WHY Has Our Rep. Brad Witt supported the siting of LNG on the Lower Columbia?
And what is State Senator Betsy Johnson's opinion on this issue? Besides straddling the fence.
For those of you that have not read the editorial of the Oregonian, and those of you that are skeptical of the information offered by people such as myself who are adamantly opposed to LNG on the Lower Columbia or any where else in Oregon. Please read the editorial below. Although there are many more detrimental problems/impacts associated with LNG facilities, I cannot understand why Rep Brad Witt came out in support of LNG before the process even began. Witt personally told me that he knew all there was to know about LNG, even though he had never read the testimony given to Congress by professor Jerry Havens, an utmost authority on LNG, or Richard Clarke the X anti terrorism Czar of the United States of America.
Then you have Betsy Johnson whom will not publicity take sides on way or the other on this issue. But it is known that she has had many meetings with Northern Star LNG (Bradwood).
In my opinion LNG is about a "Gold Rush" for profit seekers, another corporation that comes into small towns promises the moon, and receives tax breaks up the kazoo and passes many other costs to the middle and poor families all in the name of capitalism and greedy profits. If nothing else, the loss of the usage of the Columbia River should be enough for people to speak out against this highly dangerous/ terrorist target industry.
I
Go to the FERC site and read all about the Bradwood proposal and FERC's findings even though the findings is huge you will learn a lot and will be surprised just how dangerous LNG really is information that is not told to the public, even though it is public record.

Sunday Oregonian: editorials
LNG projects invite skepticism
As industry and federal officials move to site terminals
for liquefied natural gas in Oregon, serious questions arise
Sunday, August 26, 2007
Troubling questions surround the safety and global environmental impact of producing, shipping and storing liquefied natural gas, known as LNG.
If this weren't the case, it would be easier to accept the profound local impact of the big LNG terminals proposed for the lower Columbia River and Coos Bay. That's also true of the hundreds of miles of pipeline required to distribute the fuel after it's shipped from overseas.
The impact of these projects on livability in communities such as Astoria, Coos Bay and North Bend would be major. The benefits, in contrast, appear minor: a few dozen jobs and the promise -- not a guarantee -- of lower natural gas rates.
The primary beneficiaries of these projects appear to be energy firms and their largest industrial customers. Nothing is inherently wrong with that, if the Bush administration's big push to triple the number of LNG terminals is really sound policy.
A growing chorus of critics contend it's not only poor energy policy but also questionable on home security and environmental grounds. Yet on the global energy market, LNG has become the new prize as industrialized nations rush to tap the natural gas resources of such Third World nations as Algeria, Indonesia and Trinidad and Tobago.
About 20 receiving terminal proposals are in the works in this nation, but only four have been built, in Maryland, Georgia, Louisiana and Massachusetts. Opponents in California have so far blocked four projects, and no proposals are on the books in Washington state, where opponents last year beat back a terminal planned for Puget Sound.
Today, the industry's best prospects for the first West Coast LNG terminal now appear to be at Long Beach, Calif., and at Bradwood on the Oregon side of the Columbia, about 25 miles from the mouth of the river.
Dire warnings about environmental harm to the Columbia aren't nearly as persuasive as concerns about the global atmospheric impact of LNG. After it's gasified, it burns about as cleanly as domestic natural gas, but tremendous amounts of carbon dioxide are released in the production, storage and overseas transport of LNG on diesel-powered supertankers.
Then there are the safety concerns. In his book "Against All Enemies," Richard Clarke, America's former top counter terrorism official, identified LNG tankers and terminals as prime terrorist targets. He and other experts warn that each ship, holding as much energy as a nuclear weapon, could produce a fire three miles wide, or worse.
As one of these tankers sails past Astoria, what's to protect it from a light plane filled with high explosives? Coast Guard helicopters, we're told. It's easy to understand why an increasingly vocal group of Clatsop County opponents aren't comfortable with such assurances.
Final say on these projects rests not with states but with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Oregon and Washington state congressional delegations must make sure Northwest residents on both sides of the Columbia don't get steamrollered in the siting process.
Both delegations should also be challenging the idea of rushing to make the nation more dependent on foreign natural gas, right on the heels of an energy bill seeking to make America less dependent on foreign oil.