Hundreds of angry residents of west-central Oregon have packed Federal Energy Regulatory Commission local hearings this week, vocally objecting to a privately-proposed natural gas pipeline and LNG marine export terminal.
The proposed development includes the 300-mile "Pacific-Connector" Pipeline which will move natural gas from Canada and Colorado to the deep water port of Coos Bay Oregon. There, the proposed Jordan Cove facility will convert the natural gas to liquefied (frozen) natural gas, and ship it to Asian markets.
Everyone from college professors to old hippies stood in line to give their three minutes of testimony against the project. The vast majority objected to its potential to worsen climate change, which many characterized as threatening humankind with extinction.
Meanwhile, I sat with dozens of my union brothers and sisters at those hearings. We spoke of our yearning for the project's creation of 4000 construction jobs at peak, a job lasting almost four years, and the 100-odd permanent jobs at the Jordan Cove liquefaction plant. That big a construction job means you could pay off the credit cards and loans, and sock some money away to send a kid to college, if FERC approves it.
Below the fold, I explain, with heavy heart, why I must turn away from my environmental allies on this issue.
The liquefaction facility includes a gas-fired power plant, and it will emit about 2 million tons a year of greenhouse gasses (GHG). The LNG tankers carrying the LNG to Asia will emit GHG from their smokestacks. The new Asian power plants will burn the gas and emit even more GHGs. The gas extraction process at the wellhead emits GHG.
Of course I believe GHG contribute to Climate Change. However I doubt this project actually causes an increase in GHG.
India is a good example, but this same model holds true for China, South Korea, and Japan, all of who burn lots of coal for energy, and plan to burn more.
India is currently proposing about 500 new coal-fired power plants. Each one would emit about 4 millions tons of GHG, depending on its size.
The Jordan Cove LNG plant will send enough natural gas to Asia to displace the operation (or prevent the construction) of about seven large coal-fired power plants. That would reduce India's GHG emissions by about 14 million tons per year, since each gas-fired plant emits about 2 million ton/year of GHG, or 1/2 what a coal fired power plant emits.
In addition to these potential emissions reductions in Asia, the Oregon LNG terminal will sharply reduce its own GHG.
Oregon State rules will require the LNG plant to mitigate its GHG emissions, so its net impact will be far less than the claimed 2 million ton/year.
There are other beneficial factors. The Pipeline will be buying additional timberlands for the National Forests it bisects, and will pay for forestry improvement projects on about 10,000 acres of Forest lands, to mitigate its impacts on the 70 miles it runs through the Forests. Improved forest productivity and healthier trees will absorb CO2 and further lower concentrations of GHG in the air.
The difference between me and the project's opponents, is they fear that cheap gas will prevent construction of a wind or solar energy source, while I feel cheap gas will displace coal and its odious emissions, the same way it's done in this country.
For all of these reasons I feel the project could actually reduce GHG. And with a clear conscience I can argue for this project's approval, for its tax revenue, and for its thousands of potential jobs.
The Pipeline will run from near Klamath Falls, to the northwest near Roseburg, to end at Coos Bay. Lumber mills have disappeared by the hundreds from this area over the last twenty years. This whole region suffers from high unemployment and a shriveled tax base. The situation collapsed after the Forest Service and BLM, who own much of this area, stopped making payments in lieu of property taxes to the affected counties, thanks to Congress.
The Pipeline's $3 million annual payment will increase property tax revenue by 40% in Douglas County, where unemployment is 9.9%. The other affected Counties; Coos, Klamath, and Jackson, also have unemployment over 9%. The LNG terminal will pay Coos County $30 million a year. These are big numbers for rural counties.
The LNG terminal and pipeline construction will last for almost four years. It will peak at 4000 construction workers making union wages of about $35/hour, plus benefits and overtime. I've spent my whole life trying to get projects this big to hire union workers, and this is a rare event indeed. I am hoping it will help us reconstruct a middle class across this portion of Oregon.
I am also hoping we can begin to rebuild the local Democratic Parties in these areas, where the declining numbers of Democrat voters match the declining number of blue collar jobs, as James Allen's diary pointed out.
http://www.dailykos.com/...
I am troubled to see many union construction workers who wonder why the heck they should support Democrats who oppose these big projects that will generate lots of union jobs and millions in local and state tax revenue at no cost to taxpayers.
These workers would much rather be building a nuclear plant with zero GHG emissions, but most of the folks testifying against the LNG terminal would oppose nuclear power also.
I feel for the folks who are battling the pipeline on eminent domain issues. And I feel for my union brothers and sisters who cannot find work within 150 miles of where they live.
I don't believe this project will trigger increases in worldwide GHG emissions and could even decrease it. I never went to any of the hearings on the coal export terminals, which would also have created hundreds jobs, because coal, for me, just too dirty.
I feel differently about this LNG terminal. I hope it's approved and it creates thousands of union jobs. I hope the exported gas displaces coal-fired power and reduces the emissions that cause climate change.
Thu Dec 11, 2014 at 10:41 AM PT: Thanks, Rescue Rangers, for the upgrade. Thanks, folks, for the comments also.