As an opening salvo in the permitting process for the first of up to four or five competing liquefied natural gas (LNG) receiving terminal proposals in the Pacific Northwest, more than 300 residents and local officials turned out at a FERC hearing in the Columbia River town of Bradwood Thursday night to hear about the most advanced of the LNG proposals in Oregon.

Aside from project sponsors, federal, state and local officials, most of the local citizenry expressed questions and opposition to proposed facility, which is the farthest up river from the mouth of the Columbia, sitting 37 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean.

The U.S. Coast Guard has the lead in evaluating the proposal from Northern Star Natural Gas to build a $520 million LNG receiving terminal on some property zoned “marine-industrial” near a paper mill on the Oregon side of the river across from Puget Island, WA, a residential-commercial area in the middle of the Columbia that draws a lot of jobs from the mill.

Privately financed Northern Star, a combination of Northern Star Natural Holdings Ltd., and the San Francisco-based investment firm Babcock & Brown, is seeking to do two things that have proven difficult for earlier LNG projects on both coasts: (a) site the terminal upriver a good distance requiring proposed tanker shipments to move under major bridges, and (b) pursue federal review before going through a full local screening (see Daily GPI, Sept. 27).

No organized citizen opposition groups, nor state/local elected officials or major environmental groups appeared at Thursday night’s hearing in a local high school auditorium. There are two local environmental groups tied to the Columbia River that previously have expressed opposition to other LNG terminal plans — River Vision, a river protection group that a competing LNG project proponent labels as an “anti-LNG” organization, and People for Responsible Prosperity, another river protection organization that pre-dates the proposed LNG terminal projects.

While the groups historically have been focused on the environmental protection of the river, they now have taken on a broad cause of “kill LNG,” according to a proponent for one of the other possible sites in Oregon. Their representatives spoke at Thursday’s meeting, along with a mixture of residents and public officials.

The U. S. Coast Guard received a formal notification from Northern Star last January and began assessing the safety and security issues involved in potential LNG tanker traffic in the Columbia River. The Coast Guard Captain for the Port of Portland, Patrick Gerrity, said in announcing the Thursday hearing that he planned to “work very closely with local officials, the Ports and Waterways Safety Committee, and the Area Maritime Security Committee in evaluating this proposal.”

Gaining perspectives from local residents and officials is viewed as essential by the Coast Guard in making sure it considers “the full range of issues associated with moving LNG tankers on the Columbia River.” The Coast Guard is the so-called “cooperating agency” with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in drafting the environmental impact report on the project. FERC has the ultimate siting authority as reinforced in the 2005 Energy Policy Act, and the Oregon Energy Department is taking a monitoring role so far.

The nearest population center on Puget Island is considered to be “adamantly” against the LNG terminal, and the residents have a history of being very active politically, according to one energy observer, who called the proposed site “pretty good.” Traditionally, Oregon governmental officials put a lot of importance on land-use and zoning, so industrial site developers look for parcels already zoned for industrial use. Northern Star did that in selecting the Bradwood site, which is currently zoned “marine-industrial.”

Most prospective LNG developers in Oregon have started near Portland on the Columbia River and looked westerly toward the Pacific Ocean for industrial-zoned sites. “At the time people began looking, no one was really looking in Washington state, although there are potential sites there,” said a representative with one of the competing Oregon sites. A negative factor in Washington was the then-governor’s somewhat restrictive siting standards.

In the state of Washington, the governor has the final say on any new energy facility project sitings.

©Copyright 2005Intelligence Press Inc. All rights reserved. The preceding news reportmay not be republished or redistributed, in whole or in part, in anyform, without prior written consent of Intelligence Press, Inc.