The Pembina people are throwing around money to promote the LNG pipeline.
It is too late, and they are selling the wrong thing.
What is their PR firm thinking?
 |
| Happy, community-spirited employees |
Southern Oregon is inundated by television and internet pop-up ads promoting the Jordan Cove LNG project.
They are spreading money to media, in community grants, in political contributions. They are aren't being subtle.
The project consists of an export terminal at the Port of Coos Bay and a pipeline through forested areas of Klamath, Jackson, Douglas and Coos Counties to transport the gas from a major pipeline near Malin Oregon to the Port of Coos Bay, Oregon. The gas will be liquified and exported to Asia. The Port of Coos Bay is the deep water port closest to Asia.
They are spreading money to media, in community grants, in political contributions. They are aren't being subtle.
The project consists of an export terminal at the Port of Coos Bay and a pipeline through forested areas of Klamath, Jackson, Douglas and Coos Counties to transport the gas from a major pipeline near Malin Oregon to the Port of Coos Bay, Oregon. The gas will be liquified and exported to Asia. The Port of Coos Bay is the deep water port closest to Asia.
 |
| Safe and clean work. |
Lovey cliches. It is an example of feel good political advertising.
It is worthless mush.
They are trying to get people to like a natural gas company, and then trust it.
Get real.
Like us. Trust us. Does anybody like Exxon or Chevron or Shell? Does anybody have warm feelings of sentimental affection for Kinder Morgan? (Kinder Morgan is a natural gas pipeline company based in Houston.) I would guess no.
We use and therefore value the products they sell, not the companies, as companies. We are happy to see an open gas station if we need fuel, and we value the fact that we cook our food and heat our homes with natural gas, but those companies are big, impersonal businesses. They are businesses, headquartered far away, run by managers for the benefit of stockholders, ideally in compliance with the law and good business principles.
Help the "South Coast." Head's up to Pembina: people around most of Southern Oregon don't care very much about the "south coast", i.e. Coos Bay. We wish them no harm. There is no ill will. It is simply that jobs or lower taxes in Coos Bay, a three-plus hour drive away, and with only indirect economic benefit and very indirect transportation links, is not a motivator for people on the pipeline route. People along the pipeline route don't get Coos County news, don't know their sports teams or elected officials, and don't feel very connected. No elected official along the pipeline route gets any political credit for saying he or she is thinking of what is best for Coos Bay.
What they should have said, and still could if they wake up to reality.
Huge tax benefit. The port facility is a multi-billion operation, with few but highly paid people, a perfect new industry. Why perfect? Because the company will pay $40 million a year in property taxes to Coos County alone, but have minimal need for new schools or other services. It is tax income with minimal service expense.
 |
| Cut property tax bill |
Landowners well taken care of. Of course, the very few people whose property gets passed under will be very generously compensated, so of course they are complaining loudly, because that is what people do when they want to be sure they get a great price for the eminent domain easement. They complain, they get compensated. It is exactly the process that brings everybody the electricity, natural gas, cable, and other utilities people enjoy. Nothing new here.
 |
| Pipelines bring us gas right now |
Pipelines are everywhere now, and they work just fine. Southern Oregon is already crisscrossed with natural gas pipelines under the streets. A major transmission line is under Foothills Road, and then up Hillcrest, in an area of some of the most expensive homes in the region. No big deal. Pipelines are essentially invisible, buried safely underground right now, and their presence was noticeable only when a traffic was disturbed for a few days when a major transmission line was expanded better to service an area of new homes. Then the public forgets they are there. Pipelines are same-old, same-old.
Natural gas is great and the pipeline means we have more of it. Natural gas is ideal for heating and cooking. It is inexpensive and clean compared to the alternatives. Most of the people protesting the natural gas pipeline use natural gas personally, gas which got transported to them, and they don't complain. People like natural gas, and this brings more of it to the area. Indeed, this would be a backup supply route, in case the local utility needs to expand capacity to the area in the future, or to serve new industry.
What images should Pembina have used?
1. A picture of a tax bill from the county, with a corner of it being cut with a scissors.
2. A picture of a happy man and woman cooking over a natural gas range.
3. A picture of bare industrial land in White City, observing that the natural gas pipeline could enable major new industries to locate in the area, paying high property taxes and supplying high paying new jobs, because the facility in Coos Bay is just the start.
 |
| The alternative |
5. A picture of a Chinese coal fired electric generating facility, spewing black smoke, saying that cleaner natural gas will replace this climate-damaging polluter.
[A final note: It sounds like I support the pipeline. Do I? Not now.
My feeling is that the opposition to it is hypocritical, since, in fact, people here are using natural gas right now, delivered by pipeline, and the net result of the pipeline would likely be lower pollution and CO2 worldwide. Natural gas is better than coal.
However, I have no real faith in Pembina to do the project well. If they are so tone deaf to the potential benefits of their project, sold it so ineffectively, and so bad at project planning that even Republican officeholders getting major campaign money from them feel duty-bound to oppose the project, then poor planning and incompetence must be built into the Pembina corporate culture. I don't want incompetent people handling a project this big. Come back to me when you have fixed your company.]
4 comments:
All very true. I'd go a step farther and say the ads insult our intelligence.
It is a big project, bigger than most people even realize. The earthwork at Coos Bay alone will alter the landscape forever and in my opinion damage the "fishing village" charm.
So be it. Never mind climate change...gotta cook them burgers!
I think the economic benefits are a valid incentive. I don't think it's enough. NYC booted Amazon because it looks like taxpayers were subsidizing them. Same with NFL stadiums...people are done with being fooled about this stuff.
Fund PERS...I'm on board.
Fund an equally ambitious alternative energy initiative...all for it.
Fund firefighting next Summer...get my drift?
As I understand it, natural gas emits less carbon than fossil fuel alternatives but much more methane, which is an even more potent greenhouse gas. So it is not entirely "clean."
I don't think it is hypocritical to use gas and oppose it at the same time. We are stuck in a system in which our alternatives are limited, unless we use government to change the rules of the game.
If the cost of climate change was factored into the use of fossil fuels, renewable energy sources would be far and away less expensive and companies and people would turn to their use.
Gotta start with making government enablement of fossil fuel industries political toxic. It is to big to manage with individual gestures toward reducing our carbon footprint.
Several outcomes are possible if the pipeline is built and an LNG plant completed here are a couple of them.
1) Coos Bay would have access to high pressure natural gas. It is ideal for many industrial processes, most notably a gas turbine generating station.
2) Exporting to Asia the amount of LNG envisioned may have an effect of making all natural gas produced in the North American west more expensive. The price paid by Asia for natural gas is much greater then domestic markets pay. We presently have an over supply of natural gas.
There is a great incentive for the company to grow their profit margins without regard to its effect on the regional price of natural gas and it may be a side benefit if the pipeline is completed.
The catch is that - in terms of energy, as in so many other things in life - there's no such thing as a free lunch - meaning there is no totally benign energy source....which explains why, whatever approach we take to the energy conundrum facing us, energy efficiency and energy conservation are critical components of the solution.
From the perspective of breathing it may be true that natural gas is better than coal, the problem with coal being especially the particulates. But if we want to address global warming, fossil (natural) gas is an absolute disaster since the methane of which it is composed (about 90%) is 86 times worse than carbon dioxide on a pound for pound 20-year basis. Indeed, the evidence suggests that the leakage of methane is sufficient that it negates any benefit gained from the fact the the gas is more efficient at generating energy per unit if carbon dioxide emitted than coal or oil. Between the 2007 and 2013/2014 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports, the impact of methane on global warming doubled, while that of carbon dioxide held steady. It's not clear, to be sure, to what extent the methane increase is due to the dramatic switch from coal to natural gas, with the associated methane leakage that occurs during fracking and processing, or the permafrost / oceanic methyl clathrate crystal melting which are two of the main positive feedback loops that result from warming and then cause further warming. Regrettably, these represent two processes the major tipping points that could send us beyond 'the point of no return.'
Maybe its consciousness of the particulates vs global warming conundrum that has lead China to become a world leader when it comes to the transition to renewable energy - even as (admittedly and regrettably) they build more coal-fired power plants.
Post a Comment