If the likes of Mr. Barton bother to get informed, they would know that Ms. McCaffree is motivated by scientific, economic and environmental studies and not the rhetoric of those looking to line their pockets with the Jordan Cove Project.

Talk about “propensity to disseminate misinformation” as Mr. Barton wrote, “In fact the  liquefied natural gas project will inject $30 to $40 million per year in wages, taxes and material purchases, not counting economic stimulus, through the construction phase.  Moreover, it will provide a minimum of 100 to 120 direct and indirect family wages jobs. ...”

The friends of LNG continue to publish ridiculous numbers of jobs fired up by the promoters, who then neglect to correct them and keep them firing in the dark. Bob Braddock has committed (in an overhead presentation) only 60 permanent jobs (total including imported workers). Mr. Braddock has thrown in “another 60” verbally, but why is it not in writing and verified by FERC? Good luck getting it!

FERC’s draft environmental impact study states: (4.8-11 paragraph 2) “Operation of the proposed LNG terminal would require an estimated permanent staff of 56 employees. As many as 70 percent or 39 employees could be hired locally, with the remaining 17 workers hired from elsewhere and relocated to the area. The Port does not anticipate that additional staff would be needed to operate the slip.” 

Do Mr. Barton and his friends believe that they have better numbers than submitted to FERC? If so, I urge him to read the draft and make sure FERC gets it right. 

Wake up guys. We are talking of only 39 local jobs after all the posturing and hand waving and disturbances in our lives. Furthermore, because of the highly restrictive operation of LNG tankers, it might end up jeopardizing the possible container business, which could bring in real jobs. And I hope this ends the fable of “LNG for jobs.”

Mr. Barton also misses the point on eminent domain. Of course, a lot of people “settle” with the threat of a private corporation being given the right to confiscate their property for private gains. I assure you, the threat of eminent domain is upon each and every property owner in the line of the pipeline. What part of his front or back lawn is he willing to accept fair compensation for?

Jan Dilley

North Bend