Pipe Up to Oppose The California Pipeline!

The science of polling

Yesterday, The World published results of a poll conducted by respected Portland pollster Bob Moore for Jordan Cove and the California pipeline folks. Now, for starters, polls like this only get released publicly if the people who paid for it think they can generate good publicity, which is why most newspapers won’t publish polls paid for by (for instance) candidates for public office trumpeting their own good fortunes. The World broke ranks on that generally accepted standard, but more on that later.

Now pollsters are at the mercy of their clients, meaning that, at the end of the day, they have to ask questions in the way the client wants it asked, which means it may or may not accurately reflect public opinion on any given topic. For instance, on the issue of abortion, most Democratic pollsters will ask if you are “pro-choice or anti-choice” while most Republican pollsters will ask if you are “pro-life or pro-abortion.” Not surprisingly, depending how it is asked, the responses can be dramatically different because those words and phrases are so emotionally loaded for most people.

Similarly, it appears that the folks who paid for the poll wanted the questions asked in a way that reflects their bias.

One such example is the question that read:

If additional sources of natural gas would decrease Oregon’s use of coal, how would that affect your feelings about an LNG terminal or pipeline project?

This is what is called a message testing question. The truth of the assertion in the question is immaterial, but rather the question is designed to see how many people you can convince in a blind test. This particular question is particularly egregious because studies have proven that LNG produces more carbon emissions than domestic natural gas and that the U.S. has well over a hundred years worth of gas supply. The way that question was designed could have easily replace the words “natural gas” with “nuclear” and it would still be technically true, but have little to do with the merits of the case.

There are similar “loading” problems with several of the questions like:

Liquefied natural gas is often referred to as LNG. The gas is transported on ships and unloaded into an LNG terminal. Would you favor or oppose building an LNG terminal near Coos Bay? Do you feel strongly about that?

While they get points for explaining LNG, they left out a key component of the equation, namely that the gas is transported across the ocean from foreign countries like Russia, Iran and Qatar. Put that in your question Jordan Cove and then show us the results with a more balanced question that informs rather than leads to a conclusion.

Yet another example:

If some of the natural gas shipped into Oregon were transferred to other states, how would that affect your feelings about an LNG terminal or pipeline project?

“Other states?” C’mon guys; that doesn’t pass the giggle test. We all know the majority of the gas is going to California. It’s going to be stored in underground wells near Sacramento. You’ve said so yourself. Why didn’t you ask it that way? Is it because you didn’t want to see the results?

Finally, my favorite question:

Pipelines carrying natural gas can be operated safely.

By using the word “can” you destroyed the integrity of the entire question. Not even a “Some people say natural gas pipelines can be operated safely while others say it is dangerous to people and property. Which do you agree with?”–the way most pollsters would ask it. Instead of asking a question that could really shine some light on what people think about the pipeline, you chickened out. You might as well have asked “Cookies can go with milk. Do you agree or disagree?”

So here is a list of proposed questions we’d like to poll, if we had the money. Alex Rich, World editors, if we find the money to ask them, will you publish them as well?

1) If you knew an LNG terminal would increase our reliance on foreign fossil fuels from Middle East countries like Iran, would you support it or oppose it?

2) If you knew that 17,000 people would live inside the proposed LNG blast zone that could cause 2nd degree burns on skin, would you support it or oppose it?

3) LNG pollutes more than domestic natural gas. Would you be more likely to support or oppose the terminal?

4) If the pipeline is permitted, the company building it can seize your property through eminent domain. Would you be more likely to support or oppose the pipeline?

5) The pipeline will impact 379 waterways, including salmon bearing streams, just to send natural gas to California. Would you be more likely to support or oppose the pipeline?

So, what do you say Mr. Braddock? Are you willing to split the cost with us to ask these questions and have the newspaper publish them?

November 21st, 2008

LNG Is Worth A Closer Look

If it is said in civil society that reasonable people can disagree reasonably, then it seems the Mail Tribune editorial board is at war with itself.

In it’s curious editorial of November 14th, it appears the editors are of two minds on the Jordan Cove LNG project. After two-and-a-half years of debate on the project, the M-T weighed in with this:

We’re not read to lead the campaign to approve the project. Many of the concerns expressed have merit. But so do the arguments for moving ahead.

Friendly tweaking of people at the Trib aside, this is a complex project with many dimensions and even more questions—even for those who follow the debate religiously. Still, it is odd that it appears the editors took testimony from only one side of the debate. Even stranger is that nearly three years into this project, the only people willing to publicly make the case to the newspaper on this project are the ones who stand to financially benefit from it. It appears that the new PR team helping Jordan Cove and Williams Pipeline set up a meeting with the paper without having any community backing to show for the project. No elected officials; no community or business leaders; no labor leaders. Nada. Perhaps that’s why their first line of attack for the last two months has been to criticize the breadth and depth of the opposition, which at last count was 4,000 strong.

Getting back to the main point is that once again, the proponents of this LNG scheme have admitted the gas is going to California.

Plans call for the gas delivered through the pipeline to California to be stored underground in depleted gas wells near Sacramento.

So, what do we in coastal and Southern Oregon have to sacrifice for natural gas to be delivered to Sacramento?

17,000 people living in the LNG blast zone
2,500 children going to school in the blast zone
379 waterways impacted
2,600 acres of forest clear cut
151 miles of private property impacted by eminent domain
5.6 million cubic yards of Coos Bay dredged
Fishing boats delayed while LNG tankers are in transit
29 federally threatened species in the project area

Now here’s where the plot gets interesting.

Originally, many of us who oppose the project do so because we believe in America’s energy independence. Importing natural gas from places like Iran, Qatar, Russia and Malaysia isn’t any more in our national self interest than importing oil from Saudi Arabia.

The proponents have always claimed that importing this gas (which emits 6-12 percent more greenhouse gasses than domestic natural gas) would help lower the cost of gas prices for Oregonians. They’ve even peddled the canard that domestic natural gas supplies are not sufficient to meet growing demand, which is why they claim we need LNG, when in fact independent energy experts have written that domestic supply can last well over a century. Unfortunately, the ed board at the Trib bought that one, so if you’re reading this, here’s the documentation.

Now, it turns out that in addition to admitting that Oregon was never the final destination, markets have conspired to create a situation where global demand and prices are much higher than domestic prices resulting in a number of these LNG terminals applying to export our domestic natural gas to foreign countries at a profit—completely standing on its head the reason for building the terminals in the first place.

It seems the folks at the Trib haven’t been reading that energy giants like British Petroleum are mothballing their plans to build LNG terminals because of the high price and demand overseas.

So sure, the economics add up—in the form of higher natural gas prices for Oregonians because we will now have to compete with world markets for the privilege of buying our own gas.

And while we are on the subject of jobs, Jordan Cove keeps peddling the same false talking points—that an LNG terminal and pipeline will be the panacea for our economic downturn.

First, if the ed board had read the FERC Draft Environmental Impact Statement they would see that 60 percent of the proposed jobs will be imported from elsewhere. In fact, at the beginning of this month, Jordan Cove announced the companies it has hired to design and build the LNG terminal if it is approved—and two of the four companies are French, bringing a whole new dimension to the French Foreign Legion. Only 11 locals will be hired to build the slip dock and 39 locals will get permanent jobs. At best, a handful of jobs will be needed to maintain the pipeline in Jackson County.

And while we are arguing over a dinosaur industry that might or might not produce a smattering of jobs, communities throughout Oregon are embracing the green job energy revolution that is one of the few sectors of our economy that is still creating jobs. Companies like Sun Energy will bring solar power to Medford’s water treatment plant, and the city of Hillsboro successfully attracted Solar World, a German solar manufacturer that opened North America’s largest solar cell manufacturing plant that will create 1,000 new jobs. Vestas, the world’s top turbine maker, employs more than 300 in Portland and is adding another 200. Other companies moving to Oregon include Peak Sun Silicon, Sanyo Solar, the California-based Solaicx and XSunX, and Horizon Wind. are creating good paying jobs. This is the future of our economy.

Finally, there’s that pesky safety problem. On cue, Jordan Cove delivered their standard line that there has never been a loss of cargo or life in 50 years of ocean shipping of LNG. While that’s not quite true, read what Oregon LNG developer Peter Hansen said about contemporary LNG tankers and terminals:

A pool file is like a nuclear meltdown. The likelihood of such an accident is remote, but the consequence is enormous…It would burn Astoria.

Just for the record, the towns of North Bend, Coos Bay, Charleston and Glasgow exist in what the FERC so delicately calls “zones of concern.” I could only imagine what Mr. Hansen would call them.

So here’s hoping the editorial board of the Mail Tribune will look closer as their headline advertises, because as they do, there is less and less to like.

November 18th, 2008

Why Should We Export Our Energy?

In a day and age when the nation is clamoring for energy independence, it is becoming more and more clear that the agenda behind siting LNG terminals in Oregon is not to import natural gas from foreign countries (which is bad enough), but to export it to foreign countries to profit energy companies at our expense.

Today, the Register-Guard adds their puzzled voice to why we would even consider allowing such a short-sighted policy:

If LNG can be sold for $20 per million British thermal units in Japan or South Korea but futures contracts for gas in the United States set the price at $10 — which is roughly today’s pricing situation — producers have a strong incentive to export. Each additional export terminal would make domestic supplies more readily available to global markets. The result would be higher prices for U.S. customers, a faster drawdown of domestic reserves or both.

So not only does this turn Jordan Cove’s argument about lower gas prices for Oregonians on its head, it turns out they may very well profit by cutting into our domestic natural resources and making us pay higher natural gas prices for our trouble.

No wonder the R-G concludes:

The 180-degree turnaround in the export-import picture requires a rethinking of LNG terminals. Moderating domestic prices and assuring adequate U.S. supplies by opening a channel for LNG imports was an idea that had some appeal. The prospect of sharing a newly abundant and relatively clean resource with the world, with resulting increases in domestic gas prices, is considerably less attractive.

Read the entire editorial here.

Add comment November 17th, 2008

Bait and switch

Following up a little late, but last week in The World, there were dueling op-eds on the Jordan Cove LNG issue, one from Jody McCaffree and one from South Coast Development Council executive director Ron Opitz.

First, congratulations Jody for giving a global picture of how LNG actually hurts our local economy, rather than helps it; whether it’s because of the global gas markets that are turning sour to the clean energy boom that is being aggressively pursued in other Oregon communities, Jody made a very positive case for an economic development plan for Coos County.

Unfortunately, Mr. Opitz, while ostensibly stumping for LNG jobs, instead turned to the sort of ad hominem attacks and fearmongering that has become a hallmark of the pro-LNG side as of late.

Opitz railed about supposed rhetoric from opponents of LNG, but couldn’t make a factual case to support the project, instead choosing to criticize skeptics for having the nerve to speak out on the issue while applauding those who spoke out in favor of it. Sort of an odd double-standard.

More to the point, though, was Opitz’s odd revisionist history, blaming the opponents of the project for Coos County’s economic woes. Opponents and supporters alike are all saddened by the economic decline that has gripped our region for far too long, but this decline started decades ago–certainly before this LNG proposal was even on the table.

Opitz goes on to detail the sad statistics about the growing homeless population and increases in children who qualify for Reduced Cost Lunch Program as if LNG opponents were responsible for this.

The one and only solution the director of the region’s economic development council could come up with to solve these problems? An LNG terminal. No figures about potential jobs (because there would only be about 30-40 local jobs anyway at best); no coordinated economic policy perscriptives; just blame.

Then, in perhaps the most bizarre twist, the one fact that Opitz uses to support his pro-LNG position is patently untrue. Jordan Cove won’t bring in over $2 million per year during the first three years or $10 million per year after that because Jordan Cove is in a tax free enterprise zone administered by the Port of Coos Bay and exempt from county taxes.

The only folks who stand to see any money (if it materializes) are the folks who run the Port. They are unelected and unaccountable.

That means no money for roads, hospitals, homeless shelters or school lunch prorams–something that he must know as ED of the SCDC.

So much for boosting our economy.

Read the Opitz op-ed here and the Jody McCaffree op-ed here and then tell me who should be directing our region’s economic efforts.

November 11th, 2008

Majority still against LNG

For the last three days, The World has had up a poll asking readers:

Should an LNG terminal be built on Coos Bay’s North Spit?

Although unscientific, the readers have spoken–52% against the proposal–even after a lobbying campaign from Jordan Cove’s PR team.

The World has asked their readers this question now on three occasions, and every time, the readers have said NO. Are you listening financiers of Jordan Cove?

November 7th, 2008

Double whopper with cheese

Rembember the story a couple of weeks ago about how energy giant British Petroleum has stopped moving forward with its East Coast LNG import terminal because global markets make LNG a bad investment in the U.S.?

There’s a great compendium piece in yesterday’s Register-Guard about how global LNG market supply and demand is making it less likely that an LNG terminal (specifically Jordan Cove) would be needed or profitable on the Oregon Coast.

From the article:

The supply and demand situation is so backwards, in fact, that some proposed import terminals are now switching to export, because it’s become more economical to sell gas overseas than to buy it.

So how does that affect Jordan Cove’s prospects? Again from the article:

“It’s a bad idea, when you think about the kind of volume you need to justify a liquefaction plant and you look at the amount of liquefaction on the U.S. Gulf Coast that’s significantly underutilized today,” said David Purcell, industry managing director with Pickering Energy, a research firm that advises energy investors. “I’d be shocked if you could get one built in Oregon.”

More palpable, said Purcell, is a pipeline from the east, to ferry domestic supplies across the Rocky Mountains.

“One, it’s a more realistic project, and two, there’s a public conception around LNG imports, whether it’s right or wrong, that they’re bad, they’re dangerous,” Purcell said. “It’s hard to get terminals past the permitting stage.”

To his credit, Mr. Braddock admits in the article that this isn’t the best time to be building an LNG terminal. However, his justifications for continuing the process are nothing short of woeful.

First, Mr. Braddock says that “an Oregon terminal and pipeline is an investment that looks 20 years into the future.” That brings up two points: 1) Is he going to mothball the project if he gets the permits until 20 years down the road, which would mean that none of the jobs he has promised would ever materialize?; 2) Why would we want to wait 20 years for an LNG terminal when Oregon is clearly moving in the direction of increasing renewable energy? The entire argument for LNG is predicated on calling it a “bridge fuel until renewables are ready.” In 20 years, we will have crossed that river, with or without his bridge.

Once again, Mr. Braddock has stated that the prospects for building the Jordan Cove terminal are no greater than 50/50 because there are three competing proposals and only enough demand for one LNG terminal to be built. Perhaps that’s why he told Winston Ross of the R-G that they have secured almost all of the necessary state permits for the project, when in fact they have secured none…zero, zilch, nothing, nada. They’ve received one permit from Coos County while the other is being reviewed by the courts.

Read the entire R-G article here.