Lars Larson: Drill Wyden for Gas

Well, you’ve got to love that tag team of Oregon elected officials working to keep you in the cold, in the dark and without transportation.

Senator Ron Wyden has jumped into the ring to demand that the new Liquid Natural Gas importation facility be blocked. Remember that’s the fuel that heats 1/3 of Oregon homes and makes 1/3 our electric power. Wyden wants the federal government to let the state decide.

Sleepy Ted Kulongoski doesn’t want the plant even though natural gas prices have tripled in the last five years and face another big increase this fall. The LNG plan would bring in gas at less than half the current market cost.

You can’t have that! Kulongoski opposes drilling for oil, just like Senator Zig Zag Obama did until last week when he developed his new “tire pressure as a replacement for drilling” plan.

Inflating tires is a good idea. I check mine regularly and so do most Americans. But, that’s why the most optimistic projections say checking your pressure will save only about 90,000 barrels of oil a day.

“For more Lars click here”

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 09:00 | Posted in Measure 37 | 24 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Rupert in Springfield

    The sighting of the LNG plant makes something abundantly clear – these projects aren’t being marketed right. I would propose that projects of this nature are in need of a new paradigm. If you want this LNG plant, its real simple. Build one of those architecturally cutesy, but still a strip mall things in front of it. Site a Starbucks, a high priced Wine and Cheese shop, and some sort of store that sells outrageously expensive hiking gear. I guarantee you the “friends of the Earth” will be placated in a heartbeat.

  • Jerry

    Oregon will continue to have one of the worst economies in the US as long as these idiotic politicians continue messing in areas where they have no expertise or even common sense.

  • Anonymous

    The continued oppostion to the LGN plant in the face of every concevable concern fully addressed and funded by the private dollars is demonstrative of the left wing blind and irrational fanatasism.

    This has all the components that portray fully the phoney and excuse laden NO NO NO machine the democrats thrive on.

    Kulongoski and company could not be more wrongheaded, foolish and misdirected.

    It’s a stunning demonstration of ignorance and dishonesty.

  • dean

    What’s wrong with our state government deciding if Oregon should have a new energy facility that supposedly is planned to serve Oregonians? Why does Lars want the feds deciding what is best for Oregon? If you don’t like Kulongowski as the decider then elect someone else who supports LNG. Its that simple.

    Fact check. The accepted estimate for gas savings through proper tire inflation is 3.3% per vehicle, which is based on a federal estimate that Americans under inflate our tires by 26% on average.

    We burn about 14 billion barrels a day for transportation. If proper inflation saves 3.3%, that adds up to saving *400 million barrels* of oil each and every day. That is a lot of oil, a lot of money sent overseas, and a lot of carbon. If it is *only* 90 million barrels a day, that is still a lot of waste. Why not do that before we lease more of the ocean to oil companies, who already appear to have a full plate of unexplored and unused leases?

    Of course, buying cars that get 3% better mileage, or driving 3% less amounts to the same, or additional savings. Can conservatives get behind conservation? Dream on.

    Rupert…its not the proposed LNG site itself that is the only issue. It is the potential disruption to boating in its vicinity because of the exclusion zone, and the hundreds of miles of new pipelines that are causing so much consternation among conservative rural land owners as well as assorted liberals. THe pipelines reportedly include a 70 mile long, 200′ wide clearcut swath across Mt Hood National Forest. Big projects sometimes make strange bedfellows. Since Starbucks is closing stores, I doubt tacking one onto this project would make a difference.

    • Jerry

      That swath would make a great fire line. Sometimes you fail to see the good in anything.
      By the way, my tires are pumped up. Way up. I get great mileage. I am a proud man who proudly saves energy when he can, but wants more of it to ensure our economic well-being.
      The people blocking this project are simply clueless fools who only want to sound good for the environmentalists.

      • dean

        Jerry…a wide swath of fine fueld vegetation (grasses and brush) exposed to the sun and drying out is a fire waiting to happen, not a fire break. Where do you think the most fires happen? In brush, not in forests.

    • Rupert in Springfield

      My point is, you tack enough chi chi glitz onto something and the environmentalists will play patty cake with you any time. Starbucks being the ultimate example of excessive consumption. $4.00 cups of coffee and the wacko’s are their all day long. I build my house to big or drive the wrong car and the will rail against it. Seems they overlook a lot of things when it their nest being feathered is my point. Look at the UN and its recent conference on world hunger or the Bali road trip. Look at Al Gore.

      Trust me, you stick a Starbucks on this baby, and half your opposition, the “environmentalists”, disappears overnight.

    • Steve Plunk

      Dean, check your figures. The US uses about 21,000,000 barrels a day. That includes uses other than motor fuels.

      I still don’t understand why people get so provincial when it comes to energy infrastructure. The idea it must only serve Oregonians and not all Americans is childish.

      And yes, conservatives can get behind conservation. Many of us already have. New sources represent more than cheaper energy, they will create energy security.

  • Anonymous


    You have serious integrity problems.

    What’s wrong with our state government, Kulongoski, blocking the LGN energy facility is the extreme ignorance and dishonesty their oppostion consists of.
    The cooked up nature of the oppostion case is aposter child for your left wing fanatics’ methods.

    But you don’t address any of them now do you.

    No it’s back your stupid and useless lecture on air pressure instead.
    Another example of the loony left methods.

    It’s obvious you’re the typical Oregon progress who falls into line with every democrat push. The LGN terminal is the perfect example.

    Are you personally opposed to it dean?

    Or are you just the good democrat in standing with Kulongoski regardless of what’s best for Oregon?

    I doubt you even know what the LGN oppostion amounts to but your coolaid comes from the collective.

    • dean

      Anonymous yahoo person. I’m agnostic on L-N-G. I don’t know what L-G-N is. I’ve listened to both sides, and both present strong cases. The pipeline is more problematic for me than the terminal because the impacts to the land are much greater. And thanks for the bonus!

      Steve…yes, you are correct on total estimated oil use acording to the CIA Factbook. I was using 2/3 of that as the transportation portion, and then applying the potential 3.3% savings from tire pressure to that amount.

      I agree some conservatives are pro conservation. James Woolsley (sp?) for example drives a hybrid and is a big advocate for reducing oil demand through conservation. T Boone Pickens is also no liberal. I say welcome aboard. This should not be a left-right issue. And in fact when you look closely, the McCain and Obama positions are not that far apart. Both now support additional off shore drilling. Both oppose ANWR drilling (I’m in favor of drilling there). Both favor cap and trade on carbon. Both favor government tax incentives for alternative energy. Obama, in my view has the stronger overall program, but it is also the more expensive one.

      I don’t subscribe to our energy infrastructure as needing to only serve Oregonians. I was simply pointing out that this is what the proponents claim, that the gas is for Oregonians,not Californians, which is what the opponents suspect. If it is for Oregonians wholly or primarily, then it is appropriate for elected Oregon officials to make the decision, not for federal officials. If it is about interstate commerce, then federal officials are the right ones to decide.

      Rupert…my actual working world experience is that the way industry successfully gets environmentalists to drop opposition to projects is to put mitigation money on the table. In other words, let us build this and we will give you money to buy that habitat over there. I have been party to some of tehse negotiations. This approach works behind the scenes every day, yet goes unreported since both sides like to keep these settlements on the QT.

      • Steve Plunk

        I would contend this is an issue for the federal government to decide. LNG, like oil, is fungible in nature and therefore an interstate commodity even when it doesn’t cross state lines. You can’t have ignorant politicians like Kulongoski fouling up what is a national energy infrastructure.

        Your mention of T. Boone Pickens should be addressed. Pickens is a businessman looking to make a buck off the American taxpayer. His grand scheme of wind power will neither provide much power or provide energy security. The subsidies he is looking for would minimize his risk and subsidize his water plan for Texas. This is a ruse.

        I curious what you think of the idea of energy security? I’m also curious why private industry should pay extortion money to complete these projects? Isn’t that the job of government?

        • dean

          Steve…I agree Pickens is looking out for his own interests. If those interests coincide with America’s energy needs, then I have no problem with taking advantage of each other.

          If you don’t trust Kulongowski, why would you trust a federal politician or bureaucrat? That is the part I don’t understand. You would rather have a Senator from Rhode Island deciding what pipeline gets built in Oregon?

          I think the “idea” of energy security is great. But what is the solution? I think we are way over dpendent on oil, and since we do not have enough domestically we are dependent on oil from parts of the world that are problematic. I don’t feel comfortable knowing our economy can be held hostage by Venzuela and Iran. If Denmark, a quite prosperous nation with few natural resources can be free of Middle eastern oil, then we should be able to do the same. But it takes a re-thinking of how we power ourselves, particularly our transportation, and it will take leadership, public and private investment and a long term plan. We need some give and take on both sides of the aisle. This is too important to play political games with.

          Why should pivate industry pay what you call extortion money? Because it is private industry that is causing the impacts. If I have a private company that wants to build a utility corridor across the land, and I am going to profit from the energy that flows through it, then I have a responsibility to pay for mitigating the damage. Why would you want to put that mitigation cost on the taxpayer? in some cases, mitigation is required by governemnt, but in other cases they overlook the damage. That is when interests like affected property owners and environmental advocates step in and ask for more to be done as compensation. I see nothing at all wrong in this. Often the government fails to adhere to its own laws.

          THe first rule of conservation is: do we really need this? The second is putting it in the least damaging place. The third is compensating for the damage done. Its not extortion. Its internalizing the costs rather than externalizing them.

          • Steve Plunk

            Dean, Kulongoski has proven himself an example of the Peter Principle. I trust him less than the federal government because of his incompetence and politics. A single senator from any state must work within the competing interests present in the Senate which is only one of the legislative bodies. The executive branch would have a say as well so it’s more likely a good decision will be reached.

            Energy security will more likely come from expanding our own resources, new technology, and conservation. I’ve heard the lament about our oil for too many years to think we will emulate any European country. We’ve had our chance and not moved in that direction. There are others reasons for not acting like Europe. Population densities, traditions, even our productivity is linked to oil fuels. Denmark is not free from middle eastern oil, oil is a fungible worldwide commodity. All oil is pooled into a world market which doesn’t recognize origin. Denmark may be less oil dependent and I don’t begrudge them for that but we are not and will not be Denmark.

            Paying money to environmental organizations is more extortion than internalizing the externalities. The government already requires mitigation for impacts and the property owners are compensated. The environmentalists are suing threats of litigation to extort additional money they are not entitled to. Perhaps they learned from Jesse Jackson and his shakedown methods. The environmentalists have been overplaying their hand for years and it seems the American people are starting to see their bluff.

            People need to understand this LNG pipeline will serve all of America and is an important part of our security. It is being built with private money and will compensate those who are impacted. The Governor and Se. Wyden don’t get it and need to get educated about how things work.

          • dean

            Steve, with due respect Kulongowski, whether you trust him or not was elected by a majority of the people of Oregon. We did not elect Rhode Island Senators or federal bureaucrats. Sovereignty is easier to give away than to get back.

            If the proposed LNG pipeline is serving “all of America” then that is a federal issue. But the proponents do not make that claim. They say it is for Oregon…period. And lets not kid ourselves. The imported gas will be from the same nations who we are now importing our oil from. Its not a path to energy security. as for compensation, sure, they have to pay for a condemed easement. That is not necessarily much compensation for disrupting one’s farm or forest land.

            I’m personally agnostic on the outcome, but I think you have misread the project.

  • JessseO

    Ah, Lars — no longer a supporter of private property rights.

    Why should some Texas company be able to force a huge pipeline across my property just so Californians have gas? Either you believe in private property rights, or not.

  • Anonymous


    What a phony.
    You’ve “listened to both sides, and both present strong cases.”


    The opposition has made up one piece of nonsense after another all of which have been refuted.

    The impact on land from the pipeline has been embellished by the same kind of folks, like you, who have no integrity.

    Then there’s the typical stupid canard JesseO uses about “forcing a pipeline on his property just so Californians have gas”.
    The ignorance in that is laughable. The terminal on the Columbia and pipeline is “just for California”? Liberals are so naive and dumb.

    And for him to equate that to believing in private property rights?

    Again, stupid. So much so that explaining it to you would be futile.

  • JesseO

    Why then is Oregonians In Action, our state’s leading property rights group, opposed to LNG?

    Why should I be forced to let this pipeline through my land? If the federal government can team up with a private company to force this across my property, how is that NOT a violation of my property?

  • Anonymous


    No doubt OIA’s opposition is entirely about the use condemnation for private business.
    There is however a grey area with that specific infrastructure. A good argument can be made that the pipeline is similar to a needed road or other vital utility purpose.

    I suspect OIA would like to see the free market pay for land use without condemnation.

    Are you trying to avoid the actual LNG terminal debate?

    There is no rational case against it and OIA would likely be in total favor of that private veture and the boost to our energy crunch it would provide.

    • dean

      The thing is, they can’t build a pipeline across hundreds of miles without using eminent domain, so OIA is basically saying no to the pipeline, and without the pipeline the terminal makes no sense at all. You can’t have it both ways here. You can’t moan about environmentalists and liberals opposition and excuse the opposition of OIA to the very same project, simply because they may have a different rationale.

  • John in Oregon

    Facts are good things Dean. Checking them even better. That is, when they really are facts.

    Your “fact” that motor vehicles are 26% under inflated is at best inaccurately presented, at worst intentionally misleading, which, among other things, produces your bizarre calculations. The real question is why you don’t find it absurd to tell us that every tire of every motor vehicle is under inflated by around 8 pounds.

    But there is more. Now I do understand the evil “big rail”, “big truck”, and “big air”. Burlington Northern and Union Pacific carelessly under inflate steel wheels. United and Southwest thoughtlessly taxi from city to city on under inflated landing gear. Long haul truckers use dynamic wheel balancers to gain a percent, inject propane to gain another and then under inflate to throw it all away.

    Is what I just said about the evil “big rail”, “big truck”, and “big air” silly. Of course it is. But not one bit less silly than your assertion that tire inflation translates to a savings across the entire transportation sector.

    But then it appears you believe the reports that the “EIA estimates” OCS at only 200,000 barrels. Or

    That other reports of “Government Estimates” that the USA only has a few percent of recoverable oil. Or

    The claim it will take 7 to 10 years to get a drop from drilling.

    But I was surprised you threw in the old bankrupt Democrat talking point of Earl Blumenauer. 68 million acres – click, 68 million acres – click, 68 million acres – click, 68 million acres – click. Unused leases – click, unused leases – click, unused leases – click, unused leases – click, unused leases – click, unused leases – click.

    Of course the oil companies don’t drill when they find a lease has no oil. But then most congress critters seem to believe they have power to repeal or amend the Newton’s law of gravity. Reality plays no part in the thought process, only political party goals count.

    Sooo why should they hesitate to bring out the horde and block policy of Donkey. Drill Only KNown Empty Yield.

    • dean

      John….real men send out the drill rigs. Wussies check their tire perssure. 26% is not “my fact.” Its an estimate of average tire under inflation by DOE.

      The EIA estimates are the ones just about everyone cites as the authority on how much oil may or may not be off shore and how much might be expected to come on line over what time period, and what effect this may have on prices. You have a better source?

      If the leases the companies already have have all been explored and found wanting, then the oil companies will give these back to us right? Why would they want to hang onto them? No oil there.

    • John in Oregon

      Dean you said > *”26% is not “my fact.” Its an estimate of average tire under inflation by DOE.”*

      You said this to defend your earlier statement of *”a federal estimate that Americans under inflate our tires by 26% on average.”*

      Your assertions are false on two fronts. First, this is NOT what the DOE said. Second, what you presented is not a fact.

      The REAL FACT is this. _Experts estimate that 26% of automobiles are running on tires with lower than recommended pressure._

      Your FALSE FACT produces a calculated savings at least _four times larger than real._

      But the deception didn’t stop there. After calculating a tire inflation savings this false “savings” is now multiplied into Rail, Air, Mass Transit, Ocean Freighter and River Barge transport. The results are now something like an order of magnitude in error.

      But don’t despair, you are in good company. Obama’s staff and Michael Grunwald of Time Magazine, along withother legacy media made the same “mistake”.

      Although I am forced to wonder which is worse. The thought that Obama’s staff and Grunwald are incompetent to do a simple arithmetic calculation or the possibility that this “error” is an intentional deception?

      Lets continue. After establishing this falsely exaggerated savings benchmark Grunwald now parrots this talking point

      — “The Bush Administration estimates that expanded offshore drilling could
      — increase oil production by 200,000 bbl. per day by 2030.”

      One has to wonder why the production seems so low, less than, one percent of the OCS’s 18 billion barrels. And why the 2030 date? Sooo lets examine the EIA report “Annual Energy Outlook 2007 with Projections to 2030”.

      Is there something in the report that Grunwald hides from us? My oh my, YES there is.

      The report projects 200,000 based on a set of assumptions used by the EIA in creating its forecast. The forecast was not based on the amount of oil that the OCS actually contains, its based on assumptions about the price of oil in 2030.

      The obvious question, for anyone with the most rudimentary ability to do arithmetic calculations is, what is the reference prices EIA used?

      Well…. The EIA, early in 2007, assumed that oil prices would decline from their 2006 peak; that in 2008, the price of crude oil would be around $60 a barrel; that it would decline until around 2013 and then gradually increase to a little under $60 a barrel by 2030.

      The EIA report makes it clear that a price higher than $60 will result in sharply increased production. A higher price like, oh I don’t know, lets say like the $120 per barrel we see today.

      Ask your self this, why does Grunwald hide this information from us?

      BUT there is another more interesting bit of information about this report.

      Lets step through that starting with the term “Oil Reserves”. Oil in the ground is not counted toward “reserves” unless it is
      1] Evaluated as profitably recoverable under current economic conditions, and
      2] Accessible under current regulatory schemes.

      Since the Democrats have blocked it from development, our oil shale and OCS is only oil in the ground and NOT a reserve. Keep this in mind when you hear the false claim that the United States only has 3% of the world’s petroleum reserves, therefore it is hopeless to try to develop our own.

      Now back to the EIA report “Annual Energy Outlook 2007 with Projections to 2030”. The report was done because back in 2006 Congress directed the EIA to study and report the actual OCS oil in the ground, INCLUDING the oil blocked by Congressional action.

      The study was released after Barack Obama’s bill to block the release of the report failed to pass Congress. Interesting.

      It would seem that in support of the Democrat horde and block oil policy there is an indifference to what is true and what is false.

      One side note and new announcement. Royal Dutch Shell has just acknowledged a large scale project to extract oil from oil shale. The goal of the project is energy self-sufficiency. The plan is to provide the country of *Jordan* with oil for the coming 700 years and to export oil in the future.

      Sorry Colorado your oil in the ground is in the Horde and Block lock box…

  • Scottiebill

    Because Teddy the Useless and Wyden and all the others who oppose off-shore drilling, the LNG terminal, ANWAR drilling, and most everything else that might help the people of the country, one has to wonder whose pockets they are in to be so adamantly against drilling, LNG, etc.

  • JessseO

    Fact is that the LNG terminal won’t be mostly for Oregon consumers.

    Fact is that the LNG terminal will impose upon private property for private benefit.

    Fact is that the LNG terminal will be hugely profitable for a Texas energy company.

    Fact is that the LNG terminal will bring terrorist targets within striking distance of our cities.

    Fact is that LNG is not needed, as we have plenty of AMERICAN gas.

    Fact is that LNG increases our dependence on foreign fossil fuels.

    I don’t understand how people who are for offshore oil drilling don’t want domestic natural gas, and instead want LNG.

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)