Sitting in glass boardrooms and at public meetings, Robert L. Braddock this week had an easy time announcing his company's proposal for a $150 million liquefied natural gas import terminal on the North Spit.

His words flowed quickly. Agency representatives hung on his announcement. Economic development promoters had obvious enthusiasm.

With negotiations under way for the purchase of 90 privately owned acres on the North Spit - the company has not released who it is negotiating with although Weyerhauser and Roseburg Lumber are the largest landholders at Jordan Cove - Braddock said his company realizes such proposals are never easy to close. An experienced engineer who has taken on the public face of Colorado-based Energy Projects Development LLC, Braddock said the hard part is just beginning.

"We know that these facilities are not without controversy," he said. "Siting is always an issue because of perceived risk, but it's our feeling that a lot of that is just people not having facts."

As the increase in fuel prices and a national energy crisis has translated into dozens of proposals for new or expanded import terminals, communities on each coast have spurned the developments following public criticism and outcry.

In Alabama, terminals proposed by two companies in Mobile Bay - ExxonMobil and Cheniere - remain in doubt after questions were raised about safety and federal officials' efforts to minimize the hazards. In California, where the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is considering four proposals, a terminal project proposed by Shell and Bechtel in 2002 was shot down in the city of Vallejo.

A few hours south of the Oregon border, the efforts of San Jose-based power giant Calpine Corp. to build a liquefied natural gas facility near Eureka, Calif., failed earlier this year, after the issue spurred lengthy debates over marine safety.

"There's been a couple of proposals defeated in California," said Bry Myown, a spokeswoman for the Long Beach Citizens for Utility Reform, a group opposing Mitsubishi's terminal proposal in the nation's largest port. "They've been defeated because those city councils wisely accepted public input before they entered into any exclusive negotiations."

Web sites contesting the siting of import facilities have been set up in numerous communities where opponents congregate to discuss their fears and update their achievements. In heavily populated areas such as Long Beach, which see an influx of container ships on a daily basis, concerns range from disasters that could potentially trigger fires at already established petroleum facilities to outside attacks.

"Any risk in a port can really only be evaluated in the context of what else is there," Myown said. "We can't really evaluate LNG independently. If there's a fire involving the LNG, will that cause the petroleum to catch? Would we have a chain reaction?"

In its liquefied form, natural gas is neither flammable nor explosive but unrestrained, it could spread across vast expanses of water, where it would evaporate and easily spark into a wide-spread fire. Cooled to minus 260 degrees Fahrenheit, when its density increases and it can occupy 600 times less space, natural gas can be shipped in the thousands of gallons, even aboard vessels slightly larger than chip ships.

For Myown, at Long Beach, that creates a risk of being attacked.

"We're already a credible terrorist target because of the economic impact of shutting down our port," she said.

Coos Bay, with its largely wood-products base and its out-of-the-way location, may have fewer of those specific concerns. Company President Elliott Trepper said a single storage tank here could hold about 90,000 metric tons of liquefied natural gas. Two ships, carrying about 75,000 metric tons of fuel each, would deliver their load each month.

That contrasts vastly to Long Beach's proposal, which is the largest in the nation.

"This is probably one-fifth the size," Trepper said.

Size, however, doesn't necessarily translate into safety.

Liquefied natural gas' worst national disaster dates to 1944, when a storage tank in Cleveland, Ohio, ruptured due to imprecision in the metallurgy. A mere 6,300 cubic meters was released into the city's sewer system. In the end, one square mile was charred.

Industry supporters say that since 1964, when the product first started to be shipped across oceans, there have been no fatalities, no massive spills and no major environmental catastrophes. Since 1980, only one vessel has run aground, Braddock said.

"In the industry's 40-year history, there have been no accidents that have resulted in environmental catastrophes or loss of life," Braddock said.

Opponents like Myown say the statistics aren't truly representative of the dangers from liquefied natural gas. Currently, only four import facilities exist in the United States - in Everett, Mass.; Cove Point, Md.; Elba Island, Ga.; and Lake Charles, La. A fifth is operating in Puerto Rico.

"I would question whether the record the industry tells is really statistically significant in light of the phenomenal growth the industry is currently engaged in," Myown said. "The industry is poised for a huge takeoff here. Is the history the industry has over the last 40 years really significantly important?"

As of July, FERC had 44 applications on file for either the construction or the expansion of liquefied natural gas import terminals in North America. If Coos Bay's proposal moves forward, it will be the seventh from the West Coast and the second from Oregon to reach FERC.

Braddock said four decades of safety are significant. Since that first shipment of natural gas was shipped in 1964, 33,000 more trips have followed. Vessels have traveled more than 60 million miles without a death or harm to the environment, he said.

In the meantime, industry specialists have studied the best ways to contain liquefied natural gas while minimizing the risks posed by natural disasters.

Earthquakes pose real threats in many coastal communities. Locally, the Cascadia Subduction Zone causes major earthquakes every several hundred years. The last major earthquake was in the late 1700s and geologists generally say it's impossible to predice when the next will strike.

Braddock said his company has modeled its tank on Japanese versions, where the country has had to balance a temblor-ridden history with its need to import 96 percent of its natural gas in liquid form.

"This is a sophisticated plant but it's not unique," said Braddock.

The proposed storage tank, a 120-foot tall vessel, would be double-hulled and self-containing in case of leaks. Three feet of perlite would surround a metal interior. That, in turn, would be capped by three feet of concrete. If leaks occur, spills are contained inside the concrete, Braddock said.

South Coast Development Council Director Ron Opitz, a former NW Natural risk assessment manager, used to bring liquefied natural gas to classrooms in containment jars for science projects. Opitz said there has never been an injury accident in the area due to the liquid and he felt confident about the company's storage tank plans.

"You could fly a private plane into one of these things," he said.

As evidence of the industry's safety, Opitz and Braddock cite insurance premiums for vessels that ship natural gas, which are often 25 percent lower than those attributed to oil tankers.

Oregon International Port of Coos Bay officials, who have worked behind the scenes to attract liquefied natural gas to the area, say they will bird-dog the development to satisfy their questions about safety and oversight.

Braddock has taken an office on the third floor of The Hub Building, adjacent to the port, and has been visibly ready for questions. Port officials already know him by sight and say they have been impressed by his willingness to share information and present the public with data about the industry.

"He's been walking around and he's is going out to the community," said Chairman Dave Kronsteiner. "He's a very good source of information and I'm excited about this coming to our port."

Others on the port speak openly that any industry will carry its own element of risk and caution not to overreact to what they believe may or may not pose a danger to the Bay Area.

"People get concerned about projects like this but don't think anything about tankers of gas passing them on the highway," said Commissioner Brady Scott. "The history of this industry will probably speak for itself."