Is LNG Safe?

Plans for up to three liquified natural gas installations in Oregon--near Astoria, near Clatskanie, and Coos Bay--are moving forward and Governor Kulongoski says he is open to having them, despite a host of red flags raised by state agencies. Two or three ships a day would cross the treacherous Columbia River bar with their cargo of liquified gas.

Half-mile exclusion zones would be required around the ships. Why have them if the ships are so safe? Those zones also would negatively impact fisheries and tourism.

Once the liquid goes to port, it would be regasified. Now, natural gas is substantially cleaner than heating oil or coal, but it still emits very substantial amounts of greenhouse gases. The regasifying process adds even more carbon dioxide. The LNG ports would probably mean construction of a new gas pipeline that would effect thousands of acres of Oregon farm and forestland. The state itself is currently suing the builders of our newest gas pipeline for 165 alleged violations of the Clean Water Act and creating devastating erosion.

Where will the gas come from originally? Some is likely to be imported from overseas. The biggest natural gas reserves in the world are in the Middle East--especially Iran--and Russia. Do we want to hitch Oregon's economy to Iran and Russia?

Meanwhile oil companies drilling in Alaska are coming up with huge amounts of natural gas as a byproduct and are pumping it back in the ground. A proposed pipeline from Alaska to the Midwest would indirectly help insure the Northwest's supply of natural gas for many decades.

The Governor has emulated California's groundbreaking work in energy efficiency. California said no to LNG twice before the federal government took over jurisdiction of LNG licensing from the states. Still Kulongoski's opinion will carry a lot of weight. We hope he doesn't subvert his own considerable energy legacy and changes his mind about LNG.