Loading
|
|
"For much of the state of Maine, the environment is the economy" |
2016 | | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | |
2015 | | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | |
2014 | | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | |
2013 | | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | |
2012 | | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | |
2011 | | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | |
2010 | | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | |
2009 | | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | |
2008 | | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | |
2007 | | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | |
2006 | | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | |
2005 | | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | |
2003 2004 | |
31 December 2007 |
McWilliam reported that 84 per cent of the eligible residents agreed with the statement.
LNG is a classic example of economic colonialism, the sort of business run from thousands of miles away that has abused our hospitality in the distant past. [Red and bold emphasis added.] (Dec 20)
29 December 2007 |
Webmaster's Comments: Since the US isn't a party to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, it can expect no rights or protections under that treaty, and can expect no resolution via the United Nations. What the State Department is saying with respect to this issue in Passamaquoddy Bay, essentially is, "You have to respect our rights [rights that don't exist, but that we claim], but we don't have to respect yours."
The second argument is that it is better to place LNG terminals offshore. However, offshore LNG technology is neither technically nor commercially proven. [Red and bold emphasis added.] (Dec 22)
Webmaster's Comments: It's amazing how many LNG terminal developers sound so much alike, while at the same time ignoring their own industry standards (see SIGTTO).
The de facto (SIGTTO) world standards for LNG terminal siting includes:
- Terminal siting including the LNG ship transit must be located where LNG vapors from a spill cannot harm civilians. The industry standards do not allow for "small-probability" risk the risk is simply not allowable, meaning, "keep LNG tanker routes and terminals well away from people." That strategy is to protect the industry, since any catastrophe that harms the public will harm the industry, by resulting in the probable halt of LNG importation. (Source: "Site Selection and Design for LNG Ports and Jetties," SIGTTO, 1997.)
Webmaster's Comments: Although the editorial uses the term "explosion" excessively, and perhaps inappropriately, a fireball from an LNG spill would still burn people up to a mile away. In addition, if there were no initial "explosion" or fireball, the drifting gas could freeze, asphyxiate, or burn civilians; or could explode in confinement, such as in a building.
Although the LNG developers like to accuse opponents of "fear mongering," the LNG industry, itself, through its standards-development organization, SIGTTO, warns against locating LNG terminals and LNG shipping lanes where vapor from an LNG spill would harm civilians. That warning isn't entirely benevolent; by ensuring safety to everyone, the future of the LNG industry is protected.
Rogue LNG developers like Weavers Cove Energy, Downeast LNG, and Quoddy Bay LNG, are a clear threat to the future of the industry, by ignoring the industry's sensible, fact-based standards established from over 20-years of research and experience.
LNG
4. Opposition swells over big pipeline proposal
Webmaster's Comments: It isn't "people working together," it's big money - big energy attempting to manipulate the public. At the Banks meeting the public was having none of it.
Auerbach recently founded the Northwest Property Rights Coalition to fight the use of eminent domain in the federal pipeline siting process. The group already has 50 members. [Red emphasis added.] (Dec 27)
Inside Energy Blog
LNG imports in the U.S. are low right now because the benchmark gas price in the country is at about $7 per thousand cubic feet (U.S.). By comparison, LNG producers selling their product in Asia can get as much as double that rate. [Red emphasis added.] (Dec 26)
19 December 2007 |
"I've never seen the Coast Guard ever question a pilots' report," Mr. Shearer said.
Webmaster's Comments: Kudos to US Coast Guard Capt. Roy Nash for standing up for safety, even when "cowboy" pilots are blinded by greed. The Weaver's Cove/Hess LNG Inc/Fall River LNG terminal project fails industry LNG terminal siting safety standards (SIGTTO).
Shearer's dismissal of offshore LNG terminals as "unproven" feigns ignorance regarding the LNG terminal 116 miles offshore from Louisiana that offloaded its entire LNG cargo during Hurricane Katrina. That offshore technology has been in use in the North Sea for over 20 years.
SIGTTO member Weaver's Cove Energy is proving to be an irresponsible member, threatening the reputation of the industry.
FERC also is at fault for issuing a permit for this project in the face of obvious industry safety violations.
Kulongoski said state agencies were already analyzing the proposal when Congress passed the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which took authority for that process away from states and gave it to FERC. [Bold emphasis added.]
Webmaster's Comments: Unlike Maine's Governor Baldacci, Oregon's Governor Kulongoski is responsibly opposing unsafe LNG terminal siting, even though he doesn't oppose LNG.
"That's a complete abdication of their responsibility," Carrier said. "Any environmental impact statement begins with a needs justification. It's fundamental to us that they have a need to justify the action." [Bold and red emphasis added.]
Webmaster's Comments: Natural gas pipelines are considered by FERC to be necessary for "public convenience" something that implies "need." FERC's argument that they aren't "in the business of analyzing the need for natural gas" is flawed.
18 December 2007 |
Webmaster's Comments: This editorial is a refreshing reversal by the Bangor Daily News editorial staff. They have previously advocated the "Wall-mart" and "LNG" mentality, welcoming any promise of any jobs by any kind of business even when those businesses are destructive to economy and way of life.
Key energy market changes identified by EIA analysts and reflected in AEO2008 include:
- Slower projected growth in energy demand (particularly for natural gas but also for liquid fuels and coal)
- Slower projected growth in energy imports, both natural gas and liquid fuels
[Bold red emphasis added.] (Dec 2007)
Webmaster's Comments: Downeast LNG and Quoddy Bay LNG prospects are looking even more dreary, given this US Government analysis.
Webmaster's Comments: Even more bad news for Downeast LNG and Quoddy Bay LNG.
…a result of higher delivered natural gas prices, lower economic growth, and a reassessment of natural gas use in the energy-intensive industries.
[Bold red emphasis added.] (Dec 2007)Webmaster's Comments: Downeast LNG's and Quoddy Bay LNG's argument that their projects are needed, and that they will bring down the cost of natural gas, is debunked by LNG industry experts, FERC personnel (former FERC Chairman Wood), and now by US Government projections.
Webmaster's Comments: This is discomforting news to anyone who lives, works, or travels near a natural gas pipeline anywhere that temperatures drop all the way down to +20°F like Maine, for instance.
Webmaster's Comments: Apparently, natural gas pipelines, often located near people, aren't as safe as FERC and the Department of Transportation would like people to believe.
Webmaster's Comments: This report makes one wonder how unconfined natural gas something that the LNG industry and FERC says can't explode exploded, according to news accounts, and exploded enough to shake houses miles away. (Natural gas confined in a pipeline can't explode, since the pipe contains no oxygen.)
There is an average of one US natural gas pipeline "incident" every three days, according to data from the US DOT Office of Pipeline Safety.
17 December 2007 |
Webmaster's Comments: Quoddy Bay LNG's Brian Smith needs to break his habit of misinformation. He ought to ask international maritime law experts whether or not the US can claim rights under UNCLOS.
Ted MacDorman, the attorney who provided Downeast LNG with his opinion regarding Head Harbour Passage, answered that question at a maritime law panel in 2006, saying that the US has no rights under UNCLOS. Treaty rights require both affected parties to agree. So far, the US hasn't agreed to the treaty; thus, it has no rights under that treaty. LNG vessels for the Quoddy Bay LNG and Downeast LNG projects have no rights under UNCLOS.
CG Capt. Michel made the false assertion that the proposed Quoddy Bay LNG and Downeast LNG projects are actually needed and would be approved by the Coast Guard, by FERC, by the State of Maine, and by the Army Corps of Engineers. Capt. Michel has pre-judged and politicized the Coast Guard's own Waterway Suitability Assessment something that the Coast Guard previously said would not happen. In addition, he ignored the US statutory requirements for the Coast Guard to prevent LNG transits in waterways that are unsuitable for that purpose. If the US has that authority, then so does Canada, and Canada has exercised that authority.
Otherwise, Capt. Michel is arguing that the US Coast Guard has no authority to prevent LNG UNCLOS-defined "innocent passage" transits in unsuitable waters even though Congress requires the Coast Guard to prevent such passage. Capt. Michel appears to be arguing that the Coast Guard should defy Congress!
Webmaster's Comments: How does burning more hydrocarbon fuel add up to less polution?
Webmaster's Comments: Finally, someone recognizes the folly of shipping Alaskan natural gas (in LNG form) overseas. Will Alaska also stop shipping LNG to Japan?
Webmaster's Comments: Contrary to the Oregon LNG's news release, the simulation indicates only that navigating to the site could be easy. The problem is that the proposed site's LNG ships' three hazard zones (Sandia National Laboratories'-defined "Zones of Concern") engulf nearly the entire City of Warrenton. In addition, the proposed pier is exposed to other heavily-laden shipping traffic in the nearby shipping lane. Both problems violate LNG industry SIGTTO best practices.
Webmaster's Comments: This is an example of an LNG developer telling half-truths. It's strictly correct that there are no "exclusion zones" around LNG vessels; however, there are "Safety and Security Zones" that exclude other vessels from approaching or being near LNG vessels and their transit route.
Webmaster's Comments: The county's approval, in an information vacuum and in the face of staff advice against the project, is puzzling.
13 December 2007 |
Webmaster's Comments: The Department of Homeland Security list of high-risk chemicals includes methane natural gas, the principle component of LNG. See page 9 for the "methane" listing in the following DHS document:
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/chemsec_appendixa-chemicalofinterestlist.pdf (2.1 MB)
Webmaster's Comments: More bad news for Downeast LNG and Quoddy Bay LNG.
Note: The headline erroneously states that the pipeline would contain LNG. The article clarifies that it would contain regasified LNG natural gas. Due to LNG's transient cryogenic nature, there are no LNG pipelines anywhere in the world.
Webmaster's Comments: While the proposed offshore terminal location might possibly be an appropriate location, Sen. Lanza apes FERC's lack of respect for lives in small communities.
Webmaster's Comments: The pipeline would not carry LNG, but would carry natural gas (regasified from LNG) away from LNG terminals. Because of LNG's transient cryogenic nature, there are no LNG pipelines anywhere in the world.
Webmaster's Comments: Although Astoria desires an emergency response cost-sharing plan prior to FERC issuing a permit, FERC doesn't require emergency response plans until after they issue the permit. Thus, any pre-permit bargaining between LNG companies and communities occurs without knowing the actual emergency response costs.
12 December 2007 |
"Right now, U.S. citizens are likely going to end up paying more for their natural gas and probably have less of it because of our inability to become a party to the (treaty). I don't know how much closer to home that can hit." [Red emphasis added.] (Dec 11)
Webmaster's Comments: Several observations:
- Capt. Michel confirms that, since the US isn't a party to the UN Law of the Sea treaty, and due to Canada's position, LNG ships can't transit Head Harbour Passage under that treaty.
- There are several problems with Capt. Michel saying that Prime Minister Harper was "playing to his local political constituency":
- Canada's policy to disallow LNG transits in Passamaquoddy Bay conforms perfectly with the LNG industry's own terminal siting standards (see SIGTTO) Passamaquoddy Bay, for around 30 reasons, violates those standards. Harper's government is merely exercising good judgement.
- Capt. Michel contradicts former FERC chairman Pat Wood, current FERC knowledge, and experts in the LNG industry by predicting that "US citizens are likely to end up paying more for their natural gas and probably have less of it" as a result of no LNG transits into Passamaquoddy Bay.
- Prior to leaving his position in 2005, then-FERC Chairman Wood stated that only 79 new LNG terminals are needed to meet future US natural gas demands.
- According to FERC's LNG webpage (as of 2007 Dec 12; See the last sentence in the last paragraph below the heading, "How many projects might be built?"), "Many industry analysts predict that only 12 of the 40 LNG terminals being considered will ever be built." (Some of those 40 are expansions of existing projects, including non-terminal peak-shaving facilities.)
As of 2007 Oct 31, according to FERC (PDF, 128 KB), there are:
- 5 existing US lower-48 states LNG import terminals, including four shoreside and one offshore;
- 21 FERC-approved, including 18 new terminals and 3 expansions;
- 4 MARAD-approved import terminals; (MARAD = Marine Administration; they have permitting authority for offshore LNG terminals; FERC is not involved in permitting these terminals)
That's 22 approved new US terminals, plus 3 expansions (25 total), many more than needed to fulfill the demand for natural gas.
- 4 Canadian-approved import terminals;
- 4 Mexican-approved import terminals, including 1 expansion;
Note that some Canadian and Mexican terminals intend to send natural gas via pipeline to the US.
- LNG industry experts have indicated that the two LNG offshore terminals near Gloucester, Massachusetts, along with the Canaport terminal , will over-supply the natural gas needs of northern New England by 400%. Downeast LNG and Quoddy Bay LNG simply aren't needed.
- Natural gas prices are a function of many complex forces, including Europe's and Asia's willingness to pay more (with lower transportation costs).
- Capt. Michel's remarks including the statement that PM Harper "blew off" President Bush are clearly political and inflammatory. By the US Coast Guard playing politics, Capt. Michel has violated the public trust, and has damaged Coast Guard credibility.
Webmaster's Comments: This article is based on the same misguided, inappropriate quotes from USCG Capt. Charles Michel.
"I will not abdicate that responsibility to marine pilots, to Weaver's Cove, or any other person or entity that duty is mine alone." [Bold red emphasis added.] (Dec 11)
Webmaster's Comments: Offshore, away from people, easier expansion, fewer security problems, less public resistance.
Webmaster's Comments: "Absolutely no negative environmental impact"? How about pollution from regasifying the LNG, and from LNG ships' and escourt vessels' air pollution? It's hard to understand how anyone in good conscience can believe Atlantic Sea Island Group LNG speculators.
Webmaster's Comments: Is there some kind of mysterious logical disconnect in Alaska? The state needs natural gas, but they ship it to Japan.
Webmaster's Comments: Ever notice how FERC officials assume in their language e.g., "where the LNG terminal will be situated" that all proposed projects will be permitted? Absence of FERC objectivity shows through.
10 December 2007 |
Webmaster's Comments: Or, Washington and Oregon could encourage alternative energy solutions.
9 December 2007 |
"The industry's rulebook for siting [ SIGTTO ] says avoid siting where there is other harbor traffic," Jennings said.
"Either it's a secure facility and you take reasonable measures to protect it, or you're not protecting it," [Watson] said. "I'd argue they did not." [Red and bold emphasis added.] (Dec 8)
Webmaster's Comments: The LNG industry rules dictate stronger safety and security measures rules that are also advocated by the quoted Savannah-based professional hazards planner than the US Coast Guard Captain of the Port on the Savannah River is willing to follow.
This is another example of how government ignores the wisdom of the LNG industry's own safety standards: the Captain of the Port irresponsibly calls the industry's safety standards a "perception problem."
Webmaster's Comments: More bad news for Downeast LNG and Quoddy Bay LNG investors.
Webmaster's Comments: Algeria's strategy will result in higher natural gas prices for customers.
Webmaster's Comments: Such drilling could also slow down implementation of alternative renewalble fuels.
TopWebmaster's Comments: This is a new LNG liquefaction facility. It also had serious problems when starting up, resulting in copious amounts of ash falling on the community of Hammerfest.
7 December 2007 |
Webmaster's Comments: While the gasoline tanker spill and fire that occurred was a disaster, and had no security surrounding the truck's transit to help ensure safety, the "hell" that occurred was a "match fire" compared to what could happen in a catastrophic LNG release and fire from a ship in Boston Harbor.
Most accidents are the result of human error, never mind terrorists a fact emphasized by the world's LNG industry standards (see SIGTTO), and one reason that SIGTTO recommends against locating LNG terminals where spilled LNG vapor can affect civilian populations, like Boston, Eastport, Campobello Island, Deer Island, Sipayik, Perry, Robbinston, and St. Andrews.
Webmaster's Comments: Likewise, FERC hypocritically calling itself a "safety" agency should not issue LNG terminal project permits prior to the Coast Guard's final Waterway Suitability Assessment and Letter of Recommendation.
"Trinidad has neither stranded gas nor low-priced gas anymore," said [Chairman and chief executive officer of BP Trinidad and Tobago (BPTT), Robert Riley].Based on a production rate of 4.5 billion cubic feet per day, the gas will last only 12 more years unless new discoveries are made. [Bold red emphasis added.]
Webmaster's Comments: Things are looking even worse if that's possible for Quoddy Bay LNG and Downeast LNG.
Webmaster's Comments: Offshore, less expensive, faster construction, less risk to civilians, easier to expand a more sensible approach than used by old-technology, risk-inherent, and LNG standards non-compliant (see SIGTTO) Downeast LNG and Quoddy Bay LNG.
6 December 2007 |
Webmaster's Comments: Read the documents by downloading from the docket file list on FERC's eLibrary.
Potential for calamity at LNG facility
We need an energy policy, Williams said. The state does not have an energy policy and "we can't wait for them to develop one," he said. [Red emphasis added.] (Dec 5)
Webmaster's Comments: Shipping LNG from Alaska to Japan has had something to do with Alaska's future natural gas shortfall, and reflects the state's and the nation's flawed energy philosophy.
BP REPORT: Consumption of natural gas declines in U.S., increases worldwide.
Webmaster's Comments: The "no project" response given by government merely means that there is no formal application yet on record. That type of "government-speak" provides an excuse for public employees to sit on their hands while projects get a good foothold.
Webmaster's Comments: There is an equally appalling lack of leadership on the part of elected officials in Maine, as well US Sen. Olympia Snowe, US Sen. Susan Collins, and US Rep. Mike Michaud just don't seem to know if the proposed LNG projects are appropriately sited, or not. Instead, they try to redirect attention on whether or not local communities want the projects. US Rep. Tom Allen simply won't respond, at all even though he's spammed us with email, attempting to get our votes in his upcoming race to unseat Sen. Collins.
Webmaster's Comments: Emergency response plans for LNG terminals and ship transit routes typically aren't developed until after FERC issues a permit, so there's no way for communities or the state to know in advance what their costs will actually be.
Webmaster's Comments: Although there is plenty of exaggeration on both sides of the LNG argument, the editorial page editor of the Democrat-Herald apparently isn't aware of the LNG industry's own standards (SIGTTO), and doesn't believe the US Coast Guard (Department of Homeland Security) or Sandia National Laboratories regarding LNG's risks, especially in inappropriately-sited locations. It is Sandia National Laboratories, at the request of FERC, who designated the 2.2-mile-wide hazard zones (a.k.a., "Zones of Concern") that accompany LNG ships, and the "Exclusion Zones" around LNG facilities zones that would engulf a large portion of the city of Astoria. The public didn't "invent" the physics of vapor dispersion or the physiology of burn injuries. And, the opposition didn't commit the atrocities of 9/11.
The world is a different place than it used to be a reality that must be responsibly considered when siting facilities that could place the public in harm's way. The terminals proposed for Oregon appear to be when compared to SIGTTO standards inappropriate, due to their proximity to civilian populations. Offshore siting would solve that problem.
Note: FERC, according to their LNG terminal siting guidelines, doesn't consider lives in small communities to be as important as lives in large communities though they ignore even those guidelines when they issue LNG terminal permits in places like Fall River, Massachusetts.
German-based gas and distribution company RWE may seek a 50% stake in U.S.-based Excelerate Energy.
Webmaster's Comments: Excelerate Energy is the company that developed offshore "submerged buoy" LNG receiving technology. They built the first offshore LNG terminal in the US, 116 miles into the Gulf of Mexico off Louisiana, that regasified and offloaded its entire cargo of LNG during Hurricane Katrina. Excelerate's technology proves that, unlike the proposed shoreside Downeast LNG and Quoddy Bay LNG projects located in a waterway that would for around 30 reasons violate the LNG industry's own SIGTTO standards for LNG terminal siting, LNG importation can be done without any potential harm to civilian populations.
Inventories are now 84 Bcf above the five-year average of 1.848 Tcf in the East, 46 Bcf above the average of 417 Bcf in the West, and 143 Bcf above the average of 902 Bcf in the producing region. [Bold emphasis added.]
"This set of circumstances may be fortunate as recent developments in the LNG business have been troubled with problems," the consultant said in its weekly summary. [Bold emphasis added.] (Dec 3)
Top
Add our banner to your webpage:
Read about the effort to Fix FERC: