The final Jordan Cove Energy Project environmental impact statement responds to comments submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Here are some highlighted comments and the responses from the FERC meeting in North Bend on Oct. 27, 2008.

• Comment: There's no place in this FERC document that has any accountability. ... if there's any problems with our health in the future, there is nowhere to go.

FERC response: If FERC decides to authorize the project, it could adopt environmental conditions that, if violated, would result in fines up to a million dollars a day. There also is a recommendation that Jordan Cove and Pacific Connector hire a third-party environmental monitoring program.

• Comment: It's not fair and it's not ethical that the pipeline company can resort to eminent domain if it can't reach an agreement with property owners.

FERC response: Pacific Connector would have to compensate owners for the right-of-way easement and damages incurred during construction. The level of compensation would be determined by a court according to state or federal law.

• Comment: The price of LNG is exorbitant.

FERC response: Staff research found that sometimes LNG costs less than domestic natural gas

• Comment: The draft EIS says 17,000 people live in the LNG hazard zone. Each of these people, waterways and properties would face a high level of risk of the known impacts of this project.

FERC response: No one would be at risk from the Jordan Cove LNG project because of the safety and security measures that would be imposed. We believe the project could be built and operated in a safe manner with no danger to the public. There are no houses within one mile of the terminal and only 13 residences within 150 feet of the pipeline. In the past 35 years since onshore LNG import terminals have been operating in the United States, there has never been an incident that resulted in public harm.

There are 49 businesses, 1,438 residences, two schools, six churches and 70 government buildings within two miles.

• Comment: This rush to publish and incomplete draft EIS violates the National Environmental Policy Act of 1960.

FERC response: Production was not rushed. Staff spent two years and four months after the initiation of the pre-filing to research, write and issue the draft EIS.

• Comment: I can easily see a net loss of households from families moving away and those who would never come here in the first place.

FERC response: There is no evidence to support the claim the area would become less attractive to retirees if the Jordan Cove LNG project was built, or result in out migration to lessen the number of households in the region.

A 1994 study of 11 existing LNG facilities found the presence of an LNG facility did not have a significant positive or negative effect on either wages or property values.

• Comment: Siting an LNG terminal in Oregon will slow the growth of the solar industry in the western United States by competing for combined and single-cycle gas turbines.

FERC response: There is no evidence that the construction and operation of the Jordan Cove project would negatively impact renewal energy projects. In fact, Oregon's Renewable Portfolio Standard should encourage investment in new renewable energy projects.

• Comment: A better Oregon alternative has already been approved. The Bradwood Landing site would have a significantly shorter pipeline requirement.

FERC response: The Commission is willing to authorize several proposals within the same region, if each is judged to be safe and environmentally acceptable, and allow the market to determine what projects it would support.