(Note: We counted 70 protesters)

http://www.theworldlink.com/articles/2007/01/25/news/news03012507.txt

LNG foes out in force
Thursday, January 25, 2007 2:12 PM PST

More than 50 protesters gathered along Broadway Street in North Bend on Wednesday evening to show opposition to a proposed liquefied natural gas terminal and pipeline on the North Spit. Later that evening, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission held an informational meeting about the environmental review process for the two projects at the North Bend Community Center. Approximately 15 people asked questions of three government officials, who tried their best to reassure the public that the review of the environmental impacts would be thorough and complete. Opponents of the project asked pointed questions, with preambles clearly delineating their viewpoints. Complete coverage of the meeting will be in Friday's issue of The World.

World Photo by Lou Sennick

*****************************************************************************

http://www.theworldlink.com/articles/2007/01/26/news/news02.txt

Federal official assures of close oversight on LNG

By Alexander Rich, Staff Writer
Friday, January 26, 2007 1:49 PM PST

 

Local residents brought more than their questions to Wednesday’s public meeting in North Bend on the proposed liquefied natural gas facility and connecting pipeline. This group brought protest signs in opposition to the project. World Photo by Lou Sennick

As the federal applications for a liquefied natural gas import terminal and pipeline in Coos County near completion, staff from three government agencies assembled in North Bend on Wednesday to spell out where things go from here.

The meeting provided local residents a chance to ask questions and learn how they can participate in the federal environmental review process, which will commence once the applications are submitted.

Questions varied from environmental to safety to aesthetic issues, but most stuck to a similar theme: Will my concern be addressed in the government's investigation? For the most part, the answer was yes, though a number of questioners appeared to remain skeptical after hearing the response.

Representatives were present from both Jordan Cove and Williams, but only participated by answering individual questions at the end of the meeting.

Before fielding questions, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Project Manager Paul Friedman reviewed previous stages in the FERC process and the role of the federal commission.

“We don't advocate this project,” he said. “We are neutral until the commission makes a formal decision.”

Once the environmental review begins, he said, it would take about four months to complete a draft environmental impact statement. With the application expected to be completed in April, the draft will be ready by August. At the conclusion of the process, a 90-day comment period will ensue, during which time scoping meetings would be scheduled and public input requested. Several months later, after taking into account the information provided by the project proponents, Jordan Cove Energy Project and Williams Company, and the public, a final draft will be issued for consideration by the commission.

John Styduhar and Jake O'Dowd, representing the U.S. Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service, said their agencies concurrently would determine whether to issue a right-of-way land grant to allow the pipeline through federal lands. Only with the land grant and FERC certification could construction proceed on an LNG terminal and pipeline in Coos County, Friedman said.

At the prompting of several questioners, Friedman explained that he would not conduct an economic study of the proposal, but that economic factors would be considered by the commission in its final report.

“The company is at total financial risk,” he said. “But there will be a socio-economic section examining the impact on taxes, the impact on schools and the impact on housing.”

 

Additional questions were asked about the pipeline itself: whether it would pose a fire or explosion hazard or fail during construction.

“Since the pipeline is underground, the depth of cover and the insulation of soil, a forest fire would not increase the temperature of the pipeline and blow it up,” Styduhar said.

Barbara Stevenson, of North Bend, asked specifically about how the 223-mile, 36-inch diameter pipeline could prove less of an environmental hazard than the county pipeline installed several years ago.

“The Coos Bay to Roseburg pipeline was not a FERC pipeline,” said Friedman. “There will be a third party environmental inspector physically inspecting construction and FERC has stop work authority.”

He also noted that FERC often includes provisions in its certificates that would require Williams to pay as much as $1 million a day for environmental damage.

Styduhar and O'Dowd also took pains to note that all inspections and oversight provided by federal agencies would be billed to the two companies.

“Your tax dollars will not be spent on these studies,” O'Dowd said.

There were many questions (see sidebar) and for the most part, they were asked in a civil manner. Some included rather lengthy preambles, including references to Los Angeles traffic patterns, the Pakistani/Indian wars of the 20th century and pipeline failures in the past.

One of the few questioners who questioned the validity of the process was Mary Margaret Muenchrath, of Coos Bay, who suggested the process was undemocratic and should not employ the use of eminent domain.

Friedman momentarily lost his collected demeanor, asking if she had voted in the fall elections, thereby selecting representatives who could change the provisions governing the FERC. He tempered his comments by noting that FERC would encourage Williams to negotiate in good faith with all landowners.

Lisa Lagesse of Glasgow asked the question that many in the audience were likely thinking: Why not place the LNG terminal in California?

“It is located here because this is where the proponents chose to locate it,” Friedman said, noting that resource reports 1 and 10, accessible on the FERC Web site, include an explanation for why Jordan Cove chose this location.

“We don't look at the application in terms of need, we look at it in terms of alternatives,” he said.

- Staff Writer Alexander Rich covers LNG. He can be reached by calling 269-1222, ext. 271; or by e-mailing arich@theworldlink.com.

****************************************

SIDEBAR - (not on line):

 

---