Home»Opinion»Letters»LETTERS: October 26th Issue

LETTERS: October 26th Issue

Pinterest Google+

An Interesting Opposition to LNG Pipeline (re.: Messenger’s publisher note opposing the Jordan Cove Energy Project)

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 unions 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.

-Gregg Marchese

Editor’s Note: We made a number of errors in our last article about the proposed pipeline. What we didn’t mess up is our opposition—and the Messenger’s conviction that this proposed pipeline isn’t good for the local environment or economy.

One mistake we made is the proposal is for a compressed Natural Gas Pipeline (methane) to run from Malin to Coos Bay, not a liquefied natural gas (LNG) pipeline, as it has commonly been explained. The proposed pipeline is actually named the Pacific Connector Pipeline. (By the by, how safe is a methane pipeline running through zones high-risk for forest fires? Just asking!)

Two, the whole ball-and-wax is called the Jordan Cove Energy Project, which includes a terminal at Coos Bay that would be the location for a liquefaction plant and export facility for the LNG produced. 

Three, the request to assess the Port of Coos Bay came from a governmental entity, not the company proposing the pipeline.

And, finally, oops, Veresen does not exist anymore. On October 2, Veresen, the company that had proposed the pipeline, was acquired by another Canadian fossil fuels energy company, Pembina. Even so, the fact remains that the Trump administration’s support for the pipeline as a means to “make America great again” is a bit misguided as the bulk of revenue will flow north to Canada.

Re: Go Here!

Brand new to the area, we read Catherine Kelley’s article on Fall Hikes in the September 28 issue of the Messenger with great interest. In fact, we avidly launched ourselves on this adventure at the earliest opportunity. My wife and I found the outing and the vistas it provided to be all that was promised and more while serving as a starting point in our coming to know our new surroundings. The circumstance of our both being seniors contributed to our mild dismay at learning that the loop portion of the hike is, in fact, about 3.0 miles. No mention was made, however, that there is an additional 1.8 miles that must be navigated to reach the starting point of the loop. We completed the hike a bit worn but elated and with a new resolve to vet our outdoor undertakings rather more diligently before committing ourselves.

We look forward to upcoming issues off your excellent publication.

-Bill Ballou


No Comment

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.