PAGE 3
N O R T H C O A S T T IM E S E A G L E , AUGTEMBER 2005
LNG IS FOOL'S SOLD
There have been many and varied flamboyant
economic schemes to make Astoria a world class port
city surrounded by thriving satellite communities.
First, of course (if early hopes of fur trading are
left out), was Astoria’s golden era of salmon fishing and
canning that made the lower Columbia River the cannery
capital of the world in the late 19th century, as well as
logging of the great spruce and fir forests that dominated
the landscape. For a brief time Astoria had a population
of nearly 30,000 (in the 1920s) and anticipated a peak of
100,000 — shamelessly touting itself as the New York City
of the Pacific coast.
But a century of short-sighted greed and careless
oversight of the environment that enriched Astoria decimat
ed the salmon, clearcut the forests and ripped apart the big
dreams, and the lower Columbia decayed on both sides.
More recent grandiose (and perhaps desperate)
schemes such as wall to wall aluminum plants (which would
make the lower Columbia, in the words of President Nixon,
“the light metals capital of the world”), giant coal docks, oil
module manufacturing for the Alaska fields, to name a few,
were all still bom. Now we have been pre-emptively invaded
by LNG right here at the end of the Lewis & Clark Trail.
The notion of liquefied natural gas as an interim
energy source between oil and alternative fuels is as short
sighted as every other response to the oil crisis that is
crafted to keep profits in the hands of current oil and energy
moguls — and would delay research and development of
bio-fuels.
Whatever value put to LNG as a brief alternative
energy source, the method of Calpine LNG corporation
(with silent complicity of the Port of Astoria Commission)
to sneak through the back door and abrogate public
participation regulations, renders suspect every claim
they make. Apologists say the secrecy was necessary
because of competition and point to the other three LNG
corporations who want a piece of the Columbia — but that
is an egregious argument at its very root: the competition
was probably waiting for Calpine to covertly get its lease
and then rush in to gobble up the lower Columbia while the
shock was still setting in.
The lower Columbia community is divided over
the prospect of LNG terminals. Alternate media seems
to have an effect on people's opinions: commercial radio,
for example, booms with LNG ads, and those who listen
are more likely to support their point of view. Listeners to
public radio station KMUN, on the other hand, are generally
in opposition, not least for the reason they are spared the
torrent of LNG spin, and programming is often critical of
devastating the river estuary and destroying Columbia River
culture for corporate profit.
There are all sorts of serious LNG issues that are
not being honestly addressed by the PR spinners: problems
of safety, security, pollution, ocean and river travel, fishing
and commerce, the wisdom of building such a volatile
terminal on an earthquake subduction zone. And there is
also the matter that the federal government claims the right
to overrule any local decision to exclude LNG. In June the
U.S. Senate rejected a proposal allowing state governors
to prevent LNG because of public health or environmental
concerns.
Astoria is experiencing a self-styled ‘renaissance’,
primarily a population explosion intermingled with an influx
of tourism, waterfront “renewal” and restoration of old
properties. Although supporters hope for so-called ‘family-
wage’ jobs from LNG to alleviate the menial and lowpaying
employment currently dominant in River City and environs,
others are concerned LNG terminals and traffic will wipe out
what they see as vital economic and cultural gains of the
past few years. Others fear for their health, even their lives.
Columbia River dwellers are threatened from two
directions — federally sanctioned low-level radioactive
releases from Hanford and gaseous pollution/combustion
(possibly much worse) from liquified natural gas: the river
gets hot stuff on one end, LNG on the other.
As usual the pro-corporate agenda gets the most
press and public fanfare. The purpose of the personal
responses to LNG on these three pages is to compile
opposition to counter LNG’s big schtick, and these will
be followed up in subsequent issues of the NCTE.
-MICHAEL McCUSKER
TOM BURGESS
ANNIE OLIVER
I am opposed to siting an LNG facility anywhere on the
Columbia River on so many different levels that it is hard to know
where to begin. But I suppose I can star, from the perspective of
a Birkenstock-wearing tree hugger, a.k.a., an environmentalist.
The Columbia River has had so many problems over the years
that some people have begun to think that the fish glow in the
dark and have sprouted amis and legs. Recently, we have been
progressing toward a great improvement in our river’s quality.
Suddenly there is a need to build LNG facilities along our river.
If LNG tankers and the facility itself will no, pollute our air and
river, I will eat this paper I am writing on. Oh, and how about the
pipeline that will need to be built across the river somewhere and
into Longview? How will that be accomplished without disturbing
the river and its quality?
I can also look at my opinion of an LNG facility as a
homeowner. I have a nice old Victorian house with a great view
of the river and bridge and — What are those ugly towers in my
view? I grew up in a factory town. The factories were all located
along the river’s edge so that no one could get to the river except
in a few spots. I am sad to say that no one’s property values
went up when a factory was built: what do factories do for quality
of life? Sure, they provide jobs. But we lived with a horrible odor
that hung in the air, especially if the wind blew. And the wind
always blew. People who lived near the factories got free paint
jobs for their cars and free car-covers from the factories.
Now for my opinion as a middle-aged worrier. LNG is
safe: right! Then why does the Department of Homeland Security
need to be involved in where and when the LNG tankers come
HOPE L. HARRIS
in? Why do the tankers need exclusion zones and the facility
need to be located where there is not a large population? What
happens to fishermen and cruise ships when a tanker comes in?
I can see cruise ships ou, in the ocean circling like airplanes
waiting their turn to enter the river. And commercial fishermen
will wait patiently ashore until “the coast is clear." Yeah, that will
work. No really, LNG is safe. But things DO go wrong. Look at
Chernobyl. Oops. I would rather not live in an area where oops
could happen. Am I paranoid to consider acts of terrorism?
Maybe, bu, who would ever have guessed that something like
9/11 could occur? So forgive me if I worry about a ship or tank
filled with gas being a target for terrorists. If we have thought of
it, you can be sure the bad guys have too. It is my understanding
that LNG is highly flammable and could create a vapor cloud that
is easily ignited. No problem — Clatsop County can jus, ban
matches and all fire and I can relax.
LNG will provide jobs. . . honest. I, seems to be common
knowledge that building an LNG facility will provide many short
term jobs. Unfortunately many o( these companies hire their own
construction people. Highly specialized jobs will be available in
the LNG facility. I am sure there are many locals with these very
same qualifications just sitting around waiting for one of these
jobs. In fact, I am thinking of applying because it will pay so well!
What will the tourists think as they gaze upon the LNG
towers taller than the Astoria Column? Will they ge, to don fire
proof clothing as their cruise ships pass by the LNG facility? Will
restaurants along the river provide fireproof chairs to duck under
as LNG tankers pass by? And hopefully the newspapers will
2VJE7 W R E L E A S E
publish the dates that LNG tankers will be present. I have a nice
old claw-foot tub that I can fill with water and submerge myself,
just in case.
I could go on and on because there are so many nega
tives and few positives in an LNG facility. The thing to remember
is why we live here. I live here because it is beautiful, clean and
safe. What will it be like if an LNG facility is nearby?
LESLIE MILLER
What was the port authority thinking when it leased land
in Warrenton that is zoned for recreation and as wetlands for
heavy industrial use? Why was this done without public input?
This simply defies Warrenton's land-use plan.The zoning needs
to be changed before such a lease is signed if elected officials
have any sense of ethics, morals, or represent our society’s love
and respect for public land.
It appears they think the people they represent, both
liberals and conservatives, don’, have the brains to participate
by way of public input. To hell with your local control over public
property, we know better than you stupid citizens. Go to blazes
if you wish to disagree with our clandestine, underhanded
methods, the decisions are already made. We know better
than the public.
CONTINUED ON PAGE 3
B U C K ’S
BOOK BARN
★ USED BOOKS & RECORDS *
738-4246
1023 BROADWAY • SEASIDE
LICENSED
MASSAGE
THERAPIST
5 0 3 /3 2 5 -2 5 2 3
CD ONLY
$9 USA
$ n canada / mexico
$13 WORLDWIDE
POSTPAID
SEND INQUIRY TO
SANDSHRIMP@mTHLINK.NET
f
Chcpy
1 Hiporteds H n r o n 7 cip
;
>
ÄKT+IUl/CTMTION + W M «
rin wccjKTwy
H l c m 2 vw L S tv e & t
A it& r L c c * 3 2 5 - 0 0 3 3