Bradbury opposes LNG terminals


Friday, February 01, 2008 | 6 comment(s)

Font Size: Shrink Font Enlarge Font | Submit your news
FOREST GROVE (AP) — Secretary of State Bill Bradbury opposes the building of liquefied natural-gas terminals in Oregon, saying they would take the state “180 degrees in the wrong direction.”

Bradbury, who is in his last year of office because of term limits, said such projects would increase Oregon’s dependence on fossil fuels just as it’s attempting to increase its use of wind and solar energy.

“LNG is a dirty fuel that adds to the greenhouse gases we’re putting into the environment,” Bradbury said.

Bradbury expressed his opposition at a global warming forum in Forest Grove and in an interview with The Oregonian newspaper. He is the first high-ranking state official to oppose LNG. Gov. Ted Kulongoski supports LNG, particularly for a facility proposed for Coos Bay, as “a bridge” to help the state transition to a renewable future.

Out-of-state companies have proposed building three terminals in the state: one in Coos Bay and two on the Columbia River. The terminals would accept imports of supercooled natural gas from abroad, reheat the liquid into a gas, and ship the gas to West Coast markets through one of four proposed pipelines that would run through hundreds of miles of farms and forests.

Bradbury, Kulongoski and State Treasurer Randall Edwards hold the three votes on the State Land Board, which may need to approve the use of state lands for any LNG terminal and associated pipelines.

Supporters of the LNG terminals and pipelines say imports are needed to diversify Oregon’s energy sources as supplies tighten. Opponents say Oregon has enough natural gas, and shouldn’t bear the environmental burden for facilities that would ship it out of state.

Within Oregon, Bradbury has taken a high-profile role on the issue of global warming. He toured the state to present former Vice President Al Gore’s slide show on the subject.

———

Information from: The Oregonian, http://www.oregonlive.com
Tags »
Previous
Next

Have you checked out The World Link Forums?

Comments

The comments below are from users of theworldlink.com and do not necessarily represent the views of The World or Lee Enterprises. Participation Guidelines

Note: There is a maximum of 200 words per comment. If you wish to post more, please visit our forum.
Comment Policy

The World welcomes your comments about stories, and we encourage a robust dialogue on this site. All comments must meet reasonable standards of decency and civility.

Please follow these basic rules:

  • No defamatory comments about individuals or businesses.
  • No deliberately false information.
  • No obscenity or racially offensive language.
  • No harassment, verbal abuse, threats or personal attacks.
  • No information that invades another person's privacy.
  • No business solicitations or charitable solicitations.
Comments that violate these standards will not be posted. Users with repeated violations may be banned from future posting.

Comments will be approved throughout the day during business hours. After hours and weekend comments may not appear until the following business day. It may take a couple of hours before comments are approved.

The World generally does not edit comments, but we reserve the right to edit any comment that does not meet our standards.

Close Guidelines

curt wrote on Feb 1, 2008 10:59 PM:

Gene, thanks for your comment on the term "fossil Fuel" - most people probably do not
know that there is debate about this - see http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Is there oil beneath your feet?

Nevertheless, Bradbury, regardless of past record, is spot on this one: Oregon, and especially
Coos Bay, does not need the environmental, economic, and health/safety boondoggles
presented by LNG terminals. California, where all this gas is headed, has kicked these
speculators off its' coast, so they come up here and propose placing it on an active fault zone,
in a tsunami prone area? That's just crazy!

And that's just the beginning of a long list of problems for us, from loss of marine habitat, pollution,
potential explosions, airport interference, 231 miles of stream, river, and forest devastation 90ft wide
for the pipeline (Douglas County on record as opposed), to the demonstrated lack of need for the gas,
and the offhand rejection of the hearing officers report by our commissioners.

We have our own stooges right here.

SEP wrote on Feb 1, 2008 6:17 PM:

Google Mr. Godfrey and you will find the following:

Robert Godfrey
Save Passamaquoddy Bay 3-Nation Alliance
PO Box 43
Eastport, ME 04631

His post above is boiler plate. Check it out on the web. He is a professional chicken little, poking his nose into other people's buisness. He sites all the same arguments in every one of his posts. He is a broken record and he is trying to stop LNG at any cost; even misquoting and misusing information.
Bradbury is another matter. He is an interloper from the east - just like Godfrey, but he is an elected official. He says that LNG s a dirty fuel. He lies. LNG is Liquified Natural Gas. That is natural gas in a liquid state. It is not under pressure, it is refrigerated to -260 degrees and becomes a liquid. It is the same gas that you cook with and use to heat your home.

Don't be fooled by the NIMBY crowd. Just because they say or quote somnething, doe not make it real. Check things out for yourselves.

Robert Godfrey wrote on Feb 1, 2008 2:34 PM:

The fact remains that the proposed Oregon LNG terminals do not satisfy the LNG industry's own terminal siting standards, as published by the Society of International Gas Terminal and Tanker Operators (SIGTTO) in "Site Selection and Deisgn for LNG Ports and Jetties." Nearly the entire world LNG industry holds membership in SIGTTO, the de facto world LNG safety authority.

When the LNG industry, itself, recommends against siting LNG terminals under irresponsible speculators' project conditions, for politicians and regulators to permit such projects is suicidal for the industry, the public, and US energy security.

Richard wrote on Feb 1, 2008 1:03 PM:

Well Bill Bradbury is a boob, so his position should come as no suprise. Thank God we are one day closer to the day that idiot will be out of office.

Gene wrote on Feb 1, 2008 11:44 AM:

Bradbury toured with Gore should say it all. What a dog and pony show that is. The globe is warming but man's effect is so little it can't be determined. Just a little reading on the subject would show how ridiculous the whole idea is. That doesn't mean we should continue to use oil as a source of energy, we should replace it as soon as possible. However, the term "fossil fuel" is just as ridiculous. There isn't any proof that crude oil at 10,000 feet below ground was ever part of a living organism.

tired of her act wrote on Feb 1, 2008 11:08 AM:

Do they make as much as the three stooges in Coquille?


*Member ID:
*Password:
 

Not already registered?

Do not use usernames or passwords from your financial accounts!

Note: Fields marked with an asterisk (*) are required!



*Create a Member ID:
*Choose a password:
*Re-enter password:
*E-mail Address:
*Year of Birth:
 

(children under 13 cannot register)

*First Name:
*Last Name:
Would you like to be added to our mailing lists?
Daily Headlines
Breaking News
Special Offers
 
Advanced Search
Web Search powered by YAHOO! SEARCH

Blogroll

Most Popular

Polls

» View Past Poll Results
» Suggest a Poll

Marketplace

Special Sections

More Special Sections