Alaskan Pipeline/ Cali Gas line/ Railway on the coast (Portland: leases, house)

[Metlakatla]

Originally Posted by Starlage

thanks for the responses! I call it the "alaskan" pipeline because quite frankly I don't know what else to call it. Just the proposed natural gas line, I guess. I do realize it is in very early considerations, just thought I'd feel out what people actually living there think of it or have heard. I get that people want to protect the environment and animals living in it but I don't see why a gasline would do that. It would benefit the little towns greatly in my opinion. Seems like the state/ environmental organizations or whatever would do whatever they could do protect the environments while still letting the project happen.

Interesting to read opinions on all of this and I think it'll be interesting to follow and see what happens in Oregon as far as all of that goes.

Um, it's hardly in the "early considerations." It's been on and off the table for years.

The fact that it hasn't happened yet has nothing to do with environmentalism and everything to do with the current energy market.

ETA that my comments were specific to the natural gas pipeline that's been on the table for years in Alaska. Thanks for figuring out what was really meant, PNWGal.

[Starlage]

Hah, wow, you're quite irritated that I posted something that I know so little about, aren't you? I just wanted to start a discussion. I'm curious about the whole thing but all I can do is google it because I don't live there. I just don't see how things that expand the economy in a city that's not doing all that great financially can be a bad thing. But again, coming from someone that only has the power of the google.

[Metlakatla]

If you're typing at me, I'm not irritated, but it does seem that some at least semi-adept Googling would have provided you with the correct name of the project. I was thinking all along it was the proposed project in Alaska that's never really gone anywhere.

[Nell Plotts]

IMHO the safest transportation modality is pipe line, next sea going tanker. With ND crude rail and road is a coin flip.

[peaceloveandjulie]

I don't see how Oregon benefits from a Canadian company constructing a pipeline to transports its own fracked gas for export to Asia. Some temporary jobs building the pipeline/plant? Yay. (I wouldn't count on that, either. Despite "agreements," these companies find ways of bringing in cheaper, non-union labor.) Some jobs at the Jordan Cove plant? OK, that's good, but, again, this isn't a major employer. And, of course, if there's a plant or pipeline explosion, fire, or other emergency, Oregon will pay the price, the Canadian firm is armed to the teeth with lawyers, I'm sure, and contamination ruins the environment, property values, and communities for a long time.

I've lived in Texas for a couple of decades and have seen what the energy sector has done to the environment and to landowners. Most recently, Keystone pipeline sections that a Canadian company built here have torn up private property to the point where folks who were supportive of the project and willingly sold easements on their land are bitterly opposed and were left in ruin.

Yeah, I get that some folks aren't all that worried about the environment. But for the life of me, I really don't understand why people would support a foreign company being given the green light to install a pipeline across a state, taking their neighbors' and public lands, to make money through exports solely for that foreign company. People lose use of that land forever, the state has a pipeline it doesn't own buried under its own soil forever, and reaps no benefits in terms of lowered energy costs or even access to the product. It's all for export. I don't like when our companies do that to people in other countries, either.

The reason the Canadians even need to do Pacific Connector/Jordan Cove for export now is to utilize their over 600-mile Ruby pipeline they put in for natural gas transportation and sales in North America. With NG prices much lower, they need to reach the export markets to recoup their investment. If prices tank there, too? They could tear up Oregon and/or abandon the pipeline/plant mid-build.

[oregonwoodsmoke]

Isn't Oregon one of the states that passed a law that property can not be taken by eminent domain to be given to a private company for that company's profit?

[seashelly]

Originally Posted by PNW-type-gal

.........


if Veresen thinks it is such a great idea, the terminal can go in at to Vancouver, BC.

That.
Well said.

[Terryj]

Originally Posted by peaceloveandjulie

Wow, I hope that Pacific Connector goes down the tubes. Putting an underground, high-pressure gas pipeline in an area with drought, wildfires, tremors, and endangered eco-systems? Oh, and mostly volunteer fire departments -- if any, at all -- in the very rural areas along the stretch. Gee, what could possibly go wrong? The proposed route is 15-20 miles south of my land so I've been watching this.

I've read that Pres. Obama wants it to go through to give Russia some major competition in the natural gas market. Kitzhaber left behind a list of things they'd have to do to get approval by Oregon agencies, I read. Good ole Ron Wyden is cheering it on. I think Jeff Merkley may be, too. Of course, the people most in favor of these things aren't usually the ones who have to live right near them.

I'm not exactly an Oregonian yet, OP; I own land there, pay property tax on it, and am planning to begin building in a few months. But I think I'm far from alone in not wanting the beautiful state to become a "destination" as you call it for heavily polluting jobs/industries that destroy fragile habitats and the environment. How many manmade and natural disasters, how many species need to disappear, before it sinks in that this planet and OUR species is in real trouble?

Growth and jobs through environmentally friendly and sustainable industries and enterprises? Sure! Just as they're learning on other continents, you can kill animals into extinction and clearcut forests or you can protect the animals and forests so that they can become a tourist attraction and enduring source of revenue, jobs and pride.

This reminds me of the echo's of the Alaskan Pipeline back in the 70"s, "it's going to cause animals to go extinct and destroy the environment" it hasn't done either of these things.

There has been very little of clear cutting of forest on federal lands since the early 80's, and when it is done it is due to diseased trees. Forest need to be managed, or nature will manage them for you, I don't think that burned out forest and diseased trees will be much of a tourist attraction.

[Nell Plotts]

Think about what happened in Santa Barbara recently. That pipeline is under Federal jurisdiction and had not been maintained, the pipeline owner couldn't even find the break.

Don't get me wrong, pipelines are safer than rail transportation but ships are safer yet (and I know the inside scoop of the Exxon Valdez incident).

[peaceloveandjulie]

Originally Posted by Terryj

This reminds me of the echo's of the Alaskan Pipeline back in the 70"s, "it's going to cause animals to go extinct and destroy the environment" it hasn't done either of these things.

There has been very little of clear cutting of forest on federal lands since the early 80's, and when it is done it is due to diseased trees. Forest need to be managed, or nature will manage them for you, I don't think that burned out forest and diseased trees will be much of a tourist attraction.

The construction plan calls for clear-cutting sections, which removes healthy trees and is far different from forest management. My land abuts BLM and I'll look forward to forestry's planned thinning and removal of dead wood! It's basically "come and get it" and will be great for my wood stove! But that's not what the company is doing, and I'm sure they'll sell the trees they cut down for profit.

And they're building this pipeline under something like 300 bodies of water, many of which are struggling because of drought and contain fish (including salmon) that are also struggling because of the low water levels which greatly affect the water quality. It's simply wrong to add a pipeline and disrupt an already tenuous situation. Species could very well be lost.

I don't get why the people, including politicians, who are touting jobs for supporting this debacle are willing to risk the fishing, waterways, and other natural beauty. These things actually BRING jobs through tourism to Southern Oregon and should be developed further, not threatened. Is it the trade unions that foolishly believe the company will hire Oregonians at union wages? They won't, or, if they do, it will be a few token hires in management but the rest will be non-union labor from Texas and Oklahoma since one of the project partners IS an Oklahoma company! Agreements be damned, they'll say that they needed experienced pipeline and energy workers from TX/OK and they couldn't find the people they needed in Oregon. All to save money.

This is what these creeps do. I have a good friend who lives in Alberta and she posted a video from Edmonton in which unemployed Edmonton workers were picketing a company for bringing in Americans for cheaper wages to do a project! Same deal. The "explanation" was that they couldn't find the skills they needed in Edmonton workers so they had to hire Americans.

Companies have been doing this kind of crap since my dad was still alive and a steelworker. Why do the unions keep falling for it, and why are they willing to wreck the environment for a few scraps the big companies might toss them from the table?