FERC authorizes Bradwood Landing LNG project: a victory for affordable energy
”We find that there is no material issue of fact regarding the impact, safety or environmental issues of the Bradwood Landing project that we cannot resolve on the basis of the written record in this proceeding,” FERC said.
Today, affordable energy achieved a victory:
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) today approved the first new liquefied natural gas (LNG) import terminal and related sendout pipeline that will serve the Pacific Northwest region. The LNG terminal, the first on the U.S. West Coast, would be constructed and operated on the Columbia River in Clatsop County, Oregon.
“In our review of proposed LNG import projects, FERC focuses principally on safety considerations,” FERC Chairman Joseph T. Kelliher said. “This order includes 109 conditions designed to assure safety and mitigate environmental impact.
“Our order is also based on a substantial record that encompasses more than 50,000 pages of material. We carefully considered more than 1,827 public comments, many of which came from six scoping meetings held in Oregon, and numerous studies and analyses from federal, state and local agencies. Bradwood Landing can help meet the projected energy needs of the Pacific Northwest in a safe, secure manner with limited adverse environmental impacts. It also provides the United States with direct access to the LNG markets in the Pacific region.”
FERC’s approval of the project requires the applicant to fully implement 109 mitigation measures designed to enhanced the safety and security of the facilities to ensure the project has limited effects on the environment. These measures include a requirement that NorthernStar install a system capable of delivering filtered water from the Columbia River to the LNG carriers while the carriers are at berth during offloading for ballast and engine cooling.
The water intakes will be screened to prevent the potential entrapment of juvenile fish.
[The] FERC has denied requests by Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski and others opposed to the project to issue a supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the project, ruling that it was unnecessary. FERC also denied requests by Columbia Riverkeeper and others
“We find that there is no material issue of fact regarding the impact, safety or environmental issues of the Bradwood Landing project that we cannot resolve on the basis of the written record in this proceeding,” FERC said.
The project, along with two other proposed LNG projects, has faced opposition from local and state officials, residents, and environmental groups, with concerns ranging from the project’s impact on the local environment to whether the region really needed an LNG terminal to meet energy demand. Kulongoski has also criticized FERC’s review of the project.
As evidenced above, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission strongly refuted the claims of the radical environmental movement (think Columbia Riverkeepers). The proposed LNG terminal is not only safe but needed. The FERC attests to this. Oregonians attest to this.
Based on this conclusive report by a non-biased entity, you tell me, why do radical environmental groups oppose affordable energy?
Your guess is as good as mine.
September 18th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
This is great news! Go energy now!
October 15th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Your article contains false information.
(1)You claim that FERC is a “non-biased entity” Perhaps you are not aware that the branch of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commision that is in charge of reviewing the import terminal recieves project funding from the natural gas company that is proposing this terminal. If you don’t believe me, then visit FERCs website.
(2)You say that the opponents of the project are “Radical enviromentalists.” I am a opponent of the Bradwood terminal and I am not a “radical enviromentalist.” In fact, I’m not an enviromentalist at all. I don’t believe that “global warming” is human caused, or that it can be “fixed” by humans. I oppose this project because I think that property rights are sacred and I do not believe that a private company should be able to use Eminent Domain to seize private property. Also, domestic gas is a hell of a lot cheaper than foreign LNG. So next time you write an article, get your facts strait first.
October 16th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Matt,
1) I just looked at the FERC’s website and failed to find this funding you refer to. Could you post a link?
2) I’m not a big fan of the current use of Eminent Domain, myself.
3) Supply and demand. Supply and demand…Currently:
The Northwest’s traditional supplies of gas from Canada are projected to
decline and more U.S. gas from the Rocky Mountains will go east to
higher-priced markets with the completion of the Rockies Express
pipeline.
One major growing use of natural gas is for electricity generation. Since
1999, 90% of the electrical generating capacity added in the PNW has
been gas-fired.
Although more natural gas wells are being drilled each year in the lower 48
U.S. states, yields are declining.
The existing pipeline system is designed to carry larger volumes of gas east, not west.
Without additional natural gas, Oregon will not be able to meet its
renewable portfolio standards and transition from coal-generated power.
According to a study by University of Oregon economics professor Dr.
Phillip Romero, an LNG facility located in the Northwest Increasing the amount of natural gas delivered to the Northwest would prevent the regional economy from the effects of a lessening gas supply, and increase natural gas supply available to the Pacific Northwest by one third, resulting in lower energy prices and increased GDP.
Those are the facts.
October 20th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
http://www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/Files/20080319142846-PF07-13%20-%20November%2015.txt