— from Janet Alderton —
Dear Councilors Hughes, Stephens, and Jarman,
I ask that you restore the ban on underwater oil pipelines and overwater-facilities for the refining of oil* to the draft SMP Update. I also ask that you include underwater natural gas pipelines and overwater-facilities for creating Liquefied Natural Gas in the ban.
The benefits to the residents of San Juan County from allowing such facilities and pipelines in our waters are zero. The risks are many.**
Since Governor Inslee appointed me to the Citizens’ Committee on Pipeline Safety, I have learned more about the risks that the proposed Island Connector Pipeline (Williams Steelhead Pipeline) and LNG facility would pose to the people who live in or visit our county and enjoy its marine waters.
The Citizens’ Committee on Pipeline Safety is unique in our nation. We work with representatives from pipeline companies to decrease deaths, injuries, and environmental impacts caused by malfunctions of pipelines carrying hazardous materials. The hazardous material pipelines in Washington State include oil and natural gas pipelines.
The head of the pipeline safety division of the Utilities and Transportation Commission and three staff members met with me to introduce me to the issues. This is serious stuff. Four staff took over four hours to orient one new member of the Citizens’ Committee on Pipeline Safety.
The Utilities and Transportation Commission investigates pipeline incidents in Washington State that involve death, injury requiring hospitalization, or damages of more than $50,000. During my orientation I was told about an incident involving a Liquefied Natural Gas facility explosion in 2014 at Plymouth, WA near the Columbia River. The blast seriously burned one worker and injured four others. It forced an evacuation of 400 residents and agricultural workers within a two-mile radius of the facility.
The natural gas vapors in a nearby LNG storage tank could have exploded if they were mixed with the right amount of oxygen, atmosphere and an ignition source. That larger explosion would have killed anybody within a radius of up to three-quarters of a mile.
Larger LNG facilities, such as the one that would be served by the proposed Island Connector natural gas pipeline, would be potentially more dangerous. Ships carrying LNG would traverse Turn Point/Boundary Pass, judged the most dangerous commercial marine passage on the west coast of the United States. Image the effect on our economy if a whale-watching boat was destroyed by an LNG explosion.
*https://www.codepublishing.com/wa/sanjuancounty/html/sanjuancounty18/SanJuanCounty1850.html
Chapter 18.50
SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
18.50.250 Industrial development.
- General Regulations.
- The installation of underwater cross-sound oil pipelines and over-water facilities for the refining of oil shall be prohibited.
**From the news article below:
Jerry Havens, a chemical engineering professor at the University of Arkansas, helped develop the vapor dispersion models that federal regulators used until recently to evaluate hazards from the facilities. He suggested the events in Plymouth should be cautionary. The risk of a tank breach may be smaller at an LNG terminal, he said, but the marine terminals increase the risk of a spill onto water, which could make the vapor dispersion even wider.
“We’re still learning about the safety of all these ventures because we’re moving into a whole new area where we’re handling such large amounts of LNG,” Havens said. “We’re talking about so much energy and so much potential for a catastrophic event to occur. We should really think about whether we should allow these things to be built close to any population center.”
Havens was hired in 2005 to assess risks of putting an LNG import terminal in the Port of Long Beach, Calif. Based on his analysis of industry and scientific studies, he defined the hazard zone to the public as a minimum of a 3-mile radius from the facility.
**https://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2014/04/gas_explosion_at_lng_facility.html
Thank you so very much for this Janet! At the Town Hall in Eastsound when I voiced my distress that the proposed changes to the Shoreline Master Plan included allowing Natural Gas Pipelines and Oil Pipelines in our waters, I was told that some of the points I made were inaccurate and that The Friends of the San Juans had inaccurate information about this! This leads me to suspect that there is Big Money riding on the changes to the SMP that is hurriedly being jammed down the throats of the citizens!
The Battle over the Cherry Point Terminal is bad enough! This puts the cherry (no pun intended) on top!
Spirit Eagle
This is Outrageous! When was the county going to tell the public about this? After they passed the allowances for this in the new Shoreline Master Program? Outrageous!
Let me ask you Council members: are you prepared to be reviled by the entire county and beyond if this thing ever leaks?
How much money is the county being offered to quietly pass the green-light for this without informing the citizenry? Outrageous.
Why would we want this? Why would San Juan County want to take the risk??? Super Sleazy. And if you are all innocent in this, you better explain yourselves pretty fast.->
A lovely, pro-pipeline article, you can read below ->
https://powellriverdailynews.com/2015/09/04/natural-gas-pipeline-island-gas-connector-project/
And the general Public doesn’t even know about this, if it weren’t for efforts by Friends of the San Juans and Janet. I thought this was supposed to be a transparent process – if this weren’t so horrifying I would just laugh it off as a sick, twisted joke.
The only reason anyone would put us all ( human and other terrestrial and ocean life) in danger like this, is greed and big money.
Agree with Dom Verbano – explain yourselves, Council – not just to us, but to First Nations whose fishing rights are in these waters. Explain yourselves – to all of us who you put at risk.
Last time I was on the mainland, in Mount Vernon (Saturday, October 24th) the bus I was on was stopped for 15 minutes by a train mainly carrying tanker car after tanker car of LNG. There were well over 100 cars. I exclaimed to the bus driver about its immensity and how dangerous that is, and he said, “this is the 8th train like this I’ve seen today.”
What the ______ are we DOING to our planet? Our islands and our waters? Who gets the payoff while we take the hit?
another linked article about the LNG pipeline(s). Source: the Globe and Mail
https://tinyurl.com/zxhbxup
another article:https://www.cascadiaweekly.com/currents/study_projects_43_percent_increase_in_vessel_traffic
Current language reads: “prohibit the installation of underwater cross Sound oil pipelines and on-shore or over-water facilities for the refining of oil; these uses are inconsistent with the protection of the island ecosystems.”
The proposed language is: “prohibit on-shore or over-water facilities for the refining of oil.”
I read this as prohibiting refineries but no longer prohibiting transport, as shipping is different than refining. If this is not the intent, then the language should be clarified.
See for yourself at: Shoreline Master Program Goals and Policies: Comp Plan Section B Element 3 August 2015 #6 draft 3.2.B 5.
For clarity, the Island Gas Connector Project pipeline is not coming to Orcas Island. I doubt Orcas has the usage rates to financially justify a pipeline coming here. It is proposed to be laid from Bellingham to Vancouver Island, traveling through the waters of San Juan County.
Now, what incentive do we have for allowing this in our Counties’ waters? Practically none, except perhaps for some big pay-off to our County Government.
What are the dis-incentives? If this pipeline ever had a major leak it could destroy our local aquatic ecology, it could destroy property values in the San Juans, the tourism trade would suffer, and we would have a general deterioration of quality of life, living here.
Thus, why would we want such a thing?
To be good energy-policy Doobies??
It is time for us to get off this Pale Horse of fossil fuels anyway.
-Dom