Font Size: Shrink Font Enlarge Font |

Key excerpts from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s environmental impact statement executive summary regarding the LNG proposal:


Earthquakes: “Subsurface conditions are suitable for the LNG terminal facilities provided adequate site preparation and foundation design are implemented. Jordan Cove would design the facilities accordingly and to satisfy both the FERC Seismic Guidelines and the 2007 Oregon Structural Safety Specialty Code.”


Tsunami: “The proposed LNG terminal is within an area that could be affected by a tsunami generated by a megathrust earthquake on the (Cascadia Subduction Zone). Current models predict a wave height of up to 45 feet at the site, however the Commentors suggest that wave heights could be greater. Jordan Cove proposes to enclose portions of the site within a protective barrier with a top elevation of 55 feet, and foundations for all critical process equipment and structures located within the barrier would be installed at an elevation of +20 feet and all others at a nominal grade of +55 feet.”


Wetlands: “Construction and operation of the Jordan Cove LNG terminal facilities would not directly affect wetlands. Construction of the slip and access channel would result in the permanent loss of approximately 4.15 acres of intertidal habitat .... The Port has proposed mitigation to offset the permanent impact to wetlands.”


Wildlife: “Based on modeling results it is anticipated that turbidity generated by dredging the access channel and slip would not present an adverse impact to the aquatic species located in the vicinity of the dredging. ... We conclude that the proposed Project would have no effect on 4 (threatened or endangered) species or their designated critical habitat; may affect, but not likely adversely affect 16 species; and we conclude that the proposed Project is likely to adversely affect 9 species or their designated critical habitat.”


Economic benefits: “The proposed Project is expected to benefit the local economy. Construction of the LNG terminal would employ an average of about 160 workers per month, with total wages of $117 million, and $74 million to be expensed on goods and services. ... The Port estimated it may charge Jordan Cove up to $60 million for capital investment services. In addition, the Port may collect receipts from users of the terminal up to $5.5 million per year, and $2 million and year in maintenance fees. Jordan Cove estimates that during operation it would spend about $4 million on salaries per year, and up to $10 million per year in direct expenditures for goods and services. Marine vessel services associated with operation of the terminal are estimated to result in 26 direct jobs, and 38 indirect and 21 induced jobs in Coos County, with total associated personal income of approximately $5.9 million.”


Air quality: “... the emissions from construction of the proposed LNG terminal and the Pacific Connector project facilities would not be regionally significant.”


Accidents: “... the evaluation of safety is more than an exercise in calculating the consequences of worst-case scenarios. Rather, it is a determination of the acceptability of risk which considers: the probability of events, the effect of mitigation, and the consequences of events. ... the likelihood of a cargo containment failure and subsequent LNG spill from a vessel casualty is highly unlikely. As a result, the risk to the public from accidental spills from LNG carriers should be considered negligible.”


Terrorism: “While the risks associated with the transportation of any hazardous cargo can never be entirely eliminated, they can be managed.”


Alternatives: “We considered if other LNG import terminals proposed for the west coast of North America could serve as reasonable alternatives to meet the objectives of the proposed JCE & PCGP Project. ... We concluded that some of these projects are not feasible, and none would meet all the objectives of the proposed JCE & PCGP Project. ... We do not consider either the Bradwood Landing nor the Oregon LNG Project to be preferable alternatives to the proposed JCE & PCGP Project because neither could meet one of its main objectives, to serve markets in southern Oregon, northern Nevada, and northern California. However, the Commission does not choose between competing projects, and if either of the other LNG terminals in Oregon are authorized, the market would ultimately determine which projects are viable.”


Conclusions: “We conclude that construction and operation of the JCE & PCGP Project would have limited adverse environmental impacts. However, the implementation of the applicant’s proposed mitigation measures, and additional measures we recommend, would substantially reduce the environmental impact of the proposed Project.”

Comment Policy

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