The comments above are from users of theworldlink.com and do not necessarily represent the views of The World or Lee Enterprises. Participation Guidelines
Note: There is a maximum of 200 words per comment. If you wish to post more, please visit our forum.
LNG application deadline pushed back
By Alexander Rich, Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 23, 2007 | 1 comment(s)
The tangles of government bureaucracy and information sharing have delayed the application process for a liquefied natural gas import terminal in Coos County.
According to Bob Braddock, project manager of Jordan Cove Energy Project, the LNG company now plans to file its application with the Federal Energy Regulation Commission by April 2. The original deadline of Jan. 31 was pushed back, he said, because of the slow nature of working with the federal agency.
“It's a catch-22. We couldn't file our second draft resource reports until we received comments from the agency and we didn't get some of those back until December,” he said.
FERC project manager Paul Friedman said his agency requires a 60-day window after receiving the last second draft report before a company can file its final application.
“We need to be able to review their documents and make sure all the data we need is included,” he said.
To complicate matters, Jordan Cove has been coordinating its filing date with Williams, the company proposing the Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline. Despite some delays in the collecting of soil samples from the Coos Bay estuary, Williams was able to complete its forms on Dec. 18.
Michele Swaner, a communications specialist with Williams, said the company had anticipated delays in collecting boring samples from Coos Bay to determine an underwater route.
“We built enough time into our plans for those contingencies,” with drilling delays, she said.
Braddock said Jordan Cove expects to submit its final resource report this week.
Compiling an application
Rather than logistical logjams in Coos Bay, delays have primarily developed in Washington, D.C., and an unexpected death temporarily left a state department scrambling in Salem.
In January 2006, with several LNG terminals proposed throughout the state, Gov. Ted Kulongoski designated the Department of Energy as the lead state agency in working with FERC. An analyst in the department, Cathy Van Horn, was given the task of working on a couple of the proposed terminal projects, including Jordan Cove. Practically all state comments on Jordan Cove resource reports went across Van Horn's desk first.
On Sept. 15, the 45-year-old Van Horn died.
“It was so traumatic and completely unexpected,” said Diana Enright, an assistant director in the department.
Despite the setback, Braddock said, the state handled the situation admirably, continuing to process paperwork and respond to Jordan Cove's concerns.
More significant, in Braddock's estimation, were bottlenecks produced by governmental agencies along the Potomac River. As an example, Braddock noted how he was expecting some documents from the Bureau of Land Management in late November.
“For some reason, they did not pop up on time,” he said.
Braddock also noted that revisions he had scheduled to complete by December were delayed because many federal employees exercised their vacation days and were unable to review documents.
Such scenarios are just part of the terrain when dealing with the federal government, he said.
“I've always stated that the dates we give are the earliest possible and most likely not achievable. There have been good reasons for the delays on both sides.”
Jordan Cove and Williams will spend much of the remaining two plus months before the April deadline fine-tuning their applications.
“FERC will send out data requests and comments from state agencies, local residents and stakeholders,” said Troy Ruflin, the Pacific Connector pipeline project manager. “Basically, we will be filling in the gaps that remain in our resource reports.”
One of the more mundane aspects of the revisions, Braddock said, is ensuring that terminology is consistent throughout the application document. Since numerous contractors are employed by both groups to collect environmental information, some terms are used differently from field to field. Before the application is submitted, all such discrepancies must be aligned.
“It's not so much content but language,” he said. “For example, we will use the term terminal in the document, not regasification terminal. Also, there is the difference between ship and vessel. It may seem like a minor detail, but it is one thing we need to take care of.”
It also constitutes a sizable undertaking. When the final application is completed, Braddock estimates the document would take up about 10 feet of space on a bookshelf.
Next stage
This week, representatives from both companies will put aside their proofreading and assemble for a series of FERC-sponsored informational meetings. Unlike recent public forums put together by local residents, the proponents, as well as their opponents, will primarily be on hand to listen. The purpose of the meeting will be to discuss the next stage in the FERC process.
“The meeting is designed to let people know how (various government agencies) do their environmental reviews,” said Friedman from Washington. “It is not intended as a public input meeting. It is to let people know what is going on.”
According to Bob Braddock, project manager of Jordan Cove Energy Project, the LNG company now plans to file its application with the Federal Energy Regulation Commission by April 2. The original deadline of Jan. 31 was pushed back, he said, because of the slow nature of working with the federal agency.
“It's a catch-22. We couldn't file our second draft resource reports until we received comments from the agency and we didn't get some of those back until December,” he said.
FERC project manager Paul Friedman said his agency requires a 60-day window after receiving the last second draft report before a company can file its final application.
“We need to be able to review their documents and make sure all the data we need is included,” he said.
To complicate matters, Jordan Cove has been coordinating its filing date with Williams, the company proposing the Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline. Despite some delays in the collecting of soil samples from the Coos Bay estuary, Williams was able to complete its forms on Dec. 18.
Michele Swaner, a communications specialist with Williams, said the company had anticipated delays in collecting boring samples from Coos Bay to determine an underwater route.
“We built enough time into our plans for those contingencies,” with drilling delays, she said.
Braddock said Jordan Cove expects to submit its final resource report this week.
Compiling an application
Rather than logistical logjams in Coos Bay, delays have primarily developed in Washington, D.C., and an unexpected death temporarily left a state department scrambling in Salem.
In January 2006, with several LNG terminals proposed throughout the state, Gov. Ted Kulongoski designated the Department of Energy as the lead state agency in working with FERC. An analyst in the department, Cathy Van Horn, was given the task of working on a couple of the proposed terminal projects, including Jordan Cove. Practically all state comments on Jordan Cove resource reports went across Van Horn's desk first.
On Sept. 15, the 45-year-old Van Horn died.
“It was so traumatic and completely unexpected,” said Diana Enright, an assistant director in the department.
Despite the setback, Braddock said, the state handled the situation admirably, continuing to process paperwork and respond to Jordan Cove's concerns.
More significant, in Braddock's estimation, were bottlenecks produced by governmental agencies along the Potomac River. As an example, Braddock noted how he was expecting some documents from the Bureau of Land Management in late November.
“For some reason, they did not pop up on time,” he said.
Braddock also noted that revisions he had scheduled to complete by December were delayed because many federal employees exercised their vacation days and were unable to review documents.
Such scenarios are just part of the terrain when dealing with the federal government, he said.
“I've always stated that the dates we give are the earliest possible and most likely not achievable. There have been good reasons for the delays on both sides.”
Jordan Cove and Williams will spend much of the remaining two plus months before the April deadline fine-tuning their applications.
“FERC will send out data requests and comments from state agencies, local residents and stakeholders,” said Troy Ruflin, the Pacific Connector pipeline project manager. “Basically, we will be filling in the gaps that remain in our resource reports.”
One of the more mundane aspects of the revisions, Braddock said, is ensuring that terminology is consistent throughout the application document. Since numerous contractors are employed by both groups to collect environmental information, some terms are used differently from field to field. Before the application is submitted, all such discrepancies must be aligned.
“It's not so much content but language,” he said. “For example, we will use the term terminal in the document, not regasification terminal. Also, there is the difference between ship and vessel. It may seem like a minor detail, but it is one thing we need to take care of.”
It also constitutes a sizable undertaking. When the final application is completed, Braddock estimates the document would take up about 10 feet of space on a bookshelf.
Next stage
This week, representatives from both companies will put aside their proofreading and assemble for a series of FERC-sponsored informational meetings. Unlike recent public forums put together by local residents, the proponents, as well as their opponents, will primarily be on hand to listen. The purpose of the meeting will be to discuss the next stage in the FERC process.
“The meeting is designed to let people know how (various government agencies) do their environmental reviews,” said Friedman from Washington. “It is not intended as a public input meeting. It is to let people know what is going on.”
The World welcomes your comments about stories, and we encourage a robust dialogue on this site. All comments must meet reasonable standards of decency and civility.
Please follow these basic rules:
- No defamatory comments about individuals or businesses.
- No deliberately false information.
- No obscenity or racially offensive language.
- No harassment, verbal abuse, threats or personal attacks.
- No information that invades another person's privacy.
- No business solicitations or charitable solicitations.
Comments that violate these standards will not be posted. Users with repeated violations may be banned from future posting.Comments will be approved throughout the day during business hours. After hours and weekend comments may not appear until the following business day. It may take a couple of hours before comments are approved.
The World generally does not edit comments, but we reserve the right to edit any comment that does not meet our standards.
Close Guidelines