Kalama Manufacturing and Marine Export Facility Second Supplemental EIS

4777 Results

Sort:

Comment From: Matt Stevenson

9/24/20 @ 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: Matt Stevenson

9/24/20 @ 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 Snyder

9/24/20 @ 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: John Keefe

9/24/20 @ 5:00 PM
Dear Sirs:

As a Washington state tax payer I wish to oppose the development of the Kalama Methanol plant proposal.  My reading recently on the project informs me that much of its output is to create products for export to China.  I do not fe...↓

I am further offended by the knowledge that significant property will need to be appropriated by the extension of pipelines to this facility that will negatively affect my fellow taxpayers' rights.  If it was to create end products that this country genuinely needs, (besides jobs), it might be a risk worth considering but not otherwise. 

We are able to produce this product domestically in sufficient quantities, indeed excess quantity and do not need to help the Chinese produce more of it.  Let them open their markets more to our products, before selling them materials to produce and sell into our end markets.

In closing I would state that this project seems to be at odds with our Pacific NW identity and will have negative consequences to Washington state that will more than offset those benefits the project theorizes it might provide.  I feel you are burdening the taxpayer with a project that could become obsolete or problematic in a few years and we should not be required to support, either on a state or federal level, this project in any way.

Respectfully submitted:


John Keefe
No attachments

Comment From: John Svensson

9/24/20 @ 5:00 PM
I am opposed to the proposed Methanol Project on the Columbia River, I know it will produce terrific amounts of greenhouse gases.  Since I have worked on the water most of my life I will comment on problems from that viewpoint.

I was a ...↓

Here are my comments: 

1.  The Panamax ships that will be used  have very limited steerage and will require several tug boats to accompany them in the river.  The tugs will be required to use close to full power to turn the vessel.. Example - The tugs burn 8 to 20 gallons an hour at idle and  at cruising speed- however when they will be trying to position the large vessel it could go as high as 100+ gallons per hour .  So in calculating the amount of pollution one needs to consider the amount of fuel burned when docking, positioning, and changing course; not just the 8 to 20 gallons per hour. 

2.  The possibility of a Panamax vessel running aground and the amount of fuel burned to get them back afloat also needs to be considered.  Back in 2017 a 557-foot Panamanian-flagged tanker vessel ran aground on the Columbia River near Skamokawa.  There are many other examples, but the point is, it happens.  Tying up River traffic is an added problem.  

3. I have worked on Fletcher's Ice Island 600 miles north of Point Barrow, Alaska and on the Columbia River, up to Rooster Rock. I was Senior Scientist aboard the USCG Staten Island in the Bering Straits, measuring water quality, temperatures, and current speeds.  For some 15 years, I saw good science and some very bad science.  The SSEIS has a lot of pertinent facts.  The bad science comes in when someone tries to predict what people from a different cultural and political system are going to do half a world away from here, especially when they come to questionable conclusions that seem to meet their objectives. 

I thank you for your time involved on this project.  I think it's time to stop this massive greenhouse gas emitter.


Sincerely, 

Captain John A. Svensson

Kalama resident
No attachments

Comment From: Robin Cody

9/24/20 @ 4:02 PM
My daughter and granddaughter live in Vancouver WA, just 28 miles south of Kalama. I'm worried first about their safety when it comes to converting natural gas to methane. Both gasses are highly explosive. An earthquake, in particular the overdue ...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Susan Saul

9/24/20 @ 3:31 PM
Attachments:

Comment From: Amy Tejcka

9/24/20 @ 3:26 PM
September 18th, 2020

Dear Washington State Department of Ecology,

My name is Amy Tejcka. My husband and I live in Cowlitz County, Woodland, WA. We are approximately 12 miles downwind of the proposed methanol refinery in Kalama. For myself and my fami...↓

We have wildfires currently raging right here in our midst. These ferocious fires are becoming more prevalent. Proponents claim it is "safe" to pipe in mega tons of fracked natural gas and turn it into methanol primarily to benefit the Republic of China. I realize that we have been promised a few jobs as well as some other perks that will seem like chicken feed compared to the profits likely to be made by the Chinese and their affiliates. But what happens to us if the east wind decides to blow a fire into Kalama?
Why would anyone consider building such a monstrosity in such a densely populated area? Why would we risk our beloved Columbia River, so key to the entire Pacific NW economy and way of life? What about the real possibility of a Cascadia Mega-Earthquake? What about the 5 million gallons of water the plant will be drawing daily from our local aquifer? What about our sadly dwindling salmon and steelhead runs?

Property values will likely tank locally, including my own, here in Woodland if this plant is approved. Folks are going to love the unsightly plumes of hazardous vapor clouds billowing up regularly, higher than those blown from the Mount Saint Helens eruption in 1980! Who wants to live near that?

This proposal is absolutely ludicrous! It's SO DANGEROUS! And what are we building it for – more plastic? We don't need more plastic in the world – we need less! And we DON'T NEED a methanol refinery in SW Washington!!

My grandchildren are 5 and 7 years old. Please protect their health and safety. It's their air and water we're talking about here. You are the Washington State Department of Ecology. It is your job is to protect Washingtonians. Please exercise your common sense and DO NOT grant this permit!

Thank you for listening.
Amy Tejcka

Woodland, Washington

No attachments

Comment From: Mike Reuter

9/24/20 @ 2:50 PM
I am speaking here as an individual and not as the Mayor of Kalama.

The Department of Ecology needs to know when NWIW is dissolved; all bets will be off.

NW Innovation Works is the company responsible for:

• The $2 billion loan to pay for the entire fac...↓

• Offsetting GHG emissions

• Using ULE and ZLD technologies for environmental permitting.

• Not using it as fuel.

• Donating $1 million for the schools.

• Donating $1 million for the fire dept.

• Providing the training money to employ 20% of its workforce.

Take NW Innovations out of the equation, and it's all a lot of hot air.

With NWIW out of the picture, Pan Pacific, the parent company of NW Innovation Works, will take over, and all prior commitments will be void. It will be a seamless transition since most of the same people work at both companies.

Pan Pacific is also a Delaware LLC company, and will not be responsible for any of its prior liabilities or promises.

According to an online article on INC Now-

A Delaware LLC exists as a separate legal entity from its members, creating a shield that insulates the owners from individual liability beyond their investment for the LLC's financial obligations. Unlike a corporation, the protection in an LLC also runs in reverse. This shield also protects the Delaware LLC from future judgments against individual members due to the state's exclusive "charging order" remedy. This means that a creditor who obtains a judgment against a member of the Delaware LLC can only receive that member's distributions from the LLC and not a voting interest, nor can the creditor of a member order the liquidation of the LLC.

They can promise anything within reason. The best thing is that the refinery promoters can say anything without worrying about the repercussions of their actions.

NW Innovation Works or PPE might try to explain to the county that the infrastructure will be put in at the end or are just waiting for the federal agencies to approve the permits since ULE technology hasn't been approved in the U.S. yet.

By the time that the county figures out there's that there is no way that NW Innovation Works or PPE isn't going to use ULE or ZLD due to the feasibility issues, it will be too late. The county isn't going to care, since they never did care about the environmental reviews in the first place.

If they were going to use ULE, the language about CR would have been totally removed from the review documents. Instead, the documentation says: if feasible or, if possible.

I talked to an industrial engineer about the project to get his take on it. He asked me to see the engineering or the finished blueprints for the entire facility. I told him that the company has concept drawings and not layout as the whole and how all of these processes work together, including the ZLD and ULE technologies. He was very concerned and said that it sounded like a sham. He asked who is the person or company that could put all of these parts together and be able to run it.

When the permitting for the ULE or ZLD gets denied, or the financial equation doesn't add up, it will be too late, the pipeline will already be under construction. The company will begin the refinery and say that it's too late to stop it now. PPE will say that the previous company made those promises. The backers of this refinery will get what they have always wanted, a Canadian monetizing facility.

The person that signed all of the contracts, the president of NW Innovation Works, will be long gone. No one will be held accountable for all of the carnage that would be left behind.

How is the Department of Ecology going to be sure that this start-up company with no assets or income will be there two years down the road, much less thirty?
No attachments

Comment From: ANNE DOR

9/24/20 @ 1:53 PM
The report highlights the enormous amount of greenhouse gas emissions, which I find unacceptable. One of the reasons I moved to WA was due to its environmental record. I am against this project moving forward.
No attachments

Comment From: Jay Monk

9/24/20 @ 1:34 PM
It is absolutely essential that the proposed Kalama Methanol refinery be denied its application for construction. The reason is simple: we cannot afford to build new infrastructure factory dependent for its functioning on using resources (Methane is ...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Dana Monroe

9/24/20 @ 1:29 PM
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.

This new Dra...↓

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

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

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

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

Comment From: Adrienne Blackburn

9/24/20 @ 1:24 PM
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.

This new Dra...↓

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

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

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

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

Comment From: TeresaThe DepartmentThe Flynn

9/24/20 @ 1:20 PM
The Department Ecology needs to dismiss the speculative basis for this proposed project. The idea they would displace more polluting facilities using coal is not proven.Washington State needs to protect our citizens, living things, and resources. No...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Renee Burcal-Harris

9/24/20 @ 1:19 PM
I have degree from the University of Washington school of Oceanography. I would like to know if you have concidered the effects of the air pollution that will converge and often linger in the same areas because of the Fjord topography as well as the ...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Coleman Byrnes

9/24/20 @ 1:07 PM
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.

This new Dra...↓

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

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

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

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

Comment From: Carole Connell

9/24/20 @ 12:55 PM
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.

This new Dra...↓

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

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

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

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

Comment From: Paula Arms

9/24/20 @ 11:49 AM
The Department should deny any further permitting to NWIW for building a methanol refinery plant in Kalama. In Washington State, we should be making strong effort to combat climate change, not contribute to it. Every effort should be being made to ...↓
Sincerely,
Paula R Arms
No attachments

Comment From: Alice Shapiro

9/24/20 @ 10:29 AM
We are in the midst of many crises at this beyond challenging time. One of the most severe, due to its lasting and damaging impact on our communities and the entire world, is the climate crisis. I have read your mission statement many times and the...↓
Attachments:

Comment From: Kay English

9/24/20 @ 10:11 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 owe ...↓

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,
Kay English
2926 28th Ave W Seattle, WA 98199-2706
kaysme@gmail.com
No attachments

Comment From: Suzy Titcomb

9/24/20 @ 8:44 AM
publicly opposing massive fracked-gas projects, halting new fossil-fuel infrastructure, and protecting our air, water, rivers, forest, health, safety, and climate.
No attachments

Comment From: City of Longview (MaryAlice Wallis, Mayor)

9/24/20 @ 7:56 AM
Attachments:

Comment From: Vivian Chin

9/24/20 @ 7:34 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: larry johnson

9/24/20 @ 7:14 AM
I grew up in Texas. I know the Oil Patch and internally, how it operates.

After completing my GI Bill in the 70's, I started my career as a Systems Engineer processing data in the Oil & Gas Industry working in Dallas and for decades later along the G...↓

Much like the tobacco industry, there were many internal studies made that revealed the perils of producing oil and gas. These internal studies and their incidental hazard reports were kept away from the public conscience. These studies were then used to minimize information on all publicly known hazards and avoided mentioning other hazards unknown to the general public. This was SOP damage control for proposed projects. This practice has always been there and will continue. I would expect the Chinese owners of this development are more accomplished at this spin/secrecy than their American counterparts.

While this Methanol Plant will be a short-term boon to the area by generating a thousand jobs for the short-term and a couple of hundred long-term jobs; the cost is too great. If you need more proof, take a ride along the Texas/Louisiana coastline. There lie the corroding remnants of a dyeing industry. To bring a dyeing industry and future Superfund site to the great Northwest is a travesty of the highest magnitude.

Please do not approve this permit!

Thank you!

No attachments

Comment From: Dee Johnson

9/24/20 @ 5:45 AM
Please do NOT permit this plant to be built. Yesterday's (9/23) LA Times article is attached and gives a glimpse into our future if this plant is built.

A Methane Plant in LA was leaking methane gas for years while keeping leakages hidden. This was b...↓

An excerpt: "The plant's compressor units had been leaking gas "for the last couple years," one staffer said. The utility had a plan in place to fix the compressors later in the year but decided to go public now because NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory had detected the leak as part of a drone survey, and "their information is getting more publicized," Adams told the board."

Please do not permit this project!
Attachments:

Comment From: Anonymous Anonymous

9/24/20 @ 5:39 AM
Gentlemen - I am very concerned about the proposed Kalama Manufacturing and Marine Export Facility. I understand the need to create jobs and economic activity, but because of the impacts on our air, water and community health, this project may be a ...↓

It is widely accepted that this plant, once built, will instantly become one of Washington state's largest polluters. What is less well known however, is the nature of this pollution. It is toxic, and it is radioactive. Other towns with similar facilities have reported worrying health impacts, including cancer clusters.

As we all know, when dealing with such large operations accidents and spills are inevitable. I wonder about the wisdom of pursuing such a course if it poisons the town for our children and grandchildren. What will these jobs really be worth if in the future, the town becomes less desirable as a place to visit or raise a family. And God forbid something horrible occurs that makes this town uninhabitable.

Please think about the long term success of Kalama when deciding on whether to move forward with this project. There is still time to pursue more sustainable business enterprises, thus ensuring both jobs, income and livability for generations to come.
No attachments

Comment From: Charles Houghten

9/24/20 @ 4:49 AM
Attachments:

Comment From: Don Steinke

9/24/20 @ 3:05 AM

The market forecasts used in considering likely scenarios in the draft SEIS were inconsistent with China's pledge to peak emissions by 2030 and then scale down. But on Sept 22, 2020, China promised to be carbon neutral before 2060.
Your market projec...↓
Please address that in your final SEIS.
Source: https://gcaptain.com/china-pledges-to-be-carbon-neutral-by-2060/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed: Gcaptain (gCaptain.com)&goal=0_f50174ef03-c7996e9511-169978253&mc_cid=c7996e9511&mc_eid=033cdd1d41

No attachments

Comment From: Sam Rich

9/24/20 @ 1:37 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: Carolyn Treadway

9/24/20 @ 12:49 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: Better Energy LLC (Tracy Farwell)

9/23/20 @ 5:01 PM
Attachments:

Comment From: Ashley Bonnell

9/23/20 @ 5:00 PM
Dear Director Watson and Department of Ecology,

Please reject Northwest Innovation Work’s proposed methanol refinery in Kalama and deny its Shorelines Permit. I am concerned about climate change and the massive implications of this facility.  I a...↓

The second Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Kalama methanol refinery clearly shows that this project is a mistake for Washington. Northwest Innovation Works cannot be trusted to mitigate the impacts of this fracked gas refinery.


Please deny this project.

Yours sincerely,


Ashley Bonnell
15221 9th Ave SW, Unit F Burien, WA 98166, USA
No attachments

Comment From: Natalie LaBerge

9/23/20 @ 5:00 PM
Dear Director Watson and Department of Ecology,

Please reject Northwest Innovation Work’s proposed methanol refinery in Kalama and deny its Shorelines Permit. I am concerned about climate change and the massive implications of this facility. I also am...↓

The second Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Kalama methanol refinery clearly shows that this project is a mistake for Washington. Northwest Innovation Works cannot be trusted to mitigate the impacts of this fracked gas refinery.

Please deny this project.

Sincerely,

Natalie LaBerge
No attachments

Comment From: Martha Taylor (Martha Taylor)

9/23/20 @ 5:00 PM
Dear Director Watson and Department of Ecology,
I am very concerned about the environmental and climate change implications of the proposed Methano Refinery in Kalama.  I believe our society needs to move away from huge fossil fuel projects that ...↓

Please reject Northwest Innovation Work’s proposed methanol refinery in Kalama and deny its Shorelines Permit. I am concerned about climate change and the massive implications of this facility.  I also am opposed to the continued proliferation of facilities that create chemicals to make more plastic.

The second Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Kalama methanol refinery clearly shows that this project is a mistake for Washington. Northwest Innovation Works cannot be trusted to mitigate the impacts of this fracked gas refinery.

Please deny this project.
No attachments

Comment From: William Johnson (William Johnson)

9/23/20 @ 5:00 PM
Dear Director Watson and Department of Ecology,
I am very concerned about the environmental and climate change implications of the proposed Methano Refinery in Kalama.  I believe our society needs to move away from huge fossil fuel projects that ...↓

Please reject Northwest Innovation Work’s proposed methanol refinery in Kalama and deny its Shorelines Permit. I am concerned about climate change and the massive implications of this facility.  I also am opposed to the continued proliferation of facilities that create chemicals to make more plastic.

The second Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Kalama methanol refinery clearly shows that this project is a mistake for Washington. Northwest Innovation Works cannot be trusted to mitigate the impacts of this fracked gas refinery.

Please deny this project.
No attachments

Comment From: Kaitlyn Welzen (Kaitlyn Welzen)

9/23/20 @ 5:00 PM
Dear Director Watson and Department of Ecology,
Please reject Northwest Innovation Work’s proposed methanol refinery in Kalama and deny its Shorelines Permit. I am concerned about climate change and the massive implications of this facility.  I a...↓

The second Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Kalama methanol refinery clearly shows that this project is a mistake for Washington. Northwest Innovation Works cannot be trusted to mitigate the impacts of this fracked gas refinery.

Please deny this project.

Yours sincerely,
Kaitlyn Welzen

 

No attachments

Comment From: Marilyn Miller (Marylin Miller)

9/23/20 @ 5:00 PM
Dear Director Watson and Department of Ecology,
Please reject Northwest Innovation Work’s proposed methanol refinery in Kalama and deny its Shorelines Permit. I am concerned about climate change and the massive implications of this facility.  I a...↓

The second Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Kalama methanol refinery clearly shows that this project is a mistake for Washington. Northwest Innovation Works cannot be trusted to mitigate the impacts of this fracked gas refinery.

Please deny this project.

Yours sincerely,
Marilyn Miller
No attachments

Comment From: Ashley Bonnell

9/23/20 @ 5:00 PM
FW: NO Methanol Refinery in Kalama
No attachments

Comment From: Marylin Miller

9/23/20 @ 5:00 PM
FW: NO Methanol Refinery in Kalama
No attachments

Comment From: Kaitlyn Welzen

9/23/20 @ 5:00 PM
FW: NO Methanol Refinery in Kalama
No attachments

Comment From: William Johnsen

9/23/20 @ 5:00 PM
FW: NO Methanol Refinery in Kalama
No attachments

Comment From: Martha Taylor

9/23/20 @ 5:00 PM
FW: NO Methanol Refinery in Kalama
No attachments

Comment From: Natalie LaBerge

9/23/20 @ 5:00 PM
NO Methanol Refinery in Kalama
No attachments

Comment From: Ben Rall

9/23/20 @ 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: Terry Friedman

9/23/20 @ 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: Gret Rowe

9/23/20 @ 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: Margaret Graham

9/23/20 @ 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: Brian Dalton

9/23/20 @ 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 Anderson

9/23/20 @ 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: Susan Haywood

9/23/20 @ 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: Jennifer Valentine

9/23/20 @ 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: Betsy Kirby

9/23/20 @ 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: Suzy Titcomb

9/23/20 @ 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: Mark Griffin

9/23/20 @ 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: ANNE DOR

9/23/20 @ 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: Mark Hulett

9/23/20 @ 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: Sally Stevens

9/23/20 @ 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 Edwards

9/23/20 @ 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: Tom Harris

9/23/20 @ 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: Bruce Cratty

9/23/20 @ 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: Thomas Brown

9/23/20 @ 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: Rachael Pappano

9/23/20 @ 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: Thomas Hernandez

9/23/20 @ 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: Katherine Fredricks

9/23/20 @ 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 Quackenbush

9/23/20 @ 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: Raymond Gibson

9/23/20 @ 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: francis mastri

9/23/20 @ 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: Elizabeth Kepl

9/23/20 @ 5:00 PM
Don?t allow the world?s largest fracked gas-to-methanol refinery to harm our climate and Kalama!
No attachments

Comment From: Mary Gallagher

9/23/20 @ 4:35 PM
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.

This new Dra...↓

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

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

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

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

Comment From: Susan Williard

9/23/20 @ 4:34 PM
Washington Dept. of Ecology
Attn.: Rich Doenges
PO Box 47775
Olympia, WA 98504-47775

September 23, 2020

Dear Mr. Doenges,
All over the globe, fires rage. Glaciers and polar ice steadily melt at alarming rates. Climate change is happening now. We are in a c...↓
It is our responsibility now to reject any new fossil fuel infrastructure. We must deny the Kalama Methanol Refinery. Instead we must look to create jobs and careers within sustainable industries.
The 'Without Kalama' case in this SEIS is a strawman argument. Saying this methanol refinery will create an emissions 'reduction' compared to if, theoretically, the plant were built using other technologies and locations, is a fallacy and an evasion of the climate crisis at hand. It is blatant greenwashing by The Chinese government corporation, Northwest Innovation Works. Insisting it has to be and will be built, whether here or somewhere else, is wrong. It does not, and it must not.
We must not allow a refinery that would cause more methanol to be burned as fuel overseas and result in significant methane pollution from fracking.
We must not allow this methanol refinery which would quickly become one of Washington's most significant sources of climate-changing pollution and use more fracked gas than all of Washington's gas-fired power plants combined.
Any mitigation for environmental impacts and emissions would at best be a tiny bandaid on a gaping wound.
Economic impacts for the next 40 years stated in this study fail to attempt to look at economic impacts of climate change and climate disasters over the coming decades.
Let's be bold, and redefine our generation by making decisive and final rejection of this new fossil fuel development. This, in hope for the future of us, our kids, grandkids and all future generations. I appeal to you, please reject the Kalama Methanol Refinery. It shouldn't be built here or anywhere, and we must do our part to stop it.
Thank you for your attention to this important matter.

Kind regards –

Sue Williard
San Francisco, CA 94122

No attachments

Comment From: Bill Adams

9/23/20 @ 3:28 PM
Please reject the proposed methanol refinery in Kalama. It would be an environmental disaster should it happen. Why? It would use up to 130 million cubic feet of mostly fracked gas daily, more than all other gas users in our state combined. Fracking ...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Lynn Stiglich

9/23/20 @ 3:14 PM
The fact of climate change is undeniable. The signs are everywhere, and have been for years.

The fossil fuel industry has been deceitful in its knowledge of climate change due to their products. The industry continues to distort facts, citing statisti...↓

The Kalamazoo methanol refinery project is a case in point. It is unconscionable to proceed with this project, in light of the pollution it will generate and the potential for an accident.

Please deny permits, reject the proposal and instead focus on projects that put Washington at the forefront of the clean energy movement. There are jobs and opportunities in pursuing clean energy, as well as the importance of curbing emissions.

Please reject the Kalamazoo refinery project.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment From: David Purkerson

9/23/20 @ 2:28 PM
I would like to add my voice to those who are speaking out to oppose the siting of a methanol plant ANYWHERE in the Pacific Northwest. This is contrary to our NW values and will compromise the environment my family has lived in and respected since 18...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Vancouver Audubon Society ( Vancouver Audubon Society)

9/23/20 @ 2:21 PM
Attachments:

Comment From: Mark Uhart

9/23/20 @ 1:58 PM
My name is Mark Uhart and I live near Kalama. Many of my neighbors are fisherman but not many fish are being caught these days.

In my quest to bring facts to the table, I read many peer-reviewed research papers on the aquatic biodiversity of our ocean...↓

I reviewed the 2019 and 2020 Washington Coho Forecast Summary published by the Dept. of Fish and Wildlife. The forecasted and actual returns for hatchery and natural Coho salmon went from a little over two million (2,013,316) in 2019 to just under 1 million forecasted (987,494) in 2020, less than half. Runs will likely be just above 50% of the 10-year average. Every production unit is forecasting significantly fewer natural fish. Although this is a snapshot, and only represents one of the 19 species, the running 10-year average indicates nearly all species of salmon and steelhead are in decline. Many species will be on the edge of extinction by 2050 as a result of climate change, and here we are still considering the approval of a shoreline permit that will speed up global warming. I'm in shock. What are we thinking?

And to think China is going to shut down coal-fired plants if this one comes online is wishful thinking. Do the research. This author discovered an open source document in mandarin and translated it to English. China's National Energy Administration released guidance to provincial governors for the construction of more coal power plants in 2023 (China National Energy Administration Bulletin No. 12, 2020.) It states, "In order to implement the requirements of the national coal power development policy for issuing and implementing coal power planning and construction risk warnings on an annual basis, strengthen the power and heat supply guarantee capabilities, and better guide local and power generation companies to approve and construct self-use coal power projects in the province in an orderly manner..." In order to achieve the goals set in their 14th 5-year plan, for 2021-2025, they will be building more natural gas refineries and coal power plants. So much for NWIW's assumptions.

I hope Ecology sees the SEIS for what it is. It is a scheme that underreports GHGs, avoids mitigation, and sells local jobs now for a climate emergency in the future that cannot be avoided anyway. Therefore, NWIW purports it an acceptable outcome. If this plant is approved, the Port of Kalama will be the ring in the bull's nose, waiting to be pulled at China's discretion.

I urge Ecology to deny the shoreline permit.

No attachments

Comment From: Jean Avery

9/23/20 @ 1:41 PM
Today (9/23) in the news, China's President Xi announced a target of carbon neutrality by the year 2060. Speaking to the United Nations, he referred to "green development."

According to the Financial Times, "this could push coal demand in China close ...↓

This shift significantly alters the primary assumptions regarding the need and/or justification for methanol from Kalama. Certainly, we can no longer assume the demand as projected in the SSEIS.

This project is too risky. The future is uncertain. I urge the Department of Ecology to deny the permits for this project.
No attachments

Comment From: Rick Rappaport

9/23/20 @ 1:27 PM
Attachments:

Comment From: Jessica Adams

9/23/20 @ 12:58 PM
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.

This new Dra...↓

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

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

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

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

Comment From: Josh Furlong

9/23/20 @ 12:19 PM
Please do consider the health and well being of the children in our state. I own 5 properties in cowlitz county which are rented to 6 seperate families, one property being multifamily. My wife and I feel it would be inviting an environmental hazard i...↓
Please do not allow this plant to be permitted to develop in Kalama, Wa, under the current scale for which it has applied for and the dangerous activity it would encourage by way of fracking that has decimated the beautiful Dakota and Big Sky planes. We urge you to take this decision into critical consideration for the future of our youth and environmental well being.

Respectfully,

Josh Furlong
No attachments

Comment From: Kimberly Seater

9/23/20 @ 12:12 PM
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.

This new Dra...↓

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

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

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

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

Comment From: Kathleen Boylan

9/23/20 @ 11:37 AM
My name is Kathleen Boylan. I am a 70 year old retired RN with respiratory problems. I am fortunate enough to own a house in SE Portland with filtered air conditioning.
Unlike thousands of my fellow Oregonians I was able to stay home during the smoke ...↓
We are experiencing the effects of climate change NOW. We must not add the millions of tons of green house gas pollution Into the atmosphere that this refinery would spew.
Please deny this project which will only serve to exacerbate our existing health crises.

No attachments

Comment From: Gloria Uhart

9/23/20 @ 10:20 AM
My name is Gloria Uhart and I live near Kalama.

I'm not an avid researcher like my husband, but I know a rotten fish when I smell one. And some information provided in the SSEIS stinks. The lack of discussion about the culture of the indigenous peop...↓

The Marine Spatial Plan for Washington's Pacific Coast, published Oct 2017 and revised June 2018, was jointly authored by the Washington Departments of Ecology, Natural Resources and Fish & Wildlife. As described in the "Marine Spatial Plan," "the management of the marine environment is crucial to each of the coastal tribes, as the marine environment is integral to their history, culture, identity, and future. The MSP Study Area overlaps with 67% of the combined, adjudicated tribal fishing 'Usual and Accustomed' areas (U&As.) Five federally-recognized tribes (the Hoh, Makah, Quileute, Shoalwater Bay Tribes, and Quinault Indian Nation) border the MSP study area, with the study area's southern boundary at the mouth of the Columbia River."

This area overlaps with the "action area" defined in the Marine National Fisheries Service biological opinion dated Oct 2017, and includes some of the "Usual and Accustomed Areas" fished by federally-recognized tribes along Washington's West Coast. The NMFS biological opinion stated that the "action area" is part of the critical habitat for these Washington fisheries. As such, they were included in the assessment of the methanol plant's direct and indirect impact on 24 ESA-listed endangered and threatened species.

The biological opinion asks the question for each of the 24 species, "Is the action likely to adversely affect this species or its critical habitat?" The answer was YES for 12 threatened species and YES for 7 endangered species. So, why wasn't this disclosed in any of the EISs? Why wasn't there an attempt to quantify the potential impact to our fisheries? Why weren't all the affected tribes invited to participate in the scoping of the EIS?

That's why I am asking Ecology to deny the shoreline permit. Our indigenous peoples' treaty rights must be respected.

Thank you for allowing us to be heard.

No attachments

Comment From: Jennifer Vinnard

9/23/20 @ 10:11 AM
Trusting NWIW is like grabbing an electric fence and hoping you don't get shocked,..you know it's turned on, it's going to hurt, but you still grab it anyways because you want to believe that everything will be okay, despite knowing the most likely s...↓

What has happened to people caring about the truth? The cons associated with this refinery are staggering, the risks far outweigh any amount of profit, at a projected $40 million/yr, it's nothing compared to the $395.5 million our state received in cannabis tax revenues just last year, which has grown each year..this refinery won't grow in profits, it'll drop due to competition and fluctuations in natural gas prices. Current natural gas users will see costs increase, the already strained pipeline cannot handle the demand of the refinery, current customers, and will hurt future construction because the facility will use all the gas available. The 2nd pipeline they'll need to build will face severe opposition as well, what happens when they can't get it approved?

Building atop dredged river landfill, the threat of liquifaction during an earthquake is enormous. The risks of the lateral pipeline, built on landslide prone hills and being ran under the I-5 freeway and train tracks leaves it vulnerable to accident caused ruptures..that is our only freeway from Portland to Seattle, if shut down for repairs, our transit system's would be completely halted. 4.6 million metric tons of ghg emissions PER YEAR, a lowballed amount, is not in line with our state and global emission goals, the negatives go on and on!

My family moved to Kalama for the beautiful mountain and river scenery, not for a gigantic smokestack billowing pollution over our land, into our waterways, into our lungs...we are begging Dept of Ecology to deny the permit and fight to keep Washington the wonderful state we've lived in our entire lives. Please don't sell out our health and our values for China's benefit, it's just not worth it! Thank you, Sincerely, The Vinnard family
No attachments

Comment From: Jeanne Poirier

9/23/20 @ 9:00 AM
NWIW advertises good jobs, boon to economy and reversal of carbon footprint by allowing this project. I trust you are smarter than this boondoggle. It is time to implement projects which support a livable future not lock us into decades of water wa...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Laura Feldman

9/23/20 @ 8:52 AM
I was born and raised in Portland, OR. I'm 66 years old, and each decade brings challenges of cleaning up our toxic, chemical, and radioactive wastes while stopping the sources of this pollution.
I consider this to be the most important work now and ...↓
The fossil fuel industry is over. Most of us know this. Please, don't support NWIW in destroying this region. We are counting on you.
Sincerely,
Laura Feldman

No attachments

Comment From: Denise Busch

9/23/20 @ 8:26 AM
Urging your to not approve the Kalama Project. Protect the future of the environment.
Attachments:

Comment From: River Montijo

9/23/20 @ 8:22 AM
The foto says it all!
Attachments:

Comment From: Caroline Cates

9/23/20 @ 8:09 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: Ron Sikes

9/23/20 @ 8:06 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: Alan Smith

9/23/20 @ 7:57 AM
"The Kalama methanol company's cheerleaders are touting benefits that are only relative to a nightmarish reference point: that states and nations fail to live up to their climate agreements. They assume failure of the Paris Climate Accords, failure o...↓
It is the moral equivalent of urging someone to jump off a slightly shorter skyscraper."

This project should not be approved! As China's leader has said, we cannot continue to ignore the warning signs from nature. We must transition from fossil fuels (and feed stocks) to clean and sustainable resources.
No attachments

Comment From: Lezlie Popik

9/23/20 @ 7:37 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 Uhart

9/23/20 @ 7:02 AM
Attachments:

Comment From: Kiah Patzkowsky

9/23/20 @ 6:55 AM
I oppose this production plant due to the increase of greenhouse gas emissions into the region.
No attachments

Comment From: Linda Magnuson

9/23/20 @ 5:43 AM
Methanol is a potent greenhouse gas. We are in the midst of a climate crisis and extreme drought in Washington as well as Oregon, where I live. Hazardous air quality due to the smoke of numerous, monstrous wildfires, have weighed on us. These fires ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Laurie Schaetzel-Hill

9/23/20 @ 5:01 AM
RE: Kalama Manufacturing and Marine Export Facility-EIS. I wish to state that i do not support advancing with this facility. The environmental consequences could be detrimental and the mitigation suggestions are not adequate. During this era of clim...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Earl Godfrey

9/23/20 @ 4:57 AM
I have spent days paddling through the Columbia river on canoe. I have slept nights on its banks. I do not want to see a natural system I love so dearly be polluted and corrupted by the manufacturing of plastic. Please think of the environment.
No attachments

Comment From: Vikesh Kapoor

9/23/20 @ 4:37 AM
Washington Dept. of Ecology Sept. 22, 2020
Attn.: Rich Doenges
PO Box 47775
Olympia, WA 98504-47775

Hi, I'm Vikesh Kapoor, I live in Topanga, CA.

Right here and all over the globe, fires rage. Glaciers and polar ice steadily melt a...↓

It is our serious responsibility now to outright reject any new fossil fuel infrastructure and we must deny the Kalama Methanol Refinery. Instead we must look to create jobs and careers within sustainable industries.

The 'Without Kalama' case in this SEIS is a strawman argument. Saying this methanol refinery will create an emissions 'reduction' compared to if, theoretically, the plant were built using other technologies and locations, is a fallacy and an outright nonsensical evasion of the climate crisis at hand. It is blatant greenwashing by The Chinese government corporation, Northwest Innovation Works. Insisting it has to be and will be built, whether here or somewhere else, is wrong. It does not, and it must not.

We must not allow a refinery that would cause more methanol to be burned as fuel overseas and result in significant methane pollution from fracking.

We must not allow this methanol refinery which would quickly become one of Washington's most significant sources of climate-changing pollution, and use more fracked gas than all of Washington's gas-fired power plants combined.

Any mitigation for environmental impacts and emissions would at best be a tiny bandaid on a gaping wound.
Economic impacts for the next 40 years stated in this study fail to attempt to look at economic impacts of climate change and climate disasters over the coming decades.

Let's be bold, and redefine our generation by making decisive and final rejection of this new fossil fuel development. This, in hope for the future of us, our kids, grandkids and all future generations. I appeal to you, please reject the Kalama Methanol Refinery. It shouldn't be built here or anywhere, and we must do our part to stop it.

Thank you,
Vikesh

No attachments

Comment From: Tod Johnston

9/23/20 @ 4:30 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: Jane Heisler

9/23/20 @ 4:23 AM
Washington Department of Ecology
RE: Kalama Methanol Refinery
The State of Washington has made many positive accomplishments toward pursuing a lower carbon future. This year, Governor Inslee signed new zero emissions vehicle standards, mirroring Calif...↓
In light of these positive actions, it is shocking that the State of Washington would consider approving a polluting, climate disaster like the Kalama methanol refinery, making a mockery of your other good efforts. This refinery would be inconsistent with the low-carbon future that Washington aspires to and that the region needs. I live in the Portland/Vancouver area and do not want this in my backyard. I care about the quality of life in our area, including air, water and land quality.
The idea that methanol displaces "dirtier" energy is speculative at best. Burning methanol as fuel would generate millions of tons of pollution each year. Do not allow this major source of pollution to move forward. Deny the Kalama methanol refinery.
Sincerely,
Jane Heisler

No attachments

Comment From: Elizabeth Page

9/23/20 @ 4:09 AM
Washington Dept. of Ecology Sept. 23, 2020
Attn.: Rich Doenges
PO Box 47775
Olympia, WA 98504-47775

Hi, I'm Liz Page, I live in Beaverton, Oregon.

Right here and all over the globe, fires rage. Glaciers and polar ice steadily melt ...↓

It is our serious responsibility now to outright reject any new fossil fuel infrastructure and we must deny the Kalama Methanol Refinery. Instead we must look to create jobs and careers within sustainable industries.

Please reject the Kalama Methanol Refinery. It shouldn't be built here or anywhere, and we must do our part to stop it.

Thank you.
Liz

No attachments

[ Previous Page / Next Page ]