Posts Tagged ‘LNG’

Apr23

Interior Department: The Need for a Gumption Pill

By Bob Ferris
 
gump•tion  [guhmp-shuhn]  noun Informal.
1. initiative; aggressiveness; resourcefulness: With his gumption he'll make a success of himself.
2. courage; spunk; guts: It takes gumption to quit a high-paying job.
3. common sense; shrewdness. 
From Dictionary.com 
 
There are times when I fantasize about products that I would like to see.  One of those products that is high on my list right now would be gumption pills.  For if this product existed I would send cases of !cid_0BAFA484-1336-41EC-865D-6D83DF8F3EE6these pills directly to 1849 C Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20240.
 
"The U.S. Department of the Interior protects America’s natural resources and heritage, honors our cultures and tribal communities, and supplies the energy to power our future." From US Department of Interior website.
 
What is there?  This is the address of the US Department of Interior whose mission is stated above.  And they could surely use this attribute of gumption at this point.  
 
Why would I say this?  Well let’s start with the fact that the Department in the form of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) just let an abusive and cantankerous cowboy parley his family’s $10 investment in 1948 in 160 acres of desert land with some water rights into a standoff of monumental proportion and consequence.  
 
Had this agency been taking gumption pills, they would have solved this situation two decades ago rather than letting it linger and fester.  As it was they had to be dragged kicking and screaming towards resolution by lawsuits and then they dropped the situation like a super-heated spud ending with a greater mess than when they started.   In the absence of gumption the squeaky wheeled bullies prevailed, the cattle are still there, and the American public lost on so many levels.  
 
020213Minam_odfw-1But this is not the only symptom that might be treated by the gumption pills.  We also have the recent proposal to delist the gray wolves in most of the lower 48 states.  Here again the Interior Department agency involved—the US Fish and Wildlife Service—listened to noisy bullies in the form of state wildlife agencies and anti-wolf trophy hunters and came up with a “plan” that was universally criticized by the scientific peer-review team and by conservationists around the globe.  
 
Then there is Powder River Basin coal.  I get the “supplies energy to power our future” part of Interior’s mission but how in any rational system of thought is selling coal to foreign companies and global corporations at prices that make it profitable for them to ship it 7000 miles to China an element of powering our future?  The same goes for fracking and LNG export, particularly when it should be balanced with the “protect America’s natural resources” aspect of their mission.  
 
And what is true for cattle grazing, wolves, coal and natural gas is also true for trees and forests.  The BLM has control of more than two and half million acres of federal forest lands in western Oregon.  Here the chainsaws of the forest industry seem to be heard better by BLM than those in Oregon or coming to Oregon to work in industries that are actually growing rather than shrinking in terms of economic contributions.  Here again BLM is faced with the choice of listening to the noisy few or the quiet many who come and stay in Oregon because of the natural amenities not because of clearcuts, landslides, or their love of jake-braking logging trucks.  
 
Unfortunately I could go on and on here, but the catalyst for this rambling rant is that suction dredge miners in Idaho are notifying the BLM that they are planning a protest to be staged on BLM lands and mendoAu ripping up bankperpetrated in the waters of the iconic Salmon River.  The suction dredgers plan, as I understand it, is to assemble themselves and their suction dredges on the banks of the Salmon and then run those machines in the river in protest of their recent legislative failure to get the US EPA banned from Idaho.  The legislation failed because it was judged unconstitutional so the suction dredgers—who frequently and passionately invoke the US Constitution as well as the 1872 Mining Law—are basically protesting the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution which is exactly what they invoke when they say that that state or local efforts to exclude suction are trumped by the 1872 Mining Law, which incidentally, does not mention suction dredging anywhere in that 1872 act.  
 
Robin Boyce, acting manager for the Cottonwood Field Office, said the BLM is working on a response to the event planned on the Salmon River in central Idaho near Riggins around the Fourth of July, the Lewiston Tribune (http://bit.ly/QCPIVP) reported Tuesday.
 
"We are still trying to figure out how this would work and when and if it is possible on BLM property," Boyce said.  From the Idaho Statesman April 22, 2014
 
In any case, the BLM response to this above was gumption-less.  It was a “we have to talk to our parents” sort of response.  Had they had their gumption pills the response could have been something along these lines: We will not grant you permission to use the federal lands under our care to break federal pollution laws.  Or simply: Hell no.  The latter would be so refreshing.
 
Cascadia Wildlands and other similar organizations regularly sue the Interior Department agencies.  We do so not because we like to but when the Department—in its many guises—lacks the gumption to enforce their own laws or regulations.  We do so not in a casual and reflexive manner but after long discussions and many notices to the agencies involved.  And when in the end they fail to act as the laws and regulation proscribe, we in essence become the “gumption pills” they need.  
 
I would love for the US Department of Interior to suddenly develop gumption and bring constructive resolve to all of the above issues from the Bundy fiasco to the weak wolf plan and from energy to the suction dredger lawlessness.  I am ready and willing to be surprised by agencies following the law and maybe even doing a little bit more.  But I am also prepared—along with my colleagues and partners who represent the un-listened to public and the speechless critters and ecosystems—to be the gumption that this is lacking in this important federal department.
 

Mar21

Forests, Fracking and LNG: Francis Defending People and Places

francis

 
 
Francis Eatherington, Cascadia Wildands' Conservation Director was recently interviewed on a broad range topics relating to Oregon's precious coastal forests and the problems with allowing liquefied natural gas exports through Coos Bay. Please listen to what she has to say in this engaging and thoughtful interview.    Click here to listen to the radio interview.
 
 
 
 
 

Jan11

Douglas County Planning Commission says no to [LNG] pipeline

By Carisa Cegavske, Roseburg News ReviewJordan Cove
January 11, 2014
 
The Douglas County Planning Commission Thursday threw a monkey wrench in a developer’s plan to export liquefied natural gas through a pipeline that would cross Douglas County. 
 
Developers now seek to export rather than import gas through a Coos Bay terminal, but their request was effectively rebuffed after the commissioners twice tied 3-3 on the issue. 
 
A seventh commissioner, Mark Brosi, attempted to vote to allow the pipeline but was told by county staff that he was disqualified because he did not attend hearings on the subject and had not reviewed the record.
 
County Planning Director Keith Cubic said the developer will likely appeal to the Douglas County commissioners and, if they lose at that level, could challenge the decision to the state Land Use Board of Appeals.
 
The Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline would move natural gas from the Plains and Canada to Coos Bay. The planning commission in 2009 issued a permit for the pipeline to cross 7 miles within the county’s Coastal Zone Management Area, but restricted the company to import natural gas only.
 
Market conditions have caused the developers to propose exporting natural gas, forcing the companies to seek new permits from federal regulators and counties affected by the project.
 
Planning Commissioner William Duckett voted against granting the permit to pipeline company Williams and energy developer Veresen U.S. Power.
 
He said they had used a “bait-and-switch” approach to gaining county approval for the project in 2009.
 
“When the applicant came in, sitting right here in front of us, we asked specifically, ‘Is this going to be for export?’ and he said, ‘Absolutely not, this not going to be for export. This is going to be for import only,’” Duckett said. “I think in my own viewpoint, it’s come in kind of like a Trojan horse.”
 
Commissioner Javier Goirigolzarri said he does not think the pipeline’s impact would be any different if it exports or imports gas.
 
“I’ll be darned if I can tell if the gas is going up, down, on or off at any point in time when I walk over the gas lines that are already in existence,” Goirigolzarri said.
 
Commissioner Romey Ware said it would be good to export natural gas.
 
“Countries that do well have a low trade deficit,” he said. “We’ve got commodities here that need to be exploited for the betterment of our country.”
 
Commissioner Victoria Hawks, who moved to reject the export request, said she felt other factors should be considered than those on which they were expected to make their decision.
 
She said the public here or in other Western states would not benefit from the gas if it is exported.
 
“That is not our public need. It may be somebody else’s, but I don’t think we have anything to do with that,” Hawks said.
 
Duckett, Hawks and Darrel Murphy voted twice to reject the export request. Ware, Goirigolzarri and George Seonbuchner voted twice to allow it.
 
“I think that’s what we call a hung jury,” Goirigolzarri said.
 
On Cubic’s advice, commissioners took a third, unanimous vote acknowledging that they could not come to an agreement and that failure meant the export request was not approved.
 
After the meeting, landowners with property in the pipeline’s pathway said they were pleased with the planning commission’s decision.
 
“I think that the commission did a good job. They did what they’re supposed to do in sorting out what is appropriate,” said landowner Richard Chasm.
 
He said the county commissioners will be taking up “a hot potato” once the decision is appealed to them.
 
Developers’ representatives who attended the meeting declined to comment and deferred questions to spokesman George Angerbauer.
 
“Pacific Connector is disappointed in the treatment of our land use application and we will appeal the commission’s decision. We understand there are questions about the pipeline project and the direction natural gas would flow through the pipeline, but these questions have no bearing on the project’s consistency with county land use plan and code requirements. We look forward to clarifying that point on appeal,” Angerbauer said.
 

Link to article

Jan10

Oregon LNG: State delays decision, frustrating everyone involved

By Ted Sickinger, The Oregonian
January 09, 2014
 
Oregon officials have put off deciding whether a proposed liquefied natural gas terminal near the mouth of the Columbia River in Warrenton is consistent with its coastal management plan.
 
The Department of Land Conservation and Development says it doesn't have what it needs to make the call. That rankles both backers of the project and its opponents. They don't think it's true, for one. And they say the ongoing delays lock everyone in a regulatory holding pattern, including the applicant, taxpayers bankrolling the agencies, and community members and landowners waiting for a decision.
 
Various LNG proposals in Oregon have been in a similar spot for more than a decade. Backers of one project on the Columbia River gave up after spending $100 million, complaining they were caught in a never-ending regulatory loop. The two proposals still standing are Oregon LNG in Warrenton and Jordan Cove in Coos Bay.
 
Either way regulators go, their decision is likely to end up in court, so they need to be vetted thoroughly.  Here's a brief update on the Warrenton proposal and its recent back and forth with the state:
 
Remind me what this thing is:
 
It's a feeder pipeline, storage tanks, and a massive gas liquefaction terminal on the Skipanon Peninsula, located across Young's Bay from Astoria. The pipe would carry Canadian natural gas to the terminal, where it would be super-cooled into a liquid for shipment on tankers to lucrative markets in Asia. Oregon LNG says it will spend $6.3 billion on the project and generate thousands of construction and permanent jobs.
 
Why did the state delay its decision?
 
The Department of Land Conservation and Development, or DLCD, is only one player in the alphabet soup of state and federal agencies involved. Its piece is to determine if the project is consistent with land use policies and goals in the coastal management plan. The agency says Oregon LNG still lacks a passel of local and state permits, and a federal environmental review, so it couldn't process the consistency determination by its Jan 3 deadline. Patty Snow, the coastal program manager, says the review is "on hold" until it receives those materials.
 
Why did DLCD even start the clock on its six months review period if it didn't have what it needs?
 
Oregon LNG forced the issue by insisting its application was complete. The company was anxious for the clock to start so it could freeze which land-use rules its application would be evaluated under before updates to Clatsop County rules were approved. DLCD agreed, but Clatsop County officials think it makes no difference which rules are used to evaluate the project.
 
The delay was for three months? Will it be ready then?
 
Not if DLCD sticks with its insistence on other permits. There's virtually no way Oregon LNG will have all those permits processed in the next three months.   
 
Does DLCD need all the permits to make its own decision?
 
Snow, the coastal program manager, says it does, but it's technical evaluation isn't dependent on the other permits. Clatsop County already denied the project after deciding the 41 miles of pipeline in the county violated rules on uses of forestland and estuaries.
 
Oregon LNG's chief executive Peter Hansen insists the application is complete – all 10,000 pages of it. "We're on a first name basis with every bug and bunny out there," he said.
 
If the county says the project doesn't work, won't the state decide the same?
 
Some think that's inevitable. DLCD makes an independent decision, but looks at the same rules as Clatsop County, uses the county decision as evidence, and doesn't typically substitute its own judgment for any county.
 
Oregon LNG disagrees. It says the county decision is far from the only element in the state consistency review and that the county has no authority over siting pipelines anyway. You can't relegate the entire project to a county determination on a pipeline, Hansen said, when the county has no authority over siting pipelines. That's for federal regulators to decide.
 
Is there any other reason to delay?  
 
DLCD may be forced to make a decision, and may need time to make it legally bulletproof. In general, no state agency wants to be the first to jump on an LNG decision, and Oregon is practicing networked decision making. Hansen says it's like a circular reference in a spreadsheet. "We just can't get out of it."  The company has already spent 10 years and $50 million trying to get a terminal project off the ground, and there are a lot of folks who could use the jobs it would provide, he says.
 
Opponents of the project are equally flummoxed. They say public resources are being wasted and landowners and others livelihoods are being left in limbo.   
 
"There's no reason why the state should waste taxpayers' dollars by granting extension after extension. It has what it needs to deny this application," said Lauren Goldberg, a staff attorney at the advocacy group Columbia Riverkeeper. "We need some common sense leadership from the governor's office on this." 
 
What happens if DLCD approves the project?
 
It's still a long haul. The project needs all the other state permits, including a pollution discharge permit, water quality certification, removal fill permit, water use and storage permits, etc.  Then there's the federal license, export approval and biological opinion. Hansen said the project will have most of its federal approvals in 2014, but he might be a tad optimistic.  
 
What happens if the state denies the consistency determination?
 
Oregon LNG can appeal the decision to the U.S. Secretary of Commerce, likely on the grounds that the county has no jurisdiction, and the project meets both regional and national energy interests.  If it doesn't like that decision, it can go to court.
 
Hansen said the company wants to work with the state because that's what it pledged to do from the start. "We are absolutely consistent with the Coastal Zone Management Act," Hansen said. "We're not looking for a fight, but if that's the only way we can get there then that's the way we'll have to go."
 
 

Nov28

The Angry Ocean Calls

Gleneden BeachBy Bob Ferris
 
Acidic and angry, the ocean—
father and mother of us all—
Storms past amputee sea stars
And oysters with half shells
Bent not on revenge but  
inevitable correction.  
 
But our commercial tendrils 
Continue to flail unaware
And careless
Whipping wildly cross the globe.
While the waves build
And peril accumulates.  
 
The bell in the boat shed
Rings and rings again
In emergency tones
But we are deafened 
Made so purposely  
By those whose ears
Hear but one note
Played by a golden whistle.
 
And leadership?
We certainly have those
Who claim that mantle
But bray about progress
And great voyages 
Yet have never raised anchor
From a dark and destructive past.
 
Those in their idle and mired boats
Are cheered by those created 
Expressly by their negligence.
Like cave fish they have
Lost their vision and
Discernment from disuse.  
But the wave still comes
Whether seen or not.
 
So we are left to sink 
or swim.  
Unled and ill-served
Until we realize the wisdom 
Of the bristlecone, clams and Greenland shark.
We need to manage and serve ourselves 
And think in centuries not seconds
Systems and not status
And lead our lives and loves accordingly.
 
Bandon, Oregon November 2013
 
Happy Thanksgiving everyone!  Please take a moment to rest up, because we certainly have some work (and fun) ahead of us on forests, wolves, and the wild places we all love and need!
 
Bob Ferris

May29

Natural Gas Export Plan Unites Oregon Landowners Against It

Jeff Brady NPR
May 29, 2013

 
A radical shift in the world energy picture is raising environmental concerns in the United States.
 
Until recently, the U.S. had been expected to import more natural gas. But now, because of controversial technologies like "fracking," drillers are producing a lot more domestic natural gas; so much that prices are down, along with industry profits. And drillers are looking overseas for new customers.
 
Whether the United States should export some of its newly abundant supplies of natural gas is a controversial issue before the Department of Energy. About two-dozen applications have been submitted to the agency for exports to countries that don't have free-trade agreements with the U.S.
 
Environmentalists are concerned that exporting gas will lead to more drilling and hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking." Some chemical companies have argued against approving all of the export proposals; they want plenty of cheap natural gas here in the U.S. to fuel manufacturing. And, individually, some of the export proposals have proven controversial in the communities where companies want to build them.
 
One such plan, the Jordan Cove Energy Project, would sit on the North Spit of lower Coos Bay in Oregon. About 2 miles from the Pacific Ocean, the proposed site isn't much more than sand, tall grass and shrubs now. But if all goes according to plan, there will be two huge storage tanks next to a 45-foot-deep berth for ships. Nearby, a new power plant would run the refrigeration necessary to turn natural gas into the much-easier-to-transport liquefied natural gas (LNG).
 
To read full story and listen to audio story featuring our own Francis Eatherington click the link below:
 

Mar12

Dow-funded study says [LNG] prices triple with aggressive exports

by Jenny Mandel, E&E reporter

Tuesday, March 12, 2013 
 
Domestic natural gas prices could nearly triple by 2030 if high levels of exports are seen, according to a study paid for by Dow Chemical Co.
 
"If left unmonitored, high [liquefied natural gas] exports could prevail at the cost of the broader economy," the report warns.
 
A "likely" level of LNG exports of 20 billion cubic feet per day would send prices to $8.80 per million British thermal units in 2030, the analysis says, while a "high" export scenario of 35 bcf/day by that year would put them at $10.30/MMBtu. That is above the $6.30/MMBtu the study says would otherwise be seen in 2030, given what it describes as a "reasonable" demand forecast.
 
Consulting group Charles River Associates (CRA) released the study, carried out for Dow, yesterday. The analysis was commissioned to take into account a draft study of LNG exports published by the Energy Department in December and carried out by NERA Economic Consulting, as well as comments received by DOE in response to that study.
 
The Dow report was completed to inform the company's comments filed during a second round of feedback solicited on that study by DOE that wrapped up late last month (EnergyWire, Feb. 26).
 
NERA considered export scenarios with between 6 bcf/day and 12 bcf/day of exports, far less than the "likely" level reflected in CRA's assessment.
 
Dow did not directly publicize the study, though Charles River Associates issued a news release on it yesterday. A representative for the chemical company said it had no comment on its contents beyond the feedback submitted to DOE.
 
The wisdom and proper legal treatment of exporting LNG or keeping it in the United States to support domestic manufacturing and other uses have been hotly debated, and Dow has been among the loudest voices urging DOE to move slowly in approving export applications.
 
Some stakeholders in the debate have said Dow should provide analysis supporting its claims that energy-intensive manufacturers would be harmed by extensive exports, and the study responds to that argument. DOE is obliged to carefully consider comments received through the public comment process in deciding how to proceed on 18 projects currently awaiting broad export permits.
 
The analysis focuses on domestic price effects of higher LNG exports, rather than global price adjustments, and reflects announcements by manufacturing companies of "more than $90 billion" in new plants and other facilities that would, if built, consume natural gas.
 
It claims that the NERA study misrepresents the natural gas intensity of certain manufacturing segments and underestimates future demand from manufacturing, natural gas vehicles and the replacement of coal-fired electric power generation.
 
The result, CRA concluded, is an underestimate of the employment, trade balance and gross domestic product effects of expanded LNG exports.
 
"Current expectations for a low cost, gas-driven electricity economy and significant deployment of natural gas vehicles could be foregone due to LNG exports," the firm said.
 
Click here for the CRA study.
 

Feb28

Extractive Industries are Killing the Planet–Eugene Rally March 3rd

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: February 27, 2013

Extractive Industries are Killing the Planet
 
Eugene, Ore.—March 3 at 1 p.m. A rally will be held in the University of Oregon EMU amphitheater proceeded by a march against the fossil fuel industry. The march is follow-up to the “End All Extraction” march on February 17, since the demands from the first march were not met.
 
The event is to coincide with the end of the Public Interest Environmental Law Conference (PIELC), which begins on February 28. Hundreds will gather and march against governments and businesses that support fossil fuels and other extractive industries.
 
“The people need to hold corporate extractors accountable since government has not,” said Jim Flynn of the Cascadia Forest Defenders, sponsors of the march.
The rally is in solidarity with local and national groups such as Idle No More, Tar Sands Blockade, and No Coal Exportation.
 
These movements include thousands of environmental and social justice activists from many varied groups such as non-governmental organizations (NGOs), first nations, minority justice groups, small businesses, labor unions and concerned citizens of all varying political backgrounds.
 
This event features a large collaboration of national and local organizations and people coming together to stand up and say “no” to tar sands extraction, “no” to the Keystone XL pipeline, “no” to coal extraction and exportation, while simultaneously saying “yes” to equality for all life, “yes” to challenging governments and businesses for sustained forms of energy and, “yes” to clean air, water and land/space for future generations to live.
 
The event will kick off with a rally that will include speeches by Tar Sands Blockade spokesperson *Ramsey Sprague*; executive director of the Civil Liberties Defense Center *Lauren Regan*; and *Sam Kopf* of the Cascadia Forest Defenders.
 
The Erb Memorial Union (EMU) amphitheater is located on the northwest side of the EMU at the University of Oregon.
 
For more information on the groups we are in solidarity with, please visit these websites:
 

Dec06

Report could boost plans for natural gas pipeline in Douglas County

 

December 6, 2012
 
By Don Jenkins NewsReview 
 
In a finding that may bolster the argument for building a pipeline across Douglas County, natural gas exports would boost the U.S. economy, according to a report released Wednesday.
The study, commissioned by the U.S. Department of Energy, warned there would be “winners and losers,” but concluded that overall the country would profit as foreign countries bought U.S. natural gas.
 
The DOE took no position on the study, done by NERA Economic Consulting, but said it may influence regulators considering export proposals, including the Jordan Cove Energy Project in Southern Oregon.
 
Two companies propose building a 234-mile pipeline through Douglas, Klamath, Jackson and Coos counties to transmit natural gas to a terminal at the International Port of Coos Bay.
 
Port spokeswoman Elise Hamner said today the port hoped the report will help developers get approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
 
“This is a positive development,” she said. “It’s just an incredibly good economic impact to have a development like that here.”
 
The port previously had commissioned a study that found extensive economic benefits for Southern Oregon, including 120 permanent jobs paying an average of $82,000 a year associated with the terminal.
 
The new study takes a broader look at the economic effects of licensing some or most of the 20 active proposals in the U.S.
 
Two South County landowners opposed to the pipeline said today the new study didn’t take into account many of their concerns and focused too much on the benefits gained by natural gas developers.
 
“Obviously, this report is slanted toward big industries. Multinational corporations will profit, families won’t,” said Days Creek landowner Francis Eatherington, whose property the pipeline would cross.
 
Tenmile property owner Frank Adams said questions remain about environmental costs, the loss of his and others’ private property and the long-term effects of not retaining natural gas for domestic use.
 
“Why should we sell our children’s heritage?” he asked. “Why shouldn’t we utilize that in our own country?”
 
DOE asked for the report because of the explosion in proposals, a reflection of changing market conditions. Until early this year, the companies behind Jordan Cove, Williams Northwest Pipeline and Veresen Power proposed importing natural gas to meet U.S. demand.
 
Efforts to reach a Jordan Cove spokesman today were unsuccessful.
 
According to the study, the country would profit overall as wealth was transferred to the United States from other countries, increasing gross domestic product by as much as $47 billion in 2020. The study concludes that the more gas is exported, the greater the benefits.
 
Winners would include owners of natural gas resources, their shareholders and workers employed in producing and exporting natural gas.
 
The study, however, also confirmed earlier findings that exports would increase natural gas prices in the U.S. — by 25 percent over five years if exports increase significantly. The increase in natural gas prices would increase coal consumption, the report found.
 
The report warned that job losses would occur in energy-intensive industries and that exporting natural gas would not increase, or decrease, the total number of U.S. jobs.
 
“Impacts will not be positive for all groups in the economy,” according to the report. “Households with income solely from wages and government transfers, in particular, might not participate in these benefits.”
 
Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., who has been critical of proposals to export natural gas, focused on the potential for rising energy costs in the U.S.
 
“Broadly speaking, the study appears to confirm that exports of LNG will raise the domestic price of natural gas,” according to a statement released by his office.
 
Eatherington said the study appears to have given short shrift to the effects of higher energy costs on families. Eatherington, the conservation director for Cascadia Wildlands, also criticized the report for not addressing the environmental costs of climate change or hydraulic fracking, which involves blasting shale rock with water, sand and chemicals to release gas and oil.
 
The process has increased natural gas supplies, but critics say the process pollutes groundwater and may even trigger earthquakes.
 
“Clean drinking water is an economic issue that should have been considered,” Eatherington said.
 
The report, Eatherington and Adams noted, also doesn’t address the financial impacts on landowners who would be being forced to grant right-of-way to pipelines for a small payment.
 
The DOE will take initial public comments on the study until Jan. 23. A period to reply to comments will be accepted from Jan. 25 to Feb. 25.
 
Comments may be filed by email, LNGStudy@hq.doe.gov, or mailed to U.S. Department of Energy (FE-34), Office of Natural Gas Regulatory Activities, Office of Fossil Energy, P.O. Box 44375, Washington, D.C., 20026-4375.
 
The entire report can be read here DOE study 
 
 

Aug17

Thanks too to Senator Wyden for his Message to FERC–Longer Comment Period For Pacific Connector Pipeline and Listen More to other Federal Agencies

Thank you Senator Wyden.  

Click here for copy of letter

we like it wild. Follow us Facebook Twiter RSS