http://www.heraldnews.com/opinions/x767226740/LETTER-LNG-already-earthquake-safe

LETTER: LNG already earthquake-safe

Patrick Barosh in his April 27th Guest Opinion, “Local earthquake risk another reason LNG is a bad idea,” ignores the facts.

While we agree that New England is regularly subject to small-magnitude quakes and, occasionally, to larger ones, Weaver’s Cove Energy has been comprehensively addressing design and construction standards for earthquakes with the appropriate federal regulatory authorities for nearly a decade.

Mr. Barosh’s recent opinion piece makes the same claims and uses the same inflammatory rhetoric as a similar opinion piece he wrote that was published on April 14, 2010 in a prominent Rhode Island newspaper. What Mr. Barosh continually fails to mention is that federal siting standards require an extensive and well documented analysis of earthquake risks for LNG facilities (just as they do for other facilities, such as nuclear power plants, bridges, and other critical pieces of infrastructure). Weaver’s Cove Energy has complied with and met or exceeded each of these federal standards. Mr. Barosh should be well aware of these facts as they are well documented in the public permitting record with which he claims to be so familiar. These issues were also addressed in that same prominent Rhode Island newspaper on April 29, 2010 in Weaver’s Cove Energy’s response to Mr. Barosh’s earlier opinion piece.

Despite Mr. Barosh’s claims to the contrary, the truth is that earthquake forces and their potential impacts on LNG facilities have been well studied and are well understood. LNG facilities are designed to withstand these forces and these designs have been severely tested around the world. The 50-plus LNG tanks standing in New England and the hundreds of miles of interstate natural-gas pipelines (including buried submarine pipelines in rivers and bays) crisscrossing this region have been designed with earthquake forces in mind. None has ever been damaged by an earthquake.

Regionally, the existing LNG tank on Bay Street in Fall River has operated safely and reliably while exposed to numerous earthquakes over its 30-plus year existence, as have the large interstate natural-gas pipelines feeding gas to the City of Fall River and the Brayton Point power plant, in Somerset.

Look around the world: LNG facilities are in environments that are far more earthquake-prone than New England, including Japan, with dozens of import terminals — including a location with a subsea cryogenic LNG pipeline. The March 11, 2011 earthquake and tsunami that struck Japan was one of the most powerful earthquakes and worst natural disasters in recorded history, killing more than 15,000 people, and causing major damage to Japan’s infrastructure — destroying nuclear power plants, highways, rail lines, homes, bridges and buildings. Yet, every LNG import terminal in the county survived safely, and as the Providence Journal reported on April 26, 2011 “Officials there have dramatically increased LNG shipments to help rescue their citizens from cold and hunger, while keeping the economy alive, in the wake of an earthquake and tsunami that badly damaged the country’s nuclear-power capability.”

We agree with Mr. Barosh’s comment that the project should not go forward without extensive investigations. Had Mr. Barosh bothered to do his research (surprisingly, he appears not to have done so, even as he continues to claim that he is a professional researcher), he would have realized such studies are mandated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and have been carried out in depth by Weaver’s Cove Energy. To quote from page 3 of FERC’s publication “A Guide to LNG — What All Citizens Should Know”:

“LNG facilities must meet stringent standards to ensure public safety and plant reliability in the event of an earthquake. Extensive studies of the geological conditions and earthquake history of a proposed LNG site are required to determine appropriate design loads on the critical components of the LNG plant. These critical components must be designed and constructed to maintain LNG containment during and after an earthquake.”

We encourage Mr. Barosh to study the filings that Weaver’s Cove Energy made in compliance with FERC guidelines, which show that the LNG facility will not be affected by earthquakes. One of the more recent submittals was “Resource Report 6,” and like all our other fillings, it is available on the FERC web site (Docket CP04-36).

Mr. Barosh’s claim that Weaver’s Cove Energy will not release important information is disingenuous at best. Mr. Barosh did petition FERC for additional information by filing a request under the Freedom of Information Act on February 17, 2010. However, we respectfully remind Mr. Barosh that on March 15, 2010, less than one month later, he withdrew his Freedom of Information Act request. The reason for Mr. Barosh’s withdrawal of his request is memorialized in a March 15, 2010 email from FERC to Mr. Barosh that confirms that Mr. Barosh received the information he requested “directly from representatives of Weaver’s Cove”.

Weaver’s Cove stands ready to respond to any questions or concerns that Mr. Barosh or any citizen may have. His reckless letter, however, is based on his unsubstantiated allegations and inaccurate characterization of both the LNG siting process and our project.

Gregg Landes
Vice President-Business Development
Weaver’s Cove Energy
Fall River

–

Destinations of LNG tankers in bay ‘not a mystery’
2011-05-05 / Editorial
VIEWPOINT
By Ted Gehrig

The “Viewpoint (April 14, 2011)” in the Jamestown Press is yet another example of Dick Lynn playing fast and loose with the facts. We respect Mr. Lynn’s right to oppose our project but firmly believe that with advocacy comes the responsibility of accuracy.

Mr. Lynn grounds his attack on our LNG project by citing an unrelated proposal by the U.S. Coast Guard to update commercial vessel anchorage areas off Rhode Island. Mr. Lynn makes the statement that LNG tankers approaching Narragansett Bay will “likely” be using the proposed anchorage. Nothing could be further from the truth.

As we stated to the Coast Guard in the Waterway Suitability Assessment in January 2009, “LNG tankers would not anchor under normal situations.” Mr. Lynn attempts to link this Coast Guard review to the permitting of our LNG project by alluding to unnamed “sources close to federal permitting of liquefied natural gas.”

Why the mystery? Mr. Lynn could have avoided all the innuendo and speculation by simply directing his questions directly to the Coast Guard either in writing or verbally. His questions would have been answered for all to see in the public record. The law and federal regulations mandate nothing less.

While attempting to link this proposal to the permitting of our project, Mr. Lynn erroneously claims that Weaver’s Cove Energy and the Coast Guard have stated “that LNG tankers must come in unannounced, due to potential terrorism concern,” a blatant misstatement of fact.

Does Mr. Lynn think that the Coast Guard security plan calls for sneaking LNG tankers into the bay without anyone knowing in advance? Mr. Lynn is mistaken; the real-time location of LNG tankers and their destinations are not a mystery.

Weaver’s Cove Energy has never stated that LNG tankers must arrive or leave unannounced, nor has the Coast Guard. Mr. Lynn should be aware that his statement is wrong based upon testimony that Weaver’s Cove Energy gave before the state Senate LNG Task Force, has placed on www.LNGFactCheck.com and has repeatedly emailed to stake holders including members of the Jamestown Committee on LNG Threat. At the March 9, 2010 Senate LNG Task Force Hearing, Gordon Shearer, CEO of Weaver’s Cove Energy, addressed the issue: “There is no requirement to keep these vessels’ movements secret. Indeed with the advent of automated vessel tracking systems, anyone with access to the internet can determine where each LNG tanker is on any given day, as well as the next port of call and the time it will arrive there.”

If this statement and other written correspondence were not sufficiently clear, we invite Mr. Lynn and any of your readers to visit the Marine Traffic Web site to understand the mistake. Last week, we used this same website to track —in real time — the transit of an LNG tanker through Boston Harbor.

While Mr. Lynn’s editorial has other inaccuracies — including his claim that the Coast Guard states LNG tankers are restricted to speeds of 5 knots or that tankers will enter the bay “every other day” — our reply is necessarily brief due to limitations imposed by the newspaper. However, we would be remiss to not address the fictional account of the economic impact of our project. Rhode Island’s economy operates at a competitive disadvantage because it has among the highest energy prices in the country. The Weaver’s Cove Energy project will help moderate the region’s natural gas and electricity prices by providing additional natural gas supply when and where the market needs it most. Energy consumers take note.

Weaver’s Cove Energy will generate 2.5 million man hours of construction labor over a threeyear period. Having spoken with Rhode Island’s union leaders, we are confident that local unions have the skill sets and resources to support our project. Once in operation, Weaver’s Cove Energy will directly employ approximately 50 permanent employees (a bit less than the 70 permanent positions at Canaport, misstated as 20 to 35 by Mr. Lynn) and a comparable number of contract workers.

We take no issue with anyone who chooses to comment on the pending Coast Guard proposal or any matter that actually has something to do with our project; rather, we encourage a full and open debate on the issues. But when submitting comments, fact checking might go a long way to establishing a measure of credibility for their positions.

The author is the president and chief executive officer of Weaver’s Cove Energy in Fall River, Mass.

Editorial: Playing politics with investments

01:00 AM EDT on Tuesday, April 26, 2011

Politicians, recklessly playing games with our region’s need for affordable and reliable energy, have been busy whipping up public fears of liquefied natural gas, hoping to cash in with votes and campaign contributions from the not-in-my-backyard (NIMBY) crowd.

Their latest ploy is especially outrageous. U.S. Representatives Barney Frank and James McGovern have joined Sen. John Kerry in proposing that Massachusetts divest its $28 million in Hess Corp., to punish Hess for developing an LNG facility in Fall River. This project will create much-needed jobs and help contain skyrocketing energy costs in our region.

Rhode Island NIMBYs are trying to get Gen. Treasurer Gina Raimondo to similarly politicize the state’s investments, at a time when its pension system is already approaching bankruptcy.

This is crazy. Hess employs 1,500 people in Massachusetts and Rhode Island and should hardly be treated as a pariah for trying to bring energy to the region, something that is vital to economic health. Moreover, once politicians start turning investments into a means of punishing people and businesses they do not like, the taxpayers will find their investments performing poorly and the system becoming rife with corruption.

Ms. Raimondo, like Massachusetts Treasurer Steven Grossman, should reject this political stunt.

True leaders look beyond the next election and consider the well-being of our region, something that will matter long after they have retired and returned to obscurity. It would be nice to have leaders who, instead of pandering to fears and reducing citizens to quivering children, encouraged people to think like rational adults, recognizing that nothing in life is perfect.

Like any source of energy, LNG has its risks. But it has a superb safety record in the decades it has been used. Natural gas is a relatively clean-burning fossil fuel and among the most affordable forms of energy we need to fire our electricity plants and heat our homes and businesses. Transporting energy by large ships takes it off crowded highways, which are much more prone to accidents.

As for the need for diverse and reliable energy supplies: Have any of these politicians paid the least attention to what is happening in Japan?

Officials there have dramatically increased LNG shipments to help rescue their citizens from cold and hunger, while keeping the economy alive, in the wake of an earthquake and tsunami that badly damaged the country’s nuclear-power capability. Had NIMBYs and short-sighted politicians been in control there, the people’s suffering would have been vastly greater – and you can be sure they would not be thanking those politicians for that.

Guest Opinion: LNG analysis told only one part of story

By Ted Gehrig
Weaver’s Cove Energy
Posted Apr 13, 2011 @ 05:27 PM

We were encouraged to see that The Herald News acknowledged in Jon Chesto’s March 29 only-in-print “Mass Market” business analysis titled “Quiet waters” that “winter has come and gone without one tanker pulling up to the state’s two new LNG ports to feed the pipeline system that delivers fuel to heat our homes,” but we think the article tells only part of the story.

These offshore facilities have seen little use since they were installed three to four years ago. Opponents of our project, including The Herald News, have suggested that the lack of activity at the offshore LNG facilities is proof that there is no need for additional LNG supply.

If there is no need for additional LNG supply, then why did the Massachusetts State House News report on March 29 report that “Natural gas prices in Massachusetts during February were 31 percent higher in Boston than nationwide and electricity prices were almost 22 percent higher locally than nationally, according to the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics.”

The article also states that “according to Denis McSweeney, the bureau’s regional commissioner, the percentage differential between local and national piped natural gas prices has widened since February 2010…..” That’s right, relative to rest of the country we are paying even more for our natural gas.

The Herald News article also failed to mention that while the prices we pay to heat our homes and for electricity were surging all winter long, the only in-market LNG import terminal with on-shore storage, the Everett Marine Terminal, was operating near its capacity as has been the case every winter for the past decade. Despite claims to the contrary, not all LNG infrastructure is the same. Only on-shore LNG terminals, like the one proposed by Weaver’s Cove Energy, can provide the in-market natural gas storage and delivery services that Massachusetts needs.

Our economy operates at a competitive disadvantage because we have among the highest gas prices (and as a result the highest electric prices) in the country. The Weaver’s Cove Energy LNG project will help moderate the region’s natural gas and electricity prices by providing additional natural gas storage and supply when and where the market needs it most. While the price reductions will be spread broadly across the region, Fall River will enjoy benefits that are specific to project area in the form of jobs and taxes.

Weaver’s Cove Energy will generate 2.5 million man hours of construction labor over a three year construction period. We have spoken with local union leaders and are confident that local unions have the skill sets and resources to support our project. Once in operations, Weaver’s Cove Energy will directly employ approximately 50 permanent employees such as supervisors, operators, technicians and mechanics.

Weaver’s Cove Energy is committed to training and hiring local workers. Many of these jobs will offer salaries near or above $60,000 per year. These jobs are sorely needed as The Herald News reported on March 29 that “Fall River was the only labor market of 22 in Massachusetts to have more people out of work in February, as the city’s unemployment rate jumped to 17.3 percent…”

With respect to taxes paid to the city of Fall River, Weaver’s Cove Energy is already one of the top 10 largest taxpayers, a fact memorialized by the city in its Feb. 8 preliminary financial statement for the issuance of $13.4 million of revenue anticipation notes. The amount Weaver’s Cove pays will increase greatly once our project is built. To put this into perspective, once in operation Weaver’s Cove Energy will go from being one of the top 10 tax payers to paying more than the taxes paid by the next nine largest tax payers combined.

We appreciate this opportunity to tell another side of the story.

Ted Gehrig is President & COO of Weaver’s Cove Energy, Fall River.

Editorial: LNG to the rescue

Local politicians, trolling for popularity, have exploited citizens’ highly exaggerated fears of a liquefied natural-gas project planned for Fall River. No energy source is perfectly safe — not oil, gas, coal or nuclear. (Wind, solar and geothermal probably come closest to near 100 percent safety.)

But it makes sense, in these times, to have a diverse supply of energy, including relatively cheap, abundant and safe LNG.

Certainly, earthquake, tsunami-and-nuclear-crisis-ravaged Japan is discovering that. To provide crucial, life-saving energy after severe damage to nuclear plants there, the Tokyo Electric Power Co. dramatically stepped up shipments of LNG to its shoreline facilities. That has helped keep people warm and the economy going.

Unlike nuclear plants, LNG facilities came through Japan’s catastrophic earthquake and tsunami in reasonably good shape. Sendai LNG, a small facility, suffered widespread damage but not, apparently, to its storage tanks. Other facilities are in good shape, able to receive the crucial energy supply.

Granted, our region is much less susceptible to natural disaster than Japan. Indeed, it is one of the least susceptible to such crises of any heavily populated place in the world — the rare severe hurricane and the frequent nor’easters notwithstanding. Yes, there is a small quake danger, but nothing like Japan’s.

Regular LNG shipments to the new Weaver’s Cove facility — most often during the cold-weather months, when there are few recreational boaters on Mount Hope and Narragansett bays — would tend to lower the cost of energy to our region, reduce the need to clutter dangerous highways with heavily polluting trucks, and provide a comparatively clean-burning fuel.

And you never know when you will need a more diverse supply of energy.

Following the Coast Guard issuance of this LOR, the State of Rhode Island, City of Fall River, and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts each petitioned the Coast Guard listing reasons why the decision (LOR) should not stand. These first petitions (appeals) were filed with the USCG COTP, Sector Southeastern New England in Woods Hole, Massachusetts. The COTP reviewed the issues raised in each of the three appeals and in each case reaffirmed that the original LOR supporting LNG transits to the LNG terminal facilities in Mount Hope Bay should stand without any changes.

Following this denial, the same parties filed a second round of appeals with Rear Admiral Nimmich, the USCG District Commander, First Coast Guard District in Boston, Massachusetts. The District Commander reviewed the entire record of the proceedings and determined that the LOR as originally issued by the local COTP should stand without any changes.

Again following this denial, the same parties filed a third and final round of appeals with Rear Admiral Brian Salerno, the Deputy Commandant of the Coast Guard in Washington, DC. On December 28, 2010, the Deputy Commandant denied these latest rounds of appeals concurring that the original decision made by the COTP on July 30, 2009 that supports LNG transits should stand unchanged (Rhode Island Attorney General appeal denial letter | Fall River and Massachusetts Attorney General appeal denial letter) . Commenting on the denial, Admiral Salerno stated:

“the recommendations, responses, and analyses of the COTP, Coast Guard Sector Southeastern New England and the District Commander, are found to be supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record, and this appeal is denied.”

Unlike prior appeals filed by Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and the City of Fall River, the appeal to the Deputy Commandant represents the final administrative remedy. Admiral Salerno confirmed this stating:

“This letter constitutes final agency review of the issues raised in these appeals and I consider this matter to be closed.”

We are pleased that this final decision by the Coast Guard confirms the positive decision originally made by the local Coast Guard office that the applicable portions of Narragansett and Mt. Hope Bays are suitable for the LNG vessel operations being proposed by Weaver’s Cove Energy.

Weaver’s Cove Energy is committed to seeing this project to fruition and continues to pursue the remaining permits to ensure that Southern New England will have access to a new, competitive source of natural gas. New England has the highest natural gas and among the highest electricity costs in the nation. The Weaver’s Cove LNG facility would provide the New England region with 15-20% more natural gas, and add much needed natural gas storage capacity. The project would reduce New England’s overall energy costs, bring hundreds of new construction jobs, hundreds of millions of dollars of investment, and provide long term jobs and tax revenues to the local communities.

Editorial: LNG: Public over politics

It may not be surprising, given how politics works, but it is depressing when politicians pander to the not-in-my-backyard crowd, using underhanded means to try to block projects that would serve the common good.

Such is the case with the planned Weaver’s Cove project, which would help ease the high costs of energy in our region by bringing in liquefied natural gas (LNG). Unfortunately, the NIMBYs are in near hysterics about this comparatively safe energy, and politicians seem only too happy to troll for their votes and campaign contributions.

In the latest development, the four U.S. senators representing Rhode Island and Massachusetts — Democrats Sheldon Whitehouse, Jack Reed and John Kerry, and Republican Scott Brown — urged the top members of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development to cut off funding for Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) review of the project.

That would be a cynical way to end-run the federal regulatory process, which was established to remove the power of parochial politicians to veto safe energy projects. (Otherwise none would ever be built.)

The project has been moving along the regulatory path. In 2005, FERC approved a land-based storage facility in Fall River. But that was undercut by Democratic Congressmen Barney Frank and Jim McGovern, who pressed Congress to kill off funding for removing the Brightman Street Bridge. The project then had to be redesigned to be an offshore facility. FERC is now considering that. The U.S. Coast Guard has already approved the facility’s navigation plan. All told, some 29 agencies charged with protecting the public are scrutinizing it.

It would set a terrible precedent if politicians were allowed to use such appropriations tactics to short-circuit that well-established safety-review process and kill all new energy projects.

Certainly, our region would benefit greatly by increased shipments of LNG, the cleanest fossil fuel and one that has a sparkling safety record. The facility itself would produce high-paying jobs, while the project would tend to reduce the region’s energy costs. High energy costs hold back local businesses from creating jobs.

The impact of such shipments on Narragansett Bay would be minimal — about 70 round trips a year, or a little more than one a week, concentrated in the colder months. Some in the affluent and thus politically influential recreational-boating crowd, whose members deeply oppose LNG shipments because they fear they might interfere with their three-month-a-year hobby, would in truth face little to no inconvenience.

Politicians should think about the common good, and stop trying to thwart the regulatory process.

As noted in the press release below, Technip has been awarded the prestigious 2010 Global Pipeline Award by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers for their work designing a safe and reliable cryogenic pipe-in-pipe LNG transfer system for the Weaver’s Cove LNG project.

–

Technip wins the prestigious 2010 Global Pipeline Award

Technip has been awarded the 2010 Global Pipeline Award in the field of Pipeline Transportation during the International Pipeline Conference in Calgary, Canada, for its Subsea Cryogenic Pipe-in-Pipe Pipeline Transfer System (C-PiP).

The American Society of Mechanical Engineers International (ASME) Global Pipeline Award was presented to Technip by members of the Pipeline Systems Division, a division of the International Petroleum Technology Institute (IPTI). This prestigious award acknowledges outstanding innovations and major technological advances in the field of pipeline transportation.

Technip began development of the C-PiP Pipeline Technology in 2004, earned proof-of-concept certification by ABS and BV in 2006, and fitness-for-service certification from DNV in 2008. Technip is currently designing or has assessed the potential for C-PiP Pipeline applications in several projects.

The award application featured the design for the Hess LNG Weaver’s Cove Energy project in Fall River, Massachusetts. Technip’s C-PiP technology was selected for this liquefied natural gas import terminal project based on its superior safety and reliability features. The C-PiP LNG transfer system was engineered to address the specific challenges of this project’s location and is currently proposed for the 4.25-mile (6.8 km) long offshore berth.

Technip’s innovative technology is an effective next step in global development of safe and reliable LNG pipeline transportation from both far inland onshore plants and far offshore loading/unloading locations. It will also enhance contribution to the efficiency, operability, versatility and integrity of worldwide pipeline transportation systems.

Technip is a world leader in the fields of project management, engineering and construction for the oil & gas industry, offering a comprehensive portfolio of innovative solutions and technologies.

With 23,000 employees around the world, integrated capabilities and proven expertise in underwater infrastructures (Subsea), offshore facilities (Offshore) and large processing units and plants on land (Onshore), Technip is a key contributor to the development of sustainable solutions for the energy challenges of the 21st century.

Present in 48 countries, Technip has operating centers and industrial assets (manufacturing plants, spoolbases, construction yard) on five continents, and operates its own fleet of specialized vessels for pipeline installation and subsea construction.

–

http://www.asme.org/NewsPublicPolicy/PressReleases/Presents_Global_Pipeline.cfm

ASME Presents the Global Pipeline Award to Technip

NEW YORK, Oct. 19, 2010 – The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) has cited the French company Technip for an innovative technology that allows pipeline operators to transfer liquified natural gas over long distances.

ASME presented the 2010 Global Pipeline Award to Technip at the recent International Pipeline Conference in Calgary, Canada. The annual award, sponsored by the ASME Pipeline Systems Division of the ASME International Petroleum Technology Institute (IPTI), recognizes outstanding innovations and technological advances in the field of pipeline transportation.

Technip’s cryogenic pipe-in-pipe technology, which has been applied at the Hess Weaver Cove Energy project, enables gas exploration firms to transfer liquified natural gas (LNG) over long distances and through challenging environments. Technip views cryogenic pipe-in-pipe systems as an enabler in the global development of environmentally clean LNG energy solutions. The technology has been demonstrated to be safe and reliable.

Technip, headquartered in Paris, is involved in engineering and project management for the oil and gas industry. The company has a workforce of 23,000 and maintains industrial assets on five continents.

About IPTI
The Houston-based International Petroleum Technology Institute (IPTI) was formed in 2003 to provide educational, networking and technology transfer opportunities for the offshore engineering and related industries. IPTI is composed of three separate divisions: the Petroleum Division; the Offshore, Ocean and Arctic Engineering Division, and Pipeline Systems Division.

About ASME
ASME helps the global engineering community develop solutions to real world challenges. Founded in 1880 as the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, ASME is a not-for-profit professional organization that enables collaboration, knowledge sharing and skill development across all engineering disciplines, while promoting the vital role of the engineer in society. ASME codes and standards, publications, conferences, continuing education and professional development programs provide a foundation for advancing technical knowledge and a safer world.

Weaver’s Cove Energy continues to respond to all FERC information requests and we have recently submitted filings with the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA). PHMSA recently issued a number of new interpretations regarding compliance with LNG terminal siting rules. There is nothing unique about the Weaver’s Cove project that is driving PHMSA’s request for additional information. Weaver’s Cove and at least 14 other LNG projects, which are undergoing federal regulatory review and permitting, have been asked to provide additional information related to thermal radiation and vapor dispersion modeling.

We look forward to the next major step in the FERC process, the issuance of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) by FERC, and to the associated FERC public meetings and FERC comment period. Occasions where the public will again be afforded the opportunity to comment on the DEIS so changes can be considered and a Final Environmental Impact Statement issued.

Weaver’s Cove is committed to designing, constructing, and operating the safest and most secure LNG terminal possible and that’s why we appreciate FERC’s exhaustive, science based, and public review of environmental, safety, and engineering issues related to our project. As the FERC project review process moves forward, we look forward to continued public input and engagement.