Save Passamaquoddy Bay - Canada

Nulankeyutomonen Nkihtahkomikumon - Passamaquoddy

Save Passamaquoddy Bay - US

Own It Now — Passamaquoddy Birch Bark Canoe

---

The Whole Bay Study | Law of the Sea & Innocent Passage | Natural Gas Industry & Market Participants Report | | Calais LNG's Claims vs LNG Industry Reality | Living in the Hazard Zones |

Home      Map   Join E/Mailing List

Documents   Safety Reports   News Releases   LNG Developers

Questions   Assets   Notable Quotes   FERC   BEP

ANNOUNCEMENTS  LATEST NEWS   News Archives   Legislation Watch

Calendar   Past Events   LNG History

Photographs   Slide Shows   Sound / Multimedia   Banner Images

Resources & Links  LNG Media Kit   Contacts   Fundraising Items

The Green Coast

---

Thirdly, on page 19 of the RSS Study, there is a table listing all of the sites that Mr. Girdis looked at prior to selecting Mill Cove. He gives significant weight to community assessment. He states that the position of adjacent communities is 'generally supportive.' Again, I ask, does he remember his reception at last year's meeting in St.Andrews?

In closing, I would encourage Mr. Girdis to listen to his wife. At the same meeting last year, he publicly stated he and his wife were at Mill Cove on a beautiful day the summer before. As his wife looked out on Mill Cove and our treasured bay, she said to him, "Are you sure you want to do this?"

Mr.Girdis, listen to your wife! [Red emphasis added.] (Mar 16)

Instead of America-bashing rhetoric, there should be honest dialog and debate about the subject. A risk assessment should be made that includes navigational safety, environmental impacts, anti-terrorism and regional economic aspects. And, to ensure absolute objectivity, because of the commercial and economic interests involved, the assessment should draw comparison with Irving's proposed LNG facility at Canaport and Saint John, and its associated miles of pressurized natural gas pipeline through New Brunswick wilderness to the Maine border. (Mar 20)

Webmaster's Comments: This letter's author provides several half-truths. For instance, he wants readers to believe that US Coast Guard rescue vessel crews are armed to the teeth with automatic weapons mounted on deck, like when they're protecting an LNG vessel.

The writer avoids mentioning that the world's LNG industry standards, as published by SIGTTO, already warn against locating LNG piers under the conditions present in Passamaquoddy Bay — and not simply for LNG ship navigation reasons.

LNG-proponents keep resurrecting the Passamaquoddy Bay - Saint John Harbour comparison that has been previously debunked. Passamaquoddy Bay is a significant marine nursery. Saint John Harbour is not. Passamaquoddy Bay is fraught with hazards. The approach to Saint John Harbour is not.

The letter, perhaps unintentionally, makes a good argument against building more natural gas pipelines. The US Office of Pipeline Safety's pipeline operator report for 1986 – 2006 indicates that there were 1,910 US natural gas pipeline "incidents" (that's one every three days) resulting in 63 deaths, 246 injuries, and over $48 million in property damage. Even so, a single LNG tanker or terminal fire could result in a significantly larger catastrophic impact.

The writer may be correct regarding less-than-stellar LNG project environmental vetting in Canada. However, every child learns that two wrongs don't make a right. The LNG industry standards dictate against siting an LNG terminal in Passamaquoddy Bay. Arguing that Canada is doing some other thing improperly simply doesn't justify violating the industry's standards.

This month Broadwater Energy, which is seeking to locate a 1,250-foot-long floating LNG storage vessel about nine miles north of Wading River in Long Island Sound, offered the community of Riverhead's school district approximately $10 million per year and the Town of Riverhead about $2.4 million per year. Broadwater maintains that the Long Island Sound site is not within the town's taxing jurisdiction, but Broadwater has promised to make an additional payment in lieu of taxes of about $15 million. One of the features about the proposed project includes a promise to supply natural gas to the area. The project would not require any municipal services, and it wouldn't present any danger to people on shore because it would be so far away. According to a company representative, there would be no additional resources required from the town -- no roads, no traffic. The company representative said, "We are not calling on the local fire departments or police." [Bold red emphasis added.] (Mar 23)

Perry residents can cast their votes on Monday, March 26, at the municipal building, from 1 to 7 p.m., to elect municipal officials and to vote on three referendum questions. Running in a two-way race for a three-year term as selectman are H. Richard Adams and Austin C. Frost. Other candidates and positions listed on the ballot are: two seats on the school board, each for three-year terms -- incumbent Eileen Curry, incumbent Sarah Hood, Ann Skriletz, and Ivy Newcomb Turner. Seven candidates are running for three seats on the planning board, all three-year terms: Howard Calder, Robert Costa, Gerald Morrison, Linda Newcomb, Karen H. Raye, Graydon Ritchie Jr., and Brian Theriault. (Mar 23)

Informational meeting recaps financial agreement for LNG — The Quoddy Tides, Eastport, ME

The Emergency Response Plan, the local impact provision in the framework agreement, brought up some questions during the meeting. Quoddy Bay LNG has offered up to $300,000 per year of the company's annual payment to the Town of Perry for ERP costs. The company said it will pay all additional ERP costs above this amount, including capital facility costs. "Where did the figure come from?" was one questions. "FERC [Federal Energy Regulatory Commission] must have an idea of what it would cost. Was it just hauled out of a hat?" (Mar 23)

Webmaster's Comments: The Energy Policy Act of 2005 requires an Emergency Response "Cost Sharing Plan" only for the terminal facility and vessels servicing that facility.

Quoting the Energy Policy Act of 2005:

‘‘(e)(1) In any order authorizing an LNG terminal the Commission shall require the LNG terminal operator to develop an Emergency Response Plan. The Emergency Response Plan shall be prepared in consultation with the United States Coast Guard and State and local agencies and be approved by the Commission prior to any final approval to begin construction. The Plan shall include a cost-sharing plan. ‘‘(2) A cost-sharing plan developed under paragraph (1) shall include a description of any direct cost reimbursements that the applicant agrees to provide to any State and local agencies with responsibility for security and safety— ‘‘(A) at the LNG terminal; and ‘‘(B) in proximity to vessels that serve the facility.’’. [Underline and bold emphasis added.]

The Energy Policy Act does not require any actual payment for these purposes — just a "cost-sharing plan." There is no requirement for paying for emergencies resulting from the LNG terminal or tanker transit that affect anything outside the terminal or the marine vessels. Those substantial costs — unless the LNG company agrees otherwise — will be borne by the taxpayers, since affected communities have no negotiating power under the current federal law.

That is the Energy Policy Act that Maine's Congressional delegation — Sen. Snowe, Sen. Collins, Rep. Michaud, and Rep. Allen — voted into law!

"We feel we are on very firm legal ground as a sovereign nation. That's why we were very deliberate in our choice of words to FERC," says Thompson of Canadian Ambassador Michael Wilson's letter to Joseph Kelliher, chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). He comments that the ambassador, in his letter outlining the Canadian government's position, "used language that Harry Truman would have been pleased with -- very plain and straightforward." (Mar 23)

On Thursday, March 8, a public hearing regarding two referendum questions in Perry brought a turnout of about 25 people to discuss a proposed Pavement Management Plan that would initiate an 11-year paving plan and road maintenance for the town with an increase in spending up to $160,000, and a citizens' initiative that asks the town to conduct all future discussions with Quoddy Bay LNG with an 11-member committee comprised of several officials and representatives of the Perry community. (Mar 23)

Freedom of Access lawsuit withdrawn — The Quoddy Tides, Eastport, ME

Rosenfeld had stated in an earlier letter to Selectwoman Jeanne Guisinger that he would "probably drop the lawsuit once the documents were released." Foster said, "This all could have been avoided with all the foot dragging that there was." (Mar 23)

"Despite some of the disputes that arise from assumptions, two key points are agreed upon by most every expert on LNG," added Smith. "The major risk from an LNG spill would be a heat hazard due to a potential fire. More importantly, as the GAO confirms, explosions are not likely to occur." (Mar 23)

Webmaster's Comments: Despite FERC's and the LNG industry's propaganda, the GAO doesn't rule LNG vapor explosions out.

NOTE: This article will be available online for non-subscribers until around March 29.

Most likely, Canada's belligerence is trade protectionism under another guise: New Brunswick is positioning itself as an energy distribution hub.

Webmaster's Comments: This Wall Street Journal editorial is so full of misinformation, it reads like something spoon-fed to them by an LNG developer.

Contrary to the editorial, existing navigational hazards cannot be reliably overcome with safety measures. The hazards will remain in place, waiting for human error to result in an accident.
 

Contrary to the editorial, there is no dynamite transit via ship to the Bayside, New Brunswick, terminal. All dynamite shipments arrive by truck.
 

Contrary to the editorial, Canada isn't practicing "trade protectionism." They're practicing marine and LNG safety, in compliance with SIGTTO LNG-industry standards — world-class LNG terminal siting safety standards that FERC and the local developers ignore!
 

Contrary to the editorial, the Maritimes and Northeast Pipeline is not operating at below capacity. In fact, FERC has just authorized expansion of that pipeline in order to accommodate the natural gas that will soon be coming from the Canaport LNG terminal in Saint John, New Brunswick.
 

While the editorial erroneously claims that Canaport and the proposed Passamaquoddy LNG projects are in competition with each other, the truth is that Canaport already has an LNG supply, will have completed its facility, and will be providing natural gas to New England long before the proposed Downeast LNG and Quoddy Bay LNG projects. Canaport has nothing to worry about regarding Downeast LNG and Quoddy Bay LNG.
 
In addition, the two offshore LNG terminals near Gloucester, Massachusetts, will be completed and delivering natural gas before the proposed Downeast LNG and Quoddy Bay LNG projects. Without LNG supplies and without customers, Downeast LNG and Quoddy Bay LNG were out-competed before they began. They're simply attempting to blame Canada for their own lack of due diligence.
 

Contrary to the editorial, Canada doesn't expect a market with no competition. In fact, they've indicated that they'd have no problem with LNG facilities along the Maine coast, but away from Passamaquoddy Bay and Canadian communities.

The Wall Street Journal apparently didn't adequately research the subject prior to putting their thoughts to press.

Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC): "Mr. Speaker, Canada's new government has indicated forcefully that we oppose the transit of LNG traffic through Head Harbour Passage. The Prime Minister has stated this. The veterans affairs minister has championed this. I have raised this with Secretary Rice. Ambassador Wilson has formally conveyed to the United States strong opposition to LNG tankers passing through Head Harbour Passage because of navigational, environmental and public safety concerns." (Mar 21)

"This isn't a case of partisanship.

"Greg Thompson has been very clear, as has the prime minister.

"We're speaking with one voice. [Bold emphasis added.]

Pipeline for offshore LNG ports approved — Gloucester Daily Times, Gloucester, MA

Excelerate's Northeast Gateway Energy Bridge, proposed 13 miles southeast of Gloucester and expected to be operational by the end of the year, and Suez North America's Neptune, proposed seven miles southeast of the city and expected to be ready in 2009, will both tie into the Algonquin line. (Mar 21)

Webmaster's Comments: Offshore terminals present fewer hazards to the public than the shoreside LNG terminals like those being proposed for Passamaquoddy Bay. Plus, the Gloucester offshore terminals moot the need for the Passamaquoddy Bay proposals.

Possibility of class-action suit against pollution is raised — Dundalk Eagle, Dundalk, MD

The first hearing, on Thursday, is for Senate Bill 997, which deals with a proposal to make companies that build LNG facilities liable for accidents at their facilities.

An International Court of Justice ruling in 1951 established that the 12-mile limit could be extended in some instances. Countries could draw a straight baseline across areas of coastal areas dotted with many islands and basically declare that all the water between that line and the mainland is internal, even if it lies outside the 12-mile limit. The ruling was about a case involving Norway. But some observers say Canada's geographic case is similar. (Feb 9)

Webmaster's Comments: Although this story doesn't directly involve LNG or natural gas, it does show how the Northwest Passage is similar to Passamaquoddy Bay, and how both can be considered "internal Canadian waters," limiting the ability of foreign vessels to declare "innocent passage" through both areas.

Also, note — when the US disputed Canada's right to share-in-common the offshore Gulf of Maine traditional fishing grounds with the US — the 1984 International Court of Justice decision (PDF 6.7 MB) declared the waters southwest and of Machias Seal Island, and east to Nova Scotia, as Canadian, ending forever the US fishing rights there.

The 10-year itch — Petroleum News, Anchorage, AK

The experience of every operator in the inlet is that “if you shut in a producing gas well, you’re asking for trouble.” That trouble, he said, comes in the form of water, because a lot of the gas wells in Cook Inlet have started to produce a little water. “And the first rule of thumb when you’re producing a gas field that’s producing water is outrun that water,” produce the gas before the water takes over.

“If you shut in these wells, water’s going to continue to encroach, even if you’re not producing,” Jepsen said, and that causes “catastrophic failure of the sands.” Sand fills the well bores and production can’t be restored from those wells. (Mar 16)

Put LNG siting on hold [Editorial] — The Register-Guard, Eugene, OR

Imagine a fire so fierce that it could burn skin a mile away.

A new study by the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, says a terrorist attack against a tanker ship carrying liquefied natural gas could cause an inferno that intense. It urged the Department of Energy to research the risks of a major fire or gas release caused by natural disasters or terror attacks on LNG tankers.

Developers can pledge, as they invariably do, to fully comply with state and local laws, but the fate of their applications lies in the hands of a five-member [politically-appointed] federal commission in Washington, D.C. Once the commission gives its approval, state and local officials can do nothing to block a project.

Congress should review this sweeping and unwise usurpation of local control, which was part of energy legislation crafted six years ago by Vice President Dick Cheney and a coterie of industry lobbyists.

The natural gas industry pushed for federal siting authority because it wanted to avoid the cost and inconvenience of delays caused by local debates over the projects - debates such as those that the proposed Oregon sites are already generating.

The GAO study provides ample evidence that safety issues must be addressed before more terminals are sited. [Bold red emphasis added.] (Mar 21)

Malibu environmentalists vs. the lifeblood of California [News release] — Ayn Rand Institute, Irvine, CA

Environmentalists criticize the plant for excessive pollution--even though natural gas is the cleanest burning of all of today's practical energy sources. They claim that the plant is a safety hazard--even though LNG terminals have an incredible safety record, and this particular terminal has taken every safety precaution imaginable.

"No genuine concern for human well-being can explain the seething opposition to this power facility. The real reason it inspires such hostility among environmentalists is the simple fact that it is a large-scale industrial project--a prominent product of man's transformation of nature. This goes against the environmentalist doctrine that untouched nature is an intrinsic value that must be preserved at human expense. Environmentalists view the whole of industrial civilization as, in the words of Brosnan's wife and fellow activist Keely Brosnan, a 'globalized assault taking place on our Earth.'

"Environmentalists have been attacking energy production in California--and around the world--for decades now, raising prices and creating shortages. Californians must not let them collect yet another industrial scalp." (Mar 21)

Webmaster's Comments: The Ayn Rand Institute calls itself "The Center for the Advancement of Objectivism." Unfortunately, "objectivity" in their news release is regressive.

They place the blame for the resistance to LNG facilities only on "environmentalists";

They paint all "environmentalists" with the same broad brush;

They attack the "excessive pollution" argument, when it is clear that some LNG facilities create excessive NO_x pollution — even Quoddy Bay LNG's Brian Smith volunteered that their proposed LNG facility will be a "major source of Noxious [NO_x]" pollution;

They claim that LNG terminals are safe, even though the US government says that LNG facilities are terrorist targets. Additionally, the US Government Accountability Offices' recent report indicates that LNG facilities aren't as safe as the LNG industry and FERC would like the public to believe.

They imply that untouched nature should be expendable at the demand of industry, and that "environmentalists" are opposed to all practical sources of energy. They apparently believe there should be no appreciation for national parks, forests, and other wild places that should occupy a balanced place in our national priorities, and that only their choices of energy sources are "practical";

Remarkably, they blame "environmentalists" for high energy prices and energy shortages. Did environmentalists create the recent extremely high natural gas prices? Did environmentalists create the inefficient and fragile electrical energy infrastructure? Did environmentalists create the obscene profits recently taken by big oil, at the expense of consumers? No. Industry greed did all that.

Ayn Rand Institute's "objectivity" — at least in the above news release — is without substance.

Lawmakers fear additional LNG terminals will outstretch security resources — CQ Homeland Security (Congressional Quarterly)

Lawmakers expressed concern that the U.S. Coast Guard and other government agencies do not have the resources to secure the rapid increase in liquefied natural gas import terminals expected to come online in the next few years.

Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Conn., and several Democratic members of the House Homeland Security Committee suggested Wednesday that Coast Guard officials were not being honest and acknowledging that new demand will stress the office’s capacity. (Mar 21)

No plan to create gas cartel similar to OPEC — Attiya — IndianMuslims.info, San Diego, CA

DOHA, March 21 (NNN-KUNA) -- Qatari Energy Minister Abdallah Al-Attiya has ruled out the chance of launching an OPEC-like gas cartel. (Mar 21)

Webmaster's Comments: And yet, (see "Natural-Gas OPEC") others are calling for such a cartel. Whom do you believe?

Study: Blast from LNG tanker could cause burns 1 mile away — Bangor Daily News, Bangor, ME

WASHINGTON — Fire from a terrorism attack against a tanker ship carrying liquefied natural gas could ignite so fiercely it would burn people one mile away, according to a congressional study.

Rob Wyatt, vice president of Downeast LNG in Robbinston, said Wednesday his company will read the GAO study but remains confident of the safety of LNG tankers.

“LNG shipping has an excellent safety record,” Wyatt said. “This is an industry that is very safety-conscious for a number of reasons, including the value of its assets. We review anything new that can be used to improve safety.”

Webmaster's Comments: Downeast LNG Rob Wyatt's attempt to link his company with the LNG industry's current safety record rings hollow. Downeast LNG's proposed terminal location already violates numerous LNG-industry safety standards, as defined and published by the Society of International Gas Terminal and Tanker Operators (SIGTTO). SIGTTO's purpose is gas industry safety, and its membership includes over 90% of the world-wide LNG capacity.

LNG fire could burn people a mile away, experts say — The Standard-Times, New Bedford, MA

Fall River Mayor Edward Lambert, who had promised to kill the project with "1,000 paper cuts," described the new report as one more cut and welcomed the prospect of congressional hearings.

"We need to create a critical mass of concern, and every time some individuals or agencies step forward with further concerns about moving ahead, it aids our cause," Mayor Lambert said.

LNG tanker attack seen as catastrophe — Boston Herald, Boston, MA

“It’s very troubling that our knowledge about the potential public safety consequences of a terrorist attack on these vessels is not better,” [US Representative Edward Markey] said in a statement.

The House’s Homeland S