NO LNG (liquified natural gas) pipeline from Coos Bay OR crossing into CA in our name! We CA residents do not wish to obtain natural gas supplies from a tanker terminal in Coos Bay, OR. Whenever an LNG terminal is proposed for coastal CA, the local community comes out in opposition, and CA is now considered a state inaccesible to LNG import terminals thanks to public opposition. Our neighbors in Oregon do not deserve this risky explosive LNG terminal in their neighborhood either. Since the LNG terminal proposed for Coos Bay, OR is for importing to CA only, residents of CA need to be heard speaking out in opposition to this project. Any potential (an probable) mishaps or explosions from this terminal in OR would be on our consciousness (unless you have none), an i for one would not want this responsibility. Even if not directly responsible, residents of CA would be taking advantage of the rural economic inequality of Coos Bay, as the promise of "needed jobs" once again is used as leverage by LNG proponets to push this potentially explosive terminal down the throats of Coos Bay residents..



Feds taking comment on Coos Bay Channel Modification Project

| Thursday, January 17, 2008 |

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Portland District is taking comments from the

public on the proposed modifications to the Coos Bay shipping channel.

The deadline to comment is Feb. 15.

The agency has scheduled a public meeting from 4 to 8 p.m. on Thursday, Jan. 24, at

the North Bend Community Center, 222 Broadway St.

The Army Corps will be the lead agency for a combined draft feasibility

study/environmental impact statement being prepared by the Oregon International Port

of Coos Bay, under the authority granted by Section 203 of the Water Resources

Development Act of 1986. The study will determine if the project complies with

federal laws and regulations, and therefore should be recommended to Congress for

authorization.

The port is proposing to dig the Coos Bay Navigational Channel wider and deeper from

the entrance at the Pacific Ocean to the railroad bridge located at approximately

river mile 9.2 and to provide ecosystem restoration in the vicinity of Coos Bay. The

channel would be enlarged to accommodate large container vessels, and a vessel

turning basin would be added for vessel maneuvering. Maintenance dredging of the

channel and inlet, and possible modifications to the jetties also would be part of

the federal proposed action.

The dredged material could be disposed at a variety of locations including ocean,

nearshore and at the shoreline.

Non-Federal actions that would be related to the channel modification include

developing an inter-modal container terminal on the North Spit and making

improvements to the railway system from the North Spit to Eugene to transport goods

off-loaded from container vessels.

The public comment period would identify potential issues to analyze in the study,

alternatives to the port proposal, and potential positive and negative effects of

the project.

People wishing to comment can attend the public meeting, however it will not be a

formal public hearing. Court recorders will be available to record statements

attendees may wish to make. Maps, background information and staff also will be

available.

Comments can be submitted on the project Web site at;

http://www.CoosBayChannelEIS.com

People also can mail, fax or e-mail a letter to:

Eric Bluhm,

U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Programs and Project Management Division, Planning Branch

P.O. Box 2946

Portland, OR 97208-2946;

Fax: 503-808-4736;

e-mail; eric.v.bluhm [at] usace.army.mil.

Comments received during this comment period will be considered during preparation

of the draft EIS, which is expected to be available for public review in March 2009.

Another public comment period, including open houses and other public review

opportunities, will be provided at that time. Comments received on the draft EIS

will be considered in the preparation of a final EIS to be completed in Summer 2009.



For more information, those interested can go to http://www.CoosBayChannelEIS.com or

contact: Terry Buchholz of David Evans and Associates by calling (503) 499-0370.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

additional info @;

http://www.theworldlink.com/articles/2008/01/17/news/doc478f9f7757135709225787.txt

"Jordan Cove LNG (Fort Chicago and EPD, LLC). North Spit, Coos Bay, OR. The project, now majority owned by a Canadian energy company, Fort Chicago, is being pushed forward and promoted heavily by the Port of Coos Bay. The Port is proposing to purchase a tract of Weyerhauser land on the North Spit and lease part of the property to the Jordan Cove LNG project. The site occupies the area directly opposite the town of North Bend, and it resides close to the North Bend Airport. The Jordan Cove Energy Project is expected to file with FERC soon, although it will be beginning the pre-filing process, which takes a minimum of 6 months."

found @;

http://www.oregonwaters.org/LNG.htm

10 Reasons You Should Oppose the Pipeline (SOPIP);



10. The Gas is Going to California

"The target market is Northern California, which uses 1.8 billion cubic feet of natural gas each day."—The Register Guard 12/3/06

9. The Pipeline is Owned by Out-of-State and Foreign Interests

The California Pipeline is owned in part by Pacific Gas and Electric, California’s largest supplier of natural gas.—The Oregonian 7/9/06

8. Pipelines are Routinely Subject to Leaks and Accidents

In fact, the builder of the proposed California Pipeline had one of its pipelines fall into the Toutle River near Castle Rock in 2006. (Source: The Daily News 11/11/06)

7. This Pipeline Will Impact Our Waterways

The California pipeline would cross five major rivers—the Coos, Coquille, Rogue, South Umpqua and Klamath—as well as countless streams that are spawning grounds for salmon and steelhead. (Source: http://www.pacificconnectorgp.com)

6. North Bend, Coos Bay, Charleston, Barview and Glasgow Will All Sit in a Hazard Zone

The proposed liquefied natural gas terminal is located less than one mile from North Bend, well within the one to three mile conservative hazard zone for a liquefied natural gas spill on water. (Source: Sandia National Laboratories Report for the US Government—December 2004 / ABS Consulting-May 2004)

5. Extensive Dredging Impacts Our Bay

To accommodate almost 1,000 foot long liquefied natural gas cargo ships, the Port of Coos Bay must dredge a "wider shipping channel and an extensive" new turning basin and slip dock off the shipping channel. (Source: The World 10/19/06) This could endanger our Bay's fragile ecosystems, fisheries and marine wildlife.

4. Little Positive Job Growth

"There’s no guarantee (the jobs) would be local workers, said Steve D. Potts, project manager for Williams." —The Oregonian 7/9/06

3. Possible Interruption of Air Traffic in North Bend

Airplanes may not be able to take off or land and commercial shipping and fishing traffic will be halted while hazardous liquefied natural gas ships are in transit through our Bay. The Coast Guard already applies similar restrictions near LNG terminals in Boston, Mass. (Source: Coast Guard CFR 165.110/165.23/165.33)

2. Who Wants to be California’s Dumping Ground?

Why should we be California’s dumping ground? Citizens in three different California cities have already rejected building liquefied natural gas terminals in their communities.

1. The Pipeline Could be Built Across Your Property

"Williams (the company building the pipeline) will try to persuade the federal government to let the company use eminent domain."—The Register Guard 12/3/06

"

10 reasons found @;

http://www.nocaliforniapipeline.com/reasons.php

other info @;

http://jordancoveretort.com/Welcome.htm

also;

http://citizensagainstlng.googlepages.com/

If all the petroelum refineries on Earth would cease flaring natural gas and instead capture and harness the energy within a few years, this could accomplish several goals;

1) reduce air pollution directly caused from natural gas flaring.

2) reduce global warming input from heat released by natural gas flaring directly into atmosphere.

3) harness the natural gas and distribute to people for cooking and home heating, once again recapturing the heat.

It is amazingly arrogant of the petroleum refineries to continue wasting the natural gas by flaring above the refinery smokestacks. In this age of economic instabilty with regards to energy and future climate instability from excess petroleum combustion, wouldn't harnessing the natural gas instead of wasting it make some common sense? Are we in the U.S. so blindly fixated on short term profits for corporations that people cannot find some way of harnessing this natural gas??

BTW, most of the pollution in the Niger river delta of Nigeria that resulted in years of protests and demonstrations by the Ogoni, Ijaw and other tribal nations of this region are a direct result of natural gas flaring by petroleum corporations. We could certainly prevent another hostage crisis by ordering the petroleum corporations to cease and desist with this wasteful and polluting flaring..

"Natural Gas Flaring

Ken Saro-Wiwa called gas flaring "the most notorious action" of the Shell and Chevron oil companies7. In Ogoniland, 95% of extracted natural gas is flared8 (compared with 0.6% in the United States). It is estimated that the between the CO2 and methane released by gas flaring, Nigerian oil fields are responsible for more global warming effects than the combined oil fields of the rest of the world9."

found @;

http://www.essentialaction.org/shell/issues.html