index

Astoria Citizens Journal

E-Mail Us!

Astoria Citizens Journal

News - Musings - Views From The Lower Columbia River And Northwest Coast

Favored Sites

Coos Bay: Little City, Big Port

By Chris Lehman

From OPB News

Coos Bay, OR November 14, 2007 2:17 p.m.

Officials want to build a container terminal along the Coos Bay channel

The southern coast of Oregon is one of the most isolated parts of the state. But leaders in one coastal town want to turn the seclusion to their advantage.

As part of our series on Northwest communities re-inventing themselves, correspondent Chris Lehman reports on Coos Bay, a little city with plans for a big port.

To really understand Coos Bay, you have to know its history. And to understand the history, you have to know the geography.

Anne Donnelly: "Essentially the story of all human culture here is told in the topography."

That's Anne Donnelly, director of the Coos Historical and Maritime Museum.

Anne Donnelly: "There's a horseshoe of high ridges that surround us to the south, the east and the north. And the only easy way in and out is either by water or by coming along the flat land which is right along the coast."

Despite those restrictions, it actually worked pretty well for moving logs. Ships full of lumber left Coos Bay by the thousand until the timber industry collapsed in the 1990's. Unemployment topped 10 percent. Schools closed as people left town for greener pastures.

Now, officials want to turn that around with a plan to create a new international shipping terminal. Martin Callery is with the Port of Coos Bay.

Mike Callery: "We want to see people be able to keep their kids in this community rather than their kids graduating from high school and having to go away because there arenít decent-paying jobs in this community."

The terminal would be an entry point for goods arriving from the Far East. Containers filled with everything from televisions to toys would be unloaded onto trains and sent all over the United States. The port would be small compared to places like Long Beach or Seattle. But Martin Callery says more imports from Asia could spell success for places like Coos Bay.

Mike Callery: "We've got an under-utilized rail line. We have an under-utilized harbor. And we have an opportunity to put goods into the rail system at a point that's not congested such as LA, Long Beach, or Oakland."

But unlike those places, there's very little infrastructure in place to transport goods inland from Coos Bay. Take the rail system. It's certainly not congested these days.

Chris Lehman: "I'm standing on a set of railroad tracks just outside of Coos Bay. For 91 years, this would have been a dangerous place to be. But the last train left Coos Bay in September, when the Central Oregon and Pacific Railroad closed their route to the coast. And without this rail connection, the container port could be little more than a pipedream. But Martin Callery says the shuttered rail line won't stand in the way."

Mike Callery: "No one has ever denied the fact that the rail line between Eugene and Coos Bay would have to be rehabilitated."

Callery says they're in talks with a larger railroad company that's willing to sink millions of dollars into upgrading the line. But port officials have another project up their sleeves if the container port doesn't pan out.

A liquefied natural gas terminal is on the drawing board. The fuel would be taken off of tanker ships and piped inland.

Both projects have their share of skeptics in the community. Historian Anne Donnelly says whatever direction Coos Bay takes, she's hoping the region doesn't become too dependant on any one thing, like it did in the days of timber.

Anne Donnelly: "Because we did clearly have a lot of eggs in one basket and when that basket broke, so to speak, we're paying the price for that now."

And speaking of price, container terminals don't come cheap. The state legislature pitched in $60 million to fund improvements to the Coos Bay shipping channel. But most of that money can't be spent unless Port officials can convince a shipping company to make Coos Bay the next major west coast port of entry.

FERC Nominee Spitzer Cautions Against Dependence on LNG

From a June 2006 article in

Intelligence Press but still carries sound points to be heeded by all today.

FERC nominee Marc Spitzer Wednesday cautioned against the nation's growing reliance on liquefied natural gas (LNG), saying the United States shouldn't put all of its "eggs in one basket."

"I'm not naysaying LNG as a natural gas alternative. But again to put all your eggs in one basket doesn't seem to me to be the right choice," the Arizona regulator said during a brief confirmation hearing before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Spitzer has been tapped for a five-year term on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission expiring June 30, 2011. If confirmed by the Senate, he would replace outgoing Commissioner Nora Mead Brownell, who is expected to leave FERC in early August.

"My experiences in Arizona suggested that LNG can be problematic. There were tankers that were headed toward the United States that, based on price volatility, changed direction when there was a crisis in Europe and made deliveries to England. So we were without supply in that circumstance," Spitzer told the Senate panel.

"In the case of long-term fixed contracts [for LNG], some of the producers in very volatile, turbulent parts of the world are requiring 20-year fixed term contracts, the consequence [of which] would be trillions of dollars leaving the United States to foreign countries," he said.

Spitzer believes the key is "diversity" of natural gas supply. The same can be said for electricity -- diversity of fuel for power generation, he said.

Sen Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) echoed that sentiment. We do need to have a diversified portfolio of our energy [fuels] and, more importantly, we must focus on the domestic side first so that we don't have that exposure, that vulnerability that we have seen certainly with oil," she said.

The bulk of the hearing focused on electric issues, with senators seeking Spitzer's views on the use of alternative fuels (wind and solar) to power electric generation, how he would address regional flexibility with respect to reliability standards, promote greater investment in transmission facilities, and prevent cross-subsidization between utilities and non-utility affiliates in cases of mergers and acquisitions.

Sen. Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, the ranking Democrat on the Senate panel, expressed concern that FERC is not properly carrying out a provision in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct), which requires the agency to assess whether mergers or acquisitions would result in the cross-subsidization of utility assets with non-utility affiliates. He noted that Congress in EPAct, in imposing that requirement, tried to replace the protections for utility customers and competitive markets that were lost with the repeal of the Public Utility Holding Company Act.

Spitzer said that Arizona and other state commissions have been sensitive to the problem. He noted that state regulators have the ability to carry out ring-fencing, which prevents the earnings of a utility company from being diverted to a non-utility affiliate. This "should give the senator some comfort."

But "my view [is] that in some of the mergers and acquisitions that are likely to move ahead in coming years the ability of some states to properly monitor and properly protect consumers may not be adequate," Bingaman said. The Commission needs to be "sufficiently focused and energized" on this issue.

Spitzer told senators that he would work to assure greater access to the transmission grid for generators who use renewable fuels, such as wind and solar energy, in power generation. It is "important from a philosophical point of view that wind have equal access" to the grid, he said. Spitzer also signaled that he would work to promote regional transmission groups.

In addition, he noted it was imperative for FERC to work with the states in a cooperative fashion to provide some regional flexibility with respect to the reliability standards governing the transmission grid. Spitzer further proposed to work with communities and other stakeholders to overcome the "hostility" to siting new transmission facilities in some parts of the country.

Spitzer has been a commissioner on the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) since 2000. He had been chairman of the state commission from 2003-2005, and prior to that was a state senator.

If confirmed by the Senate, Spitzer, a Republican, would join Jon Wellinghoff, a Democrat, and Philip D. Moeller, a Republican, as new members at FERC. Wellinghoff, a partner with the law firm of Beckley Singleton in Nevada, and Moeller, executive director of the Washington office for Wisconsin-based Alliant Energy Corp., were nominated by the White House in March. The Senate energy panel last week approved their nominations to the full Senate, where confirmation could be challenging due to the abbreviated legislative session and crowded agenda (see Daily GPI, June 22). The committee is expected to vote out Spitzer's nomination in short order.

With the addition of the new commissioners, FERC could have a much closer link to western energy markets, given that all three nominees have ties to the West and existing Commissioner Suedeen Kelly is from New Mexico.

The political makeup of the Commission would consist of three Republicans and two Democrats if the new nominees are confirmed. FERC Chairman Joseph Kelliher is a Republican, while Commissioner Kelly is a Democrat.

Spitzer is a native of Pittsburgh, PA, and grew up in Philadelphia. After graduating from Dickinson College in Carlisle, PA, he attended the University of Michigan School of Law.

So, The Guvnuh' Says:"LNG Speculators Need To Step Up P.R. Efforts?"

Tuesday, November 27, 2007

By Nick Christensen

The Hillsboro Argus

The Argus

While Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski says it wouldn't be prudent to oppose natural gas pipelines and liquefied gas terminals before environmental review, he is pressuring gas pipeline developers to step up public outreach efforts.

In a series of letters dated Oct. 30, Kulongoski stopped just short of chiding natural gas developers about the way they've involved the public in their planning to build natural gas infrastructure across western Oregon.

Until last Wednesday, the governor's office did not respond to repeated requests for comment, beginning Nov. 2. The letters from Kulongoski to principals of the natural gas developments were sent to the Argus on Nov. 21.

"If new pipelines are going to be sited in Oregon, I want it to be done in the most inclusive and least confrontational manner possible," Kulongoski said in the letter. "Unfortunately, as things stand today that does not seem to be the direction that things are headed."

The letters were sent to the developers of several proposed natural gas facilities, including the Bradwood Landing, Oregon LNG and Jordan Cove liquefied gas importation terminals, and to TransCanada, one of the partners of the Palomar Gas Transmission line.

Kulongoski cited reports of meetings being insufficiently noticed, times being changed at the last minute, pipeline routes being changed before meetings without notice to newly affected landowners and company representatives trespassing on private property.

"I have heard that company representatives sometimes come across as unprepared, dismissive and inattentive during public meetings and generally are very heavy handed when working with concerned citizens," Kulongoski wrote.

In trying to explain his constituents' concerns to the companies, Kulongoski wrote the biggest issue is fear of change.

"They simply do not understand the necessity of the underlying investment, the process that is being followed or why their property is under consideration," the governor wrote. "They also have heard troubling stories about the unintended consequences of recent pipeline projects, including erosion problems and impacts on field drainage."

Nine days after Kulongoski sent his letter, TransCanada Government Relations Director Scott Farris sent a three-page response to the capitol. Farris emphasized that with several projects on the table, stakeholders can be confused as to which company is acting in any given manner.

"Any large infrastructure projects are going to generate questions and even controversy because they disrupt individual lines even if they are pursued for the larger public good," Farris wrote. "This is more true when there are multiple projects pursuing the public good."

Farris' letter bulletted several ways he felt his company has tried to keep the public informed.

"This recitation of what has been done in regard to outreach hopefully indicates that we are meeting expectations not only for process, but also attitude," Farris wrote. "We welcome your letter as a reminder that we should continue our efforts to develop Palomar on the principles of openness, fairness and respectfulness that are our expectations as well as yours."

Oregon LNG CEO Peter Hansen, whose company is also proposing to build a pipeline as well as a liquefied gas terminal near Warrenton, said he didn't feel the letter directly pertained to his company.

"For example, there was stuff that pertained to trespassing, that did not pertain to us," Hansen said. "I saw it as a blanket letter and obviously somebody out there has not been behaving themselves."

To read Kulongoski's letter to natural gas developers, as well as Palomar's response to the governor, visit the Argus' news feed at blog.oregonlive.com/hillsboroargus.

Click here to add text.

Energy Speculator/Profiteers! Wanta Play In And Abuse Our Coomunities? Some Will Make Sure You Pay For The Privilege!

Ecological disaster and delayed justice

Thursday, December 06, 2007

Steve Duin - The Oregonian

Del Knight has spent most of his life in woods, working for the BLM and the Forest Service, logging now and then. "I'm not an ecologist. I'm not an environmentalist. I believe in using what's here to be used," said Knight, who lives on eight acres in a Coos County valley 14 miles east of Myrtle Point.

"But I've been educated on the subject. When I see a chicken crossing the road, I can say, 'Hey, there goes a chicken.' " And when he saw a natural-gas pipeline project crossing the line and damaging the streams and terrain in his neck of the woods, Knight wasn't the sort to let it rest.

Four years later, Knight is one of the reasons two major lawsuits -- regarding the pipeline that finally brought natural gas to Coos County -- have winter dates in separate Eugene courtrooms.

Barring last-minute settlements, the county is seeking $15.5 million from MasTec for the environmental damage wrought when the Florida-based corporation bulldozed its way through 60 miles of public and private property between Roseburg and Coos Bay. The dispute is set for February in the courtroom of U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken.

A month later, District Judge Michael Hogan -- who grew up in Myrtle Point -- will hear a suit brought against MasTec by the Sierra Club and the Department of Justice, which alleges MasTec violated the Clean Water Act "at more than 165 streams" along the pipeline route.

That pipeline, the end of a 30-year quest to give Coos County the gas, was paid for by a $27 million bond measure and $24 million in lottery funds. MasTec sent out a Texas crew -- with fiber-optic drilling equipment, Knight said -- that wasted little time making a mess of things.

David Feinauer owns the Beaverton company, Right of Way Associates, that negotiated with 150 property owners for the easements. "We provided a book to the contractor that had every agreement we reached with the property owners," Feinauer said. "And nobody (with MasTec) ever looked at it."

The company, the suits claim, polluted streams, destroyed pastures, and caused devastating erosion. At a goat farm along the route, MasTec plowed through a carefully marked spring, Feinauer said, even though a "mother and daughter were there with their arms out, trying to stop the bulldozer."

"They did not give a damn," Feinauer added. "Their attitude was, 'We'll just make it up later.' They didn't compact the trenches. I don't think they believed anyone who told them it rained here. There wasn't any agreement I could make with property owners that MasTec couldn't ignore. It was beyond maddening."

While there were no Army Corps of Engineers inspectors or Department of Environmental Quality monitors on the scene, there were local whistleblowers such as Knight. "I had to follow them around," he said, "and watch from whatever vantage point I could. They were pretty hostile toward me. Tried to get me arrested quite a number of times. Fourteen, I believe."

The regulators finally got involved. The state DEQ fined MasTec $205,000, then settled for $63,000. The corps, the Sierra Club and Coos County -- which fired MasTec and was subsequently sued by the company -- aren't so easily appeased.

David Bledsoe, MasTec's Portland-based attorney, said that given the proximity of the trials, MasTec believes it would be "inappropriate" to comment.

But Knight is optimistic the bell is about to toll for MasTec. "I just live here," he said, "and they came through, messing it up with no proper regard. This has got to be the worst ecological disaster Oregon has ever had. Have they been penalized? Not yet. But it's in the works."

Steve Duin: 503-221-8597; 1320 S.W. Broadway, Portland, OR 97201 steveduin@news.oregonian.com http://blog.oregonlive.com/steveduin

The December 11. 2007 Clatsop County Planning Staff Recommendations On Bradwood Landing Are The Same As They Were On October 15, 2007 - September 28, 2007 - June 28, 2007 - August 23, 2007. Deny!, Deny!, Deny!, And A Handpicked Planning Commission Has The Audacity To Say Yes? And Now It's In The Hands Of A Seeming Autonomous and Detached County Commission? Good Lord In Heaven Watch Over Us!

How many Ways, You Think, Planning Staff Can Say "Don't Do This To The Citizens Of Clatsop County" Before This County Commission Will Heed The Message?

STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FROM OCTOBER 15, 2007 The staff recommends that the county board of commissioners take the following three actions: 1. Based on the findings in our staff reports of June 28, 2007, and August 23, 2007, and in this report, deny requests from Bradwood Landing to:

* Issue a conditional use permit for dredging in the Aquatic Conservation 2 (AC-2) Zone in accordance with LWDUO2 3.788(9);

* Re-zone 46.1 acres from AC-2 to Aquatic Development, amend the plan so as to change that area‟s designation under Goal 16 from “Conservation” to “Development,” and then allow dredging outright per LWDUO 3.744(10);

* Re-zone 5.35 acres of wetlands from Aquatic Natural (AN) to Marine Industrial (MI)), and amend the plan so as to change that area‟s designation under Goal 16 from “Natural” to “Development”;

* Find the proposed marine industrial development at Bradwood to be a small- to medium-sized development consistent with provisions in the Northeast Community Plan and the Bradwood Subarea Plan to limit the scale of development at Bradwood.

* Amend the Northeast Community Plan and the Bradwood Subarea Plan to delete text specifying that industrial development at Bradwood is limited to small- to medium-sized marine industrial plants.

* Find that the application complies with Statewide Planning Goal 16, Estuarine Resources.

* Find that the application satisfies all applicable standards from the LWDUO and the Clatsop County Standards Document.

2. Accept Bradwood Landing’s request to withdraw elements of the consolidated application requesting permits for soil disposal on-site.

3. Based on the findings adopted by the planning commission on September 28, 2007, approve all elements of the consolidated application from Bradwood not mentioned in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, subject to all conditions recommended in the September 28 findings.