FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Federal government issues final impact statement for Bradwood LNG project, ignoring concerns of Governor Kulongoski, state agencies and community groups

Contact: Dan Serres, Columbia Riverkeeper - (503) 890-2441

June 6, 2008   

Astoria, OR – The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission(FERC) released its Final Environmental Impact Statement(EIS) today which grossly failed to address concerns raised by community members, Oregon state agency and Oregon’s Governor regarding the Bradwood LNG terminal and pipeline.  Governor Kulongoski, Representative Wu and many others had called on FERC to prepare a new draft EIS given significant changes in the design of the project and new information about its impacts.  FERC, however, not only refused to prepare a new draft EIS, but failed to respond to the most serious concerns raised about the inadequacy of the much-criticized draft EIS.  

According to Brent Foster, Executive director of Columbia Riverkeeper, “It is really unbelievable to see FERC essentially dismiss the serious concerns raised not just by the public, but by virtually every State of Oregon agency that reviewed their initial analysis.  The Bush Administration’s FERC wants to bury their head in the sand, approve the project and then leave Oregon and Washington to clean up the mess they have created.”

Brett VandenHuevel, attorney for Columbia Riverkeeper, blasted the FERC analysis. “There are so many gaps in this EIS that FERC should really be embarrassed.  They refused to consider in detail the impacts of the Palomar pipeline project that would connect to the NorthernStar LNG terminal and they said they did not need to consider the actual global warming emissions of this huge project.  They don’t take a hard look at impacts to salmon, and they’ve repeated the same faulty analysis of water quality, air quality, and economic impacts.”

Greg Jacob of Oregon Chapter Sierra Club also criticized FERC’s lack of analysis of key issues raised by a recent report by Oregon Department of Energy which concluded that Oregon does not need LNG.  “FERC basically refused to evaluate whether the project is needed, despite Governor Kulongoski’s request that they do so and the State’s recent report showing that LNG is unnecessary for our state.  Oregon should not be forced to accept a destructive, expensive project when better alternatives are readily available.”

Cheryl Johnson, a Clatsop County school librarian and community organizer against LNG, added, “FERC never even pretended to listen to our concerns.  They issued a shoddy analysis for this project and didn’t account for very basic issues such as inadequate public safety and emergency response resources.  Concerns from community members and the cities of Warrenton and Astoria have fallen on deaf ears at FERC.”

Gayle Kiser, president of a Cowlitz County group opposing the terminal and its pipeline, expressed anger at FERC’s unwillingness to provide a clear picture of the project.  “The pipeline is proposed to cross our property, and we are appalled that FERC would put us at risk for a project that is clearly not needed.  Worse yet, people along the Palomar pipeline are excluded from this analysis despite the obvious connection between Bradwood and Palomar.  We find the FEIS insulting, and we will continue to fight them on every level.”

Opponents will file a written response to the FEIS this month.

Major issues raised by Governor Kulongoski, State of Oregon agencies and community groups that were not addressed by FERC in the Final EIS include:

1. Need for LNG:  Despite calls to consider whether or not there was a need for LNG in Oregon or whether other alternatives could better meet Oregon’s energy needs, the Final EIS failed to consider whether there was a need for LNG in Oregon.  The Final EIS dismissed the recent report from the Oregon Dept. of Energy finding that there was no need for LNG in Oregon and that LNG was twice the price of other natural gas alternatives and had significantly greater environmental impacts.

2.  Impacts on global warming:  FERC refused to consider the impacts that the proposed LNG project would have on global warming as a result of the significant carbon emissions and energy use needed to liquefy and ship LNG to Oregon from the Middle East and other foreign countries where it originates.

3. Impacts to salmon: State agencies from both Oregon and Washington as well as Native American tribes strongly criticized the draft EIS’s failure to adequately consider the impacts of the proposed project on Columbia River salmon.  The final EIS, however, failed to adequately study or analyze some of the most important impacts to salmon and all but ignored NorthernStar’s recent changes in the proposed project that would seriously increase impacts on salmon.

4. Pipeline impacts:  Because NW Natural’s proposed 220-mile long Palomar pipeline would send gas from the Bradwood LNG project to the California-bound pipeline in eastern Oregon, many told FERC they needed to evaluate the impacts of this “connected” or “cumulative” action as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).  FERC, however, fails to analyze in detail the impacts of the Palomar pipeline despite the fact it would rip across hundreds of family farms in the Willamette Valley, cross over 290 streams and rivers, and leave a 40-mile clearcut across Mt. Hood.  

5. Threats to public safety:  Despite the federal governments own studies showing that communities such as Astoria could be leveled by a catastrophic fire in the event of an LNG tanker accident or terrorist attack, FERC refused to provide any specifics about how many people would be killed or injured in such an event, or evaluate how a city like Astoria, with few emergency response resources, could cope with an LNG accident.