After five years of pushing the Bradwood LNG project on the Columbia River, NorthernStar Natural Gas has made little progress in gaining necessary local and state permits. With only a FERC permit containing 109 conditions, the company recently took another hit when the Oregon Court rejected the Bradwood LNG application. On April 13th the Land Use Board of Appeals agreed with project opponents that Bradwood is bigger than supporters suggest and LUBA wasn’t satisfied with certain fishing protections (more here).

This leaves NW Natural in the odd position of pushing the Palomar pipeline with no gas source. The company is clearly gambling with the increasingly unlikely LNG hook up, as statewide opposition to LNG continues to successfully push back development.

(more…)

In the Pacific Northwest, NW Natural Gas claims that the Palomar pipeline and Bradwood Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) terminal will bring “clean” fuel to the United States. But the truth is the real impacts of LNG importation are enormous, and extend far beyond the Pacific Northwest.  LNG threatens to harm Oregon’s economy and environment and the impacts of LNG are huge even before the fuel reaches Oregon’s shores.  Far from being “clean”, the environmental and social impacts of the full LNG supply chain show LNG is a dirty, costly fuel.  This is the second post of a series highlighting the global impacts of LNG, which strongly resemble the global impacts of oil production. Is LNG going to be “the new Foreign Fossil Fuel”?

Take action: Click here to tell NW Natural “Global injustice is not a fair trade for their profit!”

LNG in the Peruvian Amazon, by Nick Engelfried.

When a violent police crackdown on non-violent indigenous rights activists in Peru left around 100 people dead, the human rights abuses of government-backed corporate ventures in the Amazon exploded into the concsiousness of the international community.  Many factors – most notably implementation of the US-Peru Free Trade Agreement – contributed to the impasse which prompted 30,000 indigenous Peruvians to take non-violent direct action against seizure of their traditional lands for private profit.  Yet when Peruvian police fired on protesters outside the city of Bagua, it was in some ways the predictable result of an economic model which has long shunted human rights and environmental concerns to the side while paving the way for industrial projects like LNG. (more…)

On March 19 the Oregon Citizens’ Utility posted a report titled, All New Energy Sources are not Green: The Down Side of LNG.

The Citizens’ Utility Board is a consumer protection organization founded by voters in 1984 through a ballot initiative. CUB has saved consumers over $3.9 billion and won important policy victories that have protected consumer privacy, the environment (particularly through our work on global warming issues) and low-income Oregonians. After following the LNG issue for years, they have released this statement of opposition:

CUB is opposed to the development of these terminals for numerous reasons. At present, there is no market need to warrant the construction of these terminals. Further, with additional investment, these terminals could be used to send domestic natural gas to the high-priced global LNG market. This international connection would therefore not serve any local energy needs, yet could significantly drive up natural gas prices. The terminals would also bring with them serious environmental dangers, while the energy benefits of the facilities would most likely go to residents of other states or foreign nations.

To read more about their position, including why LNG is a bad investment, visit their post here: http://oregoncub.org/archives/2010/03/all_new_energy.php