LONGVIEW, Wash. (AP) — A coalition of about 25 national and international unions wants Washington state officials to approve plans for a $2 billion methanol refinery in Kalama, Washington.

In a letter to Gov. Jay Inslee, North America’s Building Trades Unions wrote: “As you know, we have worked diligently to identify and support ‘blue/green’ projects that create family wage union jobs and also help fight climate change.”

“We believe the (Northwest Innovation Works) project represents one of these opportunities.”

The letter was sent a few days ahead of a federal District Court ruling that vacated federal permits for the plant and sent the plans back to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for another environmental review, the Columbian reported.

Conservation organizations, including Columbia Riverkeeper, have staunchly opposed the plant since it was first proposed in 2014. Those groups have filed multiple lawsuits against the plant, including a case that led to the federal court decision last week.

In a prepared statement issued after the ruling, a Center for Biological Diversity senior attorney said the groups were “relieved the court rejected the permits for the project, but rather than send it back to the drawing board, state and federal leaders should pull the plug now.”

The NABTU letter said that it was writing on “behalf of the nearly 80,000 members of the Washington State Building and Construction Trades Council, the broader labor community, and their families.”

Northwest Innovation Works wants to build a $2 billion methanol plant on leased land at the Port of Kalama. Company officials say the facility would employ 200 people to convert natural gas into methanol for use in plastic manufacturing in China.

A recent draft environmental study completed by the state Department of Ecology suggested that the plant would increase global greenhouse gas emissions, but likely at a lesser rate than if the plant is not built and market demands for methanol are met by other sources.

The post Union coalition urges state to approve methanol plant appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

By SARAH ZIMMERMAN
Associated Press

SALEM, Ore. (AP) — Oregon state lawmakers on Tuesday overwhelmingly approved a permanent offshore oil drilling ban as the Trump administration forges ahead with a plan that could open up the Pacific coast for petroleum exploration and extraction.

The House voted 47-8 to prohibit drilling and exploration in the state’s marine waters, extending a temporary 10-year ban that was set to expire next year. The measure already passed the Senate and will be sent next to Gov. Kate Brown. Brown, a Democrat, has previously spoken out against offshore oil drilling and has pushed for strong climate protections in the state.

“For generations, Oregonians have defended the environment,” said Sen. Arnie Roblan, a Democrat who sponsored the initiative, in a statement. “Any oil drilling off the Oregon Coast could destroy the things we love in the state of Oregon — our pristine public beaches, and the local industries like fishing and tourism that drive our coastal economy.”

U.S. states can ban drilling up to 3 miles offshore but the bill seeks to limit drilling in federal waters farther out by prohibiting state agencies from assisting with offshore oil extraction. Brown previously enacted an executive order banning that activity.

The move comes as the federal government finalizes a plan to open up nearly all federal waters for oil exploration and drilling. An initial draft released in October identified dozes of potential oil leasing sites off the Pacific coast, including one off the coast of Oregon and Washington state.

California, Delaware, Florida, Maryland and New Jersey have bans similar to the Oregon legislation, according to Oceana, an ocean conservation advocacy group. At least eight other coastal states are considering similar prohibitions.

The U.S. Department of the Interior plans to release an update to its offshore drilling proposal in the coming weeks, and it could remove previously identified areas of sale.

The oil industry has not identified much commercial potential for oil and gas in the coastal waters near Oregon and Washington. The Western States Petroleum Association, which represents oil interests in the West, has said there is currently “no oil production or refinement in Oregon, on or offshore.”

But Oregon lawmakers say an offshore drilling ban would protect the state’s $2.5 billion coastal economy.

“The potential and irreversible effects of oil pollution on marine ecosystems and maritime economies do not warrant the questionable, short-term benefits that might be gained from offshore oil and gas exploration,” said Rep. David Gomberg, a Democrat who sponsored the bill in the House.

The post Permanent offshore oil drilling ban OK’d by Oregon lawmakers appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

According to a , gasoline consumption in Oregon and Washington has been “essentially flat” since 1999, though there have been some small yearly variations.

In the study, Sightline Programs Director Clark Williams-Derry forecasts that gasoline consumption will remain stable or decline for the foreseeable future, an issue of concern because gas taxes are a main source of funding for transportation infrastructure.

“Gas tax money is critical to the ability of the state to maintain the highway system,” said Oregon Department of Transportation spokesman Don Hamilton. “As it drops, it reduces the ability of ODOT and local governments to do the work that’s needed to maintain the system.”

Hamilton said that while a decline in gasoline consumption does indicate that fewer people are using the roads and thus wear and tear is declining, that decline in work does not even out with the negative effects of a loss of gas tax revenue.

“We want to do what we can to maintain a safe and effective roads system, and how we do that is through the gas tax,” Hamilton said.

The study, titled “Peak Gas?” and authored Williams-Derry, states that per-capita gasoline consumption has been declining since 1989.

“Today’s shaky economy is only part of the story, since gas consumption fell flat long before the recession began,” said Williams-Derry in a statement. “It’s a trend that has crossed economic booms and busts alike.”

The post Decline in gas consumption puts road funding in question appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

A fight is brewing this summer against a proposed pipeline that would carry oil from Alberta, Canada tar sands down to the Gulf Coast in Texas for processing.

President Obama will decide this fall if he wants to approve the 1,700 mile-long Keystone XL pipeline.

, Bill McKibben and L.D. Gussin make a plea for the 2.7 million people working in the clean economy to join the protest. They call out to people working in wind, solar and biofuel; in smart power grids; in green building; in electric vehicles.

McKibben and Gussin cite the oil industry’s past slights against the clean economy, hoping to motivate people working in the industries to fight back this time. They ask you to remember when fossil energy interests stonewalled the “Cash for Caulkers” bill, fought renewables, fought offshore wind and blocked the 2009 energy bill, leading to layoffs and reduced investments in the clean economy.

The American Petroleum Institute, the only national trade association representing the oil and natural gas industries, says the Keystone XL pipeline could alone support close to and would boost the GDP by close to $210 billion.

But when you talk about destruction of this magnitude, McKibben and Gussin envision a bleak future despite the immediate boost in construction jobs:

Once the big investments are made and the junk has its market, well, fait accompli. The price at the pump is kept low, for another half-decade, anyway, and then forget about investments in electric cars, or in infrastructure to power transportation with renewable energy.

And so they have issued their most urgent calls to arms to the power utilities and high tech industries, hoping that the vast amounts of money coming from the Koch brothers and other fossil fuel lobbies won’t win out.

A bunch of prominent scientists have also come out in protest of the pipeline – they sent on Wednesday:

When other huge oil fields or coal mines were opened in the past, we knew much less about the damage that the carbon they contained would do to the Earth’s climate system and to its oceans. Now that we do know, it’s imperative that we move quickly to alternate forms of energy—and that we leave the tar sands in the ground.

In what McKibben and Gussin call the broadest act of civil disobedience in the history of climate action, will be held at the White House Aug. 20 to  Sept. 3.

You can follow the #tarsands hashtag on Twitter to see more debate from both sides of the issue.

The post Clean economy doesn’t want no stinkin’ cross-country pipeline appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

You may remember seeing produced by Exxon Mobil in which calm, collected oil professionals with fancy titles wistfully paint a future picture of guaranteed energy security thanks to innovative technology. Yet it seems that the in the world (Exxon Mobil made $30.5 billion in profit in 2010) can’t figure out how to pour concrete over pipeline. I’m pretty sure the ancient Romans invented concrete thousands of years ago.

The L.A Times today that the Exxon Mobil pipeline rupture that spilled 42,000 gallons of oil into the Yellowstone River near oil-refinery town Laurel, Mont., has spread 15 miles from the initial leak—5 miles farther than Exxon initially announced. Some claim it has gone as far as 150 miles. Though no official reason for the leak has been released, officials speculate that higher than normal water levels may have scoured the pipe. The New York Times yesterday that the pipe was buried six to 13 feet below the river bank in 1991.

First off, why can’t Exxon Mobil, with its 3D imaging technology, determine the precise location of the pipe. “Six to 13 feet” is a big gap. Second, with all of that technology, why can’t it predict river flow dynamics and how those changing dynamics may compromise the pipeline? If it can conjure up the black magic to find deepwater oil reserves, it can poke around a river in Montana.

See some oily news video .

– Peter Beland

Photo by via Flickr

The post Oil spill in Montana grows, as does doubt in Exxon Mobil’s technology appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

Developers of a planned in California have received a $308 million federal grant. The only problem is the co-owner of the project is none under than BP, the oil company responsible for the largest marine oil spill in history. And about $175 million of that money comes from the federal stimulus program.

This has as to whether the federal government should be signing a check to a company that has caused $23 billion worth of damage to the Gulf Coast’s economy.

The is a joint venture between BP and Rio Tinto, a mining company. Instead of running off natural gas, the facility would use hydrogen to run its turbine electrical generators. Any carbon emissions that result from the facility’s operation will be captured and sequestered by storing the CO2 deep underground.

The technology the facility would use sounds promising, but it’s hard to get around the fact that this company is getting federal dollars after a giant mistake like the oil spill in the gulf.

The post BP snags stimulus money for project appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

Developers of a planned in California have received a $308 million federal grant. The only problem is the co-owner of the project is none under than BP, the oil company responsible for the largest marine oil spill in history. And about $175 million of that money comes from the federal stimulus program.

This has as to whether the federal government should be signing a check to a company that has caused $23 billion worth of damage to the Gulf Coast’s economy.

The is a joint venture between BP and Rio Tinto, a mining company. Instead of running off natural gas, the facility would use hydrogen to run its turbine electrical generators. Any carbon emissions that result from the facility’s operation will be captured and sequestered by storing the CO2 deep underground.

The technology the facility would use sounds promising, but it’s hard to get around the fact that this company is getting federal dollars after a giant mistake like the oil spill in the gulf.

The post BP snags stimulus money for project appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

In the wake of the BP oil disaster, legislators and even the President are backing off on plans for offshore drilling.

Oregon has maintained a strict no-drill policy along its coast. But in other places, like the Gulf of Mexico, offshore drilling is a way of life. And unfortunately, its a way of life we’ll need for while longer.

So what would happen if all offshore drilling ceased? Well, according to two professors/bloggers from the blog,, we would be up the proverbial creek when it comes to energy.

While our country’s consumption of oil has been steadily rising, production from U.S. oil fields has been steadily declining, causing increasing dependence on foreign oil imports. Though total U.S. oil production continues to fall, offshore oil drilling production has increased, saving the country from an even deeper decline in oil production. If we ceased offshore drilling, it can be assumed we would run out of oil fairly quickly.

Is there enough production of wind, solar, biomass, natural gas, ‘clean coal’ and other sources to replace America’s 350 million-barrel-a-day habit today? My gut tells me, not yet.

The post Could we stop offshore drilling? appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

In the wake of the BP oil disaster, legislators and even the President are backing off on plans for offshore drilling.

Oregon has maintained a strict no-drill policy along its coast. But in other places, like the Gulf of Mexico, offshore drilling is a way of life. And unfortunately, its a way of life we’ll need for while longer.

So what would happen if all offshore drilling ceased? Well, according to two professors/bloggers from the blog,, we would be up the proverbial creek when it comes to energy.

While our country’s consumption of oil has been steadily rising, production from U.S. oil fields has been steadily declining, causing increasing dependence on foreign oil imports. Though total U.S. oil production continues to fall, offshore oil drilling production has increased, saving the country from an even deeper decline in oil production. If we ceased offshore drilling, it can be assumed we would run out of oil fairly quickly.

Is there enough production of wind, solar, biomass, natural gas, ‘clean coal’ and other sources to replace America’s 350 million-barrel-a-day habit today? My gut tells me, not yet.

The post Could we stop offshore drilling? appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.