LNG Terminal on the Columbia river?

The Oregonian reports that a meeting was held in Knappa on Thursday on a proposed liquid natural gas (LNG) terminal on the Columbia River north of Portland.

KNAPPA -- White signs with red-and-black "No LNG" symbols stretched for miles along the route leading to Knappa High School, while other signs countered: "LNG Works for Us."

The placards were a preview of what state and federal officials expected to encounter as they converged on this tiny town Thursday to listen to the public's questions and concerns about the Bradwood liquid natural gas terminal, proposed 38 miles inland along the Columbia River, about 40 miles from Astoria.

Developers of the Portland-based Northern Star Natural Gas project came armed with economic development numbers and safety assurances.

Gary Coppedge, Bradwood project manager, said the terminal -- where liquid natural gas would be shipped in, heated to vapor form and transported via a pipeline to the region -- will create hundreds of construction jobs for three years.

"During operation, there will be 45 full-time jobs paying an average of $60,000," he said. "The total economic impact locally will be $120 million during construction. After that, every year we will spend $20 million on jobs, services and taxes."

Now I can certainly understand how people would not want a potential catastrophe in their backyard. A few weeks ago I explained that there are simply no "clean" alternatives to oil that will allow us to maintain our lifestyle. Solar won't do it, wind won't do it. As I explained the much touted hydrogen is not an energy source but simply away to take nuclear energy and put it in your car. Unless we are ready accept new nuclear power plants and LNG terminals we must change our lifestyles, but will they let us?.

Natural gas is a big player in the US energy picture. At the same time domestic, including Canadian and Mexican, will no longer be able to support the demand. Some say the solution is importing LNG. Of course most of it will come from the same unstable regions that oil comes from. The ships that transport it are potential disasters as are the ports where they will be unloaded.

The Congressional Research Service did a report on Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Import Terminals: Siting, Safety and Regulation . This is a 32 page PDF, below is a summary.

Summary
Liquefied natural gas (LNG) is a hazardous fuel frequently shipped in large tankers to U.S. ports from overseas. While LNG has historically made up a small part of U.S. natural gas supplies, rising gas prices, current price volatility, and the possibility of domestic shortages are sharply increasing LNG demand. To meet this demand, energy companies have proposed building dozens of new LNG import terminals throughout the coastal United States. But many of these terminals would be built onshore near populated areas, so local communities fear the terminals would expose them to unacceptable safety and security hazards. Potentially catastrophic pool fires or vapor cloud fires could arise from a serious accident or attack on LNG infrastructure. Faced with the widely perceived need for greater LNG imports, and persistent public concerns about LNG safety, Congress is examining the adequacy of safety provisions in federal LNG siting regulation.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) grants federal approval for the siting of new onshore LNG facilities under the Natural Gas Act of 1938. This approval process incorporates minimum safety standards for LNG established by the Department of Transportation, which, in turn, incorporate siting standards set by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). Although LNG has had a record of relative safety for the last 40 years, and no LNG tanker or land-based facility has been attacked by terrorists, experts have questioned the adequacy of key LNG siting
regulations related to safety zones, marine hazards, hazard modeling, and remote siting. Experts have also questioned the validity of LNG hazard studies used by federal regulatory agencies which suggest that LNG terminal risks, while significant, are not as serious as is popularly believed.
Congress may not see a compelling need to change current federal LNG siting requirements if it views the current regulations and processes as sufficient. Holders of this view would continue to rely on the judgment of LNG experts in federal agencies and standards committees to appropriately balance local public safety with national energy needs. On the other hand, Congress may conclude that some aspects of new LNG terminals do pose excessive public risks, or that there is still too much uncertainty about key risks to make final conclusions about public safety. In this case, Congress has several options to further address LNG terminal safety concerns. These options include 1) banning onshore LNG terminals, 2) redefining federal and local siting authority, 3) imposing more stringent federal LNG safety standards, 4) encouraging more LNG research, 5) curbing U.S. natural gas demand, and 6) developing alternatives to natural gas imports. Each of these policy alternatives has significant limitations, however, and may have undesirable consequences for national energy markets and other hazardous material infrastructure. This report will be updated as events warrant.

The choice of the energy companies and the Federal Government they control will be for nuclear power plants and LNG terminals. Those plants and terminals will be regulated by a federal agency controlled by the energy companies themselves. Note the last sentence in the study it's worth repeating:

These options include 1) banning onshore LNG terminals, 2) redefining federal and local siting authority, 3) imposing more stringent federal LNG safety standards, 4) encouraging more LNG research, 5) curbing U.S. natural gas demand, and 6) developing alternatives to natural gas imports. Each of these policy alternatives has significant limitations, however, and may have undesirable consequences for national energy markets and other hazardous material infrastructure.

Please note, the alternative to you living near a bomb will have "undesirable consequences" for the energy industry.

If you look on a map you will see the Bradwood liquid natural gas terminal will be built near the Trojan Nuclear Power Plant. Remember that one, the nuke built on an active fault. The State of Oregon was taken out of the siting process so expect the plant to get the go ahead within a year.