Another LNG project?
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?
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:30 pm
I’m not sure how you got the idea that only one terminal will be built because any and all of the import (or export) terminals could be approved. Also, the terminal would be capable of importing twice oregons daily gas consumption. Shouldn’t this website be called “lights on California?”
October 22nd, 2008 at 1:30 pm
1. I get that “idea” from the Oregonian:
“The back and forth between the companies is likely to continue. Both have invested heavily in their projects, and both say only one terminal ever will be built.”
http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2008/10/lineup_for_lng_project_adds_a.html
2. Neither terminal is interested in exporting LNG, see the Oregonian:
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/argus/index.ssf?/base/news/1224267618196280.xml&coll=6
3. “Shouldn’t this website be called “lights on California?” This statement is the classic example of the logical fallacy non sequitur. The current problem is that natural gas prices are skyrocketing (see http://lightsonoregon.com/blog/?p=14). The ONLY way to resolve this is to increase the amount of natural gas we import (all of our natural is imported; Oregon does not produce natural gas). How can we do this? By building LNG terminals (see here: http://lightsonoregon.com/blog/?p=194).
October 23rd, 2008 at 6:12 pm
Matt, I’d like to point out that, at least the gas from Bradwood Landing, will not be going to California. It will go into the pipeline near Kelso, with several industrial users taking it along the way, and then will go into the NW Natural distribution system for Oregon and Southern Washington.
October 28th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
In response to Lights On Oregon: In point 1, the quote in the Oregonian is based directly on claims from the natural gas companies themselves. (”both say only one terminal ever will be built”) these are hardly unbiased sources, since it is obviously in their best interest to deny that more than one terminal will be built. In point 2, the article you quote (Which was printed in the Argus, not the Oregonian by the way), is an editorial written by the Vice President of External Affairs for Bradwood Landing. Another biased source. As for point 3, in most states, natural gas prices are dropping. ( See http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B04E4D9173CF93AA35751C1A961958260 ) So why are prices rising in Oregon? I think that it is possibly a ruse to make the idea of LNG pipelines more popular with Oregonians (this is merely speculation and guessing on my part, by the way) Instead of supporting these property-stealing pipelines, why don’t you invest your time in more reasonable ideas, like nuclear energy, clean coal, and keeping the dams we already have?
October 28th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
Matt,
1. Your appeal to silence pales in the light of a classic Wittgensteinian maxim: “Of that which one cannot speak, one must remain silent” (Ludwig Wittgensteinian , Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, 7.0.) Unless you can present an evidential or logical case specifically refuting the evidence presented…it is useless to speculate. In fact, not only is it useless, it is a waste of time.
2. Your appeal to “biased sources” is simply logically fallacious. In fact, it is so much so, it is not even an argument. If I were to reply in kind to your post I would simply say, “your biased, thus what you’re saying doesn’t matter.” That’s not even an argument. It’s nothing. It’s useless. It’s not intelligent.
2.5. What is better source is there for the future of a company than a Vice President? Who would you prefer?
3. Again, your argument for natural gas prices rising in Oregon is simply an appeal to…well…er…nothing. To put it plainly, I don’t care what you think. Show me the facts. Only evidentially can we establish anything.
4. We do support nuclear energy and keeping the dams Oregon currently has. They are all facets of the renewable and affordable energy plan. We’ve been pushing these for the last couple of months at town halls across the state.
5. In all sincerity, Matt, I think we’re on the same side. Perhaps we disagree about LNG. However, at some point we have to put our disagreements with one another on hold—so we can work for a greater cause. The fact of the matter is—renewable, clean, and affordable energy in Oregon can become a reality. It’s only certain groups that stand in this path.
October 30th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
1. You are wrong in saying that it is “useless to speculate.” Speculation is the most important part of logic and reasoning. Neither is it a waste of time. By presenting this idea, perhaps it will inspire someone to investigate and come up with the evidence.
2. My appeal to biased sources WOULD be fallacious if you were merely quoting them as opinions. However, you present these opinions as solid fact, and THAT is logicaly fallacious.
2.5. Are you really so trusting to believe everything you’re told? I can tell by your writing that you are smarter than that. In this case I would prefer an analyst with no connection to the company.
3. Perhaps you didn’t follow my link. I DID show you the facts.
4. Yeah, whatever happened to those town hall meetings? They got canceled when people like me started to attend.
5. We ARE on same side on most issues, and I agree with most of what FreedomWorks says. But it’s too bad you have taken the big government, socialistic view on this issue. Really, all these arguments about what is logic and where the gas is going are relatively unimportant. What is important is this: A private company can, (and will) take my property through eminent domain . Without a needs assessment. And when I lose my property rights, you lose them too. What’s next, the 2nd amendment?