When the governor of CA, where natural gas is the largest source of fuel for power plants, finds the environmental costs of LNG unacceptable, how can the neighboring state of OR which would use a tiny fraction of the imported LNG, be expected to accept those same environmental damages?
Cheryl Johnson & Ted Messing
Estuary Coordinators
Columbia Riverkeeper
California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Friday rejected a liquefied natural gas port off the Southern California coast proposed by Anglo-Australian mining company BHP Billiton. The 12-member California Coastal Commission unanimously rejected it. The $800 million Cabrillo Port project has been in the works for four years.. The governor who is a supporter of LNG also demands that LNG meets adheres to the strict environmental rules that apply in his state, and the Cabrillo project does not meet those standards. In April, the California State Lands Commission voted 2-1 against Cabrillo Port, which was to be, located about 14 miles off the Coast of Ventura County. Natural gas is the largest source of fuel for California's power plants largely because it burns cleaner than coal.
Bradwood LNG if built, would supply very little gas to Oregon industry; the bulk of the product would be sent to California, what people need to ask is if LNG is so great, safe and a boost to the local economy, why don't Californians' allow the LNG facility to be built in their state? If the people in California need LNG than the people in California should shoulder the expense, the degradation to the environment, and suffer the everyday threat of a terrorist attack on the facility, as Homeland Security regards LNG as a terrorist target.
Washington law makers have come out against LNG facilities on the Columbia River period, why has our elected officials in Oregon excluding Senator Wyden, who has at least ask important questions regarding the sighting of the facility. Where as our state Senator Betsy Johnson, Rep Brad Witt and Congressman Wu have either supported the proposal, or rode the fence not commenting either way.
LNG speculators have bombarded the Lower Columbia in an attempt to make a fast buck at the expense of our commerce, economy, fishing industry, sport fishing, and recreational uses of the river, even the destruction of critical habitat of endangered salmon, steel head and other native aquatic species, and rare vegetation groups. The proposal at Bradwood could not be in a worse area, the area is documented as a slide area, a seismic area and a critical estuary. Should we allow these kinds of speculative money grabbing carpetbaggers take and destroy the Lower Columbia River for the sake of a fast buck?