
squander those making global corporations wealthy at the expense of our national interests.
Furthermore, this is high risk venture. Due to newly discovered large natural gas reserves in
Australia and New Guinea that are much closer to Asia, there is no guarantee that this
proposed plant will ever be successful. I urge you to deny any permits for the construction of
the pipeline and export terminal and the destruction of my community.
Sincerely,
Ken Adee