Coos Bay World articles (e.g., Aug. 11 "Governor Touts CB Port as Engine for Transformation"; also use box in left column to Search their site for "port coos bay container"), the Eugene Register-Guard's July 5 story ("Port Possibilities Afloat. A Container Terminal Is Considered for the South Coast") and July 8 editorial ("Coos Bay's Advantage"), the Oregonian's July 6 story ("Coos Bay Dredging Plan Wins Aid") and editorial ("Coos Bay Has a Trophy Catch on the Line"), and Medford Mail Tribune's August 12 story ("The Big If" that was changed to "Port Plan Would Change Coos Bay" on August 13) discuss the economic development opportunities of the proposed container shipping terminal facility at Coos Bay. The facility would be by APM Terminals North America, the U.S. arm of the Dutch-based A.P. Moller-Maersk Group.

However, there are omissions in these stories and editorials about the projected economic benefits of the possible ship container facility at Coos Bay. It is not mentioned that the shipping container facility is linked to the successful siting and construction of the Jordan Cove LNG terminal at Coos Bay and the associated Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline that would run across southwestern Oregon to near the California border.

These articles or editorials also do not mention that legislation funding several projects passed in late June 2007 (Oregon House Bill 5036 [see Footnote]), including $60 million slated for dredging at Coos Bay ,benefits not only APM Terminals but also the Jordan Cove LNG terminal.

The Oregon Gateway Project includes constructing a modern two-berth multi-purpose cargo facility in lower Coos Bay--one berth would be used by LNG tankers, the other by cargo shippers (http://www.portofcoosbay.com/orgate.htm). Port documents indicate that 85% of the costs for constructing the entire cargo facility are to be paid by Jordan Cove (http://www.portofcoosbay.com/orgate.htm, p. 16 in July 2006 Port Minutes at http://www.portofcoosbay.com/minutes/julymin.pdf).

Container ships would apparently not use the two-berth cargo facility but would dock nearby along the channel, according to the Port's Oregon Gateway map at http://www.portofcoosbay.com/orgate.htm.

The container shipping company depends upon the successful siting of the LNG terminal to pay for the Port of Coos Bay's purchase of Weyerhaeuser property on the North Spit of Coos Bay. The LNG facility only would need to use up to 200 acres of the 1,300 acres, and for this purchase the Port notes that "All debt is contingent on successful siting of the Jordan Cove LNG project" (http://www.portofcoosbay.com/newsreleases2005/pr102105.pdf, p. 3 in April 2006 Port Minutes at http://www.portofcoosbay.com/minutes/aprilmin.pdf). The container shipper requires the Weyerhaeuser purchase for its docking area and at least part of its container storage (see maps in http://www.portofcoosbay.com/orgate.htm and http://www.portofcoosbay.com/weycopp.htm).

According to the Port of Coos Bay, the turning basin for Coos Bay's proposed new cargo terminal would serve the Oregon Gateway Project, Jordan Cove LNG, and the Roseburg Forest Products woodchip export terminal (http://www.portofcoosbay.com/lowerbay.htm). The LNG terminal needed dredging to create a turning basin for LNG tankers, and in Jordan Cove's 2 June 2006 "Option to Purchase and Lease" with the Oregon International Port of Coos Bay, the Port agreed to seek funding of the turning basin from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and, if the Port failed, Jordan Cove would be responsible for the cost of constructing the turning basin (Exhibit F or PDF p. 103 in http://www.portofcoosbay.com/jcoption.pdf). At the July 2006 Port Commission meeting, Port Executive Director Jeffrey Bishop told the Port of Coos Bay Commissioners that Jordan Cove LNG was "solely responsible for the turning basin and any modifications" (p. 16 in http://www.portofcoosbay.com/minutes/julymin.pdf). Jordan Cove Energy Project also notes that it is financially responsible for the turning basin (http://www.jordancoveenergy.com/communitybenefits.htm).

The Oregonian ("Coos Bay Dredging Plan Wins Aid") reported that the Coos Bay Channel Project includes the "turning basin for the cargo terminal." Additionally, the deeper dredging of the entire channel (not just the turning basin) for the Coos Bay Channel Project greatly benefits Jordan Cove because it would allow much larger LNG tankers to use their LNG terminal. This also makes it more competitive with other proposed LNG terminals in Oregon as Jordan Cove seeks approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). For example, the competing Bradwood Landing LNG project in the Columbia River dismissed the suitability of the Jordan Cove project in its application to FERC (p. 16 in http://www.bradwoodlanding.com/filing-papers/FERC_PF05-10/t_resource-reports_06-05-06/Resource%20Report%2010.pdf):

"The proposed Jordan Cove LNG Project site in Coos Bay, Oregon, was among the sites considered. This site was rejected because Coos Bay is not sufficient in size to accommodate LNG carriers, which are generally 100,000-200,000 cubic meters. Future LNG carriers are likely to be larger, and by limiting the ability of the terminal to receive LNG cargos from larger carriers, the Coos Bay location would not only constrain vessel capacity, but may also limit the deliverability from the facility. It would likely increase the cost of LNG delivered to the Pacific Northwest because smaller purpose- built (and hence more expensive on a per million Btu basis) LNG carriers would be required to transport the LNG."

More important than the State's $60 million for dredging in bringing APM Terminals to Coos Bay is the proposed Coos Bay LNG facility. Why haven't newspapers given the LNG facility credit for making the APM Terminals facility possible?

Also, the newspapers have not reported that the proposed Jordan Cove LNG facility appears to be the only one of the four LNG terminals proposed for Oregon that is receiving State of Oregon assistance. In addition to the benefits the LNG terminal would receive from the State's $60 million for dredging, the State of Oregon provided a $15 million loan for the $25 million purchase of Weyerhaeuser land (http://www.portofcoosbay.com/newsreleases2005/pr102105.pdf, http://www.portofcoosbay.com/minutes/aprilmin.pdf). Jordan Cove acknowledged that the Weyerhaeuser property was the only viable site for a LNG facility at Coos Bay (P. 10-17 [PDF p. 24] in http://www.jordancoveenergy.com/files/JCEP_RR_10-Alternatives.pdf).

Footnote. Originally, Oregon Senate Bill 21 contained a request for dredging funds for the Coos Bay Channel Project; no action on it was taken on it while it remained in Committee between May 15 and the adjournment of the Oregon Legislature on June 28 (input Senate Bill 21 at http://www.leg.state.or.us/searchmeas.html). On June 25, the request for Coos Bay dredging funds that had been in Senate Bill 21 was stuffed as amendments along with other projects to be funded into the omnibus funding House Bill 5036 (input House Bill 5036 at http://www.leg.state.or.us/searchmeas.html). There was no public hearing on HB 5036 after the June 25 amendments. This omnibus funding bill passed the House 42-18 on June 25 and Senate 27-2 on June 26, two days before the session adjourned.

According to the Coos Bay World's Aug. 11 "Governor Touts CB Port as Engine for Transformation," Senator Verger was concerned that the Bill would fail at the end of the legislative session, but that Governor Kulongoski "pushed it over the top." Although House Bill 5036 also funded other projects, the Governor chose to sign it in Coos Bay in a ceremony (see "Governor Touts CB Port as Engine for Transformation") because of the dredging portion.

Citizens Against LNG, headquartered in Coos Bay

Friends of Living Oregon Waters

Jordan Cove Retort

Yahoo Groups: LNG Terminal-Pipeline in Southern Oregon

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.