Home»Opinion»Don't Shoot the Messenger»DON’T SHOOT THE MESSENGER: The Return of the LNG Pipeline

DON’T SHOOT THE MESSENGER: The Return of the LNG Pipeline

Pinterest Google+

This Halloween the scariest monster in southern Oregon is the LNG pipeline. Like a zombie that won’t die, the proposed pipeline continues to come back again and again, even though the townspeople vanquished it repeatedly.

The proposal is to place pipeline that will run diagonally all the way from the California border near Klamath northwest to Coos Bay, to carry liquefied natural gas (LNG) to a terminal at the Oregon coast. Over the past couple years, under the Obama administration, construction permits were rejected twice before by Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). But shortly after Donald Trump was elected in November, word began to circulate that Veresen, the Canadian company proposing the pipeline, planned to resubmit its application to the FERC for approval of the pipeline again—apparently hoping that a change in the federal government’s attitude towards energy sources and global warming may provide an opportunity. 

With an unsettling sense of deja-vu—like the 13th installment of the “Halloween” movies—this damn thing just won’t go away.

Earlier this summer, those fears that the pipeline may be resurrected took a step towards a frightening reality when the Trump White House weighed in. White House National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn all but promised that the administration would approve the permit, saying that it would offer a big economic boon to the U.S. economy. Moreover, in August, two empty positions on the agency were filled by Trump appointees. The agency had been at a stalemate since February because it lacked a quorum to make official decisions, but those appointees—and their approval by the Senate—now allows the FERC to consider Veresen’s proposal.

There are so many things wrong with the LNG, it impossible to know where to start. Sort of like listing the moral, ethical and criminal infractions of Dracula. Really, choose your argument.

There are the environmental arguments: It will be a major greenhouse gas contributor; the pipeline bisects waterways, etc. There is the economic argument, with its several wrinkles. For starters, the argument put forward by the Trump administration that this pipeline will make America strong is laughable: Veresen, the company that would own the pipeline, is Canadian. Second, any local jobs created by the pipeline are temporary, at best.

The LNG pipeline is so wrong that at a protest against it in the last spring environmentalists and ranchers, who don’t routinely line up on the same side of arguments, joined forces to voice their opposition at public hearings.

“They’re stealing American property to benefit foreign countries,” one Roseburg-area rancher told the Messenger at the time. He said he was offered $14,000 for a two-mile section of his land, which he scoffed at the low-ball offer. He has plans to pass his land down to his son and grandchildren, and is concerned about the future property value generations from now.  

Although FERC seemed inclined a year ago to deny the permit request, under the Trump administration, it is bizarro world and most likely that decision will be turned inside out.

But fortunately, there are several lines of defense past this first permit. Like laying out barrier after barrier to keep out the monsters, the federal and state permits and permissions for a major project like this are many.

Last week, the deadline for comments came and went for the Army Corps of Engineers, which will need to approve dredging permits to make the area deep enough for cargo ships to come and go.

And if that permit doesn’t stop the LNG pipeline, then there are state and local environmental and building permits.

Really, with the impacts to clean water, tourism, fishing, land rights, etc. there are plenty of ways to stop the LNG pipeline—and the Messenger encourages each of our readers to support the organizations doing great work to do just that, and encourages each of our readers to talk with state representatives and to send Governor Kate Brown emails requesting her to say “no” in any fashion to the LNG pipeline.

Really, it seems as if this one will require a silver bullet, a stake-through-the-heart and to be buried 12 feet under before it will finally stop harassing Oregon, our climate, our economy and our land rights.



  1. gregg marchese
    October 14, 2017 at 7:30 am — Reply

    This is a decent summary of a complex topic and elaborate history. Of necessity much could not be said, such as the many other environmental concerns, the issue of jobs (to dismiss them as merely temporary is unfair to the union people, the only ones I heard speak in favor of the pipeline in the numerous hearings I attended), and the seeming difference between the Obama and Trump administrations (is it genuine?).

    Gary Cohn as top economic advisor is mentioned as promoting the pipeline, but no mention that he is a core member of the small but powerful cabal of extreme fundamentalist Talmudic Zionists who really run the country. Obviously they are directing the US military against Israel’s perceived ‘enemies’ in the Middle East. Iran is next.

    This article accept as gospel the truth of human caused severe global warming, but what of the recent studies by two professors at U of Alabama, crunching data from NASA’s satellites over the previous decade, showing that much more heat is escaping the atmosphere than ground-based IPCC models allow? The legal case between Dr. Timothy Ball and Michael Mann in Canada bears watching too.

    I still oppose the pipeline on issues of air pollution, global bankster control of energy, and seizure of private land, whatever the truth of ‘global warming’. But I support jobs for unioins and other workers, what should be the backbone of the US economy (It was broken by NAFTA, imposed by cabal member Rahm Emmanuel). So let’s organize a transition to renewables in Oregon, with good jobs and job training.

    I’m not sure if the current Clean Energy Jobs Bill which sets up carbon cap and trade markets is the best way to do it. It allows a back door for banksters like Goldman Sachs to manipulate the market and rip off huge funds. But something can be done. A simple tax on carbon, and direct that tax revenue to the renewables transition? A state bank issuing loans without interest to propel the transition? Let’s get creative and let’s get real.

  2. Jane Stackhouse
    October 25, 2017 at 11:01 pm — Reply

    The resuscitation of the Veresen/Pacific Connector Pipeline project is a nightmare. The environmental damage for the benefit of a Canadian Company is local, with the building of the pipeline and terminal, and global with the burning of the fracked gas. The gas delivered by the pipeline will run the processing plant so the gas can be cooled and liquified. Then it will all be exported. The only export to Oregon is the pollution.

    Coos Bay deserves better jobs that these jobs that kill local fisheries and harm our forests with the pollution. Coos Bay citizens deserve better than to be at risk from increased exposure to pollutants and explosions of gas causing devastating fires.

    Why put the plant in Coos Bay? Because the area is seen as too poor and too desperate to resist.

    Why not invest in wave or wind energy in the South Coast area? Let’s preserve the natural beauty of the area and the rights of the residents. When I was in school ’eminent domain’ meant the taking of personal property for the greater community good not for the profits of a foreign company and their investors.

    Let’s make big polluters pay to clean up their poison and not let them further ruin our way of life.

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.