In Our View: LNG Looks DOA

Opponents of a liquefied natural gas terminal that was proposed for the lower Columbia River often were falsely categorized as “anti-LNG.” The truth is, those opponents — including The Columbian — are “pro-river.” We have said for years that the environmentally fragile Columbia River estuary is a horrible place to build a deepwater LNG port and, in this case, a 38-mile pipeline from the twin-tanks terminal to Kelso. That pipeline would have been gouged under the river and the Julia Butler Hansen National Wildlife Refuge near Cathlamet.

Our opposition was based on the site, not natural gas itself as a form of energy, one that happens to heat many homes throughout the Northwest. And as you might already have deduced, for the first time since our opposition to this project began, we are pleased to be using a few past-tense verbs in describing it. Houston-based NorthernStar Natural Gas announced on Tuesday that it is suspending work on the proposed LNG terminal at Bradwood Landing. That’s on the Oregon side of the river about 60 miles northwest of Vancouver and 20 miles east of Astoria. Although the company used the term “suspended” and not “terminated,” the decision is a victory for anyone who loves the beautiful Columbia River estuary.

Furthermore, NorthernStar’s retreat signals a triumph for people who believe the petroleum industry, although a valid part of our national energy policy, belongs elsewhere. We hasten to point out that recent highly publicized accidents — though tragic in terms of lives lost and environment threatened — are no cause for Americans to overreact and demand an immediate transformation of the oil industry. Yes, accidents such as the expanding spill from the offshore drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico, or last month’s fire at a Bellingham refinery that killed seven workers, must lead to intensive research and reform efforts. But, no more than a plane crash should cause instant abandonment of that form of travel, no rational person would insist that recent oil industry accidents must cause an immediate halt to that form of energy production. More realistically, the transition from fossil fuel production to the consumption of safe and renewable energy sources will take many years.

Still, those accidents add clarity to the call to keep the oil business from gaining a bigger foothold in the Pacific Northwest.

NorthernStar officials insisted all along that LNG transport is safe. They unveiled compelling statistics. They also pointed to their proposed $59 million Salmon Enhancement Initiative as a reason to support the riverfront terminal. But here’s a key question: If the Bradwood LNG terminal carried so little potential harm to the environment, why would a highly competitive company quickly and boldly offer $59 million to mitigate any environmental impact?

Speaking of economic issues, that could have been what drove NorthernStar’s decision to stop work at Bradwood, more so than any permitting complexities or the constant hassle of challenges from environmentalists. The Oregonian reported that an adviser to Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski said a private equity fund that put $100 million into the project had withdrawn from it. Also, NorthernStar might have felt competitive heat from other efforts to expedite movement of natural gas into this region, such as a proposed pipeline that would carry natural gas from domestic supplies east of here.

Whatever the reason, the Bradwood LNG project appears dead in the water … for now. Congratulations to U.S. Rep. Brian Baird, D-Vancouver, the Columbia Riverkeeper environmental activist group and others who led the large and effective opposition to what would have become the first LNG seaport terminal in the Northwest.