2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration international internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

My observations of the LNG FERC process in regards to LNG JCEP (Jordan Cove Energy Project), in Coos County:

LNG Siting process in Oregon 11/07

By Camby Collier, POB 181, Coos Bay, OR 97420

Current process:

1. Nice salesman comes to a community and gets involved with local clubs like Lions and Rotary, goes ?golfing with the guys? and presents what is going on to local Chamber of Commerce meetings. Gets ground support over a period of years. Does not present any public meetings.
2. Explains project: small tank, smallest LNG vessels and we are going to use ?your? existing pipeline.
3. Project changes after a year and an half to larger ships, two of the tallest tanks that can be put on the North Spit, and, oh, by the way, we don?t need your 12? inch pipeline, we are going to build a 36? pipeline at 1400 psi and, as a private Canadian company, take Oregon?s property owner?s land and BLM land. We will pay property owners once, BLM annually and have the option to sell the easement in the future to ?who knows who?.
4. No elected officials are up to speed on LNG because it is new industry. No Oregon regulations on it. No elected officials step up to help. They all say various things like: ?It is out of our control.? ?FERC is in charge.? ?We can?t make a decision for or against in case there is future litigation.? ?We don?t talk about this. We don?t have any meetings on it.? ?We need the jobs.? ?It will be as safe as a pillow.? ?I am still learning about it and haven?t made a decision.? ?Keep climbing that FERC mountain, glad you are in the ?process?. (Unsaid: cuz I don?t know anything about it.) Or they respond with ?blank stares, blank stares, mouth slightly open, glazed looked.?
5. Hours and hours of FERC hearings and county hearings. Hundreds of concerned citizens who do not want it show up. Feeling of talking to the wind.
6. Hours and hours of public doing their own research because not one elected official is helping.
7. Hours and hours of doing public forums to inform the county that you feel the county commissioners should be doing.
8. Hours and hours of writing letters to all the elected officials from the Governor to the local city councils.
9. Hours and hours of raising awareness going door to door or a peaceful protest, going to city council meetings and county commissioners and state officials and to Salem to see the governor.
10. Hours and hours and millions of dollars for the gas companies writing their applications that could be denied. Hiring professionals to write their resource papers, working with 12+ different agencies in Oregon and Federally.
11. Hours and hours of meetings with FERC, gas company and public.
12. Hours and hours of paperwork to submit to FERC.
13. Hours and hours of time to upload lots of the paperwork and research it.
14. Hours and hours of time to provide ?missing? information to agencies and FERC.

WHAT A WASTE OF EVERYONE?S TIME !!!!!

Process should be:
1. All State senators in America should move to strike from the August 2005 Energy Bill that Bush signed to not allow any state to VETO an ON-SHORE LNG terminal. That is ludicrous. States should have say over what comes into them!! Why is that line in there, because states like California would not allow this great opportunity of an LNG facility on their shores. They ran it off from Eureka, Vallejo, Long Beach, Malibu. Why would they do that if it is such a great thing to have? Because it has ?danger inherent in the system?, will change their landscape forever, and would be their biggest polluter.
2. NEPA needs to do a region by region analysis of where the need is.
3. Citizens of ALL counties affected should be mailed out info by the county commissioners, pros & cons and the citizens get to vote on it.
4. Port commissioners need to be elected and an AGREED upon direction for the port to pursue. Everyone working in harmony.

The above 4 things first, then:

5. It needs to be discussed why a government, gas industry and academia put out a report that the USA has a 65 year supply of natural gas. If this is the case, WHY are LNG terminals even being discussed?
6. FERC needs to take account of ?need?. As it stands now, they are not authorized to do so. They can approve hundreds of LNG terminals and ?let the chips fall where they may?.
7. Someone, an elected official, needs to represent the citizens. There is NO ONE in OREGON. Pass the buck, pass the buck, pass the buck?.to no one.
8. LNG terminals go against everyone getting on board the ?Green Wagon?. Building LNG terminals does not reduce dependence on foreign fossil fuels.
9. We need to be aware of the bigger footprint: We have natural gas right off our coast. We don?t tap into it because of environmental concern, so it is OK to go tear up land across the sea, transport it in polluting vessels, and force it on us.
10. Everyone in America should have solar panels: New homes, old homes, government buildings, businesses.
11. Everyone should be contributing to new technology in wind, like in Bandon, OR.
12. I know cars can be made to deliver 100 mpg but we are not letting that happen for many reasons I cannot go into here.

The process needs to change. It is outdated and backwards. And then we can talk where LNG terminals are needed, if needed in America.

posted 5 years, 3 months ago
view in context

I live in Coos Bay where the proposed Jordan Cove LNG Terminal is trying to locate in our community. I have been going to every meeting possible for the last 3 years to stop this craziness. We also have a plan for localized energy and an alternate plan for business on our North Spit. Following is 1 Reason to have LNG and 73 Reasons NOT to have LNG:

Reasons To Have An LNG Terminal In Coos County:
1. For the people in North Bend, Glasgow and North Bay who don?t like the sound of ATVs and other recreational vehicles in the dunes, it will help mask those sounds with new noises.


Reasons NOT To Have An LNG Terminal In Coos County:
1. It is in the most vulnerable spot on the Tsunami map.
2. It is in a massive earthquake zone that SOCC has been preparing us for ?the expected big one?.
3. It is too close to schools: Madison Elementary, Sunset Middle School, Hillcrest and North Bend High School.
4. It is too close to first responders: North Bend Fire Dept., Coast Guard, North Bend Police Dept. and Bay Area Hospital.
5. It is too close to business centers (Virginia Ave.), North Bend Senior Center and homes.
6. Property value will go down. Would you like to live across from the LNG terminal?
7. It will be lit up at night, like oil refineries are.
8. It will cause delay in landing and taking off at the airport.
9. It is too close to our airport.
10. There are no alternatives for evacuation routes along Cape Arago Hwy and out to the North Spit.
11. It will release 68,000 tons per year of carbon dioxide. What?s the matter with that? They use C02 in nurseries, don?t they? Well, yes they do. C02 will create more pollen which will create more asthma, allergies and lung problems.
12. There is no guarantee that it will not expand. The nature of the beast is expanding the amount of tanks on land, vessel arrivals, and getting a permit for cogeneration power plants. A 900 megawatt cogeneration power plant could add 4.9 tons of chemicals each day into the air.
13. Carnegie Mellon University came out with a report Aug. 23, 2007 that, ?LNG imported from foreign countries and used for electricity generation could have 35 per cent higher lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions than coal?.?
14. It would be located too close to other marine business: the proposed cargo terminal and Roseburg Forest Products.
15. The vessels are 900-1200 ft. long (the size of 3-4 football fields), 138?-150? wide and 14 stories tall. It is not so much the size as the cargo. Depending on the size of the vessel it will contain the energy of 50-80 Hiroshima bombs (because the natural gas is condensed 600x?s).
16. ?Low probability; high consequence?
17. LNG carriers are on the top 10 terrorist threat list in the USA.
18. Our channel at 300? is not wide enough for risk management; even the proposed widening for the proposed cargo terminal vessels to 500? is not wide enough. 5 times the width of 150? beam ship = 750? wide channel.
19. We do not know how the use of the bay will be affected for fishermen, recreational boats, clamming and crabbing.
20. We do not know what the exclusion zone will be on the in-coming ships.
21. We do not know what the exclusion zone will be while in transit in the bay to the terminal.
22. We do not know what the exclusion zone will be when the LNG vessel is berthed.
23. Why would any entity approve of something without knowing how it is going to affect our channel and surrounding areas like our Dunes National Recreation Area?
24. We do not know how many additional security, fire and police will be needed.
25. We do not know what fire dept will be in charge. North Bay?? North Bend??? Blackwater???
26. An emergency area should be on some secure acreage out towards Coquille, with cargo loads of emergency equipment and supplies and many helicopter pads to get emergency aid.
27. 2-4 specially made tugs will be needed at $10,000,000.00 each (10 million dollars each). The Port will be renting them to JCEP. What will be the cost to the taxpayers?
28. What will be the total proposed cost to the taxpayers? Extra security, upgrade to Coast Guard vessels, equipment and personnel training, berth, railroad, roads, etc. A real ?independent study? needs to be done.
29. JCEP will not have to pay taxes for 3 years, and possible more because they fall within the North Spit Enterprise Zone. When they do pay taxes it will go to the Urban Renewal District for the North Spit, not to the Coos County general fund.
30. If you wanted to invest in the JCEP (Jordan Cove Energy Project), you cannot do so unless you are a Canadian citizen. JCEP is owned by Ft. Chicago, a Canadian company.
31. We do not know if native eel grass will grow where it would be mitigated and who will be in charge to make sure it does? (What is important about eel grass??it is where baby salmon grow up and hide.)
32. Ignition risk and the extent of a gas cloud must be considered.
33. On-shore LNG terminal is old technology: they cost more, less secure, harder to expand, more hazard to the public, environmental damage. Submerged buoys off-shore are better and ride out storms.
34. I don?t want to live in the ?Zone of Concern? (3 zones, 2.2 mile radius); and ?the Zone? follows the vessel up the channel. It is nicknamed ?The Kill Zone? in the industry.
35. LNG vessels should not be in narrow, winding channels nor on the bend of the channel. (At some point, other ships passing, would be aimed at the berthed LNG carrier).
36. The Prime Minister of Canada, Stephen Harper told Pres. Bush Aug. 23, 2007 that he does not want LNG vessels in Fundy Bay in order to make their way to 2 proposed LNG terminals in Maine.














37. Human error.
38. Part malfunction.
39. Airplane crash?.let?s see, how far away is the proposed terminal from Airplane Hill? Wanna guess why they call it Airplane Hill?
40. And, yes, I will say it?.an intentional act. What better way to cut-off supply to California and Nevada.
41. We need to consider where the gas is coming from. We have natural gas right off our shores but we aren?t allowed to mine for it because of what it would do to the fishing industry and environmental concern. Oh, but it is OK for us to mess up other parts of the world.
42. Canadian gas suppliers have stated that they could provide, with contracts, a 20 yr supply of natural gas for the California market.
43. We have known reserves in the USA that are capped off. We have unique natural gas reserves in Coos County with enough gas that could service Coos County for 6,000 years.
44. Cargo and crews come from countries that are not friendly to the US: Qatar, Nigeria, Algeria, Iran, etc. It could come from Australia or Russia, but no contract can be pursued until the terminal is approved.
45. The vessel has to be vetted at sea. The Coast Guard needs to check the vessel inside and underneath for bombs.
46. The vessel needs to come in under military escort.





47. For a safe design for an LNG berth it needs to be a suitable distant from centers of population.
48. Airports need to declare air-space over an LNG terminal as being a restricted zone where no aircraft is allowed to fly without written permission.
49. Where is the need for LNG in the USA.? NEPA should do a regional needs analysis first.
50. There are no elected officials in Coos County or the State of Oregon or Federally who are looking out for the citizens of Coos County, and the other counties affected: Douglas, Klamath, Jackson.
51. Douglas County is against the LNG terminal because the ensuing pipeline will affect their property owners.
52. Canyonville City Council is against the LNG terminal because of the effect the pipeline will have in their area.
53. The site for the terminal is on an unstable sand dune.
54. The proposed berth will breakup the bay forever. And why do we need this berth, because the LNG vessels are too dangerous to sit along our channel like they do at Roseburg Forest Products.
55. Due the Energy Bill signed by President Bush in August 2005, governors cannot veto an onshore LNG terminal. They can veto an offshore terminal, but not an onshore one?.Thanks. So Oregon is a just a territory of Washington D.C.?? (Well,they do have control of 52% of Oregon lands.)
56. California, so far, has gotten rid of all the proposed LNG terminals on its shore. Eureka, Vallejo, Malibu, Long Beach (since the Mayor and City council of Long Beach were against it their Port commissioners stopped it). They still have more to fight?they keep popping up down in California like the game of pounding the gophers at the fair and arcades. (Note: The Malibu one, Cabrillo Port, if it had been approved would have been 14 miles off-shore and would have been the biggest polluter in Ventura County.)
57. The Lt. Governor of California said with the Baja LNG terminal and expansion, they will have enough LNG.
58. Californians don?t want it; foreign gas is expected to cost more than domestic and it burns hotter. The Small Appliance Assn. of California is concerned.
59. The pipeline will tear up 231 miles of Oregon; through mountain ranges?the land of an 100 valleys?.streams and rivers?oh, and people?s property.
60. The pipeline will start out 95? wide and have various staging areas and will end up as a 75? wide permanent scar on people?s property and a 53? wide permanent scar through our national forests.
61. If people do not settle with Williams Pipeline our federal government will allow them to take their property by eminent domain?for a private business?thievery.
62. To get the natural gas to Malin, OR at the California border the gas will be pumping at 1400 PSI (pounds per square inch). Normal gas flow in pipes is 80-300 psi. When it gets to a business it is 6-10 psi. When it comes into a home it is 3-4 psi?.1400 PSI is a LOT of pressure.
63. Our Port is appointed by Governor Kulongoski, they are not elected officials. They can do whatever they want without the citizens of Coos County?s approval.
64. As of Oct. 2007, 22 terminals have ALREADY been ?approved? for construction in the USA that will produce 349 bcm (billion cubic meters) of LNG. In addition to that, terminals that will produce 118 bcm are in the ?proposal? stage. The existing 5 US LNG terminals hold 60.3 bcm. Last year the US only used 17.5 bcm?approving all these terminals doesn?t make sense.















65. FERC is only concerned with the land siting of a terminal; they are not authorized to consider ?need? of LNG in the USA.
66. There are 4 on the Columbia River vying for approval and ours here in Coos Bay. A possible 5 in Oregon? They can all be approved by FERC. The process wastes billions of dollars and time for gas businesses, pipeline businesses and taxpayers. It does not make sense.
67. FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) in Washington D.C. is made up of 5 hand picked commissioners by Pres. Bush.
68. No one in Oregon is ?in charge? of the oversight of this project. It is disconnected by 12 or more state agencies, each doing little pieces?no ?go to? person.
69. Just because a business wants to be on the North Spit, doesn?t mean we have to approve them.
70. We don?t get to vote on turning our bay into an hazardous industrial wasteland that will be the armpit of Oregon thanks to the August 2005 Energy Bill and no one stepping up to change it.
71. If it was necessary for an LNG terminal to be located here, it should be at least 7.3 miles off-shore with a pipeline to San Francisco.
72. It has taken years of my life learning all this information.
73. WE, the Citizens of Coos County, DON?T WANT IT !!



















PS: I could discuss each item listed for at least 15 minutes.
73 items x 15 minutes = 1,095 minutes = over 17 hours.

Camby Collier
Coos Bay, OR

posted 5 years, 3 months ago
view in context