Join me for a dance of victory on the grave of Palomar pipeline!
Let’s hope that Molalla city “leaders” are never again so disrespectful of rural neighbors as they were when they “negotiated” Palomar pipeline behind closed doors without notifying the rural community that was to be impacted. Many of us will never forgive the City of Molalla for its loathsome interface with Palomar in 2006/2007 and for the way Molalla blatantly tried to protect Kyllo Tree Farm from the pipeline by pushing it onto other landowners. (*see FERC submission directly below for an outrageous meeting where plannin’ Potter told LIES about “getting” 2,200 acres of land to urbanize and note that landowners were NEVER told of the origional, closer to the city route).
I’ll never forget “manager” Atkins and city councilors waving aerial photos of PRIVATE PROPERTY around at meetings, cackling about “push it further south”. PHEW!
Good riddance to bad rubbish Palomar – may all your investors go bankrupt just like the Bradwood Landing investors. Molalla deserves whatever bad karma comes its way for its collusion with the Palomar gas shills.
Lest we forget here are the FERC submission notes with plannin’ bozo Potter and Madison front and center telling public LIES to direct the pipeline placement WITHOUT TELLING THE RURAL COMMUNITY! Wasn’t it cute how Potter/Madison thought they knew what would be less “contentious”? Molalla created enough CONTENTION to last for a lifetime, just from the contents of the below meeting – Hey Potter, it is now 2010 and your LIES about getting land STILL HAVEN’T COME TRUE!:
December 5, 2006 City of Molalla Offices
ATTENDEES AND THEIR AFFILIATION:
Dean Madison, Public Works Director
Shane Potter, Planning Director
Joyce White, Assistant Public Works Director
Michael Burke, GTN
Patrick Conway, NRG
Kristi Aarsby-Kail, NRG
PREPARED BY: FILE CODE:
Patrick Conway GTN2006-125 task 2
Michael Burke began the meeting by distributing handouts (i.e., presentation slides, GTN
overview, Palomar Pipeline Project introduction). Mr. Burke then provided an overview
of TransCanada’s GTN system and the proposed Palomar Gas Transmission Project,
including discussion of the purpose, location and schedule of the proposed project,
current work objectives, the FERC certification process, the NEPA pre-filing process,
and the outline of other federal and state agency actions.
The following questions and issues were raised and discussed during the meeting.
• Urban Growth Boundary Expansion:
Mr. Madison and Mr. Potter commented that Molalla is currently revising its Urban
Growth Boundary (UGB) and will likely expand. Expansion to the west, referred to
as “priority for inclusion”, could cross the airstrip. They explained that the city has
not decided whether to pursue a 20 year plan or a 50 year plan and that the range of
UGB expansion is between 800 and 2,200 acres. A more definitive outline can be
expected by May of 2007, and potentially by March.
Mr. Madison and Mr. Potter suggested that the southern route would avoid the
revised UGB and would be less contentious than the original direct route to the
Molalla metering station.
• Other Stakeholders:
Mr. Madison advised that the Molalla CPO is a political NGO with no
PALOMAR PIPELINE PROJECT
PROJECT PLANNING MEEETING – CITY OF MOLALLA
December 5, 2006
Name Organization Phone Email Address
Dean Madison City of Molalla, Public
Shane Potter City of Molalla, Planning
Joyce White Assistant to Public Works
“Hello All –
Today the Palomar Pipeline Company submitted a letter to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission indicating that the pipeline in its entirety is on indefinite delay. The company cites the bankruptcy of Bradwood LNG as a primary factor in the suspension and states that they are investigating whether they can find “additional commercial underpinnings” for Palomar. The letter goes on to state that the company expects FERC to “resume” its permitting process upon additional information from the company to be submitted at the end of the year. The letter states that this later submission will include any necessary amendments to their current plan.
In other words, Palomar has no source to provide gas to its pipeline now that Bradwood is off the table, is in need of additional financial backing, plans to amend its application to make significant changes to its project, and is suspending its permitting and surveying. This comes hand in hand with the US Forest Service ceasing its processing of Palomar’s application through Mt. Hood.
This is a huge victory for us, and a huge blow to Palomar. We know that this project isn’t viable due to economic and ecological barriers that it cannot overcome, and we’ll continue to fight until there are no remaining applications for any of these LNG projects and pipelines.
This story is developing and we will provide additional information and opportunities to take action as they arise. For additional information please read our press release below.
Anti-LNG Community Organizer
PALOMAR PIPELINE ON INDEFINITE DELAY
Palomar suspends permitting; opponents declare victory on controversial LNG pipeline
Due to the Bradwood Landing bankruptcy and other mounting factors, Palomar Gas Transmission, LLC has placed its gas pipeline permit on indefinite delay. In a filing sent this afternoon to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), Palomar claimed to be continuing “to seek additional commercial underpinnings for the project.” However with other competing domestic pipeline proposals and insurmountable impact findings on endangered species, Palomar is clearly suspended.
For weeks now, affected landowners and environmental organizations have predicted Palomar’s demise. Bradwood LNG, one of the terminals on the Columbia, announced bankruptcy six weeks ago and the pipeline proposal seemingly has no gas supply. The US Forest Service recently listed the project “On Hold” a week after NorthernStar announced their bankruptcy. Despite Palomar’s claim, the Forest Service has told environmental groups that it has ceased all specialist support for the ongoing surveys for the Environmental Impact Statement.
“Palomar’s initial schedule had them cutting trees this summer,” says Bark Program Director, Amy Harwood. “Every day the pipeline hasn’t been constructed is another day of victory. There’s just too much stacked up against this project.”
Last week Bark and the Oregon Chapter of the Sierra Club joined with an impacted landowner to appeal the state leasing decision for the other proposed terminal on the Columbia River, Oregon LNG. The controversial leasing by the State of Oregon to Oregon LNG has left its proposal vulnerable. This poses another hit to Palomar’s ability to stay relevant in gas expansion for the Pacific Northwest.
“We need a cancellation,” says Paul Sansone, one of thousands of landowners impacted by pipeline development. “People’s lives have been put on hold because of these projects. To sit on the proposals for the next five years waiting for a gas supply is unethical.”
More information will be forthcoming.