On March 28th, I and other members of Save Our Columbia River joined about 100 other activists protesting against LNG (Liquid Natural Gas), at the Liberty Theater, in Astoria, Oregon. Protesters from Columbia River Keepers drove up from the Coos Bay area, where they are fighting a huge LNG facility. Protesters from Puget Island, River Vision and people from the community also participated in the protest. I was especially pleased to see several young people involved in the protest, expressing their constitutional rights and seeing democracy in action. This country needs more people expressing their constitutional rights, before our rights are forgotten or taken away.



Dozens of protesters lined along side and across the street from the Liberty. Other protesters participated at the meeting inside the theater, where DOE (Dept. of Energy) held a generic presentation about LNG. The purpose was to address LNG concerns.  But the meeting WAS NOT INTENDED to ADDRESS CONCERNS about LNG on OUR COLUMBIA RIVER. They had four sessions with a 3-4-person panel ranging from the Coast Guard, Fire Dept from Boston, River Pilots, DOE, FERC, Economic Analysis Groups and other pro LNG facets.



All the information that was presented at the meeting was information that has been presented over and over; never once did any of the speakers mention RISKS, (Terrorists), associated with LNG tankers or terminals. They never mentioned the fact that there have not been any conclusive studies done to address several different scenarios of accidental LNG spills on water, relating to the dispersal, intense heat or distance, that would be relative to affected area's. Or the fact that if a spill did occur with in a populated area, while in route to the terminal or at the terminal there would not be ample time to evacuate the populous within the hazard zone. And that emergency personal could do absolutely nothing to help the people in the hot zone. In fact there was not one negative aspect of LNG mentioned.



DOE never mentioned Professor Jerry Havens concerns about siteing LNG inland, never mentioned X- United States Anti Terrorism Czar Richard Clarke's statements and concerns describing the lack of proper security-security risks associated with the industry. In my opinion the presentation was a waste of taxpayer money.



In order to enter the meeting you had to show a picture ID and wear a name tag.  I guess that any persons that wanted to listen to the presentation was considered a security risk, or was it because a majority of these people, who opposed LNG and the governments position and policy concerning LNG, were regarded as a threat?



These anti- LNG people are folks who refuse to be gullible enough to believe United States Governments explanation about LNG.  I believe that the government wanted to have a compiled list of the so-called troublemakers, the disobedient, the defiant, or any one who has the audacity to question the energy policy of the Bush administration.

Next Page