Tuesday, May 12, 2015

This is how life works.  A company which can bring industry announces its interest in an area.  The smart politicians take an interest.  Then over time as they learn about the industry they reassess.  This appears to be what is happening with LNG at the Port.
At this time, I believe based on interviews an LNG would be hard pressed to get a majority of the Port Board to vote for a lease.  The chance of a tax abatement is slim to nil.

Now of course what I am being told could all be distractions to keep us from talking about it - yea - not going to happen.  Until the LNG's walk away the pressure will be kept going.

UT cannot move forward on the medical school without a taxing district for a community hospital.  Too many entities are asking for too much at once.  LNG is toxic not only to the people and environment, but also to any Port Commissioner who votes for a lease or any taxing authority which votes for an abatement.  Trust me, Port Isabel is going to fight this tooth an nail.

It is interesting UT sees LNG as a threat to the hospital district.  Now that would be interesting to have UT be the reason why the politicians end up telling the LNG's thanks but no thanks.

So what it seems we have now is a stampede of politicians telling people they are not on board with LNG now that they are learning about environmental issues.  It could be a con, but it is interesting how many are now running from the idea of LNG at the port.  Since no lease would be signed until after the 2016 primaries it could just all be words to protect the politicians who favor LNG.


Anonymous said...

I remember the brief period when the PUB meetings and appointments, as well as the Port and its elections, were matters of interest and regular discussion in the local blogosphere.

Perhaps with the LNG debate and the impact fees needing to be looked at again, these entities can get a little more attention from the public.

BobbyWC said...

I really need to look into the fuel surcharge fee. With the fall in the price of oil it is not justified.

But I can assure you the BPUB will not care what we think.

The problem becomes they tell the city commission - fine - we will get rid of the fuel surcharge fee - now we will pay less over to the city and the city will have less to spend.

It's a catch 22 - if the city commission were to push for a reduction or elimination in the fuel surcharge fee, the BPUB would respond by paying less over to the city which would mean either fewer city services, a tax hike.

While there is no solution to it, it is still wrong.

On PR the BPUB gets an F.

Bobby WC

Anonymous said...

I believe the LNGs have already paid the Port for lease options, which if true means it's the LNGs choice whether to come in or not and the only obstacle is the permitting process. The incompetent Port commission has had their say so on this fiasco and I think only the public can reverse this-- if at all.

BobbyWC said...

I will follow up on your comment - I am the first to say people may lie to me - but commissioners are claiming no lease has been signed and it will be after the primaries before such a lease is signed.

Now it could be like a real estate purchase - the contract is dependent on the inspection. So maybe they signed something which says a lease is contingent on the environmental studies - which becomes the out clause.

But I will see what I can find out

Bobby WC

Anonymous said...

Mr. BWC You were probably not a Brownsville resident in the early 1980's when the Volcano I a ship that was going to burn toxic waste in the golf was "kicked out" by the out cry of the citizens of Brownsville, Port Isabel, SPI and Matamoros. It was another time, when a small community united to run out a town a common enemy that wanted to destroy our clean air, our fishing and tourism industry. I was a 20 year college student, and I remember a Jacob Brown Civic Center filled up with people from civic organizations (where are the Lions, the Kiwanis, the Sierra Club, all community groups?)I remember the mayor of Matamoros, the mayor of Port Isabel and YES, the mayor of Brownsville speaking in that community forum sponsored by the EPA to hear citizens concerns. The ship sailed to other shores and our community was saved from pollution in the air and the water. I guess nobody cares now.

Anonymous said...

I hope you're right but I have been very involved with the Sierra Club effort to engage the public in this effort, and our understanding is that lease options have already been granted to five companies (I believe they are renewable). Three companies have already filed pre-applications with FERC. If all five make it through the FERC approval process, we will have an LNG city stretching from the Jaime Zapata boat ramp to 1.6 miles behind the Port Isabel HEB.We learned last week that Texas LNG will use electric motors to power two refrigeration trains, each using 100 megawatts, which they will buy from the grid which will be fed by the new Tenaska gas-fired power plant. Sign up for their newsletter at saveRGVfromLNG.com and they have a Facebook page as well as monthly meetings. LNG cargo tankers with Coast Guard escorts, should not be floating very close to the public beach at Isla Blanca, but that is the plan. Register your comments and concerns at www.ferc.gov, look for eComments under Documents and Filings and use docket numbers PF15-14, PF15-15 and PF15-20. It's time to speak up.