Jordan Cove LNG

From SourceWatch
Jump to: navigation, search

This article is part of the FrackSwarm portal on SourceWatch, a project of CoalSwarm and the Center for Media and Democracy. To search by topic or location, click here.

This article is part of the FrackSwarm coverage of fracking.
Sub-articles:
Related articles:

Jordan Cove LNG is a proposed LNG export terminal project located near Coos Bay, Oregon. The proposed developer of the Jordan Cove LNG is Calgary-based Veresen, which describes itself as "an owner, operator and strategic developer of large-scale North American energy infrastructure."[1]

The estimated cost to build Jordan Cove is $7.5 billion.[2] If constructed, it could be the largest construction project in Oregon history.[3]

Jordan Cove LNG would include a shipping berth for tankers, a gas liquefaction operation, massive storage tanks, a new power plant, and a 36 inch feeder pipeline, all powered by an included 420 megawatt generator.[4]

The facility was originally conceived as an import facility. Instead, it the LNG export facility is planned to ship gas drilled in Colorado and other Rocky Mountain states for export to Canada and Asia.[5]

The cost to build Jordan Cove and the 232 mile pipeline connecting to pipeline hub in Malin, near the California border, is estimated at $7.6 billion.[6] Its construction would affect about 160 miles of private lands and 600 landowners.[7]

In March 2016, FERC rejected Jordan Cove, Pacific Connector Pipeline, and its feeder pipeline that would have stretched across the state, saying applicants had not demonstrated any demand for LNG, which means there is a lack of need for the facility. The demand for Jordan Cove LNG was based on customers in Asia, however, natural gas markets in Asia are in upheaval.[8]

This is the first time FERC has rejected a pipeline.[9] However, Jordan Cove is allowed to reapply by submitting an entirely new application.

The reason given for the rejection was that Veresen had not demonstrated the need for the project, and that the benefits from the project would not outweigh the harm done to individual landowners to justify the use of eminent domain. The pipeline's backers had not yet found buyers for the natural gas. On March 25, Veresen announced that they had found a buyer for the gas that would be exported, which was a consortium of Japanese utilities. They suggested they will appeal the decision by FERC.[10] In December 2016 federal regulators announced they will not reconsider their decision to deny permission of the LNG terminal proposal.[11] However, Jordan Cove has announced they plan to refile a new formal application with FERC in late 2017.[12]

Loading map...

Background

Geologists say an earthquake on the Cascadia Subduction Zone could produce a tsunami that would move across the marsh and run up against the facility's storm surge barrier.[13]

The Oregonian reported that the proposed site of Jordan Cove LNG sits in a tsunami inundation zone. To address this issue would take about ten months of just moving earth. The plan is bring Jordan Cove 46 feet above sea level by excavating a shipping berth in the foreground, and use the resulting dredge to build an 80-acre mesa behind the shipping berth that would elevate Jordan Cove's storage tanks and gas liquefaction equipment. The builders claim the tsunami and storm surge barrier will make Jordan Cove safe.[14]

In December 2011, the Department of Energy granted the Jordan Cove and Pacific Connector Pipeline project a license to export liquified natural gas, making Jordan Cove the first project in 40 years in which developers proposed a new pipeline and terminal primarily to export natural gas. A 230 mile pipeline would stretch from the Klamath Basin to Coos Bay, crossing hundreds of streams and rivers, protected federal forestland, and private property. Developer Jordan Cove filed a preliminary application with FERC in February 2012 seeking pre-filing status to explore the feasibility of a liquefaction export project that would be built and operated at the same site. FERC granted that status.

On April 16, 2012, FERC vacated authorization of the proposed Jordan Cove LNG terminal, as well as the certificate to construct the pipeline, concluding that an export facility serves a different purpose than an import facility, and requires its own full analysis of environmental and economic impacts. Those federal approvals are now void. Jordan Cove said they are working on getting their export application ready by 2013.[15]

On March 23, 2014, the US Department of Energy conditionally approved the Jordan Cove LNG project, permitting it to export up to 0.8 billion standard cubic feet of natural gas per day for 20 years.[16]

Permit rejected and refiled

In March of 2016, the project was denied by FERC. However, Veresan filed a new application with FERC for the proposed LNG terminal in January 2017, for 0.8 bcfd of capacity.[17]

Project Details

  • Owner: Veresan
  • Parent: Williams Partners Operating LLC
  • Location: Coos Bay, Oregon
  • Coordinates: 43.432825, -124.238399
  • Capacity: 5.5 mtpa (0.8 bcfd)
  • Status: Proposed
  • Type: Export
  • Start Year: Unknown

Note: mtpa = million tonnes per year; bcfd = billion cubic feet per day

Opposition to terminal

There has been vocal opposition to the Jordan Cove LNG proposal from the beginning. Locals opposed to the project formed the organization Citizens Against LNG.[18]

For example, on December 7, 2015, dozens of activists protested outside a State Land Board meeting in Salem, Oregon along with local oyster growers who argued that the proposed Jordan Cove LNG and connecting pipeline would damage oyster beds in Coos Bay, along the Oregon coast. Protesters claimed that 157 miles of the pipeline would cross private property, and as a result around 700 individual private properties could be seized through eminent domain. The Oregon Department of State Lands is one of several state agencies that can deny permits for both the proposed pipeline and the LNG terminal in Coos Bay.[19]

In March 2016, FERC rejected Jordan Cove, Pacific Connector Pipeline, and its feeder pipeline that would have stretch across the state, saying applicants had not demonstrated any demand for LNG, which means lack of need for the facility. Jordan Cove demand was based on customers in Asia. Those natural gas markets are in upheaval.[20]

After the project's resurrection upon the announcement that a new filing would be submitted to FERC, protests and organizing against the project continued. In March of 2017, close to 200 protestors voiced their opposition to the project at what was supposed to be an informational meeting hosted by the project's sponsors.<ref"Jordan Cove draws protest in renewed LNG pipeline push," Medford Mail Tribune, The Oregonian, 24 March 2017.</ref>

Citizen groups

Industry groups

Articles and resources

References

  1. "Jordan Cove LNG" Company website, accessed October 6, 2015.
  2. Ted Sickinger, "Feds reject Jordan Cove LNG terminal," The Oregonian, March 11, 2016.
  3. Ted Sickinger, "Feds reject Jordan Cove LNG terminal," The Oregonian, March 11, 2016.
  4. Ted Sickinger, "Feds reject Jordan Cove LNG terminal," The Oregonian, March 11, 2016.
  5. Dennis Webb, "Jousting over Jordan Cove," The Daily Sentinel, January 24, 2016.
  6. Dennis Webb, "Jousting over Jordan Cove," The Daily Sentinel, January 24, 2016.
  7. Ted Sickinger, "Feds reject Jordan Cove LNG terminal," The Oregonian, March 11, 2016.
  8. Ted Sickinger, "Feds reject Jordan Cove LNG terminal," The Oregonian, March 11, 2016.
  9. Ted Sickinger, "Feds reject Jordan Cove LNG terminal," The Oregonian, March 11, 2016.
  10. "Jordan Cove LNG finds potential gas buyer, says there is need for the project", The Oregonian (March 25, 2016). Retrieved on 25 March 2016. 
  11. Ted Sicklinger, "Feds will not reconsider their denial of Jordan Cove LNG terminal in Coos Bay" The Oregonian, December 9, 2016.
  12. "Regulatory Process," Jordan Cove LNG, Accessed 21 August 2017.
  13. "Jordan Cove LNG" Company website, accessed October 6, 2015.
  14. "Jordan Cove LNG" Company website, accessed October 6, 2015.
  15. Rob Manning, "Backers Of Proposed Natural Gas Terminal Undeterred By FERC Decision," NPR, April 17, 2012.
  16. David Unger, "US approves more LNG exports as Europe looks to curb Russian gas," CSM, March 24, 2014.
  17. "US LNG export developers make their bets on ways to outlast market glut," SNL, Sep 11, 2017
  18. "Home" Citizens Against LNG, Accessed 22 August 2017.
  19. "Oyster growers protest proposed LNG pipeline" Tracy Loew, Statesman Journal, December 8, 2015.
  20. Ted Sickinger, "Feds reject Jordan Cove LNG terminal," The Oregonian, March 11, 2016.

Related SourceWatch articles

For state-by-state information on fracking click on the map below:

Alabama and fracking Alaska and fracking Arizona and fracking Arkansas and fracking California and fracking Colorado and fracking Connecticut and fracking Delaware and fracking Florida and fracking Georgia and fracking Hawaii and fracking Idaho and fracking Illinois and fracking Indiana and fracking Iowa and fracking Kansas and fracking Kentucky and fracking Louisiana and fracking Maine and fracking Maryland and fracking Massachusetts and fracking Michigan and fracking Minnesota and fracking Mississippi and fracking Missouri and fracking Montana and fracking Nebraska and fracking Nevada and fracking New Hampshire and fracking New Jersey and fracking New Mexico and fracking New York and fracking North Carolina and fracking North Dakota and fracking Ohio and fracking Oklahoma and fracking Oregon and fracking Pennsylvania and fracking Rhode Island and fracking South Carolina and fracking South Dakota and fracking Tennessee and fracking Texas and fracking Utah and fracking Vermont and fracking Virginia and fracking Washington State and fracking West Virginia and fracking Wisconsin and fracking Wyoming and fracking Delaware and fracking Maryland and fracking New Hampshire and fracking New Jersey and fracking Massachusetts and fracking Connecticut and fracking West Virginia and fracking Vermont and fracking Rhode Island and frackingMap of USA with state names.png
About this image
This article is a stub. You can help by expanding it.