Kalama Manufacturing and Marine Export Facility Second Supplemental EIS

4777 Results

Sort:

Comment From: Joel Carlson

9/19/20 @ 12:09 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: Darlene Hernandez

9/19/20 @ 12:09 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: Camie Rodgers

9/19/20 @ 12:08 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: Joan Farber

9/19/20 @ 12:08 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: Robert Viola

9/19/20 @ 12:08 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: Shearle Furnish

9/19/20 @ 12:08 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: Scott Coahran

9/19/20 @ 12:07 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: Sharon Pederslie

9/19/20 @ 12:07 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: Judith Alexander

9/19/20 @ 12:07 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: Caroline Sévilla

9/19/20 @ 12:07 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: Peter Wood

9/19/20 @ 12:07 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: Sophia Keller

9/19/20 @ 12:07 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: Mary Jeffrey

9/19/20 @ 12:06 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: Rex Miller

9/19/20 @ 12:05 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: Jessica Mangrum

9/19/20 @ 12:05 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: Mark Soenksen

9/19/20 @ 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: Diane McCutcheon

9/19/20 @ 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: Hans Purdom

9/19/20 @ 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: Michele Campbell

9/19/20 @ 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: Batya Harlow

9/19/20 @ 12:03 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: Daniel Brant

9/19/20 @ 12:03 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: Jody Gibson

9/19/20 @ 12:03 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: Rose Rohrer

9/19/20 @ 12:02 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: Ken White

9/18/20 @ 10:07 PM
As a resident in Kalama, I have concerns over the true environmental impact of this plant. I see very little information on the increase ship and car traffic that would also come with this construction nor do I see it having a true long term benefit...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Anonymous Anonymous

9/18/20 @ 8:48 PM
Don't allow the world's largest fracked gas-to-methanol refinery to harm our climate and Kalama!

Washington State should reject Northwest Innovation Works' (NWIW) proposal to build and operate the world's largest fracked gas-to-methanol refinery in Ka...↓

The project would use more fracked gas than all of Washington's power plants, combined. The company has sought to mislead regulators and the public about the purpose and impact of the refinery, falsely claiming that the project will displace "dirtier" forms of fossil fuels. We know that fracked gas is a potent greenhouse gas pollutant, and we are counting on Ecology to accurately account for the project's upstream emissions as well as the downstream pollution from the likely combustion of NWIW's methanol for fuel.

For the community of Kalama and for our climate, the risk is simply too big. Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution. We are counting on you to stop this dirty and dangerous project.
No attachments

Comment From: Linda Vanderbilt

9/18/20 @ 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: Nancy Purcell

9/18/20 @ 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: Imani Mabwa-Childress

9/18/20 @ 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: Ethan Wesley

9/18/20 @ 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: Gregory Stephens

9/18/20 @ 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: James Rankin

9/18/20 @ 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: Meredith Long

9/18/20 @ 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: Linda Serafini

9/18/20 @ 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: Chris Bariekman

9/18/20 @ 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: Sev Sandomirsky

9/18/20 @ 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: Sherry Hansen

9/18/20 @ 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: Russell Dorer

9/18/20 @ 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: Rebecca Heisman

9/18/20 @ 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: Alex Bernard

9/18/20 @ 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 Lawrence

9/18/20 @ 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: Catherine Martinez

9/18/20 @ 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: Linda Mintun

9/18/20 @ 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: Laura Gibbons

9/18/20 @ 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: David Lambert

9/18/20 @ 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: Claire Tagalog

9/18/20 @ 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: Samuel Castro

9/18/20 @ 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: Diane Meisenhelter

9/18/20 @ 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: Samantha Valenteen

9/18/20 @ 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: Julie Anne

9/18/20 @ 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: pamela hathaway

9/18/20 @ 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: Bret Huff

9/18/20 @ 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: Pamela K

9/18/20 @ 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: Carole Glickfeld

9/18/20 @ 4:12 PM
This is a danger and an insult to the people of Washington State. It has been clearly demonstrated that fracking causes earthquakes. US States that have had fracking and never experienced earthquakes are now getting them by the many dozens. Additi...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Kathleen Laney

9/18/20 @ 2:41 PM
Please do not approve any permit for this facility. Methanol is toxic and dangerous. It takes only a small amount to blind and kill. The accidents-and there's always accidents because these facilities are run by human beings- would be horrific with t...↓
Please consider what you are putting at risk. Please do not allow this facility to operate.
Thank you
Kathleen Laney
No attachments

Comment From: Carol Olivier

9/18/20 @ 1:38 PM
This is a disastrous environmental project. Fracking is a horribly dirty polluting industry-horrible for the environment. 1. Increases earthquakes (reference Oklahoma) 2. Poisons underground water and wells (reference Pennsylvania) 3. Increases metha...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Brenda McCool

9/18/20 @ 12:13 PM
Please, for the love of god no fracking in Kalama
No attachments

Comment From: Rebecca Nimmons

9/18/20 @ 11:48 AM
We must move away from fossil fuels and move to green energy, for our very survival is at stake! Climate change is real and we must face it head on or go down in flames. Going down in flames doesn't sound like the best option.
No attachments

Comment From: Mike Pence

9/18/20 @ 10:26 AM
Hi Community!

Have you seen the destruction of Life and utter loss of billions of dollars of tourism, quality of Life for future generations in the Gulf Of Mexico? Have you?!?!?!?
If not, check out our Cascadia in the near future.
Then make the correct ...↓
Thanks a bunch!
Mike
No attachments

Comment From: Amanda Doimas

9/18/20 @ 10:25 AM
I moved to the Pacific NW 20 years ago to get away from a state (AZ) that continues to engage in destructive mining practices and neglect its precious water sources. Please do not allow this to happen here. We have been enduring horrific wildfires wi...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Alexa Fay

9/18/20 @ 10:19 AM
The proposed NWIW methanol refinery would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years. Ecology should deny the Shorelines permit for the refinery. The SEIS relies on a flawed, speculative analysis to argue that methanol...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Blaine Ackley

9/18/20 @ 9:40 AM

To whom it may concern,

Please do not approve the permits to complete the Kalama Methanol Refinery. We are at an urgent time in history to create earth friendly resources and methanol is not the answer.

We are currently seeing the results of climate ch...↓

According to the Scientific American article Study Revised Estimate of Methane Leaks from US fracking fields published In 2013 "significant leaks of heat-trapping methane from natural gas production sites would erase any climate advantage the fuel offers".

Furthermore according to an article posted in Environmental Science dated 7/12/14 entitled Arctic Methane Leaks, Facts, and Our Future we know that "methane is worse than dioxide-it is roughly 30 times more potent as a heat-trapped greenhouse gas."

More recently in September 2, 2020 "Ecology's DSSEIS finds 4.6 million metric tons CO2e pollution added to our atmosphere every 40 years."

And in an July 20, 2020 published article in the New Atlas entitled Global Emissions of heat-trapping methane hit record high, "new analysis has revealed that emissions of this particular potent greenhouse gas has now hit record highs with the surge being driven in large part by the burning of fossil fuels and increased agricultural activity."

I've been reading for years of residents in the mid-West losing their fresh water. Watched videos of their water turning to fire when lit with a lighter. Losing valuable water for livestock. This is not something WA wants.

I beg of you to think about the long term affects this will have on our state; including, the salmon population in the Columbia River, the 12 million tons of carbon pollution to the atmosphere every year, an increase of our states total fracked fossil-gas use by 38%, the increase in WA started greenhouse gas emissions.

Say no to Methanol in Washington state. We do not need foreign entities to be building and/or taking of Washington's resources. Reject permits for the proposed Kalama Methanol refinery.

Thank you,
Blaine Ackley
No attachments

Comment From: Cass Martinez

9/18/20 @ 9:36 AM
I live in the county across the river from the proposed facility. If The Kalama facility is permitted, it will have the unfortunate effect of making a second or third Northwest Innovation Works facility, as already proposed, more likely on our Oregon...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Ann Littlewood

9/18/20 @ 9:18 AM
Northwest Innovations says the purpose of this project is to create methanol to ship to China to make plastic. I believe this article from NPR about recycling plastic is relevant.
https://www.opb.org/article/2020/09/11/how-big-oil-misled-the-public-in...↓
No attachments

Comment From: george shipley

9/18/20 @ 8:53 AM
I would like to go on record as opposing the Chinese proposal to build a methane producing and shipping complex near Kalama. The Chinese have no intention of mitigating any violations of air quality or trucking overload to the freeway system. Please ...↓
George Shipley
No attachments

Comment From: Carleen Wolgamott

9/18/20 @ 8:50 AM
Cowlitz County and Washington State can do better at creating new jobs than having a plant built which will be one of Washington State's top ten polluters and also a huge global contributor to plastics pollution. Please read the attached NPR article ...↓
Thank you, Carleen Wolgamott
Attachments:

Comment From: Linda Tippens

9/18/20 @ 7:41 AM
Our state should not be used to benefit another county while polluting our environment. If China needs this chemical, let them build their own plant.
Our governor pretends to be for the environment but our sound is polluted by commercial cruise ships ...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Amber Martinell

9/18/20 @ 7:28 AM
To whom it may concern,

Please do not approve the permits to complete the Kalama Methanol Refinery. We are at an urgent time in history to create earth friendly resources and methanol is not the answer.

We are currently seeing the results of climate ch...↓

According to the Scientific American article Study Revised Estimate of Methane Leaks from US fracking fields published In 2013 "significant leaks of heat-trapping methane from natural gas production sites would erase any climate advantage the fuel offers".

Furthermore according to an article posted in Environmental Science dated 7/12/14 entitled Arctic Methane Leaks, Facts, and Our Future we know that "methane is worse than dioxide-it is roughly 30 times more potent as a heat-trapped greenhouse gas."

More recently in September 2, 2020 "Ecology's DSSEIS finds 4.6 million metric tons CO2e pollution added to our atmosphere every 40 years."

And in an July 20, 2020 published article in the New Atlas entitled Global Emissions of heat-trapping methane hit record high, "new analysis has revealed that emissions of this particular potent greenhouse gas has now hit record highs with the surge being driven in large part by the burning of fossil fuels and increased agricultural activity."

I've been reading for years of residents in the mid-West losing their fresh water. Watched videos of their water turning to fire when lit with a lighter. Losing valuable water for livestock. This is not something WA wants.

As a born, raised and returned WA resident, I beg of you to think about the long term affects this will have on our state; including, the salmon population in the Columbia River, the 12 million tons of carbon pollution to the atmosphere every year, an increase of our states total fracked fossil-gas use by 38%, the increase in WA started greenhouse gas emissions.

Say no to Methanol in Washington state. We do not need foreign entities to be building and/or taking of Washington's resources. Reject permits for the proposed Kalama Methanol refinery.

Thank you
Amber Martinell

No attachments

Comment From: Lara Osborn

9/18/20 @ 6:54 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 must p...↓

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,
Lara Osborn
1802 220th Pl NE Sammamish, WA 98074-4158
laraosborn2@hotmail.com
No attachments

Comment From: Karey Kessler

9/18/20 @ 6:45 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. Karey Kessler
7017 38th Ave NE Seattle, WA 98115-5936
karey.kessler@gmail.com
No attachments

Comment From: Linda Leonard

9/18/20 @ 6:43 AM
Make no mistake about it, Kalama, the state of Washington and the world does not need the proposed methanol refinery to be built.

Northwest Innovation Works' have used the rationale the facility would cause a net reduction in current greenhouse gas em...↓

Ecology's analysis state that current global greenhouse gas emissions would increase substantially if this project were built, but perhaps not as substantially as if, China's methanol demands were met by other sources.

The gas impact analysis summary reads: What would happen in the markets if KMMEF were not to go into operation? The analysis of methanol supply in China shows that there is existing capacity in China to increase methanol production and meet growing demand. This is expected to be supplied from coal-based methanol, the lowest-cost producer in China. Additional demand will be met with natural gas based imports which are also low cost. NWIW's facility is expected to be one of the lowest cost of these exporting producers.

But absent Kalama Manufacturing and Marine Export Facility, other low cost natural gas based exporters would also supply the growing market in China.

The summary concludes, there are always uncertainty in future markets with respect to prices, policies, the global pandemic recession and relationships between input suppliers and producers.

Rather than engage in this speculation, Ecology should focus on the real world, known pollution that will come from the facility rather than NWIW's dubious displacement argument.

The misguided conclusion that the world's largest fracked gas to methanol refinery would somehow benefit our climate and have no significant adverse impacts on the Columbia River estuary or the public is appalling.

I am calling on the Department of Ecology to reject this project and to deny the Shorelines permit from proceeding.
No attachments

Comment From: Jay Pine

9/18/20 @ 6:32 AM
There are several points that are very troubling about this project.
The first is that the owners of this proposed plant will take it upon themselves to mitigate future greenhouse gas emissions. The oil and gas industry has an extremely poor track rec...↓
As the demand for gas and oil dwindles the oil companies are finding new ways to keep us tied to their pipelines. Please do not allow this toxic facility to be constructed in Washington State , our future investments in energy infrastructure should involve wind,solar and renewable energy. Thank you,
Jay Pine
No attachments

Comment From: Linda Buckley

9/18/20 @ 6:25 AM
Dear Mr. Doenges, I attended the informative presentation yesterday on the second EIS and public hearing. I am a 3 year resident of Vancouver Washington and very concerned about the environmental risks created by the proposed gas to methanol refinery...↓
No attachments

Comment From: John Bowen

9/18/20 @ 5:54 AM
This project will contribute to the current climate disaster we are experiencing in the world today. Stop this insanity.
No attachments

Comment From: Dr. Candace Gossen

9/18/20 @ 5:08 AM
I have lived in colorado the last 4 years in Medical School and with more than 50,000 wells surrounding the city its air and water quality is in sickening levels. I have even longer worked on environmental sustainability issues in seeing flammable wa...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Dennis Colombo

9/18/20 @ 4:37 AM
Regarding the Northwest Innovation Works – Kalama Manufacturing and Marine Export Facility SSEIS, I am submitting the following comments:
The SSEIS states that "The project would increase greenhouse gas emissions within Washington state by almos...↓
In conclusion, I see no demonstrative proof that the Kalama facility would reduce worldwide net greenhouse gas emissions and I believe that the risks to the environment and the health and wellbeing of local residents far outweigh any benefits. Therefore, I urge that this permit be denied.

No attachments

Comment From: Lou Ann Bennett

9/18/20 @ 4:31 AM
Dear Director Watson and Department of Ecology:
Don't allow the world's largest fracked gas-to-methanol refinery to harm our climate and Kalama!
Washington should reject Northwest Innovation Works' (NWIW) proposal to build and operate the world's large...↓
The Ecology Strategic Plan for 2021-23 supports a NO on this decision. I'm trusting Washington State will continue to be a leader in our Region and Country making tough decisions to uphold the safety, integrity and harmony of our ecology for generations to come. I especially appreciate your mission and experience of protecting low-income and BIPOC residents who are at the highest risk by this project. I'm inspired by Violet and many other young people standing up for zero waste and a future environment in which they can thrive.
I counting on you to make the decision for the greatest of all good considering all beings for seven generations to come.
Sincerely, Lou Ann Bennett
Your Columbia River Neighbor
No attachments

Comment From: Nancy Helget

9/18/20 @ 4:21 AM
The SSEIS is flawed because its conclusion relies on a speculative assumption. The SSEIS relies on the assumption the NWIW facility will prevent utilization of other more polluting processes, particularly in China. SSEIS 3.5.1.4.

The SSEIS admits it...↓

Even if the SSEIS assumption has some validity based on today's technological information, there's no way to predict what alternative processes or materials will exist or could be used in the next 10, 20, 30 or 40 years. Yet the NWIW facility, if built, will continue to operate for 40 years, processing and shipping a potentially outdated and polluting product. If methane becomes the most polluting fuel for plastics processing, NWIW could be the facility other entities would be trying to replace. Yet we in Washington would be stuck with it and its significant GHG output.

Additionally, there's no way to reliably predict what some other country or facility might do now or decades into the future. Again, if China or any other country decides not to use methanol, or not to use NWIW methanol, the NWIW facility could continue to operate and continue to be responsible for significant GHG emissions. NWIW views its operation as a financial investment. It won't simply close its facility if other, more environmentally sound materials or processes exist.

The Department of Ecology should not base permit approval on a speculative assumption. The Department of Ecology should deny the NWIW permit.

No attachments

Comment From: Kristen Daley Mosier

9/18/20 @ 4:21 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. If the e...↓

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,
Kristen Daley Mosier
123 NW 191st St Shoreline, WA 98177-3014
halvor1895@gmail.com
No attachments

Comment From: Nancy Helget

9/18/20 @ 4:14 AM
The Department of Ecology should deny the NWIW permit because GHG emissions attributable to the facility are significant and NWIW's proposed mitigation plan won't reduce GHG emissions in Washington.

The Department of Ecology has meticulously analyzed ...↓

Ecology's conclusion NWIW can mitigate its significant emissions relies on NWIW's proposed Mitigation Framework, SSEIS Appendix D. Ecology concludes "... the mitigation framework would establish an annual greenhouse gas emission reduction obligation equal to instate emissions as determined by Ecology's GHG reporting rule, to the extent possible." SSEIS ¶ 1.5.2.

I'm not encouraged by the vague "to the extent possible" language. The SSEIS doesn't identify what might or might not be possible. To be effective, any mitigation effort must be possible.

Even if "possible", NWIW's proposed mitigation efforts would do nothing to actually reduce overall GHG emissions. NWIW doesn't propose to actually reduce any of the GHG emissions attributable to its facility. Operation of the facility will cause millions of tons of GHG pollution every year for 40 years.

NWIW's mitigation proposal is to invest in projects that may or may not result in GHG emission reductions from other sources. Basically, NWIW will be allowed to significantly increase GHG emissions in Washington in return for a promise to voluntarily invest in projects elsewhere that are actually trying to reduce GHG emissions. When considering the increase in GHG emissions attributable to the NWIW facility, a plan to possibly offset those emissions won't ever reduce overall GHG emissions.

In contrast, not permitting the NWIW facility will assure NWIW can't pollute to the tune of millions of tons of GHGs for 40 years. If NWIW doesn't build the facility, there will be zero new GHG emissions attributable to the facility. If NWIW doesn't build its facility, other projects can still work to reduce existing GHG emissions, resulting in an overall reduction of GHG emissions.

The Mitigation Framework NWIW proposes is inadequate for other reasons. All NWIW mitigation efforts would be voluntary and the framework doesn't provide any enforcement mechanism. NWIW doesn't propose to enlighten us about the nuts and bolts of its proposal until after the environmental review is completed. SSEIS, Appx D, p. D-2.

While the framework describes involvement of a Board and environmental groups, the framework lacks an explanation of how the board would operate, how the board would be appointed, and/or how the board would compel compliance with its decisions. Any potential enforcement would occur after NWIW doesn't meet its voluntary mitigation goals, and while NWIW's significant GHG emissions continue.

I live in southwest Washington. Although the Mitigation Framework prioritizes using its voluntary investments in Southwest Washington and then Washington, there's no requirement that all or even most investment be in Southwest Washington or Washington projects.

Washington is committed to reducing GHG emissions on a specified schedule with specific benchmarks. The benchmark reductions won't be easy to meet. NWIW's facility would be responsible for "significant" new GHG emissions over its 40 year lifetime. Because the mitigation framework is only a commitment to offset other GHG emissions, and because operation of the facility will never result in any actual reduction of GHG emissions, NWIW's proposed facility would set back the state's efforts to meet the statutory benchmarks.

The effects of climate change in our state, region and country have been starkly evident these past few months. NWIW's Mitigation Framework is deficient. Even accepting that NWIW will meet its voluntary commitment to mitigate as the framework describes, the fact remains that this facility will be responsible for "significant" GHG emissions, not just in one year, but in every year over 40 years the facility remains in operation. The "significant" emissions attributable to the NWIW facility will negatively affect me and all Washington residents.

The Washington permit approval process should protect Washingtonians. The SSEIS reliance on NWIW's deficient mitigation plan doesn't protect us. The Department of Ecology should deny NWIW's permit.

No attachments

Comment From: Jynx Houston

9/18/20 @ 3:57 AM
I ABSOLUTELY OPPOSE THE PROPOSED KAMALA METHANOL REFINERY. IT WOULD BE DISASTROUS FOR THE ATMOSPHERE—FOR THE HEALTH OF PEOPLE & THE PLANET.
MOREOVER IT WOULD BE COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY.
No attachments

Comment From: JOANA KIRCHHOFF

9/18/20 @ 3:51 AM
The Portland Raging Grannies stand in opposition to the Kalama project proposed by NW Innovation works. The history of the project is filled with false reports, shoddy science and a revolving door of investors - making it a less than desirable bus...↓
Attachments:
Download
Download
Download

Comment From: Jessica WINTER-STOLTZMAN

9/18/20 @ 3:50 AM
No new fossil fuels facilities. It's past time to draw the line and stop the destruction of our planet. This summer's devastating fires and abysmal air quality show what future life will be like if we don't turn a corner and change our ways. We have ...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Darlene Johnson

9/18/20 @ 3:46 AM
When faced with facts, wise people listen. They evolve. They show an openness to science. The value of science is that it doesn't care about our politics or opinions – it just tells us what works.

Six years into studying the science of the propo...↓

For those who have been against the project and asked questions throughout this process, those questions have been heard. Thousands of comments were considered in the drafting of these reports, including comments from the leading environmental groups in this country.

Opinions are opinions; facts are facts. We can now say it's a fact NWIW Kalama is good for the environment. Now it's time to set opinions aside and believe in the science. Wise people listen to science not just when it's convenient. Let's get to work and build this.

Thank you!
Jim and Darlene Johnson
Woodland Truck Line, inc
PO BOX 1808
WOODLAND, WA 98674

No attachments

Comment From: Joan DeVries

9/18/20 @ 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,
Joan DeVries
6042 Seaview Ave NW Unit 203 Seattle, WA 98107-2677
joancdv26@aol.com
No attachments

Comment From: Meagan Prince

9/18/20 @ 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.

I believe in respecting our state's resources, and this export plan doesn't serve Washington's land or a su...↓

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. Meagan Prince
411 203rd Pl SE Bothell, WA 98012-9212
MEAGANJOY@GMAIL.COM
No attachments

Comment From: Judith Schainen

9/18/20 @ 2:53 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 cann...↓

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 Judith S. Schainen
10022 36th Ave SW Seattle, WA 98146-3608
schainenjudith@gmail.com
No attachments

Comment From: Nicole Schmidt

9/18/20 @ 2:44 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. Nicole Schmidt
2615 Seattle, WA 98199
nikkischmidt@comcast.net
No attachments

Comment From: Melissa Brooks

9/18/20 @ 2:39 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 do no...↓

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. Melissa Brooks
29817 4th Ave SW Federal Way, WA 98023-3513
melissabrooks25@gmail.com
No attachments

Comment From: Marge Schwartz

9/18/20 @ 1:42 AM
Methane is toxic and a greenhouse gas. Please protect us from the release of methane.
No attachments

Comment From: Sandra Oliver-Poore

9/18/20 @ 1:28 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: David robinson

9/17/20 @ 11:47 PM
Thank you for accepting my comments on this SSEIS. The Kalama methanol is an abhorrent idea given the cumulative effects of past centuries of fossil fuel use. I'm convinced that the future of humanity rests on the ending of all fossil fuels explorati...↓

I realize that the Department of Ecology is under pressure to cross all the t's and dot all the i's, but it's time to SAY NO to any further thoughts of allowing this and other fossil fuels infrastructure to go forward. There has not been any true cumulative effects analysis for fossil fuels in the past and any future analysis should remain locked up and shelved given the scientific information already available on the effects of the use of fossil fuels on the climate to date! This and similar projects have to cease immediately and regenerative energy projects given the highest level of priority. For the future of humanity, denying this fossil fuel infrastructure will be a step in the right direction. Thank you for accepting my comments today.
No attachments

Comment From: Jean M. Avery

9/17/20 @ 11:45 PM
Proponents of the NWIW project say this refinery would be a good for jobs and tax revenue. But, as we choke on hazardous air pollution, why would we invite more pollution into our region -- for 40 years?

According to Sierra Club, this plant would cons...↓

So, why should this project be considered at all? -- especially when mitigation seems vague and minimal?

The Second SEIS includes more than 100 pages of charts, graphs, tables, and data. And yet, there are only two pages on "Significant Impacts and Mitigation."

An appendix mentions "voluntary" emission reduction "to the extent possible." There is a vague reference to carbon markets.

So, questions remain:

1. Do the words "voluntary" and "to the extent possible" imply that NWIW does not perceive mitigation as a firm obligation?

2. By carbon markets, does NWIW mean purchasing carbon offsets? This would not reduce actual emissions.

3. Does Ecology have resources to oversee this project? Instead, Ecology could focus on proactive measures for a clean-energy future.

4. Forty years is plenty of time to enact clean-energy programs. When NWIW claims its operation is less polluting than other sources, it assumes other fossil fuel sources.

I believe we are on the cusp of a clean-energy future. It is time to say good-bye to fossil fuel projects. Please deny this project.

(Testimony at 9/17 online hearing)

No attachments

Comment From: Michelle Sheldon

9/17/20 @ 9:31 PM
Don't allow the world's largest fracked gas-to-methanol refinery to harm our climate and Kalama!

Washington should reject Northwest Innovation Works' (NWIW) proposal to build and operate the world's largest fracked gas-to-methanol refinery in Kalama.

N...↓

For the community of Kalama, neighboring communities, and for our climate, the risk is simply too big. Please keep our communities safe, and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution. I am counting on you to do the right thing and stop this dirty, dangerous fossil fuel export project.
No attachments

Comment From: Michael Fleming

9/17/20 @ 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: Erik LaRue

9/17/20 @ 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: Julie Cochran

9/17/20 @ 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: Serena Donnelly

9/17/20 @ 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: Charlotte Feck

9/17/20 @ 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: James Little

9/17/20 @ 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: Lana Lasley

9/17/20 @ 5:00 PM
Don?t allow the world?s largest fracked gas-to-methanol refinery to harm our climate and Kalama!
No attachments

[ Previous Page / Next Page ]