Alicia Posts, Dont Pass Gass: an argument agains LNG

Imagine that you are sitting in your living room watching your children play on a typical Astoria day. When you look out the window to admire the beauty of the Columbia River you are horrified to see that a bright red tanker that is as long as 3 football fields and stands about 15 stories high trudging down the river (Green). Suddenly a gigantic streak of fire connects the tanker to downtown Astoria. The entire town goes up in flames in a matter of minutes and our magnificent river is now topped with a fireball that is burning at about 500 degrees Fahrenheit (Green). The fire is spreading quickly and it soon engulfs the entire town that we all call home. Although, many people believe the benefits of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) outweigh the dangers, having lower taxes is not worth the possibility of destroying the entire town of Astoria and its ecosystem.
The Texas Based NorthernStar Natural Gas Company has proposed a plan to build the first LNG import and storage terminal on the west coast (Columbia). It will be located about 20 miles east of Astoria at a place called Bradwood Landing (Columbia). This project will require them to dredge over 700,000 cubic feet of sediment from our precious Columbia River (Columbia). The dredging will put a gigantic hole in the river right at the head of Clifton channel (a critical salmon rearing, migration and fishing area) (Columbia). Another downfall to this project is that they will be removing over a billion gallons of water and thousands of juvenile salmon a year just as dead weight in the tanks of the outgoing LNG tankers (Columbia).
So what is LNG anyway? It is natural gas that has been cooled to minus 259 degrees Fahrenheit (Energy). It is colorless, odorless, and weighs less than half the weight of water so it will float on water if spilled (Energy). It may not be explosive when in its liquid form but if enough LNG is spilled on water a Rapid Phase Transition (RPT) can occur (Energy). RPT occurs when the heat from the water is transferred to the spilt LNG causing it to immediately turn into its gas form (Energy). During the rapid transition between the liquid state and the gas state a mass amount of energy is released causing a physical explosion that will destroy anything close enough (Energy). RPT isn’t the only danger of LNG though. As a vapor it is explosive when mixed with air and in a flammable range of 5 -15 % (Energy). According to Sandia National Labs report “A vapor cloud from an LNG spill could extend to 2,500 m (1.55 miles), if an ignition source is not (immediately) available .The potential thermal hazards with a vapor cloud could be high” (Sandia). This means if a tanker is sitting in the Columbia River alongside Astoria and a leak occurs it could take out the entire town from the river to about the Youngs Bay Bridge (Sandia).
Even though NorthernStar is denying the accusations of using Oregon as a backdoor to providing California with natural gas, it is hard to ignore the fact that the terminal at Bradwood landing is going to contain more than twice the amount of natural gas that Oregon is currently using (COLUMBIA). Ken Zimmerman an analyst of resource markets with the Oregon public utility commission said it’s likely that three-quarters of the gas coming through an LNG terminal in Oregon would be sold to customers in the state to the south (Blue). So what is good about LNG? Many LNG supporters say that the economic benefits for our community will be very beneficial.
I do not deny that some of the economic benefits that will be brought along with having the LNG terminal here in Astoria are nice. Some of these benefits being a big increase in jobs for at least three years and a potential tax decrease because NorthernStar will be paying about $7,823,111 annually in property taxes. I ask you though, are these benefits worth the potential risks that come along with having a LNG terminal. Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski described the federal environmental review of the proposed liquefied natural gas terminal as “Incomplete and Flawed” (Profita). Kulongoski believes there is a lack of federal analysis on whether or not the terminal is even needed (Profita). He also mentioned that there is an inadequate amount of data on the impacts to air and water quality, and most importantly a lack of mention in state emergency response requirements (Profita).
When the NorthernStar Gas Company has came up with a fool proof plan that will show exactly how they will prepare our town for the potential leaks and explosions and who is going to pay for them I will be more willing to accept LNG. The other problem we need to consider is that our Columbian Estuary is at risk of being destroyed when we have worked so hard on preserving it. Will we risk our safety, our home, and our beautiful river for lower taxes? I sure as heck won’t.

Sources:
1) Profita, Cassandra. “Governor: ‘Incomplete and Flawed’” The Daily Astorian 19 Dec. 2007
2) “Green Party USA.” LNG: The Next Battle Line. 13 Jan. 2008
3) “Sandia National Laboratories.” Guidance on Risk Analysis and Safety Implications of a Large Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Spill Over Water” Dec. 2004
4) “Blue Oregon.” Battles Over LNG Terminals and natural gas Pipelines in the News. 13 Jan. 2008
5) “Columbia River Keeper.” Proposed Liquefied Natural Gas(LNG) and Coal Plants Threaten Columbia Estuary. 13 Jan. 2008
6) “Energy California”. 13 Jan. 2008