Kalama Manufacturing and Marine Export Facility Second Supplemental EIS

4777 Results

Sort:

Comment From: Alice Shapiro

10/06/20 @ 7:52 AM
Our future is at stake. I am an old woman. My own health is at risk, as is my husband's. And, more importantly, the health and well being of my precious family, young, middle-aged, and old, is at stake--as is the future for all species here and to...↓
Attachments:
Download
Download

Comment From: Alice Shapiro

10/06/20 @ 7:45 AM
No methanol refinery, please! We are rapidly depleting the purity of our air and water. Also, there are so many climate catastrophes currently happening--fires, unseasonably hot weather, hurricanes, tropical storms, poor air quality, and many more,...↓
Attachments:

Comment From: Howard Shapiro

10/06/20 @ 7:38 AM
NO Kalama Methanol Refinery because our important natural resource will be further polluted. Fracking gas is a danger to our climate, a pipeline across Washington will with ruin air and water resources and will exacerbate our climate catastrophe.
Attachments:

Comment From: Howard Shapiro

10/06/20 @ 7:32 AM
The methanol refinery must be stopped. NO Kalama Methanol Refinery, it is poison to the Columbia and the Pacific NW.

Attachments:

Comment From: Mark Keely

10/06/20 @ 7:22 AM
Port of Kalama's determination to marry the shell company NWIW to Washington State is a disastrous greenwashing disguise. This refinery proposal will never pan out for the people of Cowlitz County and POK knows it. They are just using this latest pro...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Diana Gordon

10/06/20 @ 7:15 AM
The amount of greenhouse gases that would be released every year from the proposed Kalama methanol refinery make it unacceptable in a year that has seen considerable climate chaos.

Here in the West, we have been plagued by our continuing drought. Dr...↓

We know most of the factors that cause climate change and we must act urgently to curb anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission. Methane is an efficient driver of climate change because it is quite good at trapping heat in the earth's atmosphere. In fact, it is about 84 times more effective at this than CO2.

We are faced with the sobering statistic that global methane concentrations rose from 722 parts per billion before the industrial era to 1866 ppb by 2019, the highest in 800,000 years. We also know that the Kalama methanol refinery will add at least 4.6 million tons of methane a year to that.

Unlike Vegas, what happens in Kalama will not stay in Kalama. Our methane will add yet more to the global total with the staggering results that we are already witnessing. The climate has warmed about 1 degree C and the effects are devastating now, in real time.

This project is rife with uncertainty. Will they actually use this methanol as olefins for plastic or repurpose it for fuel which produces even more GHG's? Will the Port use the refinery as an anchor project and require yet another pipeline to supply all its gas needs? Will they require so much of Washington's gas that other industries will be hampered? How many jobs will actually materialize from this destructive project - we know that most refineries require specialized job skills that few in Kalama will possess?
Will this project prevent the Port from developing a more sustainable economic plan with a variety of smaller businesses that will provide a more stable and less risky base?

I cannot see anything in this refinery that will truly benefit Washington. Please deny the Shoreline Permit and let us move on to a viable and more sustainable future.

No attachments

Comment From: Bonnie McKinlay

10/06/20 @ 6:51 AM
In 1899, Commissioner Charles H. Duell of the U.S. Patent Office stated that "everything that can be invented has been invented". It appears that after more than 12 decades laden with miraculous inventions, the Commissioner was incorrect. Also incorr...↓
We now experience, and await further, green energy alternatives to fossil fuels.
Dept of Ecology is well aware of current and continued climate realities. NWIW's promotion of methanol and the future viability of the Kalama Manufacturing & Marine Export Facility is inconsistent with the planet's climate condition and the positive direction of clean energy sources. I urge the Washington State Dept of Ecology to go beyond the faulty standard set by Commissioner Duell by denying NWIW's methanol misdirection.

No attachments

Comment From: Susan Haywood

10/06/20 @ 6:41 AM
The last thing we need in the Pacific Northwest is a project that will worsen the climate chaos, endanger the Columbia River, and harm a community. This project does all of these things.

This project will create air pollution in the extreme. The beaut...↓

Transporting these fossil fuel products is dangerous. Oil trains have exploded, once in the Columbia River Gorge, and the pipelines that carry LNG have leaked into our water supplies. Water is basic to life. Making plastic is not.

Industries and citizens in Washington will suffer if this refinery is built in Kalama. Other entities have made investments in the area, and their needs and wishes should come first. Short-term thinking is a not a solution for long-term well-being.

No attachments

Comment From: Leslie Spurling

10/06/20 @ 6:09 AM
Dear WA Department of Ecology,

As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for both the well-being of communities and the environment.

Inherent in this moral imperative is investing in a livable future that is safe for all to thrive. We are c...↓

Building the world's largest fracked gas-to-methanol plant in Washington does not align with my personal values of stewardship and justice, nor does it support our state's commitment to reducing climate pollution. Please reject Northwest Innovation Work's proposed methanol refinery in Kalama and deny its Shorelines Permit.

The second Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Kalama methanol refinery clearly shows that this project is dirty, dangerous, and unwise. If built, our state will be locked into decades of additional climate pollution, even though we know it is past time to pursue a truly low-carbon future. Speculating that this project may displace other fossil fuels is not adequate justification for the known pollution that will harm our communities and climate.

Northwest Innovation Works has demonstrated that they are deceptive and will seek profit over people's wellbeing. They cannot be trusted to mitigate the impacts of this fracked gas refinery. The fact that the project has needed three reviews, with outspoken community opposition during each, shows that there is something wrong with it at its core. As Governor Inslee stated, we cannot support such fracked gas projects in good conscience.

You have a moral responsibility to protect public health and reduce our region's climate pollution. Please do what is right and deny this project. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Leslie Spurling
1210 N 152nd St Shoreline, WA 98133-6209
lesliespurling@yahoo.com
No attachments

Comment From: Kristin Follmer

10/06/20 @ 5:35 AM
The proposed Kalama methanol plant is bad news. We must think bigger than just the Kalama community.

As we grapple with the impacts of climate change, with the entire state under hazardous amounts of smog for much of September, it is reckless to consi...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Anna Nelson

10/06/20 @ 5:10 AM
Dear WA Department of Ecology,

As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for both the well-being of communities and the environment.

Inherent in this moral imperative is investing in a livable future that is safe for all to thrive.

Building ...↓

The second Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Kalama methanol refinery clearly shows that this project is dirty, dangerous, and unwise. If built, our state will be locked into decades of additional climate pollution, even though we know it is past time to pursue a truly low-carbon future. Speculating that this project may displace other fossil fuels is not adequate justification for the known pollution that will harm our communities and climate.

Northwest Innovation Works has demonstrated that they are deceptive and will seek profit over people's wellbeing. They cannot be trusted to mitigate the impacts of this fracked gas refinery. The fact that the project has needed three reviews, with outspoken community opposition during each, shows that there is something wrong with it at its core. As Governor Inslee stated, we cannot support such fracked gas projects in good conscience.

You have a moral responsibility to protect public health and reduce our region's climate pollution. Please do what is right and deny this project. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Anna Nelson
12563 B Densmore Ave N Seattle, WA 98133-7730
anna.kristine.nelson@gmail.com
No attachments

Comment From: Amy Aspell

10/06/20 @ 5:08 AM
Dear WA Department of Ecology,

As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for both the well-being of communities and the environment.

God created a beautiful, perfectly balanced Earth home for us and it is our responsibility to preserve this...↓

Building the world's largest fracked gas-to-methanol plant in Washington does not align with my personal values of stewardship and justice, nor does it support our state's commitment to reducing climate pollution. Please reject Northwest Innovation Work's proposed methanol refinery in Kalama and deny its Shorelines Permit.

The second Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Kalama methanol refinery clearly shows that this project is dirty, dangerous, and unwise. If built, our state will be locked into decades of additional climate pollution, even though we know it is past time to pursue a truly low-carbon future. Speculating that this project may displace other fossil fuels is not adequate justification for the known pollution that will harm our communities and climate.

Northwest Innovation Works has demonstrated that they are deceptive and will seek profit over people's wellbeing. They cannot be trusted to mitigate the impacts of this fracked gas refinery. The fact that the project has needed three reviews, with outspoken community opposition during each, shows that there is something wrong with it at its core. As Governor Inslee stated, we cannot support such fracked gas projects in good conscience.

You have a moral responsibility to protect public health and reduce our region's climate pollution. Please do what is right and deny this project. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Rev. Amy Aspell
11469 Kallgren Rd NE Bainbridge Island, WA 98110-3320
aspella@comcast.net
No attachments

Comment From: Daniel Peterson

10/06/20 @ 5:07 AM
Dear WA Department of Ecology,

As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for both the well-being of communities and the environment.

Inherent in this moral imperative is investing in a livable future that is safe for all to thrive. I speak...↓

Please do not do this!

Building the world's largest fracked gas-to-methanol plant in Washington does not align with my personal values of stewardship and justice, nor does it support our state's commitment to reducing climate pollution. Please reject Northwest Innovation Work's proposed methanol refinery in Kalama and deny its Shorelines Permit.

The second Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Kalama methanol refinery clearly shows that this project is dirty, dangerous, and unwise. If built, our state will be locked into decades of additional climate pollution, even though we know it is past time to pursue a truly low-carbon future. Speculating that this project may displace other fossil fuels is not adequate justification for the known pollution that will harm our communities and climate.

Northwest Innovation Works has demonstrated that they are deceptive and will seek profit over people's wellbeing. They cannot be trusted to mitigate the impacts of this fracked gas refinery. The fact that the project has needed three reviews, with outspoken community opposition during each, shows that there is something wrong with it at its core. As Governor Inslee stated, we cannot support such fracked gas projects in good conscience.

You have a moral responsibility to protect public health and reduce our region's climate pollution. Please do what is right and deny this project. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Daniel Peterson
209 W Mcgraw St Seattle, WA 98119-2647
danpeterson40@hotmail.com
No attachments

Comment From: Marilyn Mayers

10/06/20 @ 3:35 AM
Dear WA Department of Ecology,

As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for both the well-being of communities and the environment.

Inherent in this moral imperative is investing in a livable future that is safe for all to thrive. We need...↓

The second Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Kalama methanol refinery clearly shows that this project is dirty, dangerous, and unwise. If built, our state will be locked into decades of additional climate pollution, even though we know it is past time to pursue a truly low-carbon future. Speculating that this project may displace other fossil fuels is not adequate justification for the known pollution that will harm our communities and climate.

NW Innovation Works is pushing for this despite widespread community opposition and the adverse environmental impact constructing this facility would cause. I urge you to reject any methanol refinery in Kalama or elsewhere in our state. Do no grant a Shorelines Permit for them to pursue this grossly immoral project. Thank you!

Building the world's largest fracked gas-to-methanol plant in Washington does not align with my personal values of stewardship and justice, nor does it support our state's commitment to reducing climate pollution. Please reject Northwest Innovation Work's proposed methanol refinery in Kalama and deny its Shorelines Permit.

The second Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Kalama methanol refinery clearly shows that this project is dirty, dangerous, and unwise. If built, our state will be locked into decades of additional climate pollution, even though we know it is past time to pursue a truly low-carbon future. Speculating that this project may displace other fossil fuels is not adequate justification for the known pollution that will harm our communities and climate.

Northwest Innovation Works has demonstrated that they are deceptive and will seek profit over people's wellbeing. They cannot be trusted to mitigate the impacts of this fracked gas refinery. The fact that the project has needed three reviews, with outspoken community opposition during each, shows that there is something wrong with it at its core. As Governor Inslee stated, we cannot support such fracked gas projects in good conscience.

You have a moral responsibility to protect public health and reduce our region's climate pollution. Please do what is right and deny this project. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Dr. Marilyn Mayers
1907 161st Ave NE Bellevue, WA 98008-2514
mayersmarilyn@gmail.com
No attachments

Comment From: Joelle Pretty

10/06/20 @ 3:33 AM
Dear WA Department of Ecology,

As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for both the well-being of communities and the environment.

Inherent in this moral imperative is investing in a livable future that is safe for all to thrive.

Building ...↓

The second Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Kalama methanol refinery clearly shows that this project is dirty, dangerous, and unwise. If built, our state will be locked into decades of additional climate pollution, even though we know it is past time to pursue a truly low-carbon future. Speculating that this project may displace other fossil fuels is not adequate justification for the known pollution that will harm our communities and climate.

Northwest Innovation Works has demonstrated that they are deceptive and will seek profit over people's wellbeing. They cannot be trusted to mitigate the impacts of this fracked gas refinery. The fact that the project has needed three reviews, with outspoken community opposition during each, shows that there is something wrong with it at its core. As Governor Inslee stated, we cannot support such fracked gas projects in good conscience.

You have a moral responsibility to protect public health and reduce our region's climate pollution. Please do what is right and deny this project. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Dr. Joelle Pretty
4621 51st Ave S Seattle, WA 98118-1465
joellepretty@gmail.com
No attachments

Comment From: Jenny England

10/06/20 @ 3:32 AM
Dear WA Department of Ecology,

As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for both the well-being of communities and the environment.

Inherent in this moral imperative is investing in a livable future that is safe for all to thrive.

Building ...↓

The second Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Kalama methanol refinery clearly shows that this project is dirty, dangerous, and unwise. If built, our state will be locked into decades of additional climate pollution, even though we know it is past time to pursue a truly low-carbon future. Speculating that this project may displace other fossil fuels is not adequate justification for the known pollution that will harm our communities and climate.

Northwest Innovation Works has demonstrated that they are deceptive and will seek profit over people's wellbeing. They cannot be trusted to mitigate the impacts of this fracked gas refinery. The fact that the project has needed three reviews, with outspoken community opposition during each, shows that there is something wrong with it at its core. As Governor Inslee stated, we cannot support such fracked gas projects in good conscience.

You have a moral responsibility to protect public health and reduce our region's climate pollution. Please do what is right and deny this project. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Mrs. Jenny england
4730 Lost Creek Ln Bellingham, WA 98229-2574
jennyengland77@gmail.com
No attachments

Comment From: Sharon Cox

10/06/20 @ 3:30 AM
Dear WA Department of Ecology,

As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for both the well-being of communities and the environment.

Inherent in this moral imperative is investing in a livable future that is safe for all to thrive.

in order ...↓

Building the world's largest fracked gas-to-methanol plant in Washington does not align with my personal values of stewardship and justice, nor does it support our state's commitment to reducing climate pollution. Please reject Northwest Innovation Work's proposed methanol refinery in Kalama and deny its Shorelines Permit.

The second Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Kalama methanol refinery clearly shows that this project is dirty, dangerous, and unwise. If built, our state will be locked into decades of additional climate pollution, even though we know it is past time to pursue a truly low-carbon future. Speculating that this project may displace other fossil fuels is not adequate justification for the known pollution that will harm our communities and climate.

Northwest Innovation Works has demonstrated that they are deceptive and will seek profit over people's wellbeing. They cannot be trusted to mitigate the impacts of this fracked gas refinery. The fact that the project has needed three reviews, with outspoken community opposition during each, shows that there is something wrong with it at its core. As Governor Inslee stated, we cannot support such fracked gas projects in good conscience.

You have a moral responsibility to protect public health and reduce our region's climate pollution. Please do what is right and deny this project. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Sharon Cox
638 Kirkland Way Apt 4 Kirkland, WA 98033-3953
cox.sharonm@gmail.com
No attachments

Comment From: L Detering

10/06/20 @ 3:26 AM
Dear WA Department of Ecology,

As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for both the well-being of communities and the environment.

Inherent in this moral imperative is investing in a livable future that is safe for all to thrive.
We do not...↓
We do not need to pollute our state to ship energy to other countries. Companies making a profit off of fracked gas are not paying the real cost to the earth the air & the water.
We DO NOT NEED IT or Want It!

Building the world's largest fracked gas-to-methanol plant in Washington does not align with my personal values of stewardship and justice, nor does it support our state's commitment to reducing climate pollution. Please reject Northwest Innovation Work's proposed methanol refinery in Kalama and deny its Shorelines Permit.

The second Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Kalama methanol refinery clearly shows that this project is dirty, dangerous, and unwise. If built, our state will be locked into decades of additional climate pollution, even though we know it is past time to pursue a truly low-carbon future. Speculating that this project may displace other fossil fuels is not adequate justification for the known pollution that will harm our communities and climate.

Northwest Innovation Works has demonstrated that they are deceptive and will seek profit over people's wellbeing. They cannot be trusted to mitigate the impacts of this fracked gas refinery. The fact that the project has needed three reviews, with outspoken community opposition during each, shows that there is something wrong with it at its core. As Governor Inslee stated, we cannot support such fracked gas projects in good conscience.

You have a moral responsibility to protect public health and reduce our region's climate pollution. Please do what is right and deny this project. Thank you.

Sincerely,
L. Detering
18201 NE 27th St Redmond, WA 98052-5946
ladetering@yahoo.com
No attachments

Comment From: Stevi Hamill

10/06/20 @ 3:25 AM
Dear WA Department of Ecology,

As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for both the well-being of communities and the environment.

The evidence against continuing and expanding our use of fossil fuels, especially when fracking is involved...↓

Building the world's largest fracked gas-to-methanol plant in Washington does not align with my personal values of stewardship and justice, nor does it support our state's commitment to reducing climate pollution. Please reject Northwest Innovation Work's proposed methanol refinery in Kalama and deny its Shorelines Permit.

The second Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Kalama methanol refinery clearly shows that this project is dirty, dangerous, and unwise. If built, our state will be locked into decades of additional climate pollution, even though we know it is past time to pursue a truly low-carbon future. Speculating that this project may displace other fossil fuels is not adequate justification for the known pollution that will harm our communities and climate.

Northwest Innovation Works has demonstrated that they are deceptive and will seek profit over people's wellbeing. They cannot be trusted to mitigate the impacts of this fracked gas refinery. The fact that the project has needed three reviews, with outspoken community opposition during each, shows that there is something wrong with it at its core. As Governor Inslee stated, we cannot support such fracked gas projects in good conscience.

You have a moral responsibility to protect public health and reduce our region's climate pollution. Please do what is right and deny this project. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Stevi Hamill
7549 30th Ave SW Seattle, WA 98126-3326
stevihamill@gmail.com
No attachments

Comment From: Julieann Palumbo

10/06/20 @ 3:23 AM
Dear WA Department of Ecology,

As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for both the well-being of communities and the environment.

Inherent in this moral imperative is investing in a livable future that is safe for all to thrive.

Building ...↓

The second Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Kalama methanol refinery clearly shows that this project is dirty, dangerous, and unwise. If built, our state will be locked into decades of additional climate pollution, even though we know it is past time to pursue a truly low-carbon future. Speculating that this project may displace other fossil fuels is not adequate justification for the known pollution that will harm our communities and climate.

Northwest Innovation Works has demonstrated that they are deceptive and will seek profit over people's wellbeing. They cannot be trusted to mitigate the impacts of this fracked gas refinery. The fact that the project has needed three reviews, with outspoken community opposition during each, shows that there is something wrong with it at its core. As Governor Inslee stated, we cannot support such fracked gas projects in good conscience.

You have a moral responsibility to protect public health and reduce our region's climate pollution. Please do what is right and deny this project. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Julieann Palumbo
1019 Kitsap St Port Orchard, WA 98366-5234
juliepalumbo@me.com
No attachments

Comment From: John Alder

10/06/20 @ 3:20 AM
Dear WA Department of Ecology,

As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for both the well-being of communities and the environment.

Inherent in this moral imperative is investing in a livable future that is safe for all to thrive.

NO OIL/ N...↓

ONLY SOLAR/WIND/ELECTRIC

Building the world's largest fracked gas-to-methanol plant in Washington does not align with my personal values of stewardship and justice, nor does it support our state's commitment to reducing climate pollution. Please reject Northwest Innovation Work's proposed methanol refinery in Kalama and deny its Shorelines Permit.

The second Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Kalama methanol refinery clearly shows that this project is dirty, dangerous, and unwise. If built, our state will be locked into decades of additional climate pollution, even though we know it is past time to pursue a truly low-carbon future. Speculating that this project may displace other fossil fuels is not adequate justification for the known pollution that will harm our communities and climate.

Northwest Innovation Works has demonstrated that they are deceptive and will seek profit over people's wellbeing. They cannot be trusted to mitigate the impacts of this fracked gas refinery. The fact that the project has needed three reviews, with outspoken community opposition during each, shows that there is something wrong with it at its core. As Governor Inslee stated, we cannot support such fracked gas projects in good conscience.

You have a moral responsibility to protect public health and reduce our region's climate pollution. Please do what is right and deny this project. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Mr. john alder
E618 Spokane, WA 99207
jralder@comcast.net
No attachments

Comment From: Theresa Espana

10/06/20 @ 3:18 AM
Dear WA Department of Ecology,

As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for both the well-being of communities and the environment.

Inherent in this moral imperative is investing in a livable future that is safe for all to thrive.

We have m...↓

We need to look at renewable forms of energy, ways to address climate change, and build a safer world for the next generations.

Building the world's largest fracked gas-to-methanol plant in Washington does not align with my personal values of stewardship and justice, nor does it support our state's commitment to reducing climate pollution. Please reject Northwest Innovation Work's proposed methanol refinery in Kalama and deny its Shorelines Permit.

The second Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Kalama methanol refinery clearly shows that this project is dirty, dangerous, and unwise. If built, our state will be locked into decades of additional climate pollution, even though we know it is past time to pursue a truly low-carbon future. Speculating that this project may displace other fossil fuels is not adequate justification for the known pollution that will harm our communities and climate.

Northwest Innovation Works has demonstrated that they are deceptive and will seek profit over people's wellbeing. They cannot be trusted to mitigate the impacts of this fracked gas refinery. The fact that the project has needed three reviews, with outspoken community opposition during each, shows that there is something wrong with it at its core. As Governor Inslee stated, we cannot support such fracked gas projects in good conscience.

You have a moral responsibility to protect public health and reduce our region's climate pollution. Please do what is right and deny this project. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Theresa Espana
20615 11th Ave W Lynnwood, WA 98036-8715
paetle@yahoo.com
No attachments

Comment From: Clayton Hamill

10/06/20 @ 3:16 AM
Dear WA Department of Ecology,

As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for both the well-being of communities and the environment.

Inherent in this moral imperative is investing in a livable future that is safe for all to thrive. We need...↓

Building the world's largest fracked gas-to-methanol plant in Washington does not align with my personal values of stewardship and justice, nor does it support our state's commitment to reducing climate pollution. Please reject Northwest Innovation Work's proposed methanol refinery in Kalama and deny its Shorelines Permit.

The second Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Kalama methanol refinery clearly shows that this project is dirty, dangerous, and unwise. If built, our state will be locked into decades of additional climate pollution, even though we know it is past time to pursue a truly low-carbon future. Speculating that this project may displace other fossil fuels is not adequate justification for the known pollution that will harm our communities and climate.

Northwest Innovation Works has demonstrated that they are deceptive and will seek profit over people's wellbeing. They cannot be trusted to mitigate the impacts of this fracked gas refinery. The fact that the project has needed three reviews, with outspoken community opposition during each, shows that there is something wrong with it at its core. As Governor Inslee stated, we cannot support such fracked gas projects in good conscience.

You have a moral responsibility to protect public health and reduce our region's climate pollution. Please do what is right and deny this project. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Clayton Hamill
7549 30th Ave SW Seattle, WA 98126-3326
clayhamill@gmail.com
No attachments

Comment From: Margaret Botch

10/06/20 @ 3:15 AM
Dear WA Department of Ecology,

As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for both the well-being of communities and the environment.

Inherent in this moral imperative is investing in a livable future that is safe for all to thrive.
For me "...↓
My faith is calling me to consider people and other living beings who live in our beautiful state of Washington and beyond.
It calls me to make life, better not worse, as I understand the proposed refinery in Kalama will do.
Please, I urge you, do not allow plans this proposed Methanol Refinery to move ahead. It will not benefit, but will cause harm
that will not be worth our short-term and narrow hopes.

Thank you for considering this message. May God bless you and your work.

Building the world's largest fracked gas-to-methanol plant in Washington does not align with my personal values of stewardship and justice, nor does it support our state's commitment to reducing climate pollution. Please reject Northwest Innovation Work's proposed methanol refinery in Kalama and deny its Shorelines Permit.

The second Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Kalama methanol refinery clearly shows that this project is dirty, dangerous, and unwise. If built, our state will be locked into decades of additional climate pollution, even though we know it is past time to pursue a truly low-carbon future. Speculating that this project may displace other fossil fuels is not adequate justification for the known pollution that will harm our communities and climate.

Northwest Innovation Works has demonstrated that they are deceptive and will seek profit over people's wellbeing. They cannot be trusted to mitigate the impacts of this fracked gas refinery. The fact that the project has needed three reviews, with outspoken community opposition during each, shows that there is something wrong with it at its core. As Governor Inslee stated, we cannot support such fracked gas projects in good conscience.

You have a moral responsibility to protect public health and reduce our region's climate pollution. Please do what is right and deny this project. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Ms. Margaret Botch
1008 E Boone Ave Spokane, WA 99202-2012
mbotchsp@aol.com
No attachments

Comment From: Dikka Ballantine

10/06/20 @ 3:13 AM
Dear WA Department of Ecology,

As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for both the well-being of communities and the environment.

Inherent in this moral imperative is investing in a livable future that is safe for all to thrive.

Building ...↓

The second Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Kalama methanol refinery clearly shows that this project is dirty, dangerous, and unwise. If built, our state will be locked into decades of additional climate pollution, even though we know it is past time to pursue a truly low-carbon future. Speculating that this project may displace other fossil fuels is not adequate justification for the known pollution that will harm our communities and climate.

Northwest Innovation Works has demonstrated that they are deceptive and will seek profit over people's wellbeing. They cannot be trusted to mitigate the impacts of this fracked gas refinery. The fact that the project has needed three reviews, with outspoken community opposition during each, shows that there is something wrong with it at its core. As Governor Inslee stated, we cannot support such fracked gas projects in good conscience.

You have a moral responsibility to protect public health and reduce our region's climate pollution. Please do what is right and deny this project. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Dikka Ballantine
424 N 40th St Seattle, WA 98103-7713
strawberrella@yahoo.com
No attachments

Comment From: Mary Fraser

10/06/20 @ 3:12 AM
Dear WA Department of Ecology,

As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for both the well-being of communities and the environment.

Inherent in this moral imperative is investing in a livable future that is safe for all to thrive
Please do ...↓

Building the world's largest fracked gas-to-methanol plant in Washington does not align with my personal values of stewardship and justice, nor does it support our state's commitment to reducing climate pollution. Please reject Northwest Innovation Work's proposed methanol refinery in Kalama and deny its Shorelines Permit.

The second Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Kalama methanol refinery clearly shows that this project is dirty, dangerous, and unwise. If built, our state will be locked into decades of additional climate pollution, even though we know it is past time to pursue a truly low-carbon future. Speculating that this project may displace other fossil fuels is not adequate justification for the known pollution that will harm our communities and climate.

Northwest Innovation Works has demonstrated that they are deceptive and will seek profit over people's wellbeing. They cannot be trusted to mitigate the impacts of this fracked gas refinery. The fact that the project has needed three reviews, with outspoken community opposition during each, shows that there is something wrong with it at its core. As Governor Inslee stated, we cannot support such fracked gas projects in good conscience.

You have a moral responsibility to protect public health and reduce our region's climate pollution. Please do what is right and deny this project. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Mary Fraser
628 Birch Ave Richland, WA 99352-3674
mary.fraser222@gmail.com
No attachments

Comment From: Rosemary Sikes

10/06/20 @ 3:10 AM
Dear WA Department of Ecology,

As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for both the well-being of communities and the environment.

Inherent in this moral imperative is investing in a livable future that is safe for all to thrive.

Building ...↓

The second Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Kalama methanol refinery clearly shows that this project is dirty, dangerous, and unwise. If built, our state will be locked into decades of additional climate pollution, even though we know it is past time to pursue a truly low-carbon future. Speculating that this project may displace other fossil fuels is not adequate justification for the known pollution that will harm our communities and climate.

Northwest Innovation Works has demonstrated that they are deceptive and will seek profit over people's wellbeing. They cannot be trusted to mitigate the impacts of this fracked gas refinery. The fact that the project has needed three reviews, with outspoken community opposition during each, shows that there is something wrong with it at its core. As Governor Inslee stated, we cannot support such fracked gas projects in good conscience.

You have a moral responsibility to protect public health and reduce our region's climate pollution. Please do what is right and deny this project. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Ms. Rosemary Sikes
1709 Gise St Port Townsend, WA 98368-6015
ptrose53@gmail.com
No attachments

Comment From: Jean Tryon

10/06/20 @ 3:08 AM
Dear WA Department of Ecology,

As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for both the well-being of communities and the environment.

Inherent in this moral imperative is investing in a livable future that is safe for all to thrive. This ble...↓

Building the world's largest fracked gas-to-methanol plant in Washington does not align with my personal values of stewardship and justice, nor does it support our state's commitment to reducing climate pollution. Please reject Northwest Innovation Work's proposed methanol refinery in Kalama and deny its Shorelines Permit.

The second Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Kalama methanol refinery clearly shows that this project is dirty, dangerous, and unwise. If built, our state will be locked into decades of additional climate pollution, even though we know it is past time to pursue a truly low-carbon future. Speculating that this project may displace other fossil fuels is not adequate justification for the known pollution that will harm our communities and climate.

Northwest Innovation Works has demonstrated that they are deceptive and will seek profit over people's wellbeing. They cannot be trusted to mitigate the impacts of this fracked gas refinery. The fact that the project has needed three reviews, with outspoken community opposition during each, shows that there is something wrong with it at its core. As Governor Inslee stated, we cannot support such fracked gas projects in good conscience.

You have a moral responsibility to protect public health and reduce our region's climate pollution. Please do what is right and deny this project. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Dr. Jean Tryon
7125 Fauntleroy Way SW Seattle, WA 98136-2008
jctryon2@gmail.com
No attachments

Comment From: Mary Doherty

10/06/20 @ 3:07 AM
Dear WA Department of Ecology,

As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for both the well-being of communities and the environment.

Inherent in this moral imperative is investing in a livable future that is safe for all to thrive. Fracked ...↓

Building the world's largest fracked gas-to-methanol plant in Washington does not align with my personal values of stewardship and justice, nor does it support our state's commitment to reducing climate pollution. Please reject Northwest Innovation Work's proposed methanol refinery in Kalama and deny its Shorelines Permit.

The second Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Kalama methanol refinery clearly shows that this project is dirty, dangerous, and unwise. If built, our state will be locked into decades of additional climate pollution, even though we know it is past time to pursue a truly low-carbon future. Speculating that this project may displace other fossil fuels is not adequate justification for the known pollution that will harm our communities and climate.

Northwest Innovation Works has demonstrated that they are deceptive and will seek profit over people's wellbeing. They cannot be trusted to mitigate the impacts of this fracked gas refinery. The fact that the project has needed three reviews, with outspoken community opposition during each, shows that there is something wrong with it at its core. As Governor Inslee stated, we cannot support such fracked gas projects in good conscience.

You have a moral responsibility to protect public health and reduce our region's climate pollution. Please do what is right and deny this project. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Mary Doherty
441 Hillcrest St Port Angeles, WA 98362-3718
mmdoherty441@gmail.com
No attachments

Comment From: Mary Belshaw

10/06/20 @ 2:49 AM
Dear WA Department of Ecology,

As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for both the well-being of communities and the environment.

I am invested in a low carbon future that includes less cheap plastics and a move away from fossil fuels. ...↓

Accidents happen, they always do. Climate warming methane leakages will happen, as happened in the 2018 blowout at a gas well in Ohio. We value our clean air and our clean water and lament that both are becoming more scarce. We value a healthy environment for our children and grandchildren. We need to look beyond today and build a cleaner world, not continue the track we are on.

Please HEED THE SCIENCE and reject Northwest Innovation Work's proposed methanol refinery in Kalama and deny its Shorelines Permit. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Mary S. Belshaw
17439 95th Pl. SW
Vashon, WA 98070

Building the world's largest fracked gas-to-methanol plant in Washington does not align with my personal values of stewardship and justice, nor does it support our state's commitment to reducing climate pollution. Please reject Northwest Innovation Work's proposed methanol refinery in Kalama and deny its Shorelines Permit.

The second Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Kalama methanol refinery clearly shows that this project is dirty, dangerous, and unwise. If built, our state will be locked into decades of additional climate pollution, even though we know it is past time to pursue a truly low-carbon future. Speculating that this project may displace other fossil fuels is not adequate justification for the known pollution that will harm our communities and climate.

Northwest Innovation Works has demonstrated that they are deceptive and will seek profit over people's wellbeing. They cannot be trusted to mitigate the impacts of this fracked gas refinery. The fact that the project has needed three reviews, with outspoken community opposition during each, shows that there is something wrong with it at its core. As Governor Inslee stated, we cannot support such fracked gas projects in good conscience.

You have a moral responsibility to protect public health and reduce our region's climate pollution. Please do what is right and deny this project. Thank you.

Sincerely,
mary s belshaw
17439 95th Pl SW Vashon, WA 98070-4902
msbelshaw@gmail.com
No attachments

Comment From: Debby Felnagle

10/06/20 @ 2:47 AM
Dear WA Department of Ecology,

As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for both the well-being of communities and the environment.

Inherent in this moral imperative is investing in a livable future that is safe for all to thrive. I am de...↓

Building the world's largest fracked gas-to-methanol plant in Washington does not align with my personal values of stewardship and justice, nor does it support our state's commitment to reducing climate pollution. Please reject Northwest Innovation Work's proposed methanol refinery in Kalama and deny its Shorelines Permit.

The second Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Kalama methanol refinery clearly shows that this project is dirty, dangerous, and unwise. If built, our state will be locked into decades of additional climate pollution, even though we know it is past time to pursue a truly low-carbon future. Speculating that this project may displace other fossil fuels is not adequate justification for the known pollution that will harm our communities and climate.

Northwest Innovation Works has demonstrated that they are deceptive and will seek profit over people's wellbeing. They cannot be trusted to mitigate the impacts of this fracked gas refinery. The fact that the project has needed three reviews, with outspoken community opposition during each, shows that there is something wrong with it at its core. As Governor Inslee stated, we cannot support such fracked gas projects in good conscience.

You have a moral responsibility to protect public health and reduce our region's climate pollution. Please do what is right and deny this project. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Debby Felnagle
1618 S Wilton Rd Tacoma, WA 98465-1035
tomdebbyfelnagle@harbornet.com
No attachments

Comment From: L Burchard

10/06/20 @ 2:35 AM
The proposed Kalama methanol plant would be a disaster for the health and well-being of Washingtonians. As we grapple with the impacts of climate change, with the entire state under hazardous amounts of smog for much of September, it is reckless to c...↓

This project will harm human health.
No attachments

Comment From: Kristin Edmark

10/06/20 @ 1:47 AM
Please omit from the SSEIS and leave out all reference to displacement of other fuels by methanol produced at the methanol refinery. There is no evidence that any facility would be displaced.
Please omit from the SSEIS and leave out all reference to 4...↓
These economic models are too speculative and so uncertain that the margin of error is too great to be considered. The time period is too long when experience shows not only the rapid change in economic conditions in the world. World leaders recognize that we need to accelerate change in fuel consumption.

These economic models are too uncertain because:
1) We cannot predict China's energy needs or uses. Conflicting messages have been made public. At the United Nations, 9/20/20, President Xi Jinping pledged that China's carbon emission will decline beginning in 2030 and that China will be carbon neutral before 2060. Source: https://gcaptain.com/china-pledges-to-be-carbon-neutral-by-2060/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed: Gcaptain (gCaptain.com)&goal=0_f50174ef03-c7996e9511-169978253&mc_cid=c7996e9511&mc_eid=033cdd1d41 and (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/23/world/asia/china-climate-change.html) This would signal rapid decrease in the need for fossil fuels. China signed the Paris Climate agreement and is a world leader in carbon free energy technology, wind, solar, electric buses and cars. The Chinese have the strictest emissions standards for automobiles in the world. Yet on the other hand, there is much evidence that China is increasing control of world fossil fuel sources as evidenced by the Belt and Road initiative, new pipelines, the purchase of energy rights around the world like Canada and Australia while, at the same time, preserving its own fossil fuel reserves. Furthermore, it would be imprudent and naive to trust official statements by the Chinese government.

2) Countries and jurisdictions are moving off fossil fuels. There is too much uncertainty to predict over 40 years China's demand for fossil fuels. Would methanol displace wind energy if cheaper? Currently, China imports fossil fuels because it is cheaper than exploiting their own reserves and helps them dominate world energy supply.
Many countries have goals to decrease or eliminate fossil fuels use. It is likely the US will have such goals soon. Many states like Washington have fossil fuel reduction and elimination goals. As do many cities in Washington like Bellingham. Twenty cities in California, and ten cities on the east coast are developing policies to require new construction to be all electric. Energy use and technology is quickly changing; the economic models included in the SSEIS become misleading and useless as energy use quickly changes.
3) Countries and jurisdictions are moving away from plastics. Many countries, states and cities (including Washington, by 2022) have banned various forms of plastic.
4) The present situation does not predict the future. It cannot be said with any certainty that if we don't build this methanol plant, then China will build something that produces more CO2, for the same product. Demand and supply are far too uncertain.

5) The relations between China and US are not certain. Recently, we have seen conflicts regarding patents. Recently, the US has pulled out of important international agreements causing countries to distrust the US and leaving a void for Chinese leadership. As China supplants the US in some areas, there could be more conflict over 40 years. Chinese own rights to some Canadian drilling fields. NWIW is controlled indirectly by the Chinese government. Adding the methanol refinery to Chinese control seems unwise. The US should be monitoring contracts and agreements. We may not want Chinese controlled vessels coming up the Columbia.

6) Climate change is predicted to cause stress and possible collapse of governments and societies around the planet as well as significant numbers of climate refugees. With the refinery, climate change will progress more rapidly increasing government instability and creating a situation where conflict between the US and China is more likely. Increasing climate change makes the economic models used in the SSEIS less likely.

The economic models included in the SSEIS should be removed because the SSEIS is largely a scientific study. Baseless assumptions are needed for both of the economic model of methanol replacing dirtier production methods and the model that a certain percentage of the methanol will be used as fuel. These assumptions are far too speculative in our quickly changing world over such a long period of time. Please leave out of the SSEIS every reference to methanol displacing other fuels and every reference dealing with a certain amount of methanol being used as fuel in China.

Thank you.
PS. The methanol refinery affects me personally. My daughter in law's family lost a beloved home last month to Oregon fire. Pandemics increase with global warming, etc
No attachments

Comment From: Jennifer Vinnard

10/05/20 @ 5:27 PM
Thank you for extending the comment period, it's very much appreciated. As Dept of Ecology, I realize that it's your job to look at the science and data, the proven deceptions and issues about things like jobs, property values dropping, taxpayers dol...↓

It is also very troubling the amount of assumptions and speculations this projects approval appears to be being based upon! With absolutely zero proof to back up claims that this refinery would displace coal use in China, in fact, proof of the opposite exists, like China's economic 5yr plan to build coal power plants in each province by 2023...the "carbon neutral" by 2060 pledge, which doesn't mean a reduction of ghg emissions, rather they'll try to emit the same amount of "good" to "bad"..so they can keep pumping out high ghg emissions and give the appearance of helping the environment, the $6.7 billion approved just last year for new coal mining sites, coal consumption continuously increasing as does their coal import demands..the reality is that China cannot afford hundreds of billions to retrofit all the existing coal burning homes, industries and businesses, you're assuming they'll reduce consumption when all they've done is increase it..speculating just doesn't make sense. Especially since even in Washington, the coal power plant in Eastern WA that was slated to close, is looking like it's going to be purchased by a Montana company, who intends to use loopholes to run the plant indefinitely..ghg reduction would be fantastic, but too many people don't care about the effects and will do whatever they can to make money, regardless of whose expense it comes at.

Living in Washington our whole lives, there's no place else my husband and I would rather live. We love the outdoors, our lush green forests and fish filled rivers, which is why we moved to Kalama, the area we grew up enjoying and couldn't wait to move to, living just a few miles from the proposed site, we will have a steady stream of dangerous chemicals pushed up the canyon to our home, that we would be breathing into our lungs, and that would destroy our dream we've worked so hard for. Of those who support it or stand to profit, most don't live here, or don't live close enough to be as affected. They don't want it built in their towns, but throwing us under the bus is just fine, why should they care, it doesn't hurt their health or property's, they're motivated by greed, not what's best for our town, our economy, our environment, our state, our country, or our planet. Please don't let assumptions and speculations determine our future for the next 40 years...this is not what Washington state needs..we need businesses that won't destroy us. We are praying that you deny the permit, for all our sake, the consequences are not worth any amount of money! Thank you for your time, the Vinnard family, Kalama.

No attachments

Comment From: Mike Reuter

10/05/20 @ 5:07 PM
I am speaking here as an individual and not as the Mayor of Kalama.

The elected officials so welcomed this refinery because most of them get their information from the local newspaper and do not have the time to get all the facts.

The sales pitch that ...↓

The following news stories were never printed in the local paper. Most of these articles and events were only brought to the surface by investigations by people and organizations who care for the environment and their friends' and neighbors' health and well-being.

Not one word was mentioned about BP, the co-partner with CAS that were the original backers of NW Innovation Works, and how they pulled out years ago. This should have been an eye-opening event, but not a blurb. After BP's pullout, another investor of NWIW was The Noble Group. The Noble Group Ltd was embroiled in an accounting fraud controversy scheme and was delisted from the Singapore Stock Exchange, nothing in the news to these warning signs.

The locals were never informed why NWIW pulled out of Tacoma and how the same concerns that stopped that project should have stopped this one. There wasn't any news of how NWIW dropped out of their lease at Port Westward and now on the waiting list for another property and will occupy a site only if the zoning changes to allow heavy industry from farming.

Why did so much of the Cowlitz County Cares Act fund money go to Pan Pacific Energy, the parent company of NWIW? Why did it need hundreds of thousands of dollars to survive? Are they really backed by the Chinese government and a large investment group?

So many people that were surprised when I informed them about the $2 billion Department of Energy loan that NW Innovation Works is applying for and for the taxpayers are the ones who would underwrite the entire project. They never heard anything about it, and when they did, they asked why?

Then it was the $143 million in local and state tax breaks that they fought for in Olympia. Nothing about how the higher taxes and jobs promised will only be realized if they build a second phase.

I never heard anything about the people at NWIW? Did they ever build or worked at a methanol refinery, and what was their experience?

Why are there so many current and former elected officials working for them even though they have never made dollar one? There needs to be a story on the amount of money being spent on pushing this project.

Then there is the methanol for fuel debate; the story was just brushed aside after the spokesman for NWIW stated to the reporter that it was just "confusion" on its use, even though the company had a PowerPoint presentation in 2018 shown to Satori Partners Inc., a U.S.-based investment group, discussing using methanol as a fuel for industries and transportation and Wu Lebin, chairman of CASH, the main backer of the Kalama project, has said that the fuel will be burned as feedstock for fuel and industries.

And in the article:

Controversial Kalama Methanol Plant May Be Misleading Public, Regulators
By Molly Solomon (OPB)
Vancouver, Wash. April 19, 2019 9:30 p.m.
NW Innovation Works also sponsored a two-day workshop at Stanford University in 2017 on methanol production titled "Opportunities and Challenges for Methanol as a Global Liquid Energy Carrier." Conference reading materials fail even to mention using methanol to create olefins or plastics, again downplaying a point that is a central talking point when the company talks about its plans for the Kalama facility.

Below is a list of names and the companies at the "informational workshop" sponsored by NWIW. Notice how many energy carriers and gas companies are listed.

The Department of Ecology needs to call these people or write and ask them if they were informed that the conference was just for information or was it for investments in methanol production as fuel, as the workshop title so clearly stated.

Last Name First Name Company

Alvarado Marc I H S
Alvarez Jacob Stanford University
Ashok Venkatesan Consul General of India, San Francisco
Ayoub Paul Shell
Baroni Claudia Stanford University
Bartholomeusz Brian Stanford University
Beck Arik Stanford University
Berggren Mark Methanol Market Services (MMSA)
Blumreiter Julie ClearFlame Engines
Bracy Dennis Clean Energy Forum
Bromberg Leslie MIT
Bush Vann Gas Technology
Cameron Doug US-China Green Fund
Cameron Chris Stanford University
Caputo Kent NW Innovations
Cargnello Matteo Stanford University
Chang Dennis Stanford University
Cohn Dan MIT
Dankner Gil Dor Chemicals
Dankworth David Exxon Mobil
Dar Dorit Dor Group
Dolan Gregory Methanol Institute
Donohue Mark Stanford University
Duan River Chinese Academy of Sciences Holdings
Edwards Chris Stanford University
Friedmann Julio LLNL
Fyffe John Stanford University
Godley Murray NW Innovations
Goeppert Alain USC
Goodman Emmett Stanford University
Hu Zhongbo University of Chinese Academy of Sciences
Ishiyama Eilchi MOL
Jackson Michael Fuel Freedom Foundation/ MDJ Research
Janda Amber Stanford University
Jin Xianyang Geely
Johnson Bernard ClearFlame Engines, Inc
Jojarth Christine Stanford University
Kevin Ramnarine Fmr. Energy Minister, Trinidad and Tobago
Knapp Kurtis Fornaxtek
Korin Anne IAGS
Lamoureaux James IGP Methanol
Leland Amelia Stanford University
Li Peng Stone Peak Partners
Lian Ming CECC
Lyubovsky Max Department of Energy
Majumdar Arun Stanford University
McMullan Jason Exxon Mobil
Mengesha Firehiwot DOE
Miller Brent 7 Energy
Mitchell Reginald Stanford University
Nitopi Stephanie Stanford University
Obrecht Nicolas Total
Olive Nathaniel Stanford University
Otterman Geoff Independent
Parsan Neil World Bank
Ravikumar Arvind Stanford University
Ritts Brad Stanford University
Roda-Stuart Daniel Stanford University
Rogers David Stanford University
Rongere Francois PG&E
Rudd Kevin Asia Society
Rudd Nicholas Glenelg Advisory Services Limited
Sappin Edward NW Innovations
Shih Choon Fong University of Chinese Academy of Sciences; Chinese Academy of Sciences Holdings
Simbeck Dale SFA Pacific
Spormann Alfred Stanford University
Stauft Daniel 7 Energy
Stauft Tim 7 Energy
Stokes Harry Project Gaia
Stollenwerk Stephan Innogy SE
Sun Yuhan Shanghai Advanced Research Institute, CAS
Sun Philip CASIM
Verser Dan Fornaxtek
Wang Hai Stanford University
Wang Jingfan Stanford University
Wang Michael Argonne National Laboratory
Wang Yong Pacific Northwest National Laboratory/Washington State University
Wentz Karly Stone Peak Partners
Wittrig Steve Kinetic Emergy
Wong Hsien Xiong NW Innovations
Wu Lebin Chinese Academy of Sciences Holdings
Wu Liheng Stanford University
Wuebben Paul Carbon Recycling International
Xiao Xin Institute of Process Engineering, Chineses Academy of Sciences
Yang An-Chih Stanford University
Zhang Mike CECC & NWIW
Zhang Simon CECC
Zhang Tao Chinese Academy of Sciences
Zhang Xiaofeng US-China Green Energy Council
Zheng Xiaolin Stanford University
Zhou Annie US-China Green Fund
Zoback Mark Stanford University

If it weren't for the environmental groups like the River Keepers, we would have welcomed them in and only learned many years later that we were entirely in the dark.

I will repeat this because it is crucial in this study. How can every environmental group be so wrong when it comes to this refinery? Is the methanol's sales pitch that convincing?
No attachments

Comment From: Julie Glover

10/05/20 @ 4:18 PM
When fully analyzing greenhouse gas emissions from the proposed Kalama methanol facility, looking at impacts from upstream emissions (such as the greenhouse gases that escape from natural gas wells and pipelines), direct and indirect emissions produc...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Deborah Fexis

10/05/20 @ 2:31 PM
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.

This new Dra...↓

Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions. One can simply look to the impacts of this pandemic to see evidence of incredible uncertainty and volatility in energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades. Furthermore, the SEIS provides too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions that will occur overseas. The mitigation framework is too vague for Ecology to conclude that this projects impacts will be mitigated, and the urgency of climate change demands that mitigation should be the last option (after all other impacts are reduced) in order to address unavoidable impacts, not simply to maintain the status quo as we continue to build out the fossil fuel industry.

Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and a faint hope of theoretical emission reductions. Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project--that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.

The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.

Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution.
No attachments

Comment From: Judith Rollins

10/05/20 @ 2:14 PM
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.

This new Dra...↓

Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions. One can simply look to the impacts of this pandemic to see evidence of incredible uncertainty and volatility in energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades. Furthermore, the SEIS provides too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions that will occur overseas. The mitigation framework is too vague for Ecology to conclude that this projects impacts will be mitigated, and the urgency of climate change demands that mitigation should be the last option (after all other impacts are reduced) in order to address unavoidable impacts, not simply to maintain the status quo as we continue to build out the fossil fuel industry.

Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and a faint hope of theoretical emission reductions. Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project--that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.

The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.

Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution.
No attachments

Comment From: Karol Long

10/05/20 @ 1:45 PM
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.

This new Dra...↓

Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions. One can simply look to the impacts of this pandemic to see evidence of incredible uncertainty and volatility in energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades. Furthermore, the SEIS provides too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions that will occur overseas. The mitigation framework is too vague for Ecology to conclude that this projects impacts will be mitigated, and the urgency of climate change demands that mitigation should be the last option (after all other impacts are reduced) in order to address unavoidable impacts, not simply to maintain the status quo as we continue to build out the fossil fuel industry.

Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and a faint hope of theoretical emission reductions. Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project--that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.

The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.

Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution.
No attachments

Comment From: Brian Green

10/05/20 @ 10:32 AM
Dear WA Department of Ecology,

As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for both the well-being of communities and the environment.

This proposal does neither.

Building the world's largest fracked gas-to-methanol plant in Washington does no...↓

The second Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Kalama methanol refinery clearly shows that this project is dirty, dangerous, and unwise. If built, our state will be locked into decades of additional climate pollution, even though we know it is past time to pursue a truly low-carbon future. Speculating that this project may displace other fossil fuels is not adequate justification for the known pollution that will harm our communities and climate.

Northwest Innovation Works has demonstrated that they are deceptive and will seek profit over people's wellbeing. They cannot be trusted to mitigate the impacts of this fracked gas refinery. The fact that the project has needed three reviews, with outspoken community opposition during each, shows that there is something wrong with it at its core. As Governor Inslee stated, we cannot support such fracked gas projects in good conscience.

You have a moral responsibility to protect public health and reduce our region's climate pollution. Please do what is right and deny this project. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Mr. Brian Green
1606 15th Ave Seattle, WA 98122-4050
greenbh@comcast.net
No attachments

Comment From: Sharon Wilson

10/05/20 @ 10:30 AM
Dear WA Department of Ecology,

As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for both the well-being of communities and the environment.

Our actions up to this point have been causing a serious decline in the health of ecosystems upon which all...↓

Building the world's largest fracked gas-to-methanol plant in Washington does not align with my personal values of stewardship and justice, nor does it support our state's commitment to reducing climate pollution. Please reject Northwest Innovation Work's proposed methanol refinery in Kalama and deny its Shorelines Permit.

The second Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Kalama methanol refinery clearly shows that this project is dirty, dangerous, and unwise. If built, our state will be locked into decades of additional climate pollution, even though we know it is past time to pursue a truly low-carbon future. Speculating that this project may displace other fossil fuels is not adequate justification for the known pollution that will harm our communities and climate.

Northwest Innovation Works has demonstrated that they are deceptive and will seek profit over people's wellbeing. They cannot be trusted to mitigate the impacts of this fracked gas refinery. The fact that the project has needed three reviews, with outspoken community opposition during each, shows that there is something wrong with it at its core. As Governor Inslee stated, we cannot support such fracked gas projects in good conscience.

You have a moral responsibility to protect public health and reduce our region's climate pollution. Please do what is right and deny this project. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Ms. Sharon Wilson
3240 NE 96th St Seattle, WA 98115-2528
thuja8@comcast.net
No attachments

Comment From: Cornelia Teed

10/05/20 @ 10:29 AM
Dear WA Department of Ecology,

As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for both the well-being of communities and the environment.

Inherent in this moral imperative is investing in a livable future that is safe for all to thrive.

Building ...↓

The second Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Kalama methanol refinery clearly shows that this project is dirty, dangerous, and unwise. If built, our state will be locked into decades of additional climate pollution, even though we know it is past time to pursue a truly low-carbon future. Speculating that this project may displace other fossil fuels is not adequate justification for the known pollution that will harm our communities and climate.

Northwest Innovation Works has demonstrated that they are deceptive and will seek profit over people's wellbeing. They cannot be trusted to mitigate the impacts of this fracked gas refinery. The fact that the project has needed three reviews, with outspoken community opposition during each, shows that there is something wrong with it at its core. As Governor Inslee stated, we cannot support such fracked gas projects in good conscience.

You have a moral responsibility to protect public health and reduce our region's climate pollution. Please do what is right and deny this project. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Ms Cornelia Teed
1201 13th St Unit 201 Bellingham, WA 98225-7154
joteed2000@yahoo.com
No attachments

Comment From: Kasey Schultz

10/05/20 @ 10:27 AM
Dear WA Department of Ecology,

As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for both the well-being of communities and the environment.

Inherent in this moral imperative is investing in a livable future that is safe for all to thrive.

Building ...↓

The second Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Kalama methanol refinery clearly shows that this project is dirty, dangerous, and unwise. If built, our state will be locked into decades of additional climate pollution, even though we know it is past time to pursue a truly low-carbon future. Speculating that this project may displace other fossil fuels is not adequate justification for the known pollution that will harm our communities and climate.

Northwest Innovation Works has demonstrated that they are deceptive and will seek profit over people's wellbeing. They cannot be trusted to mitigate the impacts of this fracked gas refinery. The fact that the project has needed three reviews, with outspoken community opposition during each, shows that there is something wrong with it at its core. As Governor Inslee stated, we cannot support such fracked gas projects in good conscience.

You have a moral responsibility to protect public health and reduce our region's climate pollution. Please do what is right and deny this project. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Kasey Shultz
8413 Fremont Ave N Seattle, WA 98103-4338
kdotc30@gmail.com
No attachments

Comment From: Lisa Harrington

10/05/20 @ 10:01 AM
Dear WA Department of Ecology,

As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for both the well-being of communities and the environment.

Inherent in this moral imperative is investing in a livable future that is safe for all to thrive.

Building ...↓

The second Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Kalama methanol refinery clearly shows that this project is dirty, dangerous, and unwise. If built, our state will be locked into decades of additional climate pollution, even though we know it is past time to pursue a truly low-carbon future. Speculating that this project may displace other fossil fuels is not adequate justification for the known pollution that will harm our communities and climate.

Northwest Innovation Works has demonstrated that they are deceptive and will seek profit over people's wellbeing. They cannot be trusted to mitigate the impacts of this fracked gas refinery. The fact that the project has needed three reviews, with outspoken community opposition during each, shows that there is something wrong with it at its core. As Governor Inslee stated, we cannot support such fracked gas projects in good conscience.

You have a moral responsibility to protect public health and reduce our region's climate pollution. Please do what is right and deny this project. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Lisa Harrington
211 Home Town Dr Kelso, WA 98626-8702
lmbharrington@gmail.com
No attachments

Comment From: Lynn Regelin

10/05/20 @ 10:00 AM
Comments for committee hearing on
Kalama Manufacturing & Marine Export Facility

I have been following development of the Kalama Manufacturing & Marine Export Facility since 2018. More recently I've also been following public announcements of other meth...↓
• 5,225 mtpd from natural gas in Turkmenistan
• 5,479 mtpd from coal in Indonesia
• 6,600 mtpd from coal in China
• 7,000 mtpd natural gas in Iran
• 7,200 mtpd from coal in China
• A total of 31,704 new tonnes of methanol to be produced each day worldwide. And that's just since January.
The swell of methanol production worldwide is evidence that—contrary to wishes expressed before this committee—the world's demand for fossil-sourced methanol isn't going anywhere but up. As long as we want dashboards in our cars, cases for our computers and TVs, carpeting under our feet, upholstery on our furniture, and clothes on our backs, we unavoidably want methanol.
Many listeners are taking notes of this committee proceedings. Look at the pen in your hand. Unless you bought a very expensive one, that pen has a plastic body and a plastic ink cartridge. That pen started as methanol, as do a thousand other products we handle throughout the year. To vilify the production of methanol—to say we don't want, don't need it, or that it must somehow just go away—is naïve. As a technological society, methanol will be with us for generations.
But what we can do, and what we must do, is use our technology to ameliorate the climate damaging, greenhouse gas co-product of methanol production. The proposed Kalama facility does this like none other in the world.
The planet doesn't care where greenhouse gasses emanate. The atmosphere doesn't look to see where the carbon dioxide is released and say, "I'm going to punish you there." Climate change doesn't happen in the sky over Washington, or China or Turkmenistan. It happens everywhere. That's why it's "global warming." Greenhouse gases are evenly dispersed throughout the atmosphere everywhere. It's not the location of emission that matters, it's the cumulative amount from everywhere.
The five newly announced methanol plants will be constructed in countries with far less emissions regulations and climate protection than in the United States, perhaps none at all. Greenhouse gas emissions from these foreign-built facilities will be 6, or 10, or 12 million tonnes per year greater than from the conscientiously conceived and technologically superior Kalama facility.
Rather than seeing the Kalama Manufacturing & Marine Export Facility as a detriment, we can and should hold it up as a exemplar to the world. In an era when then United States is tragically, embarrassingly backing away from our commitment to international climate protection, America's Pacific Northwest, the State of Washington, and the City of Kalama can proudly say, look at us, look at how we're doing it. Follow our lead.
Thank you for your attention.

No attachments

Comment From: Barbara Reid

10/05/20 @ 9:58 AM
Dear WA Department of Ecology,

As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for both the well-being of communities and the environment.

Inherent in this moral imperative is investing in a livable future that is safe for all to thrive.

What do w...↓

Building the world's largest fracked gas-to-methanol plant in Washington does not align with my personal values of stewardship and justice, nor does it support our state's commitment to reducing climate pollution. Please reject Northwest Innovation Work's proposed methanol refinery in Kalama and deny its Shorelines Permit.

The second Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Kalama methanol refinery clearly shows that this project is dirty, dangerous, and unwise. If built, our state will be locked into decades of additional climate pollution, even though we know it is past time to pursue a truly low-carbon future. Speculating that this project may displace other fossil fuels is not adequate justification for the known pollution that will harm our communities and climate.

Northwest Innovation Works has demonstrated that they are deceptive and will seek profit over people's wellbeing. They cannot be trusted to mitigate the impacts of this fracked gas refinery. The fact that the project has needed three reviews, with outspoken community opposition during each, shows that there is something wrong with it at its core. As Governor Inslee stated, we cannot support such fracked gas projects in good conscience.

You have a moral responsibility to protect public health and reduce our region's climate pollution. Please do what is right and deny this project. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Barbara Reid
7814 Greenwood Ave N Apt 305 Seattle, WA 98103-4665
Louburdreid@gmail.com
No attachments

Comment From: Joy Garrison

10/05/20 @ 9:56 AM
Dear WA Department of Ecology,

As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for both the well-being of communities and the environment.

Inherent in this moral imperative is investing in a livable future that is safe for all to thrive.

Building ...↓

The second Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Kalama methanol refinery clearly shows that this project is dirty, dangerous, and unwise. If built, our state will be locked into decades of additional climate pollution, even though we know it is past time to pursue a truly low-carbon future. Speculating that this project may displace other fossil fuels is not adequate justification for the known pollution that will harm our communities and climate.

Northwest Innovation Works has demonstrated that they are deceptive and will seek profit over people's wellbeing. They cannot be trusted to mitigate the impacts of this fracked gas refinery. The fact that the project has needed three reviews, with outspoken community opposition during each, shows that there is something wrong with it at its core. As Governor Inslee stated, we cannot support such fracked gas projects in good conscience.

You have a moral responsibility to protect public health and reduce our region's climate pollution. Please do what is right and deny this project. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Joy Garrison
5601 California Ave SW Apt 402 Seattle, WA 98136-1544
joyfgarrison@yahoo.com
No attachments

Comment From: Barbara Jo Blair

10/05/20 @ 9:37 AM
Dear WA Department of Ecology,

As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for both the well-being of communities and the environment.

Building the world's largest fracked gas-to-methanol plant in Washington does not align with my personal va...↓

Sincerely,
Barbara Jo Blair

Building the world's largest fracked gas-to-methanol plant in Washington does not align with my personal values of stewardship and justice, nor does it support our state's commitment to reducing climate pollution. Please reject Northwest Innovation Work's proposed methanol refinery in Kalama and deny its Shorelines Permit.

The second Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Kalama methanol refinery clearly shows that this project is dirty, dangerous, and unwise. If built, our state will be locked into decades of additional climate pollution, even though we know it is past time to pursue a truly low-carbon future. Speculating that this project may displace other fossil fuels is not adequate justification for the known pollution that will harm our communities and climate.

Northwest Innovation Works has demonstrated that they are deceptive and will seek profit over people's wellbeing. They cannot be trusted to mitigate the impacts of this fracked gas refinery. The fact that the project has needed three reviews, with outspoken community opposition during each, shows that there is something wrong with it at its core. As Governor Inslee stated, we cannot support such fracked gas projects in good conscience.

You have a moral responsibility to protect public health and reduce our region's climate pollution. Please do what is right and deny this project. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Mrs. Barbara Jo Blair
294 Sunset Blvd Port Townsend, WA 98368-8912
barbarablair@me.com
No attachments

Comment From: Frank Handler

10/05/20 @ 9:35 AM
Dear WA Department of Ecology,

As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for both the well-being of communities and the environment.

Inherent in this moral imperative is investing in a livable future that is safe for all to thrive. Please, ...↓

Building the world's largest fracked gas-to-methanol plant in Washington does not align with my personal values of stewardship and justice, nor does it support our state's commitment to reducing climate pollution. Please reject Northwest Innovation Work's proposed methanol refinery in Kalama and deny its Shorelines Permit.

The second Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Kalama methanol refinery clearly shows that this project is dirty, dangerous, and unwise. If built, our state will be locked into decades of additional climate pollution, even though we know it is past time to pursue a truly low-carbon future. Speculating that this project may displace other fossil fuels is not adequate justification for the known pollution that will harm our communities and climate.

Northwest Innovation Works has demonstrated that they are deceptive and will seek profit over people's wellbeing. They cannot be trusted to mitigate the impacts of this fracked gas refinery. The fact that the project has needed three reviews, with outspoken community opposition during each, shows that there is something wrong with it at its core. As Governor Inslee stated, we cannot support such fracked gas projects in good conscience.

You have a moral responsibility to protect public health and reduce our region's climate pollution. Please do what is right and deny this project. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Frank Handler
33 Trafalgar Dr Port Townsend, WA 98368-2517
frankh2@me.com
No attachments

Comment From: Jennifer Calvert

10/05/20 @ 9:33 AM
Dear WA Department of Ecology,

As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for both the well-being of communities and the environment.

Inherent in this moral imperative is investing in a livable future that is safe for all to thrive. There...↓

Building the world's largest fracked gas-to-methanol plant in Washington does not align with my personal values of stewardship and justice, nor does it support our state's commitment to reducing climate pollution. Please reject Northwest Innovation Work's proposed methanol refinery in Kalama and deny its Shorelines Permit.

The second Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Kalama methanol refinery clearly shows that this project is dirty, dangerous, and unwise. If built, our state will be locked into decades of additional climate pollution, even though we know it is past time to pursue a truly low-carbon future. Speculating that this project may displace other fossil fuels is not adequate justification for the known pollution that will harm our communities and climate.

Northwest Innovation Works has demonstrated that they are deceptive and will seek profit over people's wellbeing. They cannot be trusted to mitigate the impacts of this fracked gas refinery. The fact that the project has needed three reviews, with outspoken community opposition during each, shows that there is something wrong with it at its core. As Governor Inslee stated, we cannot support such fracked gas projects in good conscience.

You have a moral responsibility to protect public health and reduce our region's climate pollution. Please do what is right and deny this project. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Ms Jennifer Calvert
1318 S Mica Park Dr Spokane Valley, WA 99206-3122
jennifercalvert@comcast.net
No attachments

Comment From: Jared Howe

10/05/20 @ 9:06 AM
Dear WA Department of Ecology,

As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for both the well-being of communities and the environment.

Inherent in this moral imperative is investing in a livable future that is safe for all to thrive.

Building ...↓

The second Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Kalama methanol refinery clearly shows that this project is dirty, dangerous, and unwise. If built, our state will be locked into decades of additional climate pollution, even though we know it is past time to pursue a truly low-carbon future. Speculating that this project may displace other fossil fuels is not adequate justification for the known pollution that will harm our communities and climate.

Northwest Innovation Works has demonstrated that they are deceptive and will seek profit over people's wellbeing. They cannot be trusted to mitigate the impacts of this fracked gas refinery. The fact that the project has needed three reviews, with outspoken community opposition during each, shows that there is something wrong with it at its core. As Governor Inslee stated, we cannot support such fracked gas projects in good conscience.

You have a moral responsibility to protect public health and reduce our region's climate pollution. Please do what is right and deny this project. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Mr. Jared Howe
4107 Martin Luther King Jr Way S Seattle, WA 98108-1684
jaredchowe@gmail.com
No attachments

Comment From: Eileen Fromer

10/05/20 @ 8:25 AM
I'm actually surprised that the Department of Ecology continues to rationalize how the Kalama Methanol Refinery will cut greenhouse gasses and prevent greenhouse gas emissions by setting up a 'straw man' - the use of coal for fuel - that methanol mig...↓

I urge you to deny the Kalama SEIS.
No attachments

Comment From: Diane Meisenhelter

10/05/20 @ 8:25 AM
I am writing to you to urge the Ecology Department to deny the Shorelines permit for the NWIW Kalama methanol refinery. ]Your own analysis has shown that the project could produce up to 4.6 million tons of carbon pollution annually for decades to co...↓
Ecology should decide based on the real, assured, climate catastrophe pollution that will occur from fracking gas, producing and refining methanol, and burning or using methanol to make plastics as well as the other environmental impacts of these actions. NWIW provides few if any details on the actual "voluntary" mitigation actions they might take or how they will ensure "full-mitigation" as claimed. Few descriptions of the actual processes, projects or measures to address the gigantic impacts from the greenhouse gasses that will be emitted are provided.
Finally, the SEIS continues to use low estimates of methane leakage as opposed to relying on the most recent, thorough, comprehensive analyses that have been done of actual leakage rates in British Columbia, Alberta, and the United States using top-down as well as bottom-up methodologies.
Please deny the permits for this problematic and potentially life-threatening project, our children and grandchildren's will thank-you.

Attachments:

Comment From: Brian Garrison

10/05/20 @ 8:10 AM
Creation of plastics is one of the downstream products of the proposed methanol plant. The EIS does not account for the long-lasting and widespread environmental impacts of plastics.

Many plastics are embedded in products as one of many materials and ...↓

Plastics made from fossil fuels do not readily break down. The resulting waste may sometimes degrade and crumble, but still continue to pollute as microplastics. These microplastics are a threat to human and animal health. The World Health Organization's (WHO) 2019 report, "Microplastics in freshwaters and drinking water: Critical review and assessment of data quality" (see attached) and the related information sheet (see attached) speak to the harms of microplastics. For example, "The potential hazards associated with microplastics come in three forms: physical particles, chemicals and microbial pathogens as part of biofilms." Though the facility offers hope through efficiency, We don't need efficient means of making plastics, we need materials that do not widely and permanently infest our clean water systems. For more on the effects to wildlife and humans, see the 2020 article from the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health and the other Scientific American article, "From Fish to Humans..." (attached).

Though it's possible to filter microplastics from water, we put human health at risk by becoming dependent on complex purification systems. Allowing plastics and microplastic pollution to proliferate also overlooks individuals and communities that do not have easy access to filtered water. Furthermore, the current systems in place are not keeping drinking water humans safe from microplastics. According to the same report, "Microplastics are ubiquitous in the environment and have been detected in a broad range of concentrations in marine water, wastewater, fresh water, food, air and drinking-water, both bottled and tap water." This EIS offers no means to mitigate the resulting pollution that would arise from the plastics manufactured using the facility's methanol.

To continue building infrastructure that pollutes in this manner is irresponsible and reckless. The plan for this facility fails to consider the impact on human health caused by the downstream plastic products. As a species, our survival depends on us making a hard transition away from "business as usual" and toward fundamentally different manufacturing systems. We cannot say that predicted demand is a sufficient reason to create supply, or we become trapped in a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you place a bowl of sugar in front of a baby, they will eat it (predicted demand causes the consumer to take the supply). If you teach responsible eating habits, then unhealthy behaviors and the appetite for sugar can be kept in check (demand for one product becomes demand for healthier alternatives).

By offering a readily available supply of plastic and the methanol that creates it, this facility enables business-as-usual, allows the continued pollution of our basic life-sustaining resources (water), and threatens human lives. I urge you to reject the proposed project.

In addition to the PDFs attached, articles cited are retrievable through the following links:

Scientific American, From Fish to Humans...
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/from-fish-to-humans-a-microplastic-invasion-may-be-taking-a-toll/

Scientific American, Solving Microplastics Pollution...
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/solving-microplastic-pollution-means-reducing-recycling-mdash-and-fundamental-rethinking1/'

WHO report
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0043135419301794

WHO information sheet
https://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/water-quality/guidelines/microplastics-in-dw-information-sheet/en/

International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, A Detailed Review Study on Potential Effects of Microplastics and Additives of Concern on Human Health
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7068600/
Attachments:
Download
Download
Download
Download
Download

Comment From: NJ Morgan

10/05/20 @ 7:45 AM
Today I write as not only a concerned citizen-voter, Pacific Northwest resident, and parent-grandparent - but also as a former educator.
Analyses and data show that this proposed project is neither financially wise nor environmentally solid.
Please - t...↓
Respectfully,
Nancy Morgan

No attachments

Comment From: Montana Pulido

10/05/20 @ 6:52 AM
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.

This new Dra...↓

Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions. One can simply look to the impacts of this pandemic to see evidence of incredible uncertainty and volatility in energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades. Furthermore, the SEIS provides too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions that will occur overseas. The mitigation framework is too vague for Ecology to conclude that this projects impacts will be mitigated, and the urgency of climate change demands that mitigation should be the last option (after all other impacts are reduced) in order to address unavoidable impacts, not simply to maintain the status quo as we continue to build out the fossil fuel industry.

Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and a faint hope of theoretical emission reductions. Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project--that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.

The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.

Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution.
No attachments

Comment From: Dennis Colombo

10/05/20 @ 6:43 AM
When attempting to predict future global GHG emissions how about factoring in the displacement of some fossil fuel energy sources with clean energy sources such as solar and wind? I think that is a more likely scenario than the chances that China wi...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Suzanne Thornton

10/05/20 @ 6:06 AM
Washington Department of Ecology
I am a 79 year old woman who lives in Portland Oregon. During this world wide pandemic we have more time to look closely at what is going on around us. Among many I live on this North American plate in the United Stat...↓
I understand the petroleum industry wants to use our Columbia River corridor as storage, refinery and transportation out to China and elsewhere.
Northwest Innovation Works, NWIW wants to build the world's largest refinery on the Columbia River in the town of Kalama. They will need to use millions of gallons of water connecting from the Columbia River every day.
Now I could stop here to object to this idea. It would be enough to stop this Kalama Methanol refinery construction.
But finding the company NWIW has not been forthcoming in meeting the Environmental Impact Statement, EIS standards set by the state of Washington is concerning. They have neglected to include the pollution of fracked gas in all of its stages in getting to the proposed refinery. The actual methanol refinery itself would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution every year of its production. How long do they expect the plant to run?
40 years is the proposal.
Is this the future we want to leave?
Please reject this Kalama methanol refinery project.
It is wrong on so many levels.

Sincerely,
Suzanne Thornton
10/5/2020
No attachments

Comment From: Katherine Nelson

10/05/20 @ 4:48 AM
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.

This new Dra...↓

Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions. One can simply look to the impacts of this pandemic to see evidence of incredible uncertainty and volatility in energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades. Furthermore, the SEIS provides too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions that will occur overseas. The mitigation framework is too vague for Ecology to conclude that this projects impacts will be mitigated, and the urgency of climate change demands that mitigation should be the last option (after all other impacts are reduced) in order to address unavoidable impacts, not simply to maintain the status quo as we continue to build out the fossil fuel industry.

Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and a faint hope of theoretical emission reductions. Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project--that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.

The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.

Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution.
No attachments

Comment From: Jim Fisher

10/05/20 @ 4:42 AM
I am against approval of this project for the following reasons:

1. The draft EIS assumes that up to 40% of the methanol production could end up used as fuel in (China) and thereby produce substantially more greenhouse gases. However, previous present...↓

2. The draft EIS is misleading when trying to compare global market supply/demand scenarios and global greenhouse gas emissions with and without the subject project in place. This evaluation is highly speculative and based on far too general assumptions concerning how and where China might resource alternative methanol supplies other than Kalama. WDOE has no control or actual data on where or what such alternative sources might exist outside of WA state, and therefore should not attempt to base a decision on such speculation. However, WDOE should emphasize the worst-case potential of this project to create adverse greenhouse gases globally, irrespective of any other alternative sources, and any subjective mitigation of GHG emissions from unknown sources in the world.

3. As stated above, this project will be owned and directed by the Chinese Government, which has a reputation of being untrustworthy and manipulative in their business dealings with the U.S. and other countries. This makes all of the data and project information they have provided through NWIW and other sources under their control highly suspect. As such, WDOE should be extremely wary and conservative in their final judgement and decisions, and disapprove of this project.

Thank you for this opportunity to provide comments.

Jim Fisher, CPEA, CHMM
No attachments

Comment From: Don Steinke

10/05/20 @ 4:24 AM
How can you say you took a hard look at the projects impacts, when you subcontract that work to someone else who assumed the validity of the claims made by NWIW.
The DSSEIS attempts to predict the future�and that prediction is pessimistic and just an ...↓
assuming China will not change its policy, no economic events, regulatory changes (such as China just announced) or technological breakthroughs will materially alter the way methanol is consumed or produced (such as in California with it new 50% recycled content law) during the next 40 years.

Continuing down our current trajectory of rampant fossil fuel consumption would be disastrous for our planet and civilization. NWIW shrugs and says: this "how the world actually works." That's fatalistic.

The DSSEIS' cynical guess about the next 40 years of human history does not constitute the "hard look" that SEPA requires. SEPA mandates a hard look at those impacts of a proposal that are reasonably foreseeable�no less, and no more.

No attachments

Comment From: Wendy Emerson

10/05/20 @ 3:31 AM
When climate chaos is all around us and literally thick in the air in the form of smoke from wildfires worsened by global heating, it is amazing that this project has not been summarily canceled. What more evidence do people need to see the insanity ...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Kristine Bruckner

10/05/20 @ 3:02 AM
A summary of the global greenhouse gas situation states that the proposed Kalama methanol refinery WOULD increase greenhouse gasses in the state of Washington (particularly near the location of the methanol refinery), and COULD decrease greenhouse ga...↓
1. In order for the argument in favor of the refinery to hold, current facilities overseas would need to either close or clean up their emissions. There is, however, no control built in to assure this would actually happen. The Kalama refinery could simply increase the production of methanol as the demand grows ever larger. There is actually no way to know or assure what the outcome would be. And there are not strong reasons for optimism.
2. There are few countries whose governments have a worse record of trustworthiness and keeping promises than China. There is a reason the US is concerned about TIKTOK, Huawai and other companies for lack of transparency. China is a very high risk partner in a business that endangers the local environment. Not only would the logic of this enterprise depend on closing of facilities abroad, but the refinery itself would be owned by, and largely run by Chinese nationals. There is no stake for them in the air and water, nor the health of the local population.
3. Please protect us. This refinery would certainly bring down the quality of the air in southwest Washington. Suffering through the hazardous smoke of a few weeks ago was a powerful and grim reminder of what diminished air quality does to breathing and the ability to live in a reasonably healthy manner. Find another way to lower global greenhouse gasses--not an idealistic vision that certainly diminishes or even sacrifices the health of the local population for a possible theoretical goal.
No attachments

Comment From: Deborah Hoskinson

10/05/20 @ 2:46 AM
I OPPOSE the development and operation of a natural gas-to-methanol production plant and storage facilities on approximately 90 acres at the Port of Kalama due to the impact it will have on orca whales, other whales, salmon and all Pacific NW marine ...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Janet Hurt

10/05/20 @ 2:15 AM
Dear Director Watson and Department of Ecology:
I have looked at information in support of this project (and in support of methane in general) and it just does not make sense to me. Basically, the argument seems to be that this project will decrease ...↓

I do not understand why any entity, private or public, is investing in technology that is at all fossil-fuel based, that adds ANY pollution or greenhouse gasses to the environment at all. We cannot afford to put any greenhouse gasses into the environment. Mitigation or "lesser of two evils" seems like a very shortsighted "solution" to dangerous impacts on the environment.

We – all of us, private and public entities – should be investing in, researching, building, creating systems that truly do not create any pollution or environmental damage. No fracking. No fossil fuels. No more methane. No capitalizing on global markets that are contributing to pollution and waste in any way. There must be other options. We are smarter than that. Tremendous human effort goes into short-sighted, profit-making energy and product production. Tremendous effort has gone into trying to convince us that this Kalama project will reduce pollution and environmental impact. This looks misleading to me. I realize this is a very complex situation, with many global players and systems involved. Still, this does not seem to be a sustainable solution to current and future pollution mitigation. Future generations depend on us to be smarter than that. I do not support any use of public funds for this project, and I want private entities to be to be held truly accountable and thinking way, way smarter about the bigger picture of what is going on with global warming and pollution. This project looks to me like it actually has long-term, negative consequences and dangerous, harmful environmental impacts.
No attachments

Comment From: Monte Martin

10/05/20 @ 12:04 AM
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.

This new Dra...↓

Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions. One can simply look to the impacts of this pandemic to see evidence of incredible uncertainty and volatility in energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades. Furthermore, the SEIS provides too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions that will occur overseas. The mitigation framework is too vague for Ecology to conclude that this projects impacts will be mitigated, and the urgency of climate change demands that mitigation should be the last option (after all other impacts are reduced) in order to address unavoidable impacts, not simply to maintain the status quo as we continue to build out the fossil fuel industry.

Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and a faint hope of theoretical emission reductions. Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project--that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.

The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.

Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution.
No attachments

Comment From: Carol Rolf

10/04/20 @ 11:54 PM
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.

This new Dra...↓

Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions. One can simply look to the impacts of this pandemic to see evidence of incredible uncertainty and volatility in energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades. Furthermore, the SEIS provides too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions that will occur overseas. The mitigation framework is too vague for Ecology to conclude that this projects impacts will be mitigated, and the urgency of climate change demands that mitigation should be the last option (after all other impacts are reduced) in order to address unavoidable impacts, not simply to maintain the status quo as we continue to build out the fossil fuel industry.

Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and a faint hope of theoretical emission reductions. Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project--that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.

The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.

Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution.
No attachments

Comment From: Kathryn Keiser

10/04/20 @ 11:42 PM
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.

This new Dra...↓

Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions. One can simply look to the impacts of this pandemic to see evidence of incredible uncertainty and volatility in energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades. Furthermore, the SEIS provides too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions that will occur overseas. The mitigation framework is too vague for Ecology to conclude that this projects impacts will be mitigated, and the urgency of climate change demands that mitigation should be the last option (after all other impacts are reduced) in order to address unavoidable impacts, not simply to maintain the status quo as we continue to build out the fossil fuel industry.

Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and a faint hope of theoretical emission reductions. Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project--that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.

The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.

Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution.
No attachments

Comment From: Marg Cemulini

10/04/20 @ 5:00 PM
FW: No methanol plant in Kalama for China
No attachments

Comment From: Robert Glover

10/04/20 @ 5:00 PM
Don’t allow the world’s largest fracked gas-to-methanol refinery to harm our climate and Kalama!
No attachments

Comment From: Sharon Sneddon

10/04/20 @ 5:00 PM
FW: Kalama methanol plant
No attachments

Comment From: Carol von Borstel

10/04/20 @ 5:00 PM
Attachments:

Comment From: Kimberly Sims

10/04/20 @ 5:00 PM
Attachments:

Comment From: M. Laurel Whitehurst

10/04/20 @ 5:00 PM
Attachments:

Comment From: Carol Dunn

10/04/20 @ 5:00 PM
Attachments:

Comment From: Fred Greef

10/04/20 @ 4:33 PM
The upstream methane releases from fracking cannot be regulated due to the Dick Cheney Loophole. This proposal will result in a huge increase in fracking due to the overseas methanol market in China. The methanol is not needed in this state or even t...↓

The downstream CO2 releases from methanol used as fuel instead of plastic should also be looked at as worst case, since China cannot be regulated either. No mitigation is offered in the EIS for the potentially huge significant global warming impacts set in motion by this proposal. This is more gas and more fracking than is used by all of the Northwest's biggest cities combined. If approved Washington State is directly responsible for these emissions that have not been addressed by any type of enforceable mitigation in the SEIS.

The local Washington State air quality impacts to the population of Longview were also not well addressed. The added daily diesel emissions from barges and tug boats on the Columbia River as well as the daily new methanol plant emissions directly upwind of nearby Longview will result in more deaths among the elderly and those with compromised respiratory health. The air quality in Longview, especially along the River and train tracks already causes documented health and death concerns. The cumulative effects of these 2 new sources of air pollution were not well documented in the SIES for the already compromised Longview airshed. These impacts are worse than those in Kalama where the existing air quality is better. Since these impacts are largely unknown and affect many more people than just Kalama and can actually be calculated, they should be considered significant until such calculations are conducted. Ecology has the expertise to monitor existing air quality in riverside longview residences, schools, and nursing homes. The existing air quality concerns along the riverside communities in Longview should be documented. The cumulative effects of the new impacts should be modeled by Ecology's air quality scientists and added to the existing air quality impacts before any conclusions can be made about the significance of the local air quality impacts of this proposal.
No attachments

Comment From: Patricia Hansen

10/04/20 @ 4:14 PM
This is a very bad idea and an environmental tragedy in the making. It is a great source of pollution and a hazard to the Orcas as well.
No attachments

Comment From: Susan Schenkel

10/04/20 @ 2:28 PM
How is it possible that eminent domain can be used to benefit a foreign company, especially one from a country that is often considered a rival to the United States? Pipelines would run across lands that will be seized through eminent domain all to ...↓

Deny these permits, because you are the last line of defense on this. We must stop using fossil fuels and pretending that it doesn't matter. It matters!!!
No attachments

Comment From: Tracy Ceravolo

10/04/20 @ 2:20 PM
The SSEIS makes the huge assumption that China will continue down the path of using coal unless NWIW brings new methanol online, in which case it will replace that amount of coal with methanol. This is an absurd assumption. China wants to reduce th...↓

We have known about Global Warming for more than 4 decades. It would be criminal to allow the permits to build this facility which will contribute to the Climate Crisis and harm our future!
No attachments

Comment From: Robin and Tom, MD Donnelly

10/04/20 @ 1:44 PM
The Kalama refinery is a bad idea for Washington and the earth. Climate change is catching up to us and we need to set a better example for China and the world.
Plus we don't need MORE big ships causing sound pollution for our Orca or creating a possi...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Donald Greenberg

10/04/20 @ 1:31 PM
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.

This new Dra...↓

Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions. One can simply look to the impacts of this pandemic to see evidence of incredible uncertainty and volatility in energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades. Furthermore, the SEIS provides too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions that will occur overseas. The mitigation framework is too vague for Ecology to conclude that this projects impacts will be mitigated, and the urgency of climate change demands that mitigation should be the last option (after all other impacts are reduced) in order to address unavoidable impacts, not simply to maintain the status quo as we continue to build out the fossil fuel industry.

Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and a faint hope of theoretical emission reductions. Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project--that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.

The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.

Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution.
No attachments

Comment From: Deirdre Morris

10/04/20 @ 12:27 PM
Please do not do this . Thank you
No attachments

Comment From: Nina Le Baron

10/04/20 @ 11:09 AM
I feel that it important to protect the salmon, the orcas, the state, and the planet. Do you? We need to stop using fossil fuels NOW. Switch to non-polluting renewable energy NOW. We have GOBAL WARMING< FIRES ALL OVER THE COUNTRY!!!!!! STOP!!!!!!!!!!
No attachments

Comment From: Rhonda Hunter

10/04/20 @ 8:49 AM
As a former career employee of Ecology, I know the agency works hard for the greater good and adherence to clear science. Our Washington State fire seasons are growing far worse as the climate crisis accelerates. This proposed Methanol Facility in Ka...↓

Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.

This new Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement represents some important improvements in evaluating the true climate impacts of this facility, including addressing the likelihood that methanol produced by this facility will be used as transportation fuel, despite deliberate efforts by NWIW to mislead your agency and the public otherwise. And while the SEIS has made some necessary adjustments in the methane leakage rates, the rates continue to be low estimates given the widespread underreporting of leaks. However, even with the unreasonable assumptions about the single-sourcing of gas from British Columbia, as well as the unrealistically low leakage estimates for that source, the analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would be enormously polluting.

Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions. One can simply look to the impacts of this pandemic to see evidence of incredible uncertainty and volatility in energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades. Furthermore, the SEIS provides too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions that will occur overseas. The mitigation framework is too vague for Ecology to conclude that this projects impacts will be mitigated, and the urgency of climate change demands that mitigation should be the last option (after all other impacts are reduced) in order to address unavoidable impacts, not simply to maintain the status quo as we continue to build out the fossil fuel industry.

Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and a faint hope of theoretical emission reductions. Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project--that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.

The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.

Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution.
No attachments

Comment From: Geoff Wilson

10/04/20 @ 7:53 AM
We live in Anytime of active climate change. All and resources that are potentially hazardous to the environment need to be reconsidered strongly. Methane Yes a particularly harm Gas to the environment. For this reason I am strongly opposed to all Ma...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Kathryn Rose

10/04/20 @ 7:46 AM
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.

This new Dra...↓

Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions. One can simply look to the impacts of this pandemic to see evidence of incredible uncertainty and volatility in energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades. Furthermore, the SEIS provides too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions that will occur overseas. The mitigation framework is too vague for Ecology to conclude that this projects impacts will be mitigated, and the urgency of climate change demands that mitigation should be the last option (after all other impacts are reduced) in order to address unavoidable impacts, not simply to maintain the status quo as we continue to build out the fossil fuel industry.

Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and a faint hope of theoretical emission reductions. Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project--that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.

The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.

Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution.
No attachments

Comment From: Jean M. Avery

10/04/20 @ 7:37 AM
As we've seen in 2020, our lives can be drastically changed in a matter of a few months. Accordingly, it is unrealistic to predict what may happen within the coming forty years. As the Dept. of Ecology considers the proposed NWIW project, I strongly ...↓

1. What if the renewable energy sector continues to grow, and Kalama, WA is left with a stranded asset that perpetuates the outmoded fossil fuel legacy?

2. What if a cleaner project is proposed for Kalama's port, but it has already committed to NWIW's methanol plant?

3. What if China moves forward with low-carbon goals (as Pres. Xi recently pledged to do) and China no longer meets its energy needs with fossil fuels, as now assumed?

4. What if financial trends favor investments in low-carbon technologies, as some ESG funds project?

5. What if political tensions increase between the U.S. and China and a hostile adversary controls a key port on Washington's coastline?

6. What if water becomes increasingly scarce, but we continue to give it away for NWIW's project and profit?

7. What if NWIW's jobs are filled with specialized workers from outside the area, instead of workers in Cowlitz County?

8. What if new workers moving to the Kalama area add to the demand for housing, thus raising housing costs for current residents?

9. What if recovery of SW Washington to its pre-NWIW status takes decades? (Think: we're just now 40 years after the Mount St. Helens eruption.)

10. What if Washington's natural resources are depleted, at a high environmental cost with questionable gain?

11. What if we really have a chance to reduce global warming and we miss our opportunity? ("Drawdown" researchers present data-driven strategies that could lead the transition to a renewable, clean-energy future. See https://drawdown.org.)

Please consider these possible ramifications before deciding on this project and its consequences. Please deny the permits for the NWIW refinery.

No attachments

Comment From: Diane Dick

10/04/20 @ 5:47 AM
2020 10 04 Comment #5

Washington State Department of Ecology
Olympia, Washington
Re: Formal Comments on Kalama Manufacturing and Marine Export Facility Draft Second Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, September 2020

Please deny Kalama Manufact...↓
Greenhouse gas emissions are insufficiently explained in the draft second supplemental environmental impact statement (SSEIS) and the data contains errors and omissions.
The greenhouse gas emissions from KMMEF marine dock operations are not examined in the DSSEIS and need to be evaluated and added to total project emissions.
The KMMEF marine dock is integral to this refinery project, otherwise we could just refer to it as the NWIW refinery project. However, GHG emissions, from dock operations have not been examined in this draft SSEIS or in the first supplemental environmental impact statement.
The first SEIS simply deferred discussion of marine dock GHGs, different from methanol vessel transport or process emissions, to what was included in the FEIS.
The FEIS states-
"The proposed marine terminal would accommodate the oceangoing vessels that would transport
methanol to destination ports. It would also be designed to accommodate other vessel types and,
when not in use for loading methanol, would be made available for use as a lay berth where
vessels could moor while waiting to use other Port berths or for other purposes." 2.1

"The proposed project also incorporates the use of shore power for the marine terminal. Shore
power allows ships to "plug into" electrical power sources on shore. Turning off ship auxiliary
engines at berth would reduce ship diesel emissions and result in GHG emission reductions,
depending on the source of electric power from the grid. GHG emission reductions from shore power have not been calculated for the proposed project, but studies completed in other locations show reductions of from 25 percent to 50 percent (EPA 2017)." p. 3-35&36

"Marine Terminal Alternatives
The Marine Terminal Alternatives would both result in the same potential impacts to energy
and natural resources and are assessed together.
Both Marine Terminal Alternatives would generate demand for electricity for lighting, loading
equipment, and the operations shack and dockworker shelter. They would also generate
demand for electricity from the use of shore power (also known as "cold-ironing"). Both
Marine Terminal Alternative would generate a peak electrical demand of approximately 3 megawatts (accounting for both methanol loading activities and the use of shore power by vessels serving the methanol manufacturing facility and lay berth vessels), and an estimated annual electricity use of approximately 11,000 megawatt-hours based on preliminary engineering estimates. This electricity demand would be negligible compared to the approximately 5 million megawatt-hours of energy sales by the Cowlitz PUD in 2013.
Therefore, the operation of the Marine Terminal Alternatives would not result in significant
adverse impacts to energy and natural resources." P. 7-7 & 8

In the analysis of purchased power only power associated with methanol process is examined, not that from shore power required by vessels at berth, estimated to be 72 visits from Panamax methanol tankers and up to 12 other vessels using the dock as lay berth per year. (I will note this area of the river recently acquired additional stern buoys, meaning additional vessels under their own power awaiting berth will be emitting GHGs and air pollutants in the region.)

Looking just at shore power (aka cold-ironing or shore to ship power) use from vessels at berth, the preliminary estimate of 11,000 MW hours annually is likely lowballed. Per EPA GHG calculator this low amount of electricity generates 7,777 metric tons of CO2e. This is more than other GHG emitting activities analyzed in both SEISs.

The peak electrical demand of about 3 megawatts is also of dubious credibility. The first shore power installed at a terminal for tankers in 2009 at Port of Long Beach had a capacity of 8 MW.

"What is claimed to be the world's first oil tanker terminal equipped with shore power to eliminate air emissions from berthed vessels was unveiled this week.
Pier T at the Port of Long Beach, used by BP America affiliate Alaska Tanker Co, has been equipped with a BP shore power installation, which can deliver up to 8 MW at 6,660 v." http://www.tankeroperator.com/news/first-tanker-cold-ironing-facility-opened/1231.aspx

The Port of Boston commissioned a study to evaluate shore power requirements for various vessels and found power demands ranging from 3.36 MW to 13 MW.
"One Container vessel requires as much power as the largest Logan Airport Terminal (3.36 Megawatts).
Significant peak power demand on electrical grid. Just one cruise ship (Queen Mary 2) requires electrical demand equal to all required power to service all Logan Airport Terminals (13 Megawatts)."
Massport Shore-to-Ship Power Study August 5, 2016
https://globalmaritimehub.com/wp-content/uploads/attach_770.pdf

More recently the California Air Resources Board is determining regulations for emissions from ocean-going vessels at berth. In a lengthy report the following was stated about tanker vessels, "On average, a tanker's auxiliary boiler can require one to several thousand kW of power during pumping operations, while auxiliary power load consumption for regular hotelling operations generally ranges between 700 kW to 1,000 kW per hour (Appendix H). Hotelling times for tankers transporting crude oil range between 5 to 173 hours per visit I-29 5. and the average berthing time for a product tanker is around 48 hours." p. I-29, State of California AIR RESOURCES BOARD PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE PROPOSED CONTROL MEASURE FOR OCEAN-GOING VESSELS AT BERTH STAFF REPORT: INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS DATE OF RELEASE: OCTOBER 15, 2019 SCHEDULED FOR CONSIDERATION: DECEMBER 5, 2019
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/regact/2019/ogvatberth2019/isor.pdf

I strongly urge you to review the above CARB report. California is suggesting stricter regulation of vessel emissions at berth from ports with more than 20 ocean-going vessel calls per year.
'CARB staff's proposal to further reduce emissions from ocean-going vessels would require emissions control requirements at any port or independent marine terminal exceeding a specific visit activity threshold. If a port or marine terminal surpasses the 20 visit threshold, they must submit a plan to CARB by the end of the following calendar year describing how they will control emissions from the vessel activity at their facility.'' P. ES-15
This one new Kalama dock would receive four times the vessel traffic under the California regulation requiring stronger emission controls.

The FEIS statement the Marine Terminal Alternatives are not significantly impactful is false.
Please rectify the serious omission of greenhouse gas analysis from vessels at berth at the proposed KMMEF marine dock in the second supplemental EIS.

Thank you,

Diane L. Dick
Longview

No attachments

Comment From: Judy Arielle Fiestal

10/04/20 @ 3:51 AM
I am a 71 year old retired teacher from Portland, Oregon and now living in Ferndale, Washington. My sons and my grandchildren live in Portland, Lake Forest Park in Washington and Ferndale. What happens in Kalama affects us all.

What is the legacy do y...↓

We have all experienced the smoke of the west burning this past month. Some worst than others. In Portland what used to be for us a lovely clear and warm summer month turned into a toxic stew for us to breathe. 250 miles north it was not as lethal but hazardous to our health to be outside. Your decision in regards to the proposed Kalama Methanol Refinery will define the world that we will live in.

Washington makes claims of wanting to meet climate goals that will turn around the course our civilization is taking. Approving a dinosaur aged methanol refinery plant that will produce 4.6 million tons of carbon pollution or more each year is not consistent with healing our planet. It is not consistent in protecting Washington shorelines, not consistent in protecting the health of our communities with good air quality, and is not consistent with keeping global temperature rise below 2 degrees C. In short it is not consistent with supporting our planet with life as we know it and love.

And for what are you willing to sacrifice so much? So that Northwest Innovation Works can continue to profit from the degradation of our environment? So that the destructive practice of fracked gas that lays waste the area from which it's extracted continues? So that we can help China produce more plastic that is polluting our oceans and our environment at a frightening rate? So that we will continue to produce more carbon than all the gas-fired power plants in Washigton combined?

Some say it's for jobs. We need government leaders who can look to the future to expand our alternative energy sector to create jobs that will help our society and not be hurtful to our environment. It is long past time that we have leaders who are willing to press forward on a new course for healing. Are you those leaders?

I urge the Department of Ecology to reject the methanol refinery and to deny the Shorelines Permit for this project.

Sincerely,
Judy Arielle Fiestal
Portland, Oregon and Ferndale, Washington
judyarielle@gmail.com

No attachments

Comment From: Lori Bright

10/04/20 @ 3:10 AM
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.

This new Dra...↓

Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions. One can simply look to the impacts of this pandemic to see evidence of incredible uncertainty and volatility in energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades. Furthermore, the SEIS provides too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions that will occur overseas. The mitigation framework is too vague for Ecology to conclude that this projects impacts will be mitigated, and the urgency of climate change demands that mitigation should be the last option (after all other impacts are reduced) in order to address unavoidable impacts, not simply to maintain the status quo as we continue to build out the fossil fuel industry.

Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and a faint hope of theoretical emission reductions. Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project--that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.

The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.

Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution.
No attachments

Comment From: Holly Cooper

10/04/20 @ 1:10 AM
NO! I do not want to live near a plant like this . 90 acres taking away from wildlife and destroying our planet. NO!
No attachments

Comment From: Anand Parikh

10/03/20 @ 5:00 PM
Don?t allow the world?s largest fracked gas-to-methanol refinery to harm our climate and Kalama!
No attachments

Comment From: mary n

10/03/20 @ 3:04 PM
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.

This new Dra...↓

Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions. One can simply look to the impacts of this pandemic to see evidence of incredible uncertainty and volatility in energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades. Furthermore, the SEIS provides too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions that will occur overseas. The mitigation framework is too vague for Ecology to conclude that this projects impacts will be mitigated, and the urgency of climate change demands that mitigation should be the last option (after all other impacts are reduced) in order to address unavoidable impacts, not simply to maintain the status quo as we continue to build out the fossil fuel industry.

Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and a faint hope of theoretical emission reductions. Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project--that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.

The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.

Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution.
No attachments

Comment From: marilee dea

10/03/20 @ 2:37 PM
Kalama Methanol Terminal

My name is Marilee Dea, I am a public health Pediatric Nurse Practitioner. I coordinated pediatric prevention programs for Multnomah County, including the Lead and Asthma prevention programs.

We found that folks that live near ...↓

The Kalama methanol refinery, the largest methanol refinery in the world, will have mile high plumes releasing carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide, volatile organic compounds and fine particulate matter. Methanol, itself is highly flammable and toxic to humans and animals. People living near this plant will be at higher risk for asthma because the visible and invisible irritating chemicals are inhaled.
.

How many of you have seen a severe asthma attack or have friends or family with asthma? It is scary, this is what is happening- when the irritant or allergent is inhaled~ causes airway swelling, mucous, chest muscle tighten and the airway narrows, it can get so tight it is difficult to get air in or out of the lungs, hence wheezing and coughing occurs to force air in and out. You can't speak in full sentences, you get confused and need to sit or stand to breath- your face begins to turn blue. What should you do? Get their restrictive clothes off, run for the inhaler, and emergency meds if they have them. Have them the take long slow deep breaths and pray they get better and prepare to get to a hospital. I have had a friend die at the beach because he was too far from a hospital. Is this the life you want in Kalama- especially in the summer when it is hot, smoggy or when forest fire smog rolls in.

No attachments

Comment From: Jane Nicolai

10/03/20 @ 9:51 AM
Dear Department of Ecology,

The current EIS compares the proposed Kalama methanol facility with one that doesn't exist, comparing make-believe numbers against the stated 4.6 million tons of climate pollution every year for forty years this facility w...↓
Add the destruction of building the pipeline, the damage of eminent domaine, the eye-watering, cancer causing pollutants up and down the Columbia River, and INCREASED POLLUTION AT EVERY STEP OF THE PROCESS it is your duty (and mission statement) to deny this permit.
No attachments

Comment From: stephanie smith

10/03/20 @ 8:59 AM
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.

This new Dra...↓

Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions. One can simply look to the impacts of this pandemic to see evidence of incredible uncertainty and volatility in energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades. Furthermore, the SEIS provides too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions that will occur overseas. The mitigation framework is too vague for Ecology to conclude that this projects impacts will be mitigated, and the urgency of climate change demands that mitigation should be the last option (after all other impacts are reduced) in order to address unavoidable impacts, not simply to maintain the status quo as we continue to build out the fossil fuel industry.

Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and a faint hope of theoretical emission reductions. Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project--that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.

The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.

Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution.
No attachments

Comment From: Cortney Marabetta

10/03/20 @ 7:25 AM
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.

This new Dra...↓

Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions. One can simply look to the impacts of this pandemic to see evidence of incredible uncertainty and volatility in energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades. Furthermore, the SEIS provides too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions that will occur overseas. The mitigation framework is too vague for Ecology to conclude that this projects impacts will be mitigated, and the urgency of climate change demands that mitigation should be the last option (after all other impacts are reduced) in order to address unavoidable impacts, not simply to maintain the status quo as we continue to build out the fossil fuel industry.

Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and a faint hope of theoretical emission reductions. Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project--that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.

The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.

Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution.
No attachments

Comment From: Lauren Sewell

10/03/20 @ 7:23 AM
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.

This new Dra...↓

Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions. One can simply look to the impacts of this pandemic to see evidence of incredible uncertainty and volatility in energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades. Furthermore, the SEIS provides too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions that will occur overseas. The mitigation framework is too vague for Ecology to conclude that this projects impacts will be mitigated, and the urgency of climate change demands that mitigation should be the last option (after all other impacts are reduced) in order to address unavoidable impacts, not simply to maintain the status quo as we continue to build out the fossil fuel industry.

Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and a faint hope of theoretical emission reductions. Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project--that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.

The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.

Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution.
No attachments

Comment From: Joseph Yencich

10/03/20 @ 6:32 AM
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.

This new Dra...↓

Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions. One can simply look to the impacts of this pandemic to see evidence of incredible uncertainty and volatility in energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades. Furthermore, the SEIS provides too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions that will occur overseas. The mitigation framework is too vague for Ecology to conclude that this projects impacts will be mitigated, and the urgency of climate change demands that mitigation should be the last option (after all other impacts are reduced) in order to address unavoidable impacts, not simply to maintain the status quo as we continue to build out the fossil fuel industry.

Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and a faint hope of theoretical emission reductions. Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project--that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.

The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.

Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution.
No attachments

Comment From: Judy Silverstein

10/03/20 @ 4:48 AM
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and your acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of NWIW/Northwest Innovation Works Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington, have been inaccurate and inadequate.

This new...↓

Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions. Just look at the impacts of this pandemic to see evidence of incredible uncertainty and volatility in energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades.

Furthermore, the SEIS provides too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions that will occur overseas. The mitigation framework is too vague for Ecology to conclude that this projects impacts will be mitigated, and the urgency of climate change demands that mitigation should be the last option (after all other impacts are reduced) in order to address unavoidable impacts, not simply to maintain the status quo as we continue to build out the fossil fuel industry.

Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and a faint hope of theoretical emission reductions. Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project--that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.

The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.

Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution. THANK YOU.
No attachments

[ Previous Page / Next Page ]