LNG and LNG-related pipelines would harm Oregon's communities and natural resources
The proposed LNG terminals and the hundreds of miles of new LNG-related pipelines that would carry gas from these terminals to California would have significant impacts on Oregon communities, economies, and natural resources. These impacts include:
Pipeline impacts to farm and forestland owners
Over 500 miles of new gas pipelines would unfairly impact farmers, forestland owners and others whose lands face eminent domain, loss in property value, and serious impacts on their continued ability to grow crops and trees. Pipeline construction also threatens to create long-term management threats from noxious weeds and erosion impacts to damage to drainage tile systems and pipeline safety risks.
Safety and security risks from LNG terminals
Because of the high magnitude-low likelihood risks of LNG terminals and tankers, most new LNG terminals in the United States are being planned 10 or more miles offshore. The three terminals planned for Oregon would put communities around the Columbia River, such as Astoria and Puget Island, at great risk of the type of accident that the Sandia National Labs had said could create a fire risk that would extend over 1.55 miles from an LNG tanker. Four communities', such as Astoria, which sits at just 500 feet from the Columbia shipping channel, plans for four to six roundtrip LNG tanker transports a week would leave an ever-present community fear of an LNG accident.
An explosion, like the gas pipeline explosion that occurred in Bellingham, Washington in 1999 (above), could devestate Oregon communities.
Impacts to fish and wildlife
The proposed LNG projects and pielines would cross thousands of Oregon rivers, streams and wetlands, threaten salmon, and seriously degrade key habitats in the Columbia Estuary, Coos Bay, as well as the Mt. Hood and Upmqua National Forests.
For example, in addition to degrading over 58 acres of critical habitat for Columbia River salmon, 1,000-foot long tankers for the Bradwood Landing LNG project would intake more than 15 billion gallons a year of Columbia River water as ballast to weigh down empty and outgoing LNG tankers. These massive water withdrawls would kill or injure many thousands of juvenile salmonids. Federal and state fisheries officials have called proposed mitigation measures inadequate.
NW Natural's Palomar pipeline would cut a 40-mile clear-cut the width of a major highway across the Mt. Hood National Forest with devastating impacts on forest habitats, as well as cherished Oregon rivers from the Clackamas to the Deschutes.
Economic imacts
The adverse economic impacts of the proposed LNG projects are difficult to understate. Even the project proponents admit that a given LNG terminal would only result in as few as 35 to 0 jobs after construction. In exchange for this minimal number of jobs:
- Astoria's commercial and recreational fishing industry wuld be hard hit by military security restrictions on the Columbia River that would be required to proect LNG tankers
- The growing tourism economies of the lower Columbia River and Coos Bay would be adversely affected by the industrialization and wide perception of public safety threats associated with LNG
- Farm and forestland operations would be significantly affected by proposed pipelines as a result of restrictions on farming and forestry restrictions within the pipeline right-of-way, increased management costs for landowners due to weeds and erosion impacts, loss of property values, and impacts n water supplies and soil productivity
- Shipping operations on the Columbia River would be put at risk as the Coast Guard's security exclusion zones around high-security/high-risk LNG tankers would have the potential to seriously affect other shipping traffic on the Columbia; and
- By relying on Russia, Iran and the Middle East, Oregon would become more dependent on high-priced and unstable sources of natural gas, which would put both business and residential customers at risk of price volatility and gas shortages if LNG imports are diverted to higher-priced markets.
