Tijuana vs Astoria: One loves Liquified Natural Gas (the other loves Jai Alai)

February 8th, 2007


Tijuana, Mexico: Rejected Liquefied Natural Gas terminals

The feeling was that the LNG terminals were just another attempt at using and abusing their land, and attacking Mexican sovereignty. Similar discussions in recent months in Tijuana and Rosarita led to large demonstrations, and the shutting down of two other proposed LNG projects. [link]

Astoria, Oregon: Welcome (soon) to Bradwood “Landing” LNG terminal!

Does it strike anyone as odd that while Tijuana, Mexico rejected LNG terminals, Astoria seems to welcome them with open arms?

In city after city, there are major sites and organizations rallying against LNG terminals. In Fort Lauderdale. In Oxnard. And even in Mexico they reject them.

Yet, for some reason, Astoria, Oregon, at the mouth of the Columbia, immediately next to a wildlife refuge, appears to welcome them. I know there are many people upset about this… driving around Astoria it isn’t hard to find NO signs here and there, but, still…

Tags:

Related posts: LNG and the Columbia: bad news, NO LNG PALOMAR PIPELINE!, The end of ranching (and the need for land use safeguards)

10 Comments Add your own

  • 1. THartill  |  February 9th, 2007 at 12:19 am

    I don’t know if open arms is the right term. One poll done around here was by Riley for Daily Astorian, it showed a 50/50 split. Another poll done by the Daily Astorian website showed 85% against and 15% for.
    But really there is very little anyone can do. The Feds have the only say in the siting of LNG terminals under the 2005 Energy Act.

  • 2. Peter  |  February 9th, 2007 at 12:26 am

    I am pretty sure that the Governor can veto, no?

  • 3. THartill  |  February 9th, 2007 at 12:58 am

    This number question is killing me, I have to retype if I forget.

    The Feds have complete control on LNG siting. Wyden came and spoke to a large group and took questions LNG in early 2005. He pretty much dodged the subject and wouldn’t give an opinion, but said he did not agree with the Feds having control over the siting.

    He did vote against the Energy Act a few months later, but made no effort to pull that language out and didn’t give LNG siting as a reason to vote no.

  • 4. Peter  |  February 9th, 2007 at 1:12 am

    So much for local control.

    Hm, on the Web I find notes about Arnold being able to veto LNG terminals, and assumed that K. could do the same in Oregon. But that veto power seems to only be for off-shore LNG terminals. Will research.

  • 5. Peter Bray  |  February 9th, 2007 at 1:25 am

    (Ugh, this new wordpress upgrade is killing me… every comment to a post deletes the tags.)

  • 6. THartill  |  February 9th, 2007 at 1:37 am

    There is also no preview so my html might not work I’ll see….

    The Govs. can veto offshore terminals.

    Here is what happened with the siting onshore

    The Senate voted 52 to 45 on the motion to table Senator Feinstein’s amendment on the location of LNG terminals. This amendment would prohibit the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission from approving a LNG site located onshore or in state waters for the import of natural gas from a foreign country or the export of natural gas to a foreign country without the approval of the governor of the state in which the facility would be located. Senator Feinstein pointed out that there are 34 possible sites for LNG facilities across the United States and that 8 of those sites have already been approved.

  • 7. Peter Bray  |  February 9th, 2007 at 1:51 am

    I suppose another difference between Astoria and, say, Malibu LNG is the money that is pouring into the opposition:

    Local activist Ozzie Silna has pledged to match the first $100,000 raised in Malibu and Oxnard, and Jordan said last week a second donor has pledged to match the second $100,000 donated here. The City of Malibu has also donated $50,000 to the fight.[link]

  • 8. Peter Bray  |  February 9th, 2007 at 2:02 am

    Just to be clear, from my research Governors cannot veto LNG terminal sitings [link].

    I am not sure if this tabled amendment was later adopted, as most articles discuss Arnold’s ability to veto projects in California. Possibly this has to do with California’s unique position of being able to establish its own clean air standards above and beyond the EPA. But that seems doubtful, as it was a Calif. Senator that pushed the amendment in the first place… so not sure what exactly happened.

  • 9. Peter Bray  |  February 9th, 2007 at 2:12 am

    Okay, it is pretty confusing. Lousiana’s gov threatened to veto LNG siting there.

    And from the FERC site directly:

    States still have the ability to effectively “veto” an LNG facility by denying permits associated with the Clean Water Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act, and the Clean Air Act. [...] Nothing in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 changes the states’ authorities in this regard.

    So, not sure what the Feingold amendment was for since veto power already existed in the first place.

    Of course, Kulongoski is about as anti-environment as any present day Western Democrat comes (supporting M37 via SB1037 & SB505, pushing for casino in the Gorge, etc), and he is already on the record as supporting LNG in Oregon, so it’s probably unlikely that he would do anything.

Leave a Comment

Required

Required, hidden

Required (to fight spam)

Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


Try Angie's List!


Outdoor Kids Gear


Nitro-Pak Preparedness Center

About Land Use Watch

Commentary and hyperbole on land use issues impacting the NW, the US, the world... Contact at peter (at) landusewatch.com ... Please email postal address to inquire about receiving Land Use Watch in monthly hard-copy periodical format.

Recent Comments

wickerman: “tnr”works? and the numbers of these bastard creatures grow every year? yes, is evil to kill animals, except cats. everyone who kill a cat is a happy man. because cats are like terorists, they kill for the PLEASURE to kill. Let the volunteers to kill stray cats, and keep the domestic cats indoor, else…
-- 5:17 am, September 27, 2008 in Feral cats destroying Iowa

Tara M. Adams: The Donald?!! The Devil!!!!
-- 2:28 pm, September 2, 2008 in Aberdeen, Scotland: Let’s Dump Trump

micheelgeorge: When Plum Creek Timber Company bought 900,000 acres – 1,400 square miles – of Maine woods in 1998, it bought more than trees. It bought mountains along the Appalachian Trail, tens of wild trout ponds, miles of land flanking the Kennebec and Moose rivers and over 60 miles of shoreline along Moosehead Lake. ————&# 8211; micheel Utah Drug Addiction
-- 7:38 am, August 25, 2008 in Plum Creek Timber Company versus Moosehead Maine?

Kitty Clasing: I am looking for the closest trap, neuter and release program in Mason City, Iowa-50401
-- 8:45 am, August 5, 2008 in Trap, neuter, release and the Iowa cats

Stephanie: The argument that killing all cats to stop predatory behaviour on native creatures should then justify the killing of native predators is pure crap. The native animals are part of the natural cycle; cats are introduced by people. Like blackberries, and scotch bloom and English ivy, and starlings they are an invasive species that are driving out natives. Feeding and promoting feral cat populations should be a crime. They carry diseases like roundworm, heartworm, and hookworm, various forms of FIV and feline leukemia, distemper, and all manner of other sicknesses that cost responsible pet owners thousands of dollars to treat...
-- 2:59 pm, June 20, 2008 in Free James Stevenson

Lucas Stahl: Being an american citizen and knowing Donald Trumps past, the public of Aberdeen have to make it their scottish duty to keep Trump away from their lands. He has a way of taking everything from you and giving little in return. Your town will become the \”Las Vegas\” of Scotland with thousands of disrespectful tourists deficating over your lands and family. I know you think it will create jobs for your town and boost the economy but there are other means to do this; not through an ignorant; greed riddled man who makes a habit of stomping his feet, throwing out his chest and holding his...
-- 10:07 am, June 11, 2008 in Aberdeen, Scotland: Let’s Dump Trump

victoria davidson: I am a first generation American whos family are from the UK. I strongly disagree with the “Trump” philosophy in America. Mr. Trump’s buliding along the Chicago River is an architectural monstroisity. Yet it is wrong to assume all Americans are “narcissictic & greedy”. One of the reasons I love my UK visits is because of the timeless natural beauty along the coastlines not tainted with resorts and casinos. I applaud your efforts to block the building of this environmental disaster and hope you succeed. Perhaps Mr. Trump can find another venu to honour his...
-- 10:07 am, June 11, 2008 in Aberdeen, Scotland: Let’s Dump Trump

Antoinette Harrington: I am an American, sick to death of “the donald” and his belief that his wealth entitles him to buy and destroy any piece of land on the globe. My dislike for him is indeed emotional, having seen how he destroyed the beauty of the Chicago River landscape with his Trump monstrosity. I hope and pray you will continue fighting till the last to prevent this man from achieving his goal. He will claim his plan is environmentally sound, and his witnesses will agree (though knowing the political climate, their agreement carries a price tag). Unlike Trump, I cannot afford to enjoy the...
-- 11:02 am, June 10, 2008 in Aberdeen, Scotland: Let’s Dump Trump

jj: Um, yeah, Most of that is BS. Get your facts right. Biofuels release carbon emissions, yes, but in carbon DIOXIDE. That’s what the plants eat. It doesn’t matter how much fuel the plant makes from sunlight, because we are fermenting it anyways. Soybean oil and biodiesel contain no sulfur and generate no sulfur emissions, a major source of acidification in rain and surface water. This makes biodiesel the best technology currently available for heavy-duty diesel applications to reduce atmospheric carbon. So basically, the best we have for right now. Oh, yeah, and about the hunger stuff, I have a solution: DON”T USE...
-- 10:12 am, June 9, 2008 in Biofuels = stupid idea

Muscle Guitar: I agree with the author.Don’t report a feral cat colony to a humane society or rescue group.I have a neighbor who feeds feral cats and they became a real problem.They don’t act like house cats.They are constantly stalking prey like birds,squirrels and small rabbits.The tom cats are relentless sprayers. I mentioned this to my neighbor,and she acted as if it were none of my business that the cats were damaging my property. Better to report the colony to Animal Control,then if the cats are coming on your property let them trap them.Find a discreet place where the neighbors can’t see the...
-- 7:48 pm, June 8, 2008 in Feral cats = huge environmental problem!

Emma: NO ONE SHOULD KILL ANIMALS! EVEN FERAL CATS! IT’S EVIL! I know I it might be “killing widlife” and “spreading disease”, but NO ONE should kill kitties!
-- 10:10 am, June 3, 2008 in Feral cats destroying Iowa

Louie: I’m from Hong Kong, China. Just read the newspaper (it’s in Chinese) that the breeding program has begun. What’s more? There’re two male specimens left in Vietnam. Don’t know if they’ll transport these two males to China and let them breed with the only female. If it happens, it’s a good news that it could extend the diversity of this species’ gene pool.
-- 7:24 pm, June 1, 2008 in Two Yangtze giant soft-shell turtles left… will China do anything?

Saki: Do the math. Either way, killing a cat or neutering a cat means one less cat that can reproduce, meaning the feral population will go down and eventually die out. The big question is do you want to behave like a psychopath in the making and kill innocent cats, or do you want to show that you really are smarter than other animals and get the cats neutered so they can live out the rest of their lives naturally? Before you answer that question, THINK; don\’t just react. Rednecks can be smart too. Proove that you\’re not a stereotype.
-- 8:39 pm, May 28, 2008 in Feral cats = huge environmental problem!

dhtuisgjkzdfghjksd: the lng is gay
-- 11:01 am, May 28, 2008 in LNG and the Columbia: bad news

dallas: that is totaly right. i have to tright a paper on them and this cite rocks.
-- 12:57 pm, May 27, 2008 in Ocelots in Texas!?

Tag Cloud

measure 49 oregon measure 37 pessimism oregonians in action endangered species washington private property I 933 optimism media california elections 1000 friends sprawl feral cats consumerism rivers logging land auction china LNG portland parks energy england gorge florida africa proposition 90 gop canada wetlands transportation stupid religion politicians ocean india farms towns texas scotland nonprofits nevada missouri metro maine louisiana japan Idaho iceland gordon smith forests fish colorado climate brazil australia amazon wyoming utah salmon ross day Proposition 207 population pollution osu new york military measure 48 maryland kansas ireland invasive species hunting guyana georgia france Ecuador economics desert cuba connecticut community chile cambodia burma borneo big look Arizona alaska alabama

Posts by Date

February 2007
M T W T F S S
« Dec   Mar »
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728  

Posts by Month

  • Blogroll

  • Land Use Advocacy

  • Tools

    • Feeds