The Pacific Connector pipeline route is pretty much the same as before except Camas Valley may have some alternative pipeline routes planned.
Landowners in Douglas County have been told not to expect any royalties because the company doesn’t own the gas being exported via the pipeline. In Coos County when the question was put to them again but in a different way, Rodney Gregory of PCGP assured me that they do not take peoples land, they purchase easements from people and those easements are done in one lump sum, they do not do annuities. In other words, the landowners will not benefit from the billions of dollars in transportation fees for the gas. Not only will landowners not benefit from the revenue generated but they must maintain and pay taxes on the easement.
According to Gregory, the company prefers to mow rather than using chemicals to keep brush clear along the route but would hire a professional if they needed to do any spraying. So when PCGP says ‘they’ won’t be doing something it doesn’t mean someone else won’t be. Landowners can also keep the easement clear on their own if they wish.
When asked about market conditions and if market conditions happen to change making the project obsolete what would happen to the pipeline, they stated that they would have a 25 year commitment to operate the pipeline.
An aerial fixed wing plane will fly over the pipeline easement weekly looking for evidence of leaks like dead or dying plants. In addition, there will be foot patrols once a year and in line inspection of the pipeline every seven years.
With regard to the materials to build the pipeline and where those materials would come from and if they would create local jobs, they said they would “not” limit material purchase options to within the United States. If they can get materials cheaper elsewhere they will.
They did say that 50% of their workforce on the pipe would be local or they would aim for that. [ In case anyone doesn’t know, the only pipefitter local in Oregon is in Tualatin up by Portland, so local to them is a relative term and could mean just within the United States.]
The pipeline will be placed at a depth of 3 – 5 feet.
With regard to the affects of an earthquake and tsunami, they made it sound like that was just a terminal problem not theirs. They appeared to have no real concept whatsoever of what could happen even inland if we had a Cascadia subduction event. The statement was made by pipeline representatives that in areas where there are earthquake faults, they build specifically for fault crossings so any impacts (movement) to the pipe would be spread out over a larger area of the pipe to make less impact on the pipe from the fault movement.
FERC is looking at possibly September / Oct for when scoping will begin. FERC has not set a date yet for when the Draft EIS may be finished.
Tetra Tech, the third party contractor who will be doing the EIS for FERC told me that they cannot communicate directly with the applicant.
FERC will be including the South Dunes Power Plant in with its EIS review but the Oregon Energy Siting council will be who has the determination on if the power plant gets a permit or not. If the Oregon Energy Siting Council was to deny the power plant that could essentially kill the entire Jordan Cove project.
According to the Pipeline representative who did the presentation. The Grants Pass Lateral pipe is approximately 16 – 20 inches wide up North and only about 10 inches wide down by Grants Pass. Where the Pacific Connector will tie into the Grants Pass Lateral, the Grants Pass lateral is only about 10 inches wide or so.
I thought I heard them say also that for the pipeline section that will be going up Haynes Inlet they will encase it in cement and float it and then lower it all at once into the bay. Not sure if I heard that correctly so will have to ask about that one again.
When asked about what percentage of the pipe was owned by Veresen and if Americans can invest in Veresen, they told me they anticipate approximately 50% of the pipe will be owned by Veresen. Actually it is a subsidiary of Veresen (Veresen U.S. Power Inc) and since Veresen is publicly traded, Americans can invest in the company according to PCGP spokesmen.
At the Coos Bay meeting they stated that the Pacific Connector would be paying $15 million in taxes spread out over the 4 counties and Jordan Cove would be paying Coos County 30 million in taxes. Braddock stated that even though they are in an Enterprise Zone they would be paying the tax anyway as a contribution. When I made the statement that they would also be in an Urban Renewal District and none of the tax money would go to the county but to the Port of Coos Bay, Braddock said they would be paying the money to the tax assessor and had no control with what actually happened to funds after that.
For more information visit Citizens Against LNG
Mark, thanks for your progessive message.
skeptical,
If you’re concerned about staying alive, what are you doing driving around in a car??? Last year over 32,000 people were killed in automobile accidents. Over 180,000 of those things burst into flames! It’s about the most dangerous thing you can do.
Maybe you should consider walking. It’s much safer — and provides health benefits to boot!
Ron, great answers. You’ve got me thinking.
Good incisive questions, Mark. They lead to volumes of legislative, executive, and judicial history, but I will try to keep my answers succinct.
Question: Does NEPA apply since this is a private project and not a federal one?
Answer: The Jordan Cove/Pacific Connector Pipeline can not be built without a permit from FERC, a federal agency. Since the issuance of the permit would be a “major Federal action with the potential for causing significant environmental impacts”, FERC must prepare an EIS in full compliance with NEPA. Note that NEPA states that the EIS is meant to document how environmental considerations were blended along with technical and economic considerations in order to move towards a decision. It is NOT meant to be an after-the-fact discussion of the environmental impacts of a pre-conceived decision.
Question: Are there steps that have been missed/skipped along the way?
Answer: In preparing its EIS for the import terminal proposal, FERC skipped over or omitted entirely several key elements specifically required by NEPA. For example, it did not display the current environmental baseline conditions in the Coos Bay estuary, it did not adequately describe the need for the facility, it did not provide and objective and comparative analysis of all reasonable alternatives, among other shortcomings. The Attorney General of Oregon summarized the situation on the final page of his lengthy request to FERC to withdraw its approval of the terminal when he stated: “…FERC must withdraw the order authorizing the Jordan Cove Project. Before reissuing a decision on the Jordan Cove project, …FERC must perform the required analysis of the effects of the project on the public interest and on the environment under NEPA”.
Question: Do we have the local authority to enforce a NEPA process? FERC, DOE, et al, are fairly autonomous with regard to local municipalities.
Answer: NEPA is a procedural statute, in that it does not dictate to the Federal agencies what their decisions should be, but it does require that they follow a rigorous analytical process in arriving at their decisions. An EIS is meant to be accessible to and understandable by the public, and affected members of the public have full legal standing to bring litigation if proper procedures are not followed.
Your statement: I agree that it benefits all the parties involved to have an open, thorough, objective permitting process. If I were Williams or Jordan Cove, I’d be all for it.
Response: True, but it is possible that if all the environmental, technical, and economic factors were identified and objectively analyzed, a decision to issue a permit for the Jordan Cove project might appear to be “arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion”, thus opening the door to another round of litigation under the Administrative Procedures Act. Could this be a factor in FERC’s apparent willingness to attempt to evade the spirit and intent of NEPA? Hmm, I wonder.
Sorry Mr. Mark – this is an I want to stay alive issue for me and for many others. Bad enough that I must drive down Sherman or Newmark or several other major streets and wonder when the pipe below my ass is going to burst. I do not drive a retread Marine Corps issued blast resistant Hummer.
Question:
Suppose the three Oregon and one Alaska LNG terminals come on line. Is there enough demand abroad to sustain all four terminals? For how long?
I’m better informed about the FERC/NEPA process after listening to this show:
http://www.opb.org/thinkoutloud/shows/controlling-lng/
Colandrio & skeptical,
Remember, this is not an energy issue for Coos County. It is a port development/trade issue.
I could be wrong, but I gathered that the Williams gas would be only available to heavy users — either industrial, municipal, or commercial — who would not be currently served by the County pipeline. So far as I know, no entity has requested access to the Pac Con pipeline supply. But it’s good to know it’s there, because energy redundancy is not a bad thing at all to have. In fact, it’s been a key missing piece for our area’s economic growth.
So far as lost revenue goes, again I would submit a tax structure could be passed to collect on gas sold in Coos County out of the Pac Con pipeline. We just need politicians willing to pursue it.
Ron, good post.
Does NEPA apply since this is a private project and not a federal one?
Are there steps that have been missed/skipped along the way?
Do we have the local authority to enforce a NEPA process? FERC, DOE, et al, are fairly autonomous with regard to local municipalities.
I agree that it benefits all the parties involved to have an open, thorough, objective permitting process. If I were Williams or Jordan Cove, I’d be all for it.
Colandrio you is correcto! 50 million cubic feet of natural gas (capacity) that could be flowing through the 12 inch pipeline daily is enough for residences and business who desire to be natural gas users from highway 5 to Reedsport or Bandon. When is the last time that NW Natural published the amount of users (customers) or amount of gas sold monthly (average). It’s not what candidate McKeown, Roblan and others would like you to believe. When the 36 inch pipeline is used to satisfy customers along the route, the small amount of tax collected annually from the county owned pipeline could go to zero. Also, let’s not forget that at the planned 1400 + psi that the 36 inch pipelines one billion cubic feet of natural gas will be flowing daily through your neighborhood, the acknowledghed danger zone is a path almost one quarter mile wide – not a fifty foot wide lawn. It’s not the fifty feet that should give all concern. GOD help you if a leak occurs in the forest on Tuesday and the next scheduled rotary wing flyover is not scheduled until the following Monday. Bless JM for fact. Bless her saintly husband for supporting JM.
One interesting aspect of the pipeline that I first learned at the Tuesday meeting, was that it will be “open access”. This means the gas can be sold to other major users along the route. As I discovered after the meeting, this means they will be in competition with the taxpayer funded Coos Bay pipeline run by NW Natural. They can make our pipeline redundant.
Is this really what Arnie Roblan, Caddy McKeown, Mark M., and other boosters are calling for? Won’t this cause extra harm to county taxpayers?
Jordan Cove is an all round debacle. It is time to put the stake of holly through the heart of this vampire project.
Interesting discussion.
One of MarkM’s statements especially caught my eye, namely: “I think we have ways forward that don’t compromise our values or sacrifice our environment.”
I agree, and would like to point out that a planning process does exist that could determine precisely what those ways are.
If the spirit, intent, and letter of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and its implementing regulations were fully complied with and implemented, it would be possible to explicitly determine which project proposals satisfactorily balanced economic and environmental considerations, and which did not. Furthermore, this same process could balance broad considerations of nation-wide energy policy and markets with concerns for developing our local Coos County economy.
All of us in Coos County, both those for and against the Jordan Cove LNG project, got seriously short-changed by FERC’s attempt to circumvent the NEPA regulations when they prepared their EIS for the LNG import terminal. It was so obviously deficient on NEPA legal grounds that it was immediately challenged by the Oregon Attorney General as well as by a large consortium of environmental law groups and organizations.
FERC will shortly be formally starting a new NEPA process for the Jordan Cove LNG export proposal. If we are to satisfactorily balance the long-term social, economic, and environmental needs of our area, it is absolutely critical that the final decision, either for or against the project, be based on an analysis that fully complies with the spirit and intent on NEPA.
Now is the time for all of our local factions to put aside their differences and unite with a common voice to demand that FERC fully comply with NEPA regulations this time around so that the final decision, whatever it may be, is based on an objective and legally-sufficient analysis.
Anything less could seriously damage the long-term economic and environmental health of our area, not to mention the lengthy litigation that would follow an attempt to skew the analytical process in order to justify a project.
LNG discussions often conflate two issues: 1) Energy Policy and Markets, and 2) Developing the Coos County Economy.
Here in Coos County we have absolutely no control over #1. We can either choose to participate in these developing markets or not. Our decision to participate in them or not will not impact the development of these markets in any way. These markets will march on in China, Japan, India, Brazil, Germany and all over the world with or without us.
Our decision will impact our own economic development though (issue #2). Maybe you don’t want to develop an economy in Coos County. Some people don’t. I think we have ways forward that don’t compromise our values or sacrifice our environment.
I’m always open to other alternatives. What are you proposing?
We agree Mark, my opinion has not changed. Quoting pre-written industry dogma does not change what you are advocating. Sell the gas, sell the coal, if we don’t someone else will.
Boil down all your input and that’s what you would have us do. Sell it quick before the market falls. When have you ever advocated any other path? How does that mis-represent your position? You would have the people’s government resources help the few become more prosperous at everyone else’s expense. You can’t see past the dollar signs.
Jody,
The WS story reveals nothing surprising. NG is extremely cheap in America and very expensive abroad. Eventually that price will equalize, but in the IEA’s estimation that will take decades, as NG is not fungible like petroleum is. The story does not indicate that renewables are profitable for investors. The truth is, right now they are not. You’re absolutely correct that when investors see that renewables will pay and fossil fuels will not, money will move in that direction. They don’t care about energy policy; they care about making money. That investment dollars are NOT flowing to renewables is evidence that renewables have not broken the cost curve yet. Again, the IEA predicts we are decades away from this point.
I’m a big fan of bio-fuels. They have a promising future. I argued for Coos County to invest in them at Beaver Hill. I think it’s a great move for us; however, without federal and state subsidies they are not economically viable. That’s just the truth. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t pursue them.
As you well know, Brazil has heavily invested in bio-fuels with great success. But as a developing nation with a growing energy appetite, it has turned to fossil fuels to meet its demand. Brazil has become a world leader in offshore oil production. Like Germany, Brazil has learned that while renewables are a critical piece of our energy picture, they are insufficient to meet our current needs. That’s just the truth.
I’m always open to other energy alternatives. I think Coos County is uniquely situated to capitalize on lots of renewable energy options (solar, wave, wind, bio, etc) and creative infrastructure ideas like micro grids. While visionary, I see no way to make these plans work without heavy outside subsidy. If you have plans for self-sustaining, profitable energy projects we can implement here in Coos County, let’s get cracking on them. What are they?
TR, you have totally misrepresented my position. You should thoughtfully re-read my posts. You would do well to carefully read the IEA material to become better informed. Jody quotes from it; you should understand what it says, don’t you think?
What is industry truth today may not be truth tomorrow. When investors realize there is more money to be made in clean-tech, it may not take as long as people think to get off of fossil fuels.
—————————————-
Exxon’s Natural Gas Confession Bad For All; Maybe An Earnings Warning? (XOM, CHK, BP, ECA, COP, DVN, EOG, APC, UPL, STR, UNG) – 24/7 Wall St.
Posted: June 27, 2012
http://247wallst.com/2012/06/27/exxons-natural-gas-confession-bad-for-all-maybe-an-earnings-warning-xom-chk-bp-eca-cop-dvn-eog-apc-upl-str-ung/
—————————————-
And why do we think natural gas must come from only non-sustainable fossil fuel sources?
—————————————-
Upgrading Dairy Biogas to Biomethane and Other Fuels
http://www.suscon.org/news/biomethane_report/Chapter_3.pdf
If mark can convince Jody that we need this gas plan for this area, then he might just be the most convincing shill this project has seen thus far. Profit Potential has Mark so convinced that this is the best possible path for our area, that he will not consider better options for our energy future. He has even allowed himself to believe that the other types of energy that are being implemented world wide are not ready for prime time. He would sell us out to the LNG and coal interests ASAP.
He is just another “democrat” willing to sell your children’s future to the republican party.
As usual, Jody, you’ve got a long list of very interesting links well worth reading and serious consideration. I completely agree about the potential of renewables to meet the world’s energy needs in the future. We’re just not there yet. That’s a key point of the IEA report, and Joe Romm glosses over it.
The IEA says, “Despite some recent progress in deploying renewable energy, most clean energy technologies are not on track to make their required contribution to reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and thereby provide a more secure energy system.”
Add to this the geometric growth of energy demand in the developing world, particularly in China and India, and there is a huge role for fossil fuels — esp natural gas — to play in our global energy future. Romm’s headline mischaracterizes the IEA’s message about natural gas as a critical bridge fuel. The IEA writes:
“Fossil fuels would not disappear, but their roles would change. ETP 2012 explains how higher steam temperatures can cut coal-fired power plants’ emissions by 30% even as natural gas increasingly complements so-called variable renewable sources (primarily wind and solar), providing the flexibility that energy systems would need to balance generation and demand fluctuations.”
Natural gas is not THE answer. But is IS PART of the answer.
http://www.iea.org/newsroomandevents/pressreleases/2012/june/name,27474,en.html
Germany is an excellent example of the IEA’s case. As you know, no other western nation has near the commitment to renewable energy than Germany does. It has achieved remarkable results through political support for solar utilization. However, as Germany seeks to replace the energy production lost due to its decision to shutter its nuclear plants, it is turning to coal, not renewables. Renewables can neither satisfy its energy demand, nor can it compete on a cost per kwh with fossil fuels. The same scenario is playing out in Japan as it transitions away from nuclear power, and also in the developing world as its thirst for energy increases.
The IEA is in fact very bullish on natural gas and LNG trade.
http://www.iea.org/newsroomandevents/pressreleases/2012/june/name,27383,en.html
However, the IEA is adamant that natural gas production be highly regulated (see The Golden Rules for NG) and other energy strategies be implemented simultaneously — increasing conservation, putting a price on carbon, accelerating renewable development and implementation, among others. It offers a comprehensive plan that addresses both climate change and the world’s need for energy within realistic economic parameters.
It would be easier to solve these problems if we had a Global Energy Emperor who could implement sound solution unilaterally tomorrow. But we don’t. We live in a very complicated world of competing interests and expanding markets. We cannot control it. But we can figure out the best ways to navigate through it. That’s what the IEA is doing, and I think their work puts us on the right track.
There is no need to frack and no need for more fossil fuel infrastructure. Clean renewable energy is actually cheaper and if we do not understand this soon, the earth will be forcing us to understand it….
Jordan Cove is actually a symptom not a solution to a problem that we could easily solve if enough people really wanted to. It is only a matter of political will, nothing else.
——————————————
Exporting Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Is Bad For The Climate
By Joe Romm on Jun 18, 2012
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/06/18/500954/exporting-liquefied-natural-gas-lng-is-bad-for-the-climate/
————————————————-
LNG is actually dirtier than coal so why are we switching from one dirty fossil fuel to another which is actually worse as far as GHG emissions go?
http://citizensagainstlng.com/wp/2012/04/19/lng-dirtier-than-coal-and-land-theft-to-boot/
————————————————-
IEA Report: Natural Gas Is Not The Answer To Climate Problem, Existing Cleantech Is — And It Could Save $100 Trillion By 2050
By Joe Romm on Jun 12, 2012 at 12:29 pm
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/06/12/498193/iea-report-natural-gas-is-not-the-answer-to-climate-problem-existing-cleantech-is-and-could-save-100-trillion-by-2050/?mobile=nc
————————————————-
Clean Renewable Energy is abundant and cheaper. Other countries are getting this so why aren’t we?
http://citizensagainstlng.com/wp/2012/05/14/why-jordan-cove-lng-is-a-bad-investment-part-2/
————————————————-
What is the actual cost do you suppose for destroying the planet and messing with geological formations we know nothing about?
So the Williams tax payment is a one time thing?
It’s a bit ingenuous of you, Jody, to bemoan the higher gas prices that a pipeline would likely bring when our lower prices are predicated in the first place on the very fracking technology that you oppose. If you were to eliminate fracking, gas prices would accelerate far more quickly than they would under the equalization of a global market hastened by LNG trade. You can’t have it both ways.
If you haven’t already, you should study the info at the International Energy Agency’s website. (http://www.iea.org/) Check out the “Golden Age of Gas” and the “Golden Rules for Gas” in particular. Be sure to check out the “Low Unconventional Case” model. We do not have simple choices here. There are very strong global market forces at work. Any alternative energy plan must address them or it is doomed to fail.
Check out the editorial from this liberal rag:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/10/opinion/sunday/natural-gas-by-the-book.html
I’m convinced this is the right direction to move in for several reasons.
As for the other stuff in “my dreams,” all we need are willing politicians and it quickly becomes reality. “We the People” is more than just a catchy phrase.
Let’s keep talking. That’s the way we find solutions.
Isn’t it time that some friendly to the citizens government body demand that Braddock the flim flam man have a principal of the LNG factory and principal of the pipeline companies who are empowered to commit put these promises IN WRITING (and not number 2 pencil with eraser).?
The tax that Pacific Connector was talking about was not property tax but an ad volarem tax based on the pipe itself and its usage as determined by the Department of Revenue. The money is proportioned based on where they as a utility have a presence in Oregon. This could possibly be divided and go beyond the four counties since Williams pipelines go all throughout the State.
It is interesting how that tax amount keeps going up and up depending on what they want people to believe.
Concerning property tax of the easement area, landowners still own the land and have to pay the property tax. Landowners never come out ahead on these eminent domain deals. It’s a lose, lose and in this case they not only get their land taken and have to live with the threat of a hazardous pipeline, we all get higher gas prices as a result!
As far as the other stuff you mention… in your dreams, but why don’t you ask them so you can find out for yourself? This project is being driven by a private foreign energy company who is looking to make billions at our expense. I don’t think they are really into sharing.
Good overview, Jody.
Question: Didn’t Williams say it would be paying taxes on the easements? I thought that’s what was stated before the conversation segued to Jordan Cove’s $30K commitment.
The royalty issue is a good one to pursue, but I think Williams response to it was correct. Royalties shouldn’t come from the infrastructure; they should come from the product or commerce it generates. For instance, you wouldn’t expect the owner of a road or a bridge to pay a royalty on the goods Walmart ships over it. But you could exact a tax on Walmart when it brings the goods to market — we do this for alcohol and tobacco.
So perhaps what could be done is to levy a tax on the gas, not on the pipeline. The revenue could be shared among landowners or used in the community. Seems like the reasonable way to go.
Perhaps landowners could be offered a stock option in lieu of payment. That would be more like a royalty in that it would pay if the pipeline did. Perhaps a similar deal could be arranged with the gas companies and/or Jordan Cove.