Liquified natural gas surfaces on Columbia

Liquified natural gas surfaces on Columbia

By Ben Jacklet

 

0811_LNGLiteSurfacesOnColumbia
Bradwood Landing is again the site of an LNG development plan. The sandy island in the center is Tenasillahe Island, a U.S. National Wildlife Refuge.  On the right is Puget Island, Wash.

A scaled-down plan for importing liquefied natural gas at Bradwood Landing is quietly working its way through the regulatory system after the failure of a proposed $650 million LNG project at the same location.

Seaside-based consultant John Dunzer is proposing importing LNG from Alaska at less than half the volume of the original plan and establishing biomass and manufacturing facilities to create hundreds of local jobs. Under his plan for an “alternative energy farm,” endorsed by the Port of Astoria in June, gas would come in liquid form, be heated into gas with biomass energy and manufactured into liquid oxygen, nitrogen and possibly hydrogen, with the remaining fuel piped to power local mills and power plants.

“All of this has been done before,” says Dunzer, 74. “I’m not trying to invent anything here. I’m just trying to put a few things together and create 700 jobs.”

Dunzer includes jobs in Alaska in his total, as well as several hundred construction and manufacturing jobs in Clatsop County.

Five years of fierce opposition from community members and environmental groups sank the previous attempt to develop LNG terminals at Bradwood Landing. The company behind that proposal, NorthernStar, filed for bankruptcy in 2010. Dunzer’s proposal would be far smaller, eliminating the need to gain permits for dredging. But the ships bringing in the fuel would not exactly be small, at 642 feet. And the plan would require a new pipeline.

Dunzer says he scaled down the project to “go around the local people” and “avoid public hearings.” Not surprisingly, opponents aren’t particularly happy with that strategy. “We really don’t think this is a legitimate project,” says Dan Serres, conservation director for Columbia Riverkeeper, a nonprofit that has battled previous LNG efforts.

Comments   

 
Villa Rios
0 #1 Opponents will be opponentsVilla Rios 2011-08-16 12:08:33
The fierce opposition comes from those who think the government should own everything, should control everything and will not stop their litigious war against the American economy until we are just another Soviet wasteland. So-called environmental groups don't care about clean air, clean water or national security, they applaud starvation, Welfare and decay of our education systems. They encourage bloated bureaucracies at every level of government and destroy any hope for future economic growth through corrupt use of legal system to further their dreadful ends.
Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Not sure why I should oppose this
0 #2 Never mind tea bag response above...Not sure why I should oppose this 2011-08-16 13:33:41
I'm an environmentalis t, pretty much, and I don't understand all the opposition to putting a pipe in the ground. Natural gas looks pretty good compared to, say, coal, and once the pipe is in the ground, it could carry all sorts of things efficiently if no longer needed for LNG.

Even if we export gas - someone is burning gas perhaps rather than coal.
Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Robert Van Pelt
0 #3 Muddy watersRobert Van Pelt 2011-08-18 11:35:52
If the area for dredging is bellow the Hanfort site (radio active material)or Bonniville dam (where power company allowed the dumping of transformer PCB) in to the Columbia water system. Those that request the dredging need all this information, the community deserves to understand also.
Quote | Report to administrator