Fact and Myth: The Truth About Palomar Gas Transmission
December 17, 2009
Since first introducing the Palomar Gas Transmission project to Oregon communities in 2006, Palomar has sought to engage in an open and honest dialogue regarding its proposal to build a pipeline to serve natural gas consumers in the Willamette Valley. Palomar believes that this dialogue is an important one and recognizes the significance of providing stakeholders with timely, truthful information.
To keep stakeholders better informed about the project, Palomar has prepared the following set of “Myth versus Fact” statements regarding the proposed pipeline.
If you have questions or concerns about Palomar or its positions, please drop us a line at info@palomargas.com or call Palomar’s voice mailbox at 866.220.0268.
| MYTH: | Palomar is a liquefied natural gas pipeline. |
| FACT: | Palomar would not be equipped to transport liquefied natural gas. It would transport only natural gas. |
| MYTH: | The primary purpose of Palomar is to deliver LNG-sourced gas to California. |
| FACT: | Palomar’s primary purpose would be to deliver natural gas east to west over the Cascade Range into the Willamette Valley. If an LNG terminal is built on the Columbia River, the natural gas from the terminal could be delivered by Palomar to the interstate pipeline grid after consumer demand for gas in Oregon was satisfied. |
| MYTH: | Oregon would be better served if state law prevented LNG-sourced gas from going to California. |
| FACT: | Building trade barriers between states would be bad public policy. Besides, if the state of Washington had such a law, Oregon would be totally deprived of natural gas since all of the natural gas serving Oregon travels through that state first. |
| MYTH: | LNG will raise the price of natural gas for Oregon consumers. It’s too expensive. |
| FACT: | If the price of LNG is higher than what’s available domestically, the LNG would not enter the market. And if the LNG is priced lower than the domestic market, Oregon consumers would save on their natural gas costs. Natural gas is a commodity, and having more sources of gas would benefit consumers. |
| MYTH: | Pipelines are extremely dangerous. |
| FACT: | National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and Office of Pipeline Safety statistics show that pipelines are the safest method of transporting large amounts of energy. |
| MYTH: | Pipelines destroy farms. |
| FACT: | Fifty years of experience and more than 300,000 miles of large-diameter pipeline in the U.S. indicate otherwise. Pipelines and farms are highly compatible. No farmers should be economically disadvantaged by Palomar’s presence. |
| MYTH: | Palomar will take private properties through eminent domain. |
| FACT: | Palomar’s partners have constructed thousands of miles of pipeline in North America and are proud of the relationships we have built with landowners. While a certificate from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) conveys the right of eminent domain, Palomar would exercise that right only as a last resort. Palomar is committed to dealing openly and fairly with landowners to reach mutual agreement without invoking eminent domain. |
| MYTH: | Pipeline easements lower property values. |
| FACT: | Multiple studies have concluded that pipeline easements do not reduce property values. Three studies on this subject are available online at www.palomargas.com. |
| MYTH: | Pipelines are bad for the environment. |
| FACT: | Palomar’s routing philosophy is simple: Avoid, minimize, and mitigate. Palomar will not be built until regulators are satisfied that it will have minimal impact on the environment. |
| MYTH: | Natural gas is a fossil fuel that contributes to climate change. |
| FACT: | According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, natural gas use generates 43 percent less greenhouse gas emissions than coal and 30 percent less than oil. When used in homes and businesses, natural gas retains about 90 percent of its useable energy from the point of production to the burner tip in the home. In contrast, only about 30 percent of the energy produced to satisfy the electricity needs of consumers is retained in the process of energy production, conversion, transmission and distribution. For these and other reasons, natural gas is considered a key resource in meeting emission-reduction goals in Oregon and across the nation. |
| MYTH: | Investment in Palomar diverts resources from investment in renewables, which is the direction Oregon needs to be heading. |
| FACT: | Palomar embraces renewable energy, but those sources alone can’t meet Oregon’s energy needs. Palomar would offer the opportunity for Oregon to reduce its current dependence on coal for 40% of its electricity and would serve as reliable backup to renewable-sourced energy. |
| MYTH: | Palomar would require a clearcut through Mount Hood National Forest. |
| FACT: | Palomar’s construction would not involve a clearcut. Rather, it would involve a linear, 120-foot easement during construction, which would be reduced to 50 feet once construction is completed. Throughout its length, Palomar would retain only a 23-foot permanent easement on which certain deep-rooted plants (trees, wine grapes, and certain kinds of berries) could not be planted. |
| MYTH: | Palomar would wipe out huge tracts of old growth on Mount Hood. |
| FACT: | Palomar would impact approximately 80 acres of isolated stands of the more than 345,000 acres of old growth timber the U.S. Forest Service estimates are in Mount Hood National Forest.1 |
| MYTH: | Palomar would ruin Oregon’s wine industry. |
| FACT: | During construction, Palomar’s preferred route would impact roughly three of the 11,000 acres of wine grapes in cultivation in Oregon. The permanent impact would be less than one acre. |
| MYTH: | NW Natural will pass the cost of building Palomar on to its customers. |
| FACT: | NW Natural investors – not ratepayers – would pay for Palomar. Half the cost would be borne by investors in TransCanada, NW Natural’s partner in the proposed project. |
| MYTH: | Palomar is unsafe because it would be built in earthquake-prone areas and crosses known landslides. |
| FACT: | Palomar’s preferred route and proposed construction techniques will minimize the potential for damage from either a seismic or landslide event. To the degree possible, Palomar’s proposed route avoids landslides. The earthquakes experienced in Oregon are not in shallow faults where they might pose a greater threat to buried pipelines. |
| MYTH: | Palomar won’t odorize its gas because it doesn’t want to pay for the odorant. Unodorized gas increases the danger to citizens. |
| FACT: | Interstate pipelines are not required to odorize their natural gas because odorant has not been determined to be an effective way to detect leaks in the open spaces pipelines traverse. Odorant is used in distribution pipelines that deliver natural gas to enclosed spaces like homes and buildings. Local gas companies add odorant where the gas enters their distribution systems. |
| MYTH: | Palomar is a foregone conclusion. FERC always grants certificates to applicants. |
| FACT: | FERC grants certificates only to applicants that demonstrate their projects would not impose significant impacts on habitat, wildlife, or people. Many applications have been withdrawn before FERC reached a certificate decision, and some do not proceed to construction even after certificates are granted. |
1 Some environmental groups question this estimate and suggest that the extent of old growth remaining in Mount Hood National Forest is more on the order of 170,000 acres.