Port's LNG site negotiations stall

By Alexander Rich, Staff Writer
Friday, October 23, 2009 | 26 comment(s)

Font Size: Shrink Font Enlarge Font | Submit your news
COOS BAY — Port officials agreed Thursday to move forward with plans to sell some property on the North Spit. More notable, perhaps, was the property transaction they all but ignored.

The port commissioners agreed in principle to sell 30 acres of wetlands and uplands to Southport Forest Products. The timber company wants to build a log chipping facility south of its existing property on the North Spit, said Deputy Director Mike Gaul.

The port would receive $1.1 million over the course of 20 years with 3 percent interest, he said. The price was established by an appraisal of the property conducted this summer.

The commissioners also had been scheduled to consider a contract extension with the developers of a liquefied natural gas terminal, but the issue wasn’t discussed.

Chairman David Kronsteiner asked for a motion on the matter and everyone remained silent.

“Hearing no motion, it dies for lack of a motion,” he said.

After the meeting, Executive Director Jeff Bishop said the port had received an offer to extend its existing option contract with Jordan Cove Energy Project. He speculated that the commissioners didn’t make a motion because they didn’t like the offer.

Kronsteiner said as much.

“We are still waiting for staff to bring us a legitimate proposal,” he said.

The existing agreement calls for Weyerhaeuser Co. to sell about 1,300 acres to the port, which would turn around and sell about 150 acres to Jordan Cove. The agreement is set to expire Dec. 30, though Jordan Cove must let the port know whether it wants to exercise the contract by Nov. 1, Bishop said.

Bishop would not disclose the terms of the offer, noting that the port is still in negotiations.

Jordan Cove Project Manager Bob Braddock said extending the deal shouldn’t be a problem. The port’s agreement with Jordan Cove is fairly straightforward, though it’s complicated by dealings with Umpqua Bank and the state of Oregon, he said. He wasn’t sure why the port didn’t approve an extension Thursday.

“I don’t know what the issue might be,” he said. “We didn’t get any indications that we have any issues of significance. Financially, there is no gap.”

While remaining mum about Jordan Cove, Kronsteiner said he was happy with the agreement with Southport.

“It gives them an opportunity to add jobs and expand,” he said. “It’s important to help existing businesses succeed.”

Gaul said Southport officials told him they would initially add five jobs with the purchase, and another 12 in the near future.

Jason Smith, Southport’s manager, was out of the office Thursday and could not be reached for comment.



Previous
Next

Have you checked out The World Link Forums?

Comments

The comments below 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.
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

Common Sense wrote on Oct 30, 2009 3:51 PM:

Now you are makin MORE sense Dan Milburn, but avoided the FACTS about this LNG SCAM in general, like:
1) Air polluter,
2) Increases USA dependence on foreign countries for future energy needs,
3) Located in Tsunami zone that violutes 2002 Oregon state law for safety,
4) 400 Oregon property owners will be forced to sell their land,
5) LNG is OVER 2X more expensive then gas used today by Oregon citizens,
6) NO local will qualify for any of the full time jobs at Jordon Cove.
MANY MANY more to the list too.

Dan...Don't say there isn't enough FACTS out there on this LNG SCAM to form an opinion, because you & I know there is & I've just listed just a few of them.....

dan milburn wrote on Oct 30, 2009 10:45 AM:

The entire point here is "all of the above". It is not up to us individual citizens to have to wonder, crouch in fear or stand up and shout for answers. Instead is up to LNG to provide "all of the above" and it all should have been done before the Port even was asked to consider it. From there FERC and even FEMA. In my opinion your chosen leaders who have invited this project here and continue to push it's acceptance without regard to responding to local inquirey are negligent in their duties. What it boils down to is the Port folks who are for this are asking you to risk your lives so they can "invent" a port to be in charge of. I say NO. And don't stop there. The Port folks have showed you that the more you impower them the more their ego's will want. Power corrupts. Clip the Ports wings and narrow their duties to cleaning up the bay and improving the crabbing docks. Leave economic expansion and corporate land grabs off their resume's.

Just Me wrote on Oct 29, 2009 3:03 PM:

O.K. Dan, one last word, it has to do with your last comment. You say you want info on how FEMA will respond to an emergency in case this SCAM blows up, right? This IS a liquified natural gas terminal, if I am not mistaken. In the event that this BLOWS up, could you only imagine the chaos and possibly the probibility of no one here to respond. Our hospital would be totally overwhelmed with burn patients that they don't have the facilities for. Should I go on? How much more do you need to know? This isn't even counting other events that could happen there. I don't understand how much more you need to know?

dan milburn wrote on Oct 28, 2009 4:26 PM:

Nothing has changed that would lead me to an opinion yet. I have asked many questions and absolutely haven't received a single answer yet. In simple terms if a person wants to open up a business selling and handling chemicals
of any kind - that person must have Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) on hand to give out copies to anybody who asks for one, and those sheets should explain the dangers of those chemicals and the method to clean them up if they spill and how to respond to any emergency (fire, explosion, burns by contact etc). FEMA is the Federal Emergency Management folks who must respond to this case scenerio. Where is the information? How can you be for something without knowing all the true potential risks and whether or not an emergency plan is place if it blows up?
What if what I'm asking nobody cares about and instead they want profits from it no matter what? Which is it? Either I am wrong wait for the facts or I'm a fool to rush to judgement!

Common Sense wrote on Oct 28, 2009 1:02 PM:

Now Dan Milburn...

Just given you some info that you obviously need to form an opinion on this land grabbing, air polluting, HIGH RISK SCAM this area & the entire USA doesn't need PERIOD! Just pointing out the "obvious" to everyone that you being so called "No opinion yet due not enough info on a decades old LNG issue" doesn't make SENSE....SORRY

Bottomline: LNG is as black & white an issue as any, either you are profiting from it somehow (PRO) or you are informed on the obvious FACTS out there on it & are against it (CON). No one can be neutral on this issue unless they are a hidden supporter of it...

dan milburn wrote on Oct 28, 2009 10:06 AM:

By the way, the fire in Puerto Rico is still raging on. You did know it was US territory didn't you? Not that I would ever cave in to "peer pressure" here I will point out that my house in Empire is inside the blast area in case this project "blows up in our faces" and I can only hope that a Tsunomi will show up in a timely fashion and put out the fire. I'd like to thank you "hecklers" on here for showing a little passion for a cause of this potentialy life changing enviremental event.

dan milburn wrote on Oct 27, 2009 7:05 PM:

Common Senseless?
Where do you read here or anywhere that I am a follower of Braddock or am in favor of LNG? What kind of cheap wine have you been drinking? Even if it wasn't me you were slandering I'd still find your BS onjectionable. Makes me wonder where the rest of your "facts" come from.

For a Better Oregon wrote on Oct 27, 2009 4:55 PM:

Sounds like a closet Bob Braddock follower to me on Dan Milburn's answer on if he's for or against Lng at Jordon cove by his quote: "I will need lots more information before I have an opinion"??? Lng in general is OLD air polluting, increasing one's dependence of foreign countries on future energy needs technology & there's a reason why ONLY 6 placements had made it before the "forced" 2005 law that gave the Federal Government the final say (Unless that Lng placement couldn't get the necessary state permits) over individual state rights of placement! Sorry Dan, but I'm not buying into your neutral position based on "not enough info" to form an opinion, especially if you or anyone lives in this area. I couldn't agree more with a few informed posters in here, especially Commom Sense on his brutal straight TRUTH/FACTS on this Lng SCAM!!!

Common Sense wrote on Oct 27, 2009 4:11 PM:

To Dan Milburn & the rest of Bob Braddock's followers:

What part don't you understand:

1) Increases our dependence with hostile countries like Russia, Iran, etc for our future energy needs.

2) UNSAFE situation of LNG ships having known 2 mile hazard burn zone & traveling within a 1/2 mile of populated area here (affecting 17,000 people).

3) Placed in Tsunami zone that violates 2002 state safety requirements.

4) LNG is OVER 2X more expensive then natural gas used today by Oregon citizens.

5) How 400 Oregon property owners will be FORCED to sell their land.

6) Pollutes the air 24/7/365 days a year.

7) How LNG ship will have negative effect on fishing boats & NEW Airport flights.

8) How no local will qualify for any of the jobs at Jordan Cove.

Add it UP & this LNG SCAM is not worth the little tax money collected vs HUGE risks involved along with Oregon land taken away!

rianza wrote on Oct 27, 2009 1:37 PM:

"There was an overflow crowd Thursday night at the Douglas County Planning Commission meeting, as the commission approved Costco as an acceptable use in their proposed location near Winchester.
The commission took testimony for nearly three hours...everyone who testified said they would like to see Costco in the Roseburg area, but a few didn't like the location."

Can you imagine a CostCo hearing in Coos Bay? Hundreds would show up in protest. I don't think we need to worry about the LNG project - or any other serious business projects - coming our way. Many in this town, and its leaders, have made it very clear - no new growth, no new business, no new jobs, no future.

Just Me wrote on Oct 27, 2009 12:43 PM:

Dan, Good answer, thank you! I do understand your point of view on this matter, enough said.

orecoast007 wrote on Oct 26, 2009 7:58 PM:

Steve, By the way,when are the council meetings for Lakeside,Myrtle Point, and Coquille? You attend them on a regular basis... LOL

orecoast007 wrote on Oct 26, 2009 7:54 PM:

WOW! I am surprised that Steve actually answered a question..... Just don't disagree with him if you want on his good side.... Steve, How about posting an e-mail addrress in a letter to the editor? So if some has a question for you...

dan milburn wrote on Oct 26, 2009 5:55 PM:

Just you:
The time to decide whether you are for or against a project of this magnatude is AFTER you have enough information to base that decision on. That's why I'm asking questions. I will need lots more information before I have an opinion. There should be a FEMA report with a plan of action submitted before FERC should even consider it. If still not enough information is available then you need to let your local government officials know you aren't ready yet.

Steve Pickering wrote on Oct 26, 2009 3:10 PM:

To answer the question, I have always been against the LNG project in Coos Bay. Before you ask, No, I am not a NIMBY. I support the Railroad 100% and I have spoke on behalf of the ORC Mining proposal. You see I am not anti-industry. I am anti-LNG or any other foreign energy import.

Just Me wrote on Oct 26, 2009 12:37 PM:

Dan, What IS your opinion on this LNG SCAM? Are you for or against it? We are making ours loud and clear, you make a very good point in your comment and you sound very concerned. But, in all fairness to the other posters on here, you should give us your side to this matter instead of making remarks like your last little sentence! That is unless your afraid of what others may think about you and your opinion!

dan milburn wrote on Oct 26, 2009 10:14 AM:

Brawny James Dio"
Do you know the difference bewteen "start" and "stop"?
I'll bet you could ride an elevator all day huh!

Common Sense wrote on Oct 26, 2009 9:49 AM:

I guess WE should just ignore the FACT this California LNG SCAM at Jordon Cove has BIG RISKS associated with it for this area as Brawny James Dio/Bob Braddock followers say.....NOT!!!

P.S. I LUV where old story teller Bob Braddock got caught with rubber stampin FERC (Tellin anyone/everyone how he had suppliers lined up & now crys the blues on now not havin them if his LNG SCAM isn't approved FAST) & now has to do damage control to "try" to get some creditability back!

dan milburn wrote on Oct 26, 2009 9:48 AM:

I own a house here. I have many friends and relatives here. That makes me a local tax paying concerned citizen. I didn't say if I was for or against the LNG project. I was being sarcastic in my "Don't worry about it" in order to spark a healthy debate between those who want it and those who don't. Apparently it got "your" attention didn't it. What is needed in this debate is a FEMA plan in case of explosion and fire. How far from ground zero will there be death and property damage? Who is gonna pay for it? Is there fireboats to fight the fires? You have one little roadway to the site. How do you propose to get evacuation and emergency crews to and from Jordan Cove with the roadway in flames? But if the only questions and answers you are willing to listen to are required to be from your own gene pool then no wonder you attract these type of propositions here.

Brawny James Dio wrote on Oct 25, 2009 11:53 AM:

Please...PLEASE...start comparing LNG to the refinery oil storage explosion in San Juan. Talk about looking uninformed...keep it up anti-LNGers...

Just Me wrote on Oct 24, 2009 12:08 PM:

So Dan, you don't even live here, huh? So why the heck are you even posting on here about LNG? It shoudn't even concern you, right Dan? Is anything going to happen to you if anything happens when things go wrong with this SCAM, Dan? Are you going to have your property taken away from you when they put their SCAM of a pipeline through, Dan? Well Dan, I live here, my kids live here, my grandbabies live here, all 11 of them! I reserve the right to have a say in what may or may not come into OUR area that will harm my loved ones! So, with that being said, you just go on and stop worrying about the goings on here and meddle in your own towns business!

orecoast007 wrote on Oct 23, 2009 7:14 PM:

Steve, Are you for/against this LNG project?

Holly wrote on Oct 23, 2009 4:05 PM:

Dan,
Were you referring to the Gulf Oil facility in San Jaun Puerto Rico that blew up yesterday? You can read the story here http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33445763/ns/world_news-americas/

Steve Pickering wrote on Oct 23, 2009 3:42 PM:

Dan doesn't live here. What should he care? This is one of the few things Kay and I see Eye-to-Eye on. Except I don't thin Bob lives in Canada. I think he is a Colorado resident. Ah well half right is better than all wrong.

Kay wrote on Oct 23, 2009 2:06 PM:

Dan, may I remind you - Tijuana Mexico said NO to LNG.

Tijuana Dan.

As did all of California

Let Braddock put his outhouse in Canada where he lives.

dan milburn wrote on Oct 23, 2009 12:35 PM:

There is just about the same chance of an accident at Jordan Cove is there would be in some place like San Juan Puerto Rico! Don't worry about it.


*Member ID:
*Password:
 

Not already registered?

Do not use usernames or passwords from your financial accounts!

Note: Fields marked with an asterisk (*) are required!



*Create a Member ID:
*Choose a password:
*Re-enter password:
*E-mail Address:
*Year of Birth:
 

(children under 13 cannot register)

*First Name:
*Last Name:
Would you like to be added to our mailing lists?
Daily Headlines
Breaking News
Special Offers
 
Advanced Search
Web Search powered by YAHOO! SEARCH

Blogroll

Most Popular

Polls

» View Past Poll Results
» Suggest a Poll

Marketplace

Special Sections

More Special Sections