Ron Sadler submitted this to The Oregonian in rebuttal to its editorial entitled “After ten years of trying, Jordan Cove LNG should get the OK

Frankly, I am stunned and amazed by the premature and inappropriate endorsement of the Jordan Cove LNG export terminal proposal on Coos Bay by the Oregonian Editorial Board.

The first sentence indicates that the Editorial Board feels that “the time seems right for this project to move decisively forward”, and the final sentence states decisively that “If regulators find that exports pose little threat to energy price stability or supply domestically, Jordan Cove seems very much the real deal at the right time in exactly the right place”.

This simplistic view of the regulatory process by the Editorial Board strongly indicates they do not recognize the existence of the procedural mandates placed upon the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

NEPA ProcessBefore FERC can rule either for or against the Jordan Cove proposal, they must complete an objective and unbiased analysis of the proposed project together with all reasonable alternative locations. This analysis must include the following elements: a statement of the need for the proposed action; a description of all alternative means to meet the stated need; a baseline description of the current ecological condition of the area affected, i.e., Coos Bay; and an analysis of the direct and indirect environmental effects of the proposed action and of each of the alternatives. This analysis is to be documented in a standardized format called an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

The EIS process is completed with the issuance of a Record of Decision (ROD). The ROD is intended to document how environmental, economic, and technical considerations were balanced in order to arrive at a decision either for or against the proposal.

The EIS process for the Jordan Cove export terminal is still in its early stages, and a firm date for the issuance of the initial Draft EIS has not yet been provided.

Until the data and analyses contained in a viable EIS is available, with what logic can the Editorial Board so whole-heartedly support the Jordan Cove export terminal proposal?

Furthermore, the Editorial Board does not seem to understand fully the history of the Jordan Cove terminal proposals. The initial proposal was, in fact, for an import terminal. The EIS process was completed and FERC did issue a permit for the project. The decision to issue the permit was immediately challenged by the Oregon Attorney General as well as a consortium of other governmental and non-governmental entities. The basis for these challenges was primarily that the FERC failed to comply with the requirements of NEPA in arriving at its decision. Rather than litigate in order to resolve these challenges, FERC opted to vacate its decision to approve the import terminal. Thus, the change to an export terminal was caused directly by the legal insufficiency of FERC’s planning process rather than a shift on the part of Jordan Cove in response to market conditions.

May I suggest the Editorial Board consider informing our citizens of the intent and purpose of the federally-mandated planning process that has been in effect for 40 years, rather than acting as a shill for industrial propaganda?