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 [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).


Methane process facts missing

Logical decisions need facts first

We have some methane gas processing industries proposed for Tacoma Washington, Port of Tacoma, area. This industry is moving ahead with permits and construction planning, but still missing is stakeholders (community people’s) fact information published prior to requesting stakeholder’s comments about these projects.

Tacoma stakeholders (the citizens) need more factual information related to Port of Tacoma new methanol process…, (Facebook post) (Jan. 14, 2016).

Comments second, after all facts published

Let’s get all the facts first before any public stakeholders comments are collected and evaluated for these methane processes permitted within our community.

Methanol conversion process requires lots of water. Why?

We have been told that water is required for process. See, Dunkelberger, S. (2016, January 14). Signature drive seeks to put methanol plant to a vote, Retrieved January 15, 2016, from
we have not been told about the process that needs the water or what the water contains (chemicals) after this process use?

State-of-the-art methanol process

So, let’s guess what that process might be that requires a lot of water for converting methane to methanol see generally, Efficient Natural Gas-to-Methanol Conversion, ARPA-E. (n.d.). Retrieved January 15, 2016, from

Absent facts our community will just play the guessing game

ring a hazard into our community: first explain the hazard(s) facts then let our Tacoma community stakeholders make a decision. A decision, as to, allowing or not allowing your industry to operate within our community and it’s for export of our natural resources that once exported and gone will be gone forever.


Natural gas leaks are problems

What’s the problem with a natural gas leak?

Natural Gas (“NG”)(methane gas) contained within a piping distribution systems is good. Broken or leaking NG distribution system pipes; it follows, is not so good. Well, consider this, maybe nothing wrong if the NG leaked is a small amount, but what if the NG leak is large and continues for a long time? That might be bad for everybody—people, health, property, valuation of property, and the CO2 Earth’s protective atmosphere blanket.

Let’s consider what a current NG leaking concerns are today:

John Sherman, Natural Gas A Review, (Jan. 7, 2016), (online pdf document link).

What’s proposed for Port of Tacoma NG systems and support has done a good job with limited information presenting what is proposed related to NG systems and Port of Tacoma. Also, the related fire department response locations described. 1

Does there exist safety valve requirements for NG systems?

I wonder, as I think, what does a large capacity NG distribution system include for automatic pipe shutoff valves in the event of earthquake (seismic) damage or soil liquification (soil that can’t support foundation weight applied anymore after ground become soup of liquid and earth) right here in Tacoma Washington, Port of Tacoma, Port lands?

So a large NG distribution pipe fails, what happens, and how quickly to stop the NG flowing into atmosphere?

Who is liable for NG related future harm?

Issue. If NG leak caused damage to community—people or property or person had to spend money for remedy—then who is responsible? Who pays who for what? Who (which people) are not paid for NG caused home evacuations, property damage, and other related out-of-pocket expenses incurred as result of NG causation harm?

My homeowners insurance covers?

I don’t know what my homeowners insurance indemnify me for accidents related to Tacoma City Port of Tacoma business operation; for example, like:

  • Natural gas related harm or expenses;
  • Methane gas related harm or damage or expenses;
  • Methanol plant hazards damage or expenses; 2 or
  • Liquid natural gas facility hazards damage or expenses?

Now the community indemnifying insurance coverage or exclusions subject should be another factor addressed within any published community right-to-know hazards report.

Works cited

(1) OKs New PSE LNG Facility, (Nov. 13, 2015) (Latest stories, online at (visited Jan 7, 2016).

(2) David Ferris, E&E reporter, NATURAL GAS: Enormous northwest refineries would feed china exclusively, (Nov.17, 2015) online at (visited Jan 7, 2016).


Economics and LNG plants good, say some

Some say LNG plant is good

Supporting the Tacoma Port of Tacoma proposed new community Liquid Natural Gas ("LNG") project is the Chamber of Commerce, Fife Milton Edgewood. 1

Maybe the Chamber of Commerce knows what the community does not—hazards presented to my community

lets review what Chamber of Commerce presented 1 for public support of new LNG project benefit; e.g.,

The Tacoma LNG project will help ensure continued dependable service and additional benefits to all PSE natural gas customers. It will help ensure continued dependable natural gas service on the coldest days of the year. Having a stock of available LNG will also allow PSE to reduce its gas purchases at times of peak demand, reducing costs that would otherwise be passed on to consumers. Also, healthy growth of PSE’s commercial customer base helps spread PSE’s overhead costs across a broader customer base, lowering costs for existing natural gas customers.

The Tacoma LNG Facility will go through an extensive review and approval process with federal, state and local government agencies. Natural gas is a proven, safe source of energy that reduces reliance on foreign fuels. LNG is simply another form of the natural gas currently used in millions of homes and vehicles. PSE will develop and issue a supplemental environmental impact statement, obtain multiple permits and provide numerous opportunities for public comment. Some of the major agencies involved include: U.S. Coast Guard, Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, Washington State Utilities and Transportation Commission, Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, Pierce County, City of Tacoma, and the Port of Tacoma. More than 100 LNG production, storage and transport facilities currently operate in the US – including one that PSE has owned in Gig Harbor for more than a decade.

That presented, what did it say?

Not one word about any hazard of any type, not Community right-to-know Act study done, or what hazards to people if accident? All the health, safety, and community (people) informed about hazards introduced into their community and neighborhoods missing from this document.

Sounds like LNG produced use evolved?

This proposed LNG plant uses has evolved over time as now represented within The News Tribune article. 2

Now LNG for export use and the biggest LNG plant in the world. According to article.

Just thinking, I wonder

Did Lora Butterfield, Chamber of Commerce, realize the document, 2 as written, was lacking community right-to-know hazard information and just failed to write about hazards, or was the author not informed by the LNG plant’s supporters that there could be any community hazard to people? I wonder which?

What is Chamber of Commerce LNG position today?

Just maybe, they were not told, did not read, there have been LNG accidents already. 3

Now that would be an interesting document to read.

Works cited

(1) Lora Butterfield,(President/CEO) Support of LNG Project (pdf document) (Fife Milton Edgewood Chamber of Commerce), (Aug. 18, 2014) available at or

(2)Matt Driscoll: The time for a methanol debate in Tacoma is now, (thenewstribune Dec. 28, 2015), or

(3) JEFF BARNARD, Officials seek clues in natural gas facility blast, Local News (The Seattle Times Apr. 1, 2014),


Legal courts consider what

You want to know what legal system is doing. Pay your money first!

You can read the details after your pay your money to read what general government should already be providing to interested and effected persons of any Superior Court’s jurisdiction of people.


Pierce County, Case information and scheduling, (Dec. 26 2015),

You pay then you can read details

Just another example, justice conducted behind the fog of money first

I think, absent my reading the courts documents, is a motion to resolve LNG facility(s) proposed for Tacoma City, Port of Tacoma: Puyallup Tribe of Indians v. City of Tacoma, Pierce County Wash. Sup. Ct. (2015 Civ.) 15-2-14604-7 (Land Use Petition (LUPA) ).

We Pierce County Taxpayers pay

The court(s) should not be charging Pierce County Taxpayer for the courts system documents that they already support with money and this is especially true for public health and environmental issues that affect and effect our communities that we collectively support to exist—government and courts.


Community Right To Know Lacking

What we don’t know right now

What hazard is presented me and other people population by Liquid Natural Gas (“LNG”)2,5,6 facility located within Tacoma City (Municipal Corporation Port of Tacoma) Washington?

We have the right to know what hazard is added into our community and presented risks

As SARA Title III Community Right-to-know Act3 intent:

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) was enacted by Congress in 1980 to clean up the nation’s hazardous waste sites and to provide for emergency response to releases of hazardous substances into the environment. CERCLA is also called Superfund, and the hazardous waste sites are known as Superfund sites. In response to continuing community concern regarding hazardous materials and chemical release tragedies, a reauthorization and expansion of Superfund was signed into law in 1986. It is known as the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA). Title III of SARA (SARA Title III) is the Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act (EPCRA). SARA Title III establishes requirements for federal, state, and local governments, Indian tribes, and industry regarding emergency planning and Community Right-to-Know reporting on hazardous and toxic chemicals. The Community Right-to-Know provisions help increase the public’s knowledge and access to information on chemicals at individual facilities, their uses, and releases into the environment. States and communities, working with facilities, can use the information to improve chemical safety and protect public health and the environment.

Seems to me that explosive gas and fire would relate to fault in LNG facility operation and containment. LNG facility classified to qualify under SARA Title III Community Right-to-know Act. Also, an added hint is Tacoma City is considering opening and staffing a fire response station in close proximity to the proposed new LNG plants; as a result, Tacoma City appreciates some hazard not disclosed to us Tacoma City public (community).

I live in a community too

Because I live in a community where a new LNG plant(s) are planned and since my community consists is “People who [also] reside in a locality in more or less proximity. A society or body of people living in the same place, . . .” (Black’s Law Dictionary 280 (6th ed. 1990)) Therefore, I as person living within my community have the right to know hazards introduced into my community!

Now comes a hazardous substance into my surround

Does a potential hazard exist when managing LNG and future harm could occur? Where potential exists as possibility but absent existing today as I write. Right-to-know act imply, those involved with hazardous substances must disclose full range of risks public (community) exposure. In brief, I think any LNG facility, located within my Tacoma City, is a business that operates using hazardous substances; this means, thus must disclose those risks to me and all other persons within my Tacoma community. A complete hazards disclosure to my community before an potential hazard becomes a actual hazard event that has irreversible consequences to any person!

Just some foreign past examples of LNG hazards written disclosures

As others have addressed the LNG potential hazards7 – 11 created in past year from different state but two similar situations exist (1) A LNG facility; and (2) A LNG facility and water e.g., to our Puget Sound: Commencement Bay waters. There have already been some accidents with LNG and their exist articles written about LNG accidents.

So there does exist past example how hazard analysis studies should be written and published for community public to read, understand, and then make informed comments about building LNG plant(s) within their Tacoma City community.

My thoughts are these

My comments are already recorded within The News Tribune article related to these LNG facilities.1

Works cited

(1) John Sherman – ”[D]eficient”. Environmental and risk.. (2015),

(2) PSE proposed Tideflats LNG facility (City of Tacoma 2013),

(3) SARA Title III: Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act Purpose and Applicability of Regulations (2014),

(4) Richard Nemec, Tacoma LNG storage project still moving forward despite challenges (Dec. 24, 2015),

(5) What is the Emergency Planning & Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA)? (n.d.), Washington State Ecology,

(6) US EPA and OSWER, What is EPCRA? (Jul. 24, 2013),


(8) Mike Hightower et al., Guidance on Risk Analysis and Safety Implications of a Large Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Spill over Water (2004), 2004

(9)Ted Sickinger et al., Gas explosion at LNG facility in Washington prompts concerns about proposed export terminals in Oregon ( Apr. 2, 2014),

(10)Repairs worth $69M ongoing at Plymouth natural gas plant (2015)(East Oregonian)

(11)Chesapeake Climate Action Network et al., In Light of Washington LNG explosion, community demands answers to cove point export terminal concerns, Aggregated (EcoWatch Apr. 7, 2014),


Be a information questioner

Think to ask, your knowledge depends upon the answers

Lionel’s Manifesto: The 12 Rules of Critical Thinking1

And, do take notes because this is the basic concept of knowledge and forget one-step and you will revert back to one of the herd as presenters drag you along for their ride tomorrow.

Who is faulted as information fragments delivered

Considering the information presenters:

  • Family & friends;
  • Political communications;
  • Local, regional, state, and federal governments;
  • News media (newspapers, web pages, internet) main stream media (“MSM”);
  • Books and ads;
  • Historical writing;
  • Legal writing and decisions;
  • Religion beliefs; and
  • Education and training

The flood of broken information comes each day every day.

So we know: what we know: how we know it: simply by information presented. We should consider—think about information details presented—but absent asking pointed questions this presented information will remain nothing more than a statement of words-joined.

Information basic foundation

Always ask: (1) The reason the presenter is presenting; (2) Who are the receptive listeners; (3) The presented information is to elicit what effect from who; (4) What information is missing; (5) Who is doing what to whom for what resulting benefit to just who; and (6) Am I allowed to ask questions and receive logical answers in simple words; thus I will connect my questions with the missing parts of the presenters presentation

When you think you know, thought you have known, consider this: I don’t know at all; therefore, ask another question.

Works cited

(1) The Lebron firm (The Lebron Firm) (n.d.),!media/cbr3.

The right information, to the right people, at the right time, prevents the wrong results by the right people. J.E. Sherman


Why is news no longer newsworthy

News for sake of news reports is not really news

What has happened to investigative reports done for local, regional, and national news stories presentations?

Apparent to me: main stream media (“MSM”) has the following constraints, limits real news collection and reporting; for example, constraints:

  • Working within established corporation MSM news collection budget restraints;
  • Preferential news sources, from which to elicit what is called news:
    • Source will terminate your MSM ability to ask questions and get answers if person irritated by MSM asking the wrong questions and presenting the wrong facts discovery.
    • As news source declares what is secret that must not be disclosed for the public good or government security.
    • Like political thinking can always write better news together and throw it out as MSM real news;
  • Stories aligned with those that pay for MSM ads;
  • News surveys. Surveys that tell MSM what it’s readers really like or dislike about it’s news presented? Then ask the question again about what news they did provide absent comparison to alternative; and
  • Newsroom and editors preference to elicit some response from those readers.
News stories rejected by MSM just because
  • Liability resulting from story content published;
  • infringe on a personal right to privacy;
  • story is not complete. Unable to verify facts;
  • unreliable source for this news;
  • government threats for such story published; and
  • the political and business objectives of such story is counter to the strategy this specific MSM publisher has adopted to present to public.
News reported could be better, just how?

Maybe the entire MSM news reporting—collecting, editing, publishing—might be improved for readers everywhere if the major MSM businesses gathered their potential news stories from people that write. Not reporters at all. Not the writers as we now consider news reporters because news reports seem only a regurgitate or parrots what has been told to them by some official briefing held for the MSM news outlets.

What a real MSM news process would require

It’s really quite simple to get good and complete MSM news stories, if that was desired; it follows:

  1. A story with facts and citations present to all facts presented.
  2. An Editor. The Editor that will configure the story into readable words-joined test with correct grammar and punctuation.
  3. Now comes the MSM news delivery team that voices or prints this news story for public viewing appreciation.

That’s it. With a complete news story that will write well, and all the players named (name that dog), and with a readable result in print or other MSM presentation is what people desire (in my opinion).