Environmental and public safety impacts of Coos Bay LNG terminal would be minimal, feds say

(This story will be updated)

Federal energy regulators say the construction and operation of a proposed liquefied natural gas export terminal in Coos Bay would result in limited adverse environmental and public safety impacts that could be reduced to less than significant levels with proposed mitigation measures.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued its long-awaited draft environmental impact statement for the controversial project on Friday. It's a pre-decisional analysis, and will now be opened to a round of public meetings and comment.

Nevertheless, its issuance and conclusions are a significant milestone for the projects main backer, the Calgary-based energy outfit Veresen Inc, and its pipeline partner, Tulsa based Williams Companies.  They hope for a decision early next summer that will enable them to begin construction of the project.

The $7.5 billion development would be the largest construction project in Oregon history. It has pitted environmental and property rights groups against energy companies looking to access lucrative gas markets in Asia, and local labor groups and business interests hoping to rekindle economic growth in a coastal community that has been depressed for three decades.

The terminal is designed to export U.S. and Canadian natural gas to Asia. It includes a massive liquefaction and storage terminal terminal, a tanker berth and a 420-megawatt power plant on the North Spit of Coos Bay, plus a 230-mile feeder pipeline that stretches halfway across the state.

The federal analysis is intended as an unbiased look at the need for the facility, possible alternatives and environmental consequences. It lays the groundwork and starts the clock running for a final decision on a project that has been under consideration and hard-fought by proponents and opponents for the last decade.

The draft analysis released Friday essentially concluded that all the risks and impacts of the project were limited and solvable through mitigation efforts. Those impacts include seismic and tsunami risks, vapor and fire hazards, dredging in the estuary, clearcutting of public lands and forests for the pipeline, and boring under hundreds of rivers and streams.

The project still needs significant state and federal approvals before it can move forward. And if history is any indication, the issuance of FERCs draft analysis marks the beginning of what could be a lengthy regulatory and legal brawl over the project.

- Ted Sickinger

If you purchase a product or register for an account through a link on our site, we may receive compensation. By using this site, you consent to our User Agreement and agree that your clicks, interactions, and personal information may be collected, recorded, and/or stored by us and social media and other third-party partners in accordance with our Privacy Policy.