Tacoma: Port: Tax: Community Weight

It follows, there exist many tax exemption for many reasons that apply to Federal Government, State Government, County Government, City Government, and Public Corporations; all tax exempt because public good gifted back to the people that pay taxes within the State of Washington. See, Tax Exemptions 2000, Public Property, http://dor.wa.gov/Docs/Reports/2000/Tax_Exemptions_2000/proppubl.htm?noframes (last visited Feb 10, 2016).

But now, we have ports and economic development that are tax exempt but with the ability to tax on top of tax exempt; for example:

Industrial Development

The Washington State Legislature has also been generous in granting authority to pursue industrial development – the fastest growing segment among ports. Port districts can construct buildings and structures to accommodate virtually any type of industrial or economic activity. These facilities are generally the sort that the private sector can’t -or won’t – build or improve.

Ports also can develop the infrastructure – water and sewage systems, and roads – necessary to attract job-creating businesses. Once a facility is built, it is often leased to businesses that generate jobs in the community.

Ports also have the authority to create Industrial Development Districts (IDD) and levy a property tax of up to $0.45 per $1,000 of assessed value for up to 6 years. IDDs are a valuable source of funds for economic development within the district, which can include water, light, power and fire protection facilities and services, streets, roads, bridges, highways, waterways, tracks, rail and water transfer and terminal facilities, and other harbor and industrial improvements. Each time industrial development projects are completed at port facilities – diversifying the economies of cities and counties – employment opportunities increase, tax revenues to cities, counties and the state are increased, and communities are made stronger. See, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, http://washingtonports.org/issue-areas/economic-development/ (last visited Feb 10, 2016).

On the other hand, just how is “[D]iversifying the economies of cities and counties—employment opportunities increased, . . . ” measured today to validate this argument?

Therefore, history speaks to the intent of Ports and Industrial Developments results that have created what we view today and done for our Tacoma Community interests. See generally, HistoryLink.org- the Free Online Encyclopedia of Washington State History, http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&file_id=9624 (last visited Feb 10, 2016). So, the average person might just ask about the additional “Port of Tacoma: Frederickson Industrial Area”

The Port of Tacoma was one of the first to set up an Industrial Development District after the Legislature authorized them in 1939, designating an IDD on the Commencement Bay tideflats. World War II interrupted tenant recruitment, but by the late 1950s Purex, Concrete Technology, Stauffer Chemical, and Western Boat Building were all operating in the port’s first Industrial District.

Because, if the Frederickson Industrial Area is going to have natural gas (methane) fuel electrical power generator sets operating, but still unanswered it the sweet- or sour-methane feeding into our Tacoma Community; as a result, sour-gas just-might release more airborne chemical hazard inventory into our Tacoma Community environment? Who’s got the environmental impact study on other Tacoma Community natural gas fed industrial facilities—planned or operating or processing—now? See generally, Sour Gas – Health Effects of Hydrogen Sulfide, http://www.watershedsentinel.ca/content/sour-gas-health-effects-hydrogen-sulfide (last visited Feb 9, 2016).

Despite, Tacoma Port now we have the Seattle Port alliance effect also, So just what is the combined Ports effect on Tacoma Taxpayers? I don’t know but somebody should make some public presentations about benefits and cost and observables result the Tacoma Community should benefit from? See generally, PORT OF TACOMA – POT_Resolution_Creating_Seaport_Alliance_PDA_050515.pdf (draft missing the content), https://www.portseattle.org/About/Documents/POT_Resolution_Creating_Seaport_Alliance_PDA_050515.pdf (last visited Feb 10, 2016).

One could say, were just lacking some important Tacoma Community environmental information, but we are also assessed property taxes to pay for these Community Port(s) existence. Does that really make sense to Tacoma Community Citizens (people)?

Nevertheless, “Each year, the Port receives about 1.7 percent of the property taxes that Pierce County homeowners pay. The money helps to pay off general obligation bonds for Port-related projects that benefit the broader public, such as road improvements and environmental projects.” See, Port of Tacoma – City of Fife, Washington, http://cityoffife.org/online-guide/businesses/economic-development/port-of-tacoma (last visited Feb 10, 2016). For me, I have a difficult time recognizing the “Port related projects that benefit the broader public”?

Seems like, Port of Tacoma (Tacoma and Seattle Ports) should become more open with my Tacoma Community informative information—environmental hazards they permit to be introduced then operated with my Tacoma Community; as a result, I am assessed property taxes each year to support what Port is doing to the health, welfare, and environment of my Tacoma Community.

////

Just some relational thoughts about natural gas

Just playing-around with Venn Diagrams. However what’s missing is

  • Natural gas (methane gas) process burning flares for both Methanol and LNG facility;
  • Things that fly in the sky (birds) near a natural gas (methanol gas) burning flare(s);
  • Truck and road traffic impact;
  • People that are close by to the facilities.

However, it’s the relational thought to visualize.

Tacoma: LNG: Methanol: Sour-Gas Supply

To: mailto: Tacoma.methanol.sepa@cityoftacoma.org

Sunday, February 7, 2016

EIS Scoping Comments: Tacoma Manufacturing and Marine Export Facility (TMMEF): “Proposed Methanol Plant”: SEPA Lead Agency: City of Tacoma (File No. SEPA2015-40000260025).

My comment applies to SEPA and this Environmental impact statement (“EIS”) related to the natural gas supply feeding the Methanol Facility.

Given, we are able to determine that the natural gas feeding the Tacoma Methanol Facility will be towards the sour gas spectrum because this same gas distribution piping supply system is proposed also feeding the Tacoma LNG Facility. Therefore:

2.2.1.2 Natural Gas Delivery and Pretreatment Systems

Natural gas would be delivered by a distribution pipeline and metered before it enters the Tacoma LNG Facility. Natural gas, upon delivery and prior to conversion to LNG, must be conditioned. This entails the removal of any constituents other than pure methane. These constituents could include ethane, propane, butane, and other heavy – end hydrocarbons, as well as minor quantities of nitrogen, carbon dioxide, sulfur compounds, and water. The pretreatment system would consist of amine gas treating and regeneration, a gas dehydration system, outlet gas filtration, and an intermediate heat transfer fluid system. As part of the pretreatment process, carbon dioxide and sulfur compounds removed from the natural gas would be flared through a ground flare system described in Section 2.2.1.7 (Other Process Facilities). Heavy hydrocarbons are used as fuel gas to the maximum extent possible, also described in Section 2.2.1.7. When operating conditions are such that all of the heavy hydrocarbons are not used as fuel gas, the components are sent to a holding tank. Periodically, this holding tank would be emptied and its contents transferred to a truck and taken off site for disposal or sale to a third party for use as fuel. See, PSE DEIS Chapter 2 Description of Proposed Action.pdf (at 2.3), http://cms.cityoftacoma.org/planning/pse/PSE%20DEIS%20Chapter%202%20Description%20of%20Proposed%20Action.pdf (last visited Feb 7, 2016)

As a result, it is known that Tacoma LNG Facility the gas has stuff within gas supply that must be removed prior to conversion process, but this cleaning of gas indicates this is sour-natural gas and “Sour gas is a natural gas that contains significant amounts of hydrogen sulphide (H2S). It is extremely poisonous to humans and animals even in small quantities, corrosive, flammable and smells like rotten eggs.” Also, people have been evacuated to safe areas because of sour gas release into environment. See, All About Sour Gas The Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/06/20/sour-gas-hydrogen-sulphide-hs2_n_3473666.html (last visited Feb 7, 2016)

My comment: Two comments, two environmental EIS issues: 1) If Methanol Facility incoming natural gas (methane gas) piping distribution system develops leaks and if this gas is sour gas; as a result, will there be sufficient H2S (hydrogen sulphide) content to cause environment hazard to community (people) from this escaping gas—once smelled then becomes just odorless—killer gas; therefore, human health environmental risk; 2) Sour gas is more corrosives; therefore, requires special materials to withstand H2S gas caused materials and piping failures; therefore, gas containment materials environmental risk that requires necessary materials to contain sour gas and protect my Tacoma Community. See generally, Hydrogen Damage – Metallic Corrosion, http://www.azom.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=104 (last visited Feb 7, 2016).

John Sherman

4601 N 26th St

Tacoma, WA 98407-4605

Email: jmjsherman@gmail.com

Johnesherman.com

////

Procedural: Wash. Natural Gas Industrialize

A great article that presents events chronology

In Tacoma my and other people have a narrow focus about Community issues that potentially affect us with proposed new Port of Tacoma Natural Gas (methane gas) industries: 1) Natural Gas supply piping distribution system; 2) LNG Facility; and 3) the Methanol Facility. All three under consideration for necessary permits to construct and operate within the Tacoma Community.

I think this: every once-in-awhile we must all step back and look at the larger natural gas industrial development beyond our local Community and view what is going on in the rest of Washington State as our Washington State Government is promoting. See, dePlace, Eric, and Adjorlolo, Maoulay., What Methanol Means for the Northwest, (Sightline Institute), (2015) online at http://www.sightline.org/2015/08/17/what-methanol-means-for-the-northwest/ [accessed 6 February 2016].

This article will give more-insight into the natural gas industrial facility(s) planned for Washington State and Oregon. Great overview article that connects all the “dots” to who is doing just what where (that we know about).

////

Tacoma Methanol Facility: Methane to Burn

To: Tacoma.methanol.sepa@cityoftacoma.org

Saturday, February 6, 2016

EIS Scoping Comments: Tacoma Manufacturing and Marine Export Facility (TMMEF): “Proposed Methanol Plant”: SEPA Lead Agency: City of Tacoma (File No. SEPA2015-40000260025).

My comment applies to methane-to-methanol conversion process and combustion airborne inventory added—Methanol facility: “The applicant has stated 70% of natural gas will be converted to methanol, while the remainder will be combusted to produce energy for the chemical processes. Emissions associated with this combustion process will need to be disclosed.” See, Methanol EIS Draft Scope of Work 02052016.pdf (p. 5:n.8), http://cms.cityoftacoma.org/planning/Methanol%20Plant/Methanol%20EIS%20Draft%20Scope%20of%20Work%2002052016.pdf (last visited Feb 6, 2016).

In this case, we see “According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration ( EIA ) , . . . With about 100 cubic feet of natural gas needed to produce one gallon of methanol, . . .” See accord, Methanol: The Clear Alternative for Transportation – Methanol-Flexible-Fuel-Vehicles.aspx Methanol Institute, http://www.methanol.org/Energy/Resources/Alternative-Fuel/Methanol-Flexible-Fuel-Vehicles.aspx (last visited Feb 6, 2016).

Therefore, “One metric ton of methanol (2,204.62 lbs) = Approximately 333 U.S. gallons.” See, SCC – Southern Chemical Corporation » Methanol FAQ’s Southern Chemical Corporation, http://www.southernchemical.com/wp/safety-environment/frequently-asked-questions (last visited Feb 6, 2016).

As a result, My factoring, I find: (7.3-million metric tons / 333gallons) * 100-cubic feet natural gas = 2.2-million cubic feet of natural gas required with 70% conversion process; as a result, 0.9-million cubic feet of natural gas is burned or combusted and added to the airborne combustion byproducts inventory. (See, Tacoma “Draft”, Supra, P 2:n. 4).

My comment is this: With 1-million cubic feet natural gas (methane) combusted (burned) and added to Tacoma Community airborne chemical inventory; as a result, how does that compare with the average Tacoma homeowner using natural gas for heating and cooking with their airborne chemical inventory contribution? We have yet to be informed: will the Methanol facility consume “sweet- or sour-natural gas (methane)” because the amount of chemicals entrained within the natural gas stream is more with “sour-natural gas (methane)” and must be cleaned and the residue from cleaning sour-natural gas (methane)’ must go somewhere?

This “Draft” (Feb. 5, 2016) presents “[T]he EIS will not be designed to disclose every molecule of impact or capture every emission. That is an inefficient use of resources. . . .” (Supra, “Draft” p. 4). I disagree because if you are a person that is harmed by a fugitive Methanol Facility chemical molecule then a harm is a actual harm. See also, Soot Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Soot&oldid=702882659 (last visited Feb 6, 2016). Therefore I would suggest you don’t list the human health harm details but list every chemical molecule that will be fugitive from the Tacoma Methanol Facility processes. Just list all chemicals that will become introduced into the Tacoma Community airborne inventory caused by Methanol Facility!

 

Tacoma: Methanol Facility: Actual Injury

Actual injury, the question is: who pays who and how much?

That has caused me to make a comment

My Methanol Facility comment submitted to Tacoma EIS is this:

To: Tacoma.methanol.sepa@cityoftacoma.org

Friday, February 5, 2016

EIS Scoping Comments: Tacoma Manufacturing and Marine Export Facility (TMMEF): “Proposed Methanol Plant”: SEPA Lead Agency: City of Tacoma (File No. SEPA2015-40000260025).

My comment applies to environment after actual harm caused by—Methanol facility: “Exploration of financial liability beyond the amounts typically held by the plant operators” See, METHANOL EIS DRAFT SCOPING REPORT 02052016.PDF 14, http://cms.cityoftacoma.org/planning/Methanol%20Plant/Methanol%20EIS%20Draft%20Scoping%20Report%2002052016.pdf (last visited Feb 6, 2016). Missing is the liability to each person within the Tacoma Community related to making them whole again as a result of harm caused by this Tacoma Methanol Facility?

I find absent from Tacoma Community impact analysis is: Owners and operators of the Tacoma natural gas (methane)-to-methanol facility fail to explain their actual limits-of-financial liability to Community, people, and persons harmed or injured caused by operation of methanol facility?

My comment: Included within the Draft EIS(s) and all Final FEIS should be a statement describing actual Methanol Facility liability limitation(s) or coverage benefit(s); as a result, for any actual harm or injury caused to Tacoma Community—people, real property, property, lives, and health. Also a statement that, liability coverage is guaranteed to Community persons for all current and all future years as Methanol Facility continues processing natural gas (methane).

John E Sherman
4601 N 26th St
Tacoma WA 98407-4605 USA
Email: jmjsherman@gmail.com
http://johnesherman.com
////

It’s funny, just how: thinking one thought; as a result, causes one to think of another thought: Just like this liability of actual injury and who is compensated how much to make the damaged person or property whole again. Didn’t see that explained in the Draft Tacoma EIS related to the Methanol Facility just yet. It’s important when there exists potential hazards operating within the Tacoma Community.

////

Tacoma: Methanol Facility: Draft EIS Available Now

Tacoma Methanol Facility Environmental Impact Review Draft is available

These “Draft” EIS documents are great reading for Tacoma Community knowledge about the proposed Methane-to-methanol facility under Tacoma review process

My advise, please read, and if necessary submit your own comments into this Methanol Facility EIS review process.

////

Tacoma: LNG: Loopholes: Questions?

My blog post (this post) is just a refer to another article. See,

Tarika Powell, ‘Tacoma Steering into Uncertain Waters | Sightline Institute’ (Jan. 13, 2016), online at < http://www.sightline.org/2016/01/13/tacoma-steering-into-uncertain-waters/ > [accessed 4 February 2016]
See also, Doriss, Oliver, ‘Even If I Didn’t Live Here I Wouldn’t Want This’, (feb. 1,2016), online at http://www.oliverdoriss.com/2016/02/01/even-if-i-didnt-live-here-i-wouldnt-want-this/ [accessed 4 February 2016]

Just a thought, methane when does U.S. run out?

Methane (natural gas) extraction within U.S. must have a limit able to be mined. Extracted and gone forever. So, where are we at with our proven methane U.S. reserves? See generally, ‘List of Countries by Natural Gas Proven Reserves’, (Wikipedia) (2016) online at <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_countries_by_natural_gas_proven_reserves&oldid=701367891> [accessed 4 February 2016]

What’s going to happen when our U.S. methane reserve is low and gone?

  1. Our U.S. gas utility prices increase;
  2. no more gas for U.S. customers unless import; and
  3. gas prices will be negotiated on a world gas commodity markplace.

Therefore, we don’t need to be exporting our methane (natural gas) anywhere outside the U.S. now and tomorrow.

////