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 | |
26 October 2007 |
Lawmakers, who have almost unanimously opposed both projects, hailed the decision. (Oct 25)
Webmaster's Comments: Here we go, again! A new LNG proposal, with the developer assuring the public that LNG isn't explosive or flammable.
Technically, LNG liquefied natural gas isn't explosive or flammable. Technically, neither is liquid gasoline; but, the public recognizes the hazards of having gasoline around because they're familiar with its properties. How comfortable are you with having an open can of gasoline around? Unfamiliarity with LNG, along with LNG industry false assurances can bring the public a false sense of security.
The public knows that gasoline needs only to be exposed to the air to become less benign. The same is true with LNG. But, FERC and the LNG industry like to tell the public that LNG vapors only ignite when the gas-to-air mixture is between 515% (a 10% flammability range), as though that's a narrow margin and an unlikely event. What they don't say is that gasoline has an even narrower gas-to-air flammability 1.4 to 7.6% (a 6.2% flammability range). Also, like gasoline, as LNG becomes vaporized, the perimeter of the vapor cloud contains the correct air-gas mixture for flammability, until the gas disperses sufficiently.
LNG vapors can explode in the following circumstances:
- When confined and in the presence of air, such as in a culvert, in a building, or in a boat's hull, etc., and when in the presence of a flame or high heat;
- When a confined vapor explosion occurs (as above), and transits rapidly into an unconfined LNG vapor cloud. (Source: 1978 US Coast Guard tests conducted at China Lake, referred to in the 2004 Sandia National Laboratories Report to FERC.)
The most serious of BP’s violations involves a practice known as “flipping,” which evidences a deliberate strategy for evading FERC regulations that require posting and competitive bidding for discounted long-term releases of capacity. [Bold red emphasis added.] (Oct 25)
Webmaster's Comments: BP (British Petroleum, aka Beyond Petroleum) has once again demonstrated contempt for the law. This is the same company that is responsible for 15 deaths and over 100 injuries in the 2004 March 24 Texas City, Texas, oil refinery explosion, resulting in a fine for lacking a corporate safety culture.
BP, alarmingly, is also in the LNG business a supplier to the Cove Point, Maryland, LNG terminal, the "darling" of Downeast LNG principals Dean Girdis and Rob Wyatt. BP is also the developer of the Crown Landing LNG terminal in New Jersey.
Disturbed by BP's participation in the LNG industry, when asked by Save Passamaquoddy Bay, FERC replied that they would allow Adolf Hitler, Charles Manson, and Idi Amin to build and operate an LNG terminal.
Just as disturbing: FERC is the US Government's LNG "safety" regulatory agency.
Read the FERC order (PDF, 108 KB) containing the details of this latest list of BP infractions.
Webmaster's Comments: And yet, other reports seem to indicate that the volatile international LNG market will simply result in higher domestic natural gas prices. See the July 23 story in Platts, "Japan's LNG import price to keep rising towards 2030: IEEJ," below.
24 October 2007 |
A Coast Guard spokesman says the ruling "kills the project, as proposed."
Webmaster's Comments: If the US Coast Guard has the authority to prevent LNG transits, then Canada has that same authority in their own waters.
23 October 2007 |
The plant is the first of two LNG plants planned for the area. Chevron is also planning an LNG plant, which will be located next to the refinery. [Red emphasis added.]
Webmaster's Comments: More mooting of the Downeast LNG and Quoddy Bay LNG projects.
Webmaster's Comments: Japan is the world's largest LNG customer. Japan will pay increasingly more for its LNG, competing with the US for its supply. But, according to the US LNG industry, importing LNG into the USA will decrease the cost of natural gas. How can importing LNG into the US cause natural gas prices to become lower, when the US is competing with a country that's willing to pay more for LNG than the US?
22 October 2007 |
NOTE: This same story resides on Military.com at CG Chief Wants More Safety Regs.
Webmaster's Comments: This story's author failed to mention that the US Coast Guard also has the authority to prevent LNG transits in waterways that are deemed unsuitable for such transit authority required by the FERC LNG permitting process. And, since the US has that authority over Canadian waters, then so does Canada.
Coast Guard Commander Admiral Thad Allen strengthens the argument that Canada can prevent LNG transits by his advocating that the US scrutinize all risky cargo. Canada, an equal sovereign, has equal authority especially regarding Canadian waters.
The article concludes by quoting the president of a Calgary-based LNG company, saying "Economics 101 will solve the mess, but the trouble is it will do so with a machete...It will hurt." [Bold and red emphasis added.] (Oct 21)
This is in answer to a question about oil & natural gas field reserves accounting practices. (2006 Jun 9)
21 October 2007 |
That's why Gulf LNG, out of Houston, is breaking ground on its new Pascagoula docks in a few weeks and lining up contractors to build its $600 million regasification plant, and others are not. [Red emphasis added.]
Webmaster's Comments: Here's one more LNG terminal about to be constructed, further mooting Downeast LNG and Quoddy Bay LNG.
Webmaster's Comments: When reading the article, note NorthernStar's misinformation that only FERC determines whether or not LNG projects are constructed.
Webmaster's Comments: The US has a high supply of natural gas in storage, but high prices. And yet, LNG promoters want the public to believe that importing more LNG will reduce natural gas prices.
This article discusses the rising costs to the natural gas and LNG industry. (Apr 8)
Webmaster's Comments: The URL to the above article contains characters that do not comply with the Web URL standard; therefore, here's a text version of the link as provided by the source. Try copying it and pasting it into a separate Web Browser window.
http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2007/04/08/gulf-times-qatar-‘gas-opec’-least-of-consumers’-worries/
Top
19 October 2007 |
Webmaster's Comments: The Coast Guard hasn't made recommendations, since the Coast Guard is still waiting for Quoddy Bay LNG to provide the Waterway Suitability information that the Coast Guard has requested from them.
Webmaster's Comments: This is a non-story, since Canada has made its decision based on multiple sources of information, and is not willing to allow the risk.
Dean Girdis continues to ignore that…
- The US can prohibit LNG tankers from transiting into Passamaquoddy Bay, via the US Coast Guard's Waterway Suitability Report and Letter of Recommendation that are part of FERC's LNG terminal permitting requirements the US claims the right to deny innocent passage for LNG ships;
- Since the US can restrict LNG transits in Canadian waters, then Canada and equal sovereign has that same right.
Girdis's argument to the contrary is hypocritical and hollow.
Webmaster's Comments: Apparently BG believes that the US doesn't need additional natural gas as desperately as some industry advocates claim.
No support for liquefied natural gas proposal
Webmaster's Comments: This report appears to conflict with the Reuters report from Oct 17, "Strong Asia demand again slows U.S. LNG import." This is the second time in about a month where such conflicting reports surfaced.
Webmaster's Comments: Quoddy Bay LNG's Donald Smith and Brian Smith claim that they'll be obtaining their 50-year project supply of LNG from Trinidad and Tobago.
18 October 2007 |
Webmaster's Comments: LNG developers seem to be the same nearly everywhere if a community supports the project, then its opinion counts; if a community opposes the project, its opinion is meaningless unless it can somehow be bribed or wheedled into project support.
A singular exception seems to be the Cianbro LNG proposal for the village of Corea in South Gouldsboro, Maine. When the community opposed the project, as they promised they would do, Cianbro left.
Top
12 October 2007 |
The LNG plant will be built on 100 acres near the Bayou Casotte ship channel. (Oct 9)
Webmaster's Comments: The proposed Passamaquoddy Bay LNG projects' ballast uptake and engine cooling water would also entrain commercial and sport fish species, as well as important ichthyoplankton species, damaging the commercial fishery here, down the Maine coast, and in the Bay of Fundy.
This news story is evidence that scoping comments even by other Federal agencies don't always receive proper consideration by FERC.
Still, he said, existing studies point to increasing northwest demand for natural gas.
"Everybody's forecast is just that --- it's a forecast, and it's quite prone to being wrong," Nothstein said. "The federal government's (reports) are wrong and sometimes they're right. You work off the best available information you have." [Red emphasis added.] (Oct 10)
9 October 2007 |
Developer says government report is clear: LNG tankers can transit Canadian passage
Webmaster's Comments: Girdis conveniently ignores his violations of LNG industry standards (see SIGTTO) in selecting Passamaquoddy Bay for his proposal. Canada's decision is consistent with the safety standards of the LNG industry. The SENES report is merely additional information.
On the other hand, Girdis let the world know he was ignorant about LNG industry SIGTTO standards when he targeted Passamaquoddy Bay. He told the Bangor Daily News that the LNG industry SIGTTO standards don't apply to LNG terminals, and that they are laws. Both assertions are false.
LNG industry standards list several safety considerations in addition to LNG carrier navigation as reasons to avoid siting a terminal in inappropriate locations. Girdis wants the public to believe that merely navigating an LNG carrier into port without incident is all that's required.
Girdis, Quoddy Bay LNG's Don Smith and Brian Smith, and Northeast Energy's Ian Emery continue to hypocritically flout industry safety standards and community safety issues.
Senes also noted that the surrounding eco-system could be severely affected by the discharge of fuel of LNG from tankers. [Red and bold emphasis added.]
Webmaster's Comments: The SENES report apparently isn't as rosy towards LNG development as Girdis has indicated.
"This particular location is not a smart location, it's not a safe location," [Canadian MP and Cabinet Member Greg Thompson] said. [Red emphasis added.] (Oct 6)
Webmaster's Comments: Girdis claims "…there is no law or regulation which restricts LNG traffic going through Head Harbour Passage." Really?
Girdis feigns ignorance of US Coast Guard (USCG) authority to prevent LNG transits through Head Harbour Passage, as provided by USCG LNG Waterway Suitability Assessment requirements.
Because US LNG regulation can prevent LNG transits through Canadian waters, it is obvious that Canada has the same right to prohibit LNG transits through those same Canadian waters. Girdis's claim is false, disingenuous, and hypocritical, and it appears that Girdis is even challenging the USCG's authority in this matter.
[This story references the information in the Oct 8 story in the Daily Astorian, just below.]
Webmaster's Comments: This story conflicts with the following Platts story. Is it going to be colder or warmer?
TopWebmaster's Comments: This story conflicts with the above Platts story. Is it going to be colder or warmer?
8 October 2007 |
"I would say through 2015, I would be surprised if there is (sic) any new LNG receiving facilities built in the United States except those under construction right now," CFO Mark Snell told Reuters in an interview. [Red emphasis added.] (Oct 5)
Now, controls show that the soot also could be harmful to people’s health. (Oct 4)
5 October 2007 |
Webmaster's Comments: The information regarding permit validity based on statements to the reporter by Downeast LNG is incorrect. The Board of Environmental Protection (BEP) has made no such decision. It should also be noted that Downeast LNG (DeLNG) never "was allowed" never had the right to run their pipeline through Moosehorn National Wildlife Refuge. DeLNG had merely proposed to do so. The US Government's denial of DeLNG's request to go through the refuge illustrates that the right never existed.
Only the BEP has the power to decide whether or not the permitting process is valid; developer Girdis and company certainly doesn't have that authority that's why DeLNG is called the "applicant" and not the "permitting agency."
[Fed] rejects pipeline route
Webmaster's Comments: [This story and the subheadline confused what actual agency rejected the pipeline route through Moosehorn. The subhead and linked story contain edits (marked in red), correcting the errors, along with footnotes giving the original content.]
Girdis admits that Downeast LNG didn't have its act together that they didn't have access for their pipeline route [among many other deficiencies] prior to applying for their state permits. Girdis was indiligent, but now boasts that he'll get a "do over" from the state. And yet, after failing four previous times, Girdis failed a fifth do-over request in September, and now expects to try for a sixth!
"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results." Benjamin Franklin
Webmaster's Comments: The report is a non-story. Canada's refusal to allow LNG transits into Passamaquoddy Bay are most certainly based on numerous factors, not simply on a single study. For instance…
- The LNG industry's own standards (see SIGTTO) provide tens of standards violations resulting from Girdis's and the other local LNG proposed terminals a fact that Girdis failed to investigate prior to his site selection. In fact, when first confronted by this issue, Girdis falsely stated to the Bangor Daily News that the industry standards don't apply to LNG terminals, and that those standards are "laws." Girdis was surprisingly naive and indiligent in doing his groundwork.
- The LNG projects risk Canadian lives on Canadian soil and in Canadian waters.
- The LNG projects would harm the Canadian economy around Passamaquoddy Bay.
And, Canada is not answerable to Girdis, FERC, or the US Government; it is a sovereign nation equal to the United States. Canada has as much right to deny LNG vessels in Canadian waters as does the US Government US regulations give the US Coast Guard the right to deny LNG vessel transits in those same Canadian waters. Equal sovereigns means equal rights.*
DeLNG's Dean Girdis and Rob Wyatt, QBLNG's Brian Smith and Don Smith, and Northeast Energy's Ian Emery are well aware that the US Coast Guard has the power to deny LNG transits, revoking "innocent passage." Instead of facing this fact like honest and reasonable businessmen, Girdis, Wyatt, the Smiths, and Emery are hypocritically "grandstanding" in the media.
Canada has made its final decision against LNG projects in Passamaquoddy Bay, and has conveyed that decision to President Bush. The result is clear: Girdis may say whatever he wants, but with the sovereign rejection by Canada, these LNG proposals for Passamaquoddy Bay are wasting their time and money.
* The US Coast Guard, via the "Waterway Suitability Assessment" and the "Waterway Suitability Letter of Recommendation" opposed to or in favor of LNG terminal permitting in the FERC process, has the power to prevent LNG ship transits in Head Harbour Passage, in the rest of Passamaquoddy Bay, and in Grand Manan Channel revoking "innocent passage."
Webmaster's Comments: The Jones Act prohibits foreign-built ships from transiting between US ports without first stopping at a foreign port. Aker American Shipping, building ships in the US, allows their own ships to transit directly between US ports.
Webmaster's Comments: This Texas company is wooing LNG from Nigeria and Algeria. That's an indication that the Passamaquoddy Bay LNG proposals also might need to import from those parts of the world.
TopThe project is designed to supply the Mexican natural gas market. (Oct 4)
4 October 2007 |
Webmaster's Comments: Dean Girdis has appointed himself representative of Washington County, Mainers, and Maine government; however, everyone else was taught that such representation requires Maine citizenship and an election.
Girdis's pretension extends even further
Girdis and the other LNG developers in Passamaquoddy Bay are well aware that even the US LNG terminal permitting process has the power to revoke LNG "innocent passage." The Coast Guard's "Waterway Suitability Assessment" determines whether or not LNG ships can transit a project-related waterway.
In this case, DeLNG's Dean Girdis and Rob Wyatt, QBLNG's Don Smith and Brian Smith, and the US State Department claim that only the US can revoke innocent passage in Canada, no less but that Canada doesn't have that same right. If one sovereign (the US) has the authority to revoke LNG vessel "innocent passage," then so does any other sovereign (Canada). Canada has clearly and resolutely decided that it will prevent LNG transits into Passamaquoddy Bay, just as the US can prevent those same LNG transits in those same waters.
Hypocrisy flows from the mouths of Dean Girdis, Rob Wyatt, and Don and Brian Smith.
Webmaster's Comments: Canada has made its decision. LNG transits will not be allowed into Passamaquoddy Bay.
Webmaster's Comments: Weren't Downeast LNG's Girdis and Wyatt, and their Pierce Atwood attorney Matt Manahan at the Maine Board of Environmental Protection hearing when the Board denied DeLNG's attempt to withdraw their applications? The BEP application process for the DeLNG proposal will continue to its conclusion.
Webmaster's Comments: Armendariz needs to count again: there are currently five operating LNG import terminals in the lower 48 states: (1) Everett, MA, (2) Cove Point, MD, (3) Elba Island, GA, (4) Lake Charles, LA, (5) and Gulf Gateway Energy Bridge, 116 miles offshore from Louisiana in the Gulf of Mexico.
Top
3 October 2007 |
Says Dean Girdis, president of Downeast LNG, the company behind the Robbinston proposal, "I wouldn't want to site anything in a community that doesn't want it." [Red emphasis added.] (Oct issue)
Webmaster's Comments: Dean Girdis is disingenuous. He pretends to be oblivious to the vast majority of Passamaquoddy Bay community residents opposed to his proposed terminal.
"We advised the Maine BEP in our permit applications and again several weeks ago that we had not resolved issues with the Moosehorn National Wildlife Refuge," said company president Dean Girdis. [Red emphasis added.] (Oct 2)
Webmaster's Comments: DeLNG President Dean Girdis admits that he hadn't performed his due diligence, but filed an application with the state, anyway.
Webmaster's Comments: DeLNG President Dean Girdis didn't see fit to "work on all of the important steps involved" before entering the permitting process, even though he has known for years what would be required.
Webmaster's Comments: To paraphrase a Yahoo Groups: LNG Safety comment by Cliff Goudey in response to this news:
'Their decision to voice their support makes me wonder if they might happily assist in the construction of their own gallows.'
Webmaster's Comments: Q: How could Downeast LNG's Dean Girdis have claimed that Mill Cove in Robbinston, Maine, was the best LNG terminal location on the Northeast Coast, when Keyspan claimed that the Fall River, Massachusetts, site was the best location? A: They were both wrong.
Top
2 October 2007 |
TopWebmaster's Comments: There is a gas pipeline "incident" once every three days in the US.
1 October 2007 |
Webmaster's Comments: Downeast LNG has (again) demonstrated that it did not perform its due diligence this time, for Federal pipeline permitting.
In their arguments before the court of appeals, however, BIA changed its story and conceded that the lease was in fact final. [Bold and red emphasis added.] (Sep 28)
Webmaster's Comments: Finality of approval allows NN to sue BIA for abrogation of its statutory obligations.
The rest of the river has been covered by such protections since 2000. (Sep 29)
Staff has twice recommended denial of the rezoning requests.
Webmaster's Comments: Why would the Planning Commission vote against the recommendations of the staff?
County planners split 4-3 over LNG action Friday
LNG is controversial on the East and Gulf coasts, where terminals exist, and in California, where others are proposed. Federal authorities in New England have reportedly declined to conduct needs assessments for single states. [Red emphasis added.] (Sep 27)
The Green Coast |
Wind energy on demand? A closer look at compressed air energy storage Renewable Energy Law Blog, Shems Dunkiel Kassel & Saunders, Burlington, VT |
|
Webmaster's Comments: Shems Dunkeil Kassel & Saunders is the lawfirm representing Save Passamaquoddy Bay in the federal and state LNG permitting proceedings.
Top
Add our banner to your webpage:
Read about the effort to Fix FERC: