NORTH BEND — The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission did not appear for its own public hearing Monday in North Bend.

That didn’t keep opponents and supporters of a proposed liquefied natural gas terminal from speaking about the controversial issue until the wee hours of this morning.

More than 50 people spoke about the draft environmental impact statement concerning the Jordan Cove Energy Project and Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline. A majority of the speakers expressed opposition to the project, though a goodly number other people cheered those who spoke in support.

The event organizers came under attack at the start of the meeting when the audience learned no FERC representatives would be present.

“Reschedule! Reschedule!” shouted dozens of people seated near the front of the North Bend Community Center.

John Scott, a project manager with Tetra Tech, a firm that helped prepare the environmental analysis, said medical issues and travel snafus prevented anyone from the federal agency getting to North Bend. He facilitated the meeting in their stead.

“Please be reassured that your comments tonight will be on the public record just as if the meeting had a FERC member here,” Scott said.

Opponents raised familiar issues, as well as some new ones. They were concerned about safety and property-taking through eminent domain. Many criticized the draft EIS for failing to consider alternatives to building an LNG terminal in Coos Bay.

Several people spoke about the prospect for bringing domestic natural gas to Oregon, as well as spurring alternative energy sources such as wind and solar.

Ron Sadler said the draft EIS violated the very essence of the National Environmental Policy Act by not thoroughly investigating about a dozen alternative ideas listed in the report.

“Instead of a rigorous analysis, these 12 alternatives are discarded out of hand with at most a few sentences,” he said.

Others criticized FERC for allowing Jordan Cove and Pacific Connector to submit documents the day before the comment period ends Dec. 4. They asked that the comment period be extended so that more time could be spent considering those documents.

Scott said comments would be accepted after the deadline and included in the final EIS if possible. The final report should be done in February.

Those who spoke in favor of the project didn’t so much critique the draft EIS as the arguments presented by opponents.

Robert Vandervelden ridiculed the idea that the terminal shouldn’t be built because the natural gas will be shipped to California. He noted that gasoline and other commodities enjoyed by South Coast residents come from out of state.

“When you go to the grocery store, check to see where your tomatoes, lettuce, fruits and vegetables come from,” he said. “They come from California.”

Ron Opitz, director of South Coast Development Council, downplayed the risks posed by the terminal. He highlighted the sad shape of the local economy and suggested opponents are exaggerating potential problems.

Opitz was one of several speakers interrupted during his testimony by audience members attempting to shout him down.

Dr. Joseph Morgan commanded much more respect as he expressed his concerns that the terminal would add hundreds of tons of harmful air particles to the South Coast environment. The allergist suggested the draft EIS’ air quality standards will not protect the young, elderly and infirm. He suggested this would drive away retirees and negate the economic benefits of new jobs.

Supporters said the local economy can’t survive on retiree money alone, and that the area had profited when pollution-producing industry resided in the Bay Area before. Others said the area is starved for jobs and tax revenues and must put up with the inconveniences that might come with new industry.

The boisterous atmosphere subsided as the hours passed and more and more people headed home.

There were more than 200 people at the start of the meeting, though only 20 remained at 12:10 a.m., when Beverly Segner completed her second round of comments.

“The only vehicle that is being given to us are these meetings, and FERC’s not even here,” she said.

Several speakers criticized the proposed pipeline route, whether one of the original paths through Glasgow or a newer route heading past Fairview.

Mark Sheldon sounded like a political candidate delivering a stump speech, citing the cause of Founding Fathers, Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson, in limiting the control of federal government.

“We ought to have a vote,” he boomed over the speaker system that cut out every so often throughout the night. “The tragedy is we will never know what the majority wants.”