No matter which route this proposed natural gas pipeline takes across Oregon it still remains a roundabout way to get natural gas to California since California refused to let pipelines be built on its shores and across its lands.  [For more details and a map of this proposed pipeline read the blog post dated March 24, 2008 titled "Proposed Natural Gas Pipeline Would Cut Across Half of Oregon"]

# # #

Alternate gas routes studied in Eastern Oregon
Associated Press – June 11, 2009
 
A gas pipeline company says it is considering two alternates to a route that would cross the Deschutes River at a stretch designated as wild and scenic.

Officials of the Warm Springs Indian Reservation asked Palomar Gas Transmission to consider alternatives to a crossing north of Maupin.

The company has proposed one alternative that would cut through Maupin and another, farther south, that would cross the reservation. It plans public hearings later in the month.

The alternates are at the eastern end of a 220-mile line that would run from an import terminal proposed near Astoria to an existing trunk line.

Palomar is a project of the gas utility NW Natural and TransCanada, a pipeline company based in Alberta.

Natural Gas: A Cleaner Option, But Still A Fossil Fuel
BY April Baer – OPB News – April 20, 2009

A Few Natural Gas Facts:>
> Contribution to current Oregon energy mix — 14%

> Cost per kwh currently — As with coal, there’s a lot of variation depending on the location of the plant, and what kind of plant we’re talking about. Most analyst calculate using  $0.06 to $0.11 per KWh, depending on whether the plant in question is baseload or only used during peak periods. As noted in the story, the numbers fluxuate widely. Best estimates come from the quarterly statements utilities furnish to their customers.

> Is this power source renewable? — No

> Is it intermittent or baseload power? — Baseload, although some plants are only used during peak periods.

One of the most pressing questions in today’s power market is how Oregon can be weaned off polluting fossil fuels, and onto the developing renewable sources.

As part of our on-going series on energy, The Switch, April Baer reports that dilemma is part of what’s driving the hottest commodity on Oregon’s energy market, natural gas.

I’m in Astoria with someone who’s lived there for twelve years — Laurie Caplan, on a day so cold and rainy, it’s almost snowing.

Laurie Caplan: “Can you see those islands out there? I believe that’s where they used to do fish seining with horses out there.”

From the base of the Astoria Column, Caplan can see the beachhead for new natural gas development in Oregon.

Laurie Caplan:  “If you look at the bridge over there, and go to the right. I believe where that first little bit of land is sticking out. I believe that would be King Road.”

That’s the area where NorthernStar Natural Gas hopes to build a liquefied natural gas terminal. Back in her snug house — gas heated, by the way — Caplan explains that she never expected to become an amateur energy marketwatcher. But she’s learning.

Laurie Caplan   “There’s two different kinds of gas lines, um, and I’m learning so much more stuff I didn’t ever know I’d want to know!”

For example, Caplan’s learned that there’s a great deal of interest in gas not just for heating houses like hers, but for electricity.

Starting in the late 70s, natural gas became one of the cheapest fossil fuels around–as cheap, and sometimes cheaper than coal. That’s what initially sparked energy companies’ interest in using it for power production.

Deregulation sweetened the deal, creating a wild and wooly open market. Then came a technological breakthrough.

Russell Gold covers energy markets for the Wall Street Journal.

Russell Gold:  “The bottom line is that we are seeing a lot more natural gas here in the United States than anyone thought was possible just a few years ago. Prior to the current recession there was just a lot of money floating around, and that money found its way to these natural gas companies. They tried out new ways to get gas out of really tight rocks, and they were incredibly successful.”

The price of natural gas has gone up in recent years, but its efficiency relative to coal has kept it relevant as a source of electricity. When it’s burnt, it releases about half the CO2 as coal. That said, gas is still a non-renewable fossil fuel.

Just outside Vancouver, Washington, Mick Shutt is showing me around a Clark Public Utilities gas-fired power plant.

Mick Shutt   “It’s not a real complicated piece of machinery. It essentially has a jet engine in it. It’s a slightly modified but same kind of engine you’d see on a jet airplane.”

Plants like this have a lot of benefits for utilities. Many people see natural gas as the best energy source to be the bridge between coal and renewable power.

As Shutt explains, they mesh well with renewable energy systems. If your solar and wind farm runs into bad weather and slows down or stops, you can always fall back on the steady stream of baseload power from a gas burning plant.

Mick Shutt  “They are easy to turn on and off. They’re pretty quick to build. Generally speaking—not quite as quick as wind. Wind projects you can put up pretty darn quick!”

You can put natural gas plants in places you couldn’t put a coal-burner. For one thing, they’re smaller—the size of a city block, instead of the size of a small town. And they cost less to build.

But to get low-cost natural gas from places like Indonesia, Russia and the Persian Gulf to West Coast power plants, you need terminals–like the ones proposed at the mouth of the Columbia. And while many in Clatsop County welcome the economic opportunity, others like Laurie Caplan are concerned about the environmental effect.

As the LNG battle on the coast suggest , the cost of natural gas is not as simple as paying to get it out of the ground. Global prices have been on a roller coaster ride over the past few years.

Robert McCullough   “Natural gas pricing, though low at the moment, doesn’t stay low very long!

Robert McCullough of Portland-based McCullough Research, is an energy consultant with clients all over North America.

Robert McCullough   “On a long-term basis, per unit of energy, we’re paying about 3.5 times as much for natural gas as coal. Obviously this constitutes a bit of a policy problem.”

McCullough says he understands why so many utilities are dashing toward gas right now. And he allows it may work as a supplement to renewable power sources.   But in the end, he predicts the same global market volatility that pushed natural gas to the top of the heap may also prevent it from becoming the dominant source for the Northwest.

Pipelines race out of the mountains; into yards

By Sandy Shore – AP Energy Writer – November 30, 2008
 
In the push toward more energy independence, massive infrastructure projects that will help to deliver it have clashed with cherished rights of land ownership.

Proven natural gas reserves have jumped 10 of the past 11 years, according to the Energy Department’s Energy Information Administration, and thousands of miles of new pipelines have snaked in every direction.

In just the past 10 years alone, more than 20,000 miles of new natural gas pipelines have been built and brought on line. Those pipelines can carry more than 97 billion cubic feet of natural gas every day.

The owners of property over which new pipelines are planned are concerned about leaks into water and soil, land damaged by construction, land lost to a right of way and, in some cases, even loss of livelihood.

Those concerns range from a Midwestern horse farm which stands to lose grazing land, to Betty Wahle’s family vineyard in Yamhill, Ore.

Her land is actually ground zero for not one, but two pipelines. The developers would dig up chunks of rich dirt and some vines that have been nurtured for more than three decades, she said.

Those vines, said Wahle, 68, would not be restored to their current state in her lifetime.

“It’s just going to be devastating,” she said.

The bulk of the new natural gas supply is in the energy-rich Rockies and Texas. Producers are sinking traditional oil and gas wells and drilling into coal-bed methane reserves in Wyoming, Colorado and Utah. In Texas, it’s the Barnett Shale, a 6,000-square-mile bedrock region of natural gas, and the Bossier Sands tight-gas formation.

Between 1998 and 2006, natural gas production in these two regions jumped 96 percent and proved natural gas reserves climbed 127 percent, government statistics show.

There are currently about 288,000 miles of gas pipelines with a capacity of 187 billion cubic feed per day.

From 2008 to 2010, about 200 projects have been proposed to add 10,100 more miles, according to the Energy Information Administration.

If all are finished, the nation’s natural gas capacity will jump by more than 38 percent, the EIA said, at an overall cost of about $28 billion.

But the massive expansion comes as energy use is decreasing, which could lead to its own bust and boom cycle on prices, said E. Russell Braziel, managing director of Bentek Energy, an energy markets information company based.

“With additional infrastructure construction being completed and new projects coming online over the next few years, we expect to see significant volatility in regional price differentials for a while to come,” he wrote.

The behemoth of the new pipelines is the $4 billion Rockies Express, a joint venture by Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, a unit of Sempra Energy and ConocoPhillips.

Construction of the 1,679-mile, 42-inch pipeline began two years ago about 160 miles northwest of Denver.

Buried under 3 to 5 feet of earth, the Rockies Express is expected to reach Clarion County, Ohio, by next summer.

The pipeline will have the capacity to move 1.8 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day, and will send it to markets east of the Mississippi River.

When the massive construction project worked its way through rural, sparsely populated areas there was little protest. That has changed as it approaches more urban areas in the Midwest.

Near Lancaster, Ohio, Scott McClelland said the Rockies Express will restrict access to cattle and put a kink his children’s plans to buy nearby property for another farm.

“It’ll never be the same I guarantee you,” he said.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has approved the plans, leaving McClelland resigned to the development.

“What am I going to do? I can’t sit out there and fight; I’ve got to make a living,” McClelland said.

Natural gas in the United States is plentiful, and so are its backers. They say natural gas will serve as a bridge until renewable energy technology can be developed more.

But as natural gas is shipped from West to East, the pipelines intersect with plans that people have made for their own livelihoods.

The Rockies Express will also likely cross farm where University of Dayton biology professor John Rowe and his wife, Robbie, planned to raise race horses.

The couple settled with developers on the advice of their attorney, but say it will take up to five years to rebuild pastures to grazing quality.

Rockies Express spokesman Allen Fore said they have worked with federal and state officials throughout the process and accommodated requests where they could. He said the natural gas is pressurized so it won’t leak into the ground and if there is some type of impact, the pipeline shuts down automatically.

“We have made literally hundreds of adjustments, minor adjustments, to deal with landowner concerns,” he said. “Most folks believe we give them a fair price. They understand the significance of this project.”

Some of the projects, while less likely to play a role in someone’s livelihood, can change the landscape for others.

Owners of summer homes in the Scare Canyon Ranch area are worried by El Paso Corp.’s proposed Ruby Pipeline in northeastern Utah, which would require a 150-foot wide swath of trees be cut down during construction.

Ray Gibbons, head of the canyon ranch homeowners association also said there are 22 underground springs that the association owns, which he said may be threatened by the 42-inch pipe.

“They’ve been pretty decent about trying to work with us but if they get FERC backing, then there will be no stopping it,” he said.

On a steep hillside in northwest Oregon, the Wahle family planted their first vines in the 1970s on a 100-acre plot.

Developers have proposed routes across the property for the 220-mile, 36-inch pipeline which would connect TransCanada’s system in central Oregon with NW Natural’s distribution system. It is pending federal authorization.

Oregon Pipeline Co., which said it always tries to work closely with landowners, has proposed a 117-mile pipeline that also could cross the vineyard.

“They won’t allow us to replant vines above the pipelines,” she said. “There’s very little that you could actually do with this piece of property.”

Is the enviromental damage worth the short-term profits to get natural gas to California markets?

# # #

Proposed Oregon natural gas pipeline would slice through public forest, rivers and streams
by Peter Zuckerman, The Oregonian – March 24, 2008

The latest maps of a natural gas line proposed for Oregon show a freeway-wide clear-cut slicing through 73 miles of public forest and the pressurized pipeline crossing about 50 rivers and named streams.

At peak construction, Palomar Gas Transmission plans to employ up to 1,000 workers to clear brush and trees along a 120-foot-wide path, level terrain and bury the pipe in a trench 7 feet deep, according to the latest draft of a report filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

Until now, environmental opposition to the Palomar project and a similar, competing proposal centered on concerns about possible pollution or spills from tankers crossing the Columbia River bar and transferring huge quantities of fuel at an estuary upstream from Astoria. New details about Palomar’s proposed route expand the debate to include communities throughout northwest Oregon.

In all, the pipeline would extend 210 miles, feeding into a natural gas network east of the Cascades. Work crews would cut through public and private land using backhoes, rock cutters, tractor-mounted mechanical rippers and blasting tools. Palomar officials say they would minimize environmental damage while providing Oregonians with jobs and a reliable source of energy.

Critics say the project would degrade wildlife and fish habitat, destabilize soil, kill endangered species, spread invasive weeds, destroy patches of old-growth trees and open public forest to all-terrain vehicles.

At low temperatures, natural gas liquefies.

Palomar would ship supercooled liquid natural gas imported on tankers from Russia, Indonesia, Australia and the Middle East to a terminal near Wauna, on the Columbia River. The fuel, warmed to a gas state, would flow through a high-pressure line, providing enough energy to supply thousands of West Coast homes and businesses.

Proponents say the Pacific Northwest must develop more energy sources and that natural gas is cleaner than coal. They estimate the project would pump $75 million into local economies each year and provide $8 million in annual taxes.

Regardless of whether the terminal is approved and constructed, Northwest Natural Gas Co., Oregon’s leading natural gas provider, proposes building the eastern section of Palomar to ship more fuel between central Oregon and the Willamette Valley.

Palomar officials acknowledge that pipeline construction would disturb land and water. But, as a company brochure puts it, “Palomar is committed to environmental protection throughout the course of construction and on into the operation and maintenance of the pipeline.”

Hydrologists, geotechs, biologists, geologists, archaeologists and other experts are helping Palomar find the best path for the line, officials said.

Crossing rivers

No matter what route is chosen across western Oregon, the Palomar pipeline must cross several rivers with important salmon habitat, including the Willamette, Clackamas, Molalla, Pudding and Deschutes.

In all, construction would require the use of 3,124 acres — an area about the size of Milwaukie — plus a yet-to-be-determined amount of temporary workspace, according to the project description Palomar submitted to the regulatory commission. Once operating, the pipe would require the use of much less land — about 1,300 acres.

Although construction crews would use a 120-foot-wide path in most areas, the pathway would narrow to 75 feet in wetlands. In steep terrain or at difficult crossings, workers would use additional terrain. Until they determine the final route, Palomar officials say they won’t know how many water crossings the pipeline would require or whether it would go above or below specific rivers and streams.

An analysis of Geographic Information System data conducted by Erik Fernandez, wilderness coordinator for Oregon Wild, which advocates for the protection of Oregon’s wilderness, found the proposed pipeline would cross 292 water bodies, many of them too small to have names.

An examination of less detailed maps by The Oregonian found the pipeline would cross about 50 named rivers, streams and creeks.

Environmental activists and some public officials said the crossings would dirty the water, spoil spawning habitats and sicken and kill threatened fish species.

In a letter to Gov. Ted Kulongoski and other public officials, the Clackamas County Soil and Water Conservation District said district residents have expressed “shock and disbelief” at the potential degradation of public property. “Recent landslides in Columbia County have heightened public awareness to the linkage between clear-cutting and landslides,” district manager Rick Gruen wrote.

Many environmentalists are alarmed, saying the pipeline amounts to a giveaway to pollution-intensive corporations.

“It’s taking public assets and turning them into private profits,” said Bill Barton, Native Forest Council field operations director. “We should stop this. If citizens don’t wake up, our resources will be gone.”

Instead of hooking Oregonians on natural gas, the state should promote renewable sources of energy, he and others said.

This month, Forest Grove became the first Oregon city to formally oppose the project, finding that it would jeopardize the ecological balance of the Columbia River, the natural resources along the pipeline route and the water supply of Forest Grove.

“Even if they do everything they can to protect the environment, this project will still have an adverse impact,” said Brenna Bell, staff attorney for Willamette Riverkeeper. “That raises the question: Do we need this project?”

Mitigating damage

Palomar officials say the project’s economic benefits more than outweigh environmental costs.

Once they determine the pipeline’s path, company officials say they will propose specific measures to minimize damage. Workers would probably replace topsoil, recreate the contours of the land, replant native tree seeds or seedlings, install erosion-control devices and possibly buy and donate land to offset any losses.

After construction, the forest could grow back in most places, except for a 23-foot path, according to Palomar project manager Henry Morse.

“The permanent, untimbered area is so narrow the canopy can almost completely cover it,” he said.

PALOMAR PROJECT TIMELINE

•Fall 2008: Application submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

•2009: Right-of-way acquisition begins; FERC issues preliminary environmental impact report, followed by public comment and final environmental assessment

•2010: If project is approved, removal of timber; pipeline construction

•2011: Pipeline would open late in the year.

Who’s behind it: The proposed Palomar Gas Transmission project is a partnership between TransCanada’s Gas Transmission Northwest and NW Natural. TransCanada owns more than 36,500 miles of natural gas pipelines in the Pacific Northwest and has operated in Oregon for 45 years. NW Natural is an independent utility that provides natural gas to about 640,000 homes and businesses in Oregon and southwest Washington.

Other proposals: The Palomar project is one of six proposals to increase Oregon natural gas supplies and one of two that includes a shipping terminal in the lower Columbia.

Sources: Palomar, NorthernStar Natural Gas, NW Natural, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission filings

Proposed New Central Oregon Gas Pipeline

Gas pipeline might lower rates – project could go through Jefferson County
By Chuck Chiang - The Bulletin – Published: August 10. 2007
[Also see map image of pipeline from Central Oregon to the Columbia River.]

A major natural gas pipeline that is proposed to branch from the northern reaches of Central Oregon has the potential to lower rates locally in the future, industry officials said Thursday.

The project, expected to cost roughly between $600 million to $700 million, is a joint venture between Portland-based Northwest Natural Gas Co. and the pipe’s builder TransCanada Corp. The preliminary 220-mile route goes through Wasco County north of Madras and through Maupin, although officials said the plan is in its “very early” stages and did not rule out going through Jefferson County.

Project manager Henry Morse said the pipeline will connect to a Northwest natural gas distribution center near Molalla in the Willamette Valley, then potentially connect to the mouth of the Columbia River where it would link with a proposed liquified natural gas terminal.

That LNG terminal could then convert the fuel to liquid form and distribute it throughout the Western United States, Morse said. The fuel’s liquid form is more compact than other forms, providing better value for utilities to redistribute the fuel throughout the state.

“If the pipeline connects to the liquid natural gas terminal, ultimately, what isn’t used up in the Oregon and Washington state markets could then be redistributed into the overall network,” he said. “It’ll provide a new source of gas for the entire state, because (the supply from the terminal) is available to everyone in the state.”

Morse added that the pipe would be at an undisclosed depth underground and would be safe.

“It’ll be buried like (most other) natural gas lines,” he said. “Most people don’t even know they’re there.”

Morse added that there may be some local jobs created for the project. He expects about 1,000 workers to build the pipeline during peak construction, and up to 40 percent of those workers may be from local regions like Jefferson and Wasco counties.

“The pipe is 36 inches in diameter and has a wall roughly half-an-inch thick,” he said. “Only a few places in North America make these pipes, and part of the construction process is very specialized. But there’ll be some general construction, and we’ll encourage subcontractors to hire (locally) for those workers.”

The project, which officials estimate will go though two years of approval processes from federal authorities and an additional year for land acquisition, is expected to generate $8 million in annual property taxes to be spread among the counties through which the pipeline passes.

Although Northwest Natural Gas Co. does not serve Central Oregon, the region’s chief natural gas provider — Seattle-based Cascade Natural Gas Corp. — said it could potentially use the pipeline to serve nearby communities in the future.

“We’re not one of the initial (participants in) the project,” said Larry Rosok, Cascade’s vice president of human resources. “However, whether we use it or not depends on the economy of the new pipeline versus other pipelines.”

Currently, Central Oregon is served by a single TransCanada pipeline stretching from the Canadian border through Oregon east of Bend before connecting with another line at Klamath Falls.

“Having more options for customers is always a good thing,” Rosok said. “So another pipeline doesn’t hurt us because it gives us more options as a supplier.”

Jon Stoltz, Cascade’s senior vice president of gas supply and regulatory affairs, keeps a keen eye on the Northwest’s natural gas network.

Stoltz said the real potential for the pipeline is its link to the LNG terminal at the mouth of the Columbia, where the fuel can be converted into liquid forms and then re-introduced in Oregon, providing competition for gas carried by the pipelines themselves.

“The terminal would distribute gas to not only Oregon, but the Northwest and down to Northern California,” he said. “With that route available, we’ll certainly look at bringing liquid natural gas to Central Oregon, and there is the potential for price relief.”

Northwest and TransCanada will hold a number of open houses in the next few months to inform residents and landowners and to garner input. One event is scheduled Aug. 20, between 5 and 8 p.m., at the Imperial River Co. in Maupin.

Chuck Chiang can be reached at 541-617-7859 or at cchiang@bendbulletin.com.