Earlier this week, the Hillsboro Argus reported that

One of the leaders of the fight against proposed natural gas development in northwest Oregon is joining the Oregon Department of Justice as a special counsel.

Brent Foster, executive director of Columbia Riverkeeper, has been one of the public faces of the fight against liquefied gas terminals proposed for the Oregon Coast, and compressed gas pipelines that would deliver that fuel inland.

He’s been appointed by incoming Oregon Attorney General John Kroger as special counsel for environmental enforcement and policy. In that role, Foster will likely have a key role in Kroger’s fight against the pipelines and terminals.

Earlier this year, a commentary published by the Oregonian demonstrated Mr. Foster’s complete lack of knowledge regarding LNG

On a positive note, the article [which was biased and suggested that the Bradwood LNG terminal would be exporting gas overseas, etc.] provided yet another opportunity for Brent Foster of Columbia RiverKeeper to demonstrate his complete lack of understanding of LNG, natural gas and the technologies employed for bringing them to market. His assertions were uninformed and simply wrong. An LNG terminal would help stabilize energy costs and be good for Oregon economy.

As Oregon Public Utility Commission Chairman Lee Beyer noted earlier this year, “Other regions of the country are all looking to secure access to additional gas supply sources, such as LNG and nonconventional gas to replace supplies from quickly diminishing domestic and pipeline import sources. The Northwest should so the same.”

The necessity of the new LNG terminals has been demonstrated. Oregon’s new Attorney General has made a grave mistake.

According to the Oregonian:

Over the past couple of months, Oregon has lost more than 10,000 jobs, and a recently announced $1 billion state budget shortfall gave the state’s economy and its workers another punch in the gut. With the state headed into a recession — and losing good-paying jobs that support Oregon families — we need to seize opportunities to get people working again.

The Bradwood Landing liquefied natural gas terminal is just such an opportunity. Its construction alone would put 450 skilled union laborers to work for three years, and it would supply Oregon with a needed new supply of natural gas.

Tom Chamberlain the President of the Oregon AFL-CIO, goes on to argue that

Stabilizing energy costs is crucial for our region’s future. And while we should vigorously pursue renewable energy, natural gas can serve as a bridge to the cleaner energy future we all want. Furthermore, not all proposed LNG projects provide the safety, security, environmental protection and good jobs provided by Bradwood Landing.

Northwest Natural estimates that based on the transportation savings alone, Bradwood would save its customers more than $400 million over 20 years versus other supply options.

President Chamberlain hits all of the right points. The benefits of the Bradwood LNG terminal far outweigh the “problems” (to use the word loosely) that have been raised in opposition to it. Nevertheless, radical environmental groups continue to oppose the project. There comes a point when one must ask why?

Why do radical environmentalists oppose something that is good for Oregon?

Here’s a piece of news that’s probably not being reported. According to a Moore Information poll of Portland, the majority of people support LNG terminals. The report found that:

An LNG terminal is favored by 56%, and opposed by 16%. The remaining 29% have no opinion.

Radical Environmentalists have mounted a savage opposition against LNG, or Liquefied Natural Gas. Currently there are a two proposed LNG terminals, though only one of them would ever be built.

A question should be considered. Why do we, at Lights On Oregon, refer to groups like Columbia Riverkeeper, or the Oregon Chapter of the Sierra Club as “radical”?

Let us explain.

We at Lights On Oregon care about the environment. In fact, in the classical sense of the word we are “environmentalists.” However, environmentalism, like anything, can be taken to an illogical extreme. We’ve shown that the proposed LNG terminal is good for both Oregon and the nation. We’ve also shown why it is necessary. And finally, we’ve shown the radical environmental opposition to the LNG terminal(s).

So what makes radical environmental groups radical? The simple fact that they are actually hurting the environment because by their own actions. The antithesis of environmentalism is radical environmentalism.

According to The Daily News:

Opponents of the Bradwood Landing liquefied natural gas terminal lined up to fight federal regulators’ approval of the project…

The state of Oregon, the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission and a coalition of environmental groups all asked the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to reconsider its Sept. 18 decision to permit NorthernStar’s $650 million LNG terminal on the Lower Columbia River.

A coalition of LNG opponents, including Columbia Riverkeeper, the Oregon Chapter of the Sierra Club, Wahkiakum Friends of the River and the Cowlitz County-based Landowners and Citizens for a Safe Community, also announced Monday that they had filed to overturn FERC’s decision.

This is another example of radical environmental groups opposing affordable energy. The proposed LNG terminal is both good for Oregon, and good for the nation. For an increase in Oregon’s supply of Liquefied Natural Gas, will drastically increase the supply of safe and clean natural gas, which will help hold down rising energy costs. As an added benefit, natural gas burns cleaner, with lower emissions than petroleum products.

We at Lights On Oregon care about the environment. We want to utilize clean energy. We believe the market should dictate this—not the government. We have made it our mission to document the absurdity of the actions of radical environmental group, who oppose these ideals. You can join us by signing our petition, or by sharing our site with a friend. We encourage you to do both.

In late October, a certain Mr. Taylor submitted an excellent letter to the Statesman Journal. He comments on the fact that Oregon Congressman David Wu joined Governor Kulongoski in opposing the LNG terminal on the Columbia River. He says:

Oregon has no oil refineries. Virtually all of our gas and diesel comes from the four major refineries in the Puget Sound area of Washington thru a pipeline to Portland for distribution. Some of that fuel is also put into another pipeline from Portland to Eugene for distribution to southern Oregon.

Washington thus becomes our “energy farm.” The crude oil comes from Alaska. They also become another “energy farm” for us. Almost all our natural gas comes via pipelines (plural) from Canada thru Washington to Oregon. Another “energy farm” for us.

I am glad these kind of politicians were not in charge in those areas as this nation and Oregon grew to what it is today. The LNG terminal is a clean operation, cleaner than refineries. It is safe, creates good jobs and pays good taxes to support the local government.

Congressman Wu, Governor Kulongoski, and Senator Wyden have some explaining to do. In an earlier article, examining Senator Wyden’s opposition to LNG terminals, we posed the question:

Senator Wyden, how can we import Alaskan natural gas if according to both Alaskan officials and the U.S. Department of Energy we do not have the capability? And…when we attempt to build LNG terminals which would give us that capability…you oppose the terminals?

The LNG “controversy” is a perfect example of those groups and those individuals who oppose affordable and reliable energy.

In the last two weeks, there have been a lot of developments regarding Liquefied Natural Gas.

First, Congressman Wu recently came out in opposition to the Bradwood Landing facility.

“His position is stunning,” said John Mohlis, executive secretary of the Columbia Pacific Building and Construction Trades Council. “Oregon lost 10,000 jobs last month and Congressman Wu is opposing a project that would keep 450 skilled union workers employed during three years of construction - on a project that doesn’t require a dime of taxpayer money? His position makes no sense and is counter to the welfare of Oregon workers. “Mohlis, from the Building and Construction Trades Council, condemned Wu and urged him to reconsider.

“Northwest families and businesses face an urgent need for stable, affordable sources of energy,” said Mohlis. “And they need jobs; real jobs that pay a living wage. Wu is putting politics ahead of the best interests of the working men and women of his district.

“Rationalizing his position by framing it in context of a misleading local referendum shows a lack of leadership and willingness to stand up for what’s right. We sincerely hope he reconsiders his position and joins the growing ranks of Labor and business organizations that support this project.”

The Bradwood Landing terminal has support from the Oregon AFL-CIO, the Columbia Pacific Building Trades Council, the Washington State Building and Construction Trades Council, the Oregon Machinists Council, the Washington Machinists Council, Carpenters Local 1707 and the International Longshore Workers’ Union (Columbia River Oregon Area).

Next, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission denied Senator Wyden’s request to slow down the approval of the Jordan Cove liquefied natural gas terminal in Coos Bay.

Then, the

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has officially accepted Oregon LNG’s formal application. Oregon LNG is a proposed liquefied natural gas import facility located on the Skipanon Peninsula in Warrenton, Oregon. The project will increase natural gas supplies in the Pacific Northwest and other western states.

And Finally, Oregon’s Democrat leadership has continued its opposition to affordable energy. No surprises there.

The fight against affordable energy continues (as reported by the Oregonian):

Dan Serres, with Columbia Riverkeeper, challenged the alleged need for the Oregon LNG project. “Oregon LNG’s project is wrong for Oregon.

An increase in Oregon’s supply of LNG, or Liquefied Natural Gas, will drastically increase the supply of safe and clean natural gas, which will help hold down rising energy costs. Moreover, natural gas burns cleaner, with lower emissions than petroleum products.

Does this ever end?

As reported by the Oregonian:

The myth that the Bradwood LNG Terminal will export gas overseas is 100% wrong.  Consider this:

On a positive note, the article [which was biased and suggested that the Bradwood LNG terminal would be exporting gas overseas, etc.] provided yet another opportunity for Brent Foster of Columbia RiverKeeper to demonstrate his complete lack of understanding of LNG, natural gas and the technologies employed for bringing them to market. His assertions were uninformed and simply wrong. An LNG terminal would help stabilize energy costs and be good for Oregon economy.

As Oregon Public Utility Commission Chairman Lee Beyer noted earlier this year, “Other regions of the country are all looking to secure access to additional gas supply sources, such as LNG and nonconventional gas to replace supplies from quickly diminishing domestic and pipeline import sources. The Northwest should so the same.”

According to the Oregonian:

Backers of a[nohter] LNG project delivered 21 binders to federal energy regulators containing their application to build a terminal on a spit of sand and blackberry brambles that juts into the Columbia River from Warrenton.

The $1 billion terminal would be capable of importing a billion cubic feet of natural gas a day - almost twice Oregon’s daily consumption. The gas would be shipped to markets throughout the Northwest and California via “the Oregon pipeline.”

“We’re opposed,” said Brent Foster, executive director of Columbia Riverkeeper.

Advantages for Oregon:

• By importing LNG, Oregon’s natural gas market will become more competitive, reducing the costs of natural gas.

• The availability of additional natural gas resources will allow Oregon and other Western states to reduce dependence on polluting coal, which currently makes up 42 percent of Oregon’s electric energy supply.

Competition is good. We’re told only one LNG terminal will be built in Oregon, so why not let the best terminal win?

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) made headlines this week by decrying the export of LNG from Alaska to Japan and complaining about the high price of natural gas.

It’s pretty outrageous to scare Americans about energy shortages while she has been approving export of billions of cubic feet of natural gas that could be providing energy to homes in Alaska and the lower 48 states,” Wyden said.

But, according to Oregonian:

Alaskan officials - as well as the U.S. Department of Energy, which approved the exports - say there is no readily available domestic alternative to handle the Alaskan natural gas.

Moreover, Wyden and other Left Coast liberals, have done everything they can to stonewall LNG terminals proposed for the West Coast, including three proposed terminals right here in Oregon. There are currently no LNG terminals on the U.S. West Coast.

According to the state of Alaska:

Alaska’s exports of LNG from the Kenai Peninsula facility were $161 million for 2006. The LNG loading facility in Nikiski and the regasification facility in Negishi, Japan pioneered LNG marine transport in 1969. Alaska LNG export to Japan has been continuous since then. The current LNG contract is for five years — 2004 through the first quarter of 2009.

Alaska is producing American made energy. How can we blame them if Oregon refuses to build a LNG terminal to tap in on their surplus gas?

Senator Wyden, how can we import Alaskan natural gas if according to both Alaskan officials and the U.S. Department of Energy we do not have the capability? And…when we attempt to build LNG terminals which would give us that capability…you oppose the terminals?

Pure hypocrisy.