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 March 2008 |
Webmaster's Comments: We're glad to learn that Adam Wilson believes only two LNG import facilities besides the one at Everett, Massachusetts, is needed. But, we're surprised that Quoddy Bay LNG's Adam Wilson doesn't know about the three new terminals already finished or being built to supply New England: (1) Excelerate Energy's Northeast Gateway LNG (offshore from Gloucester, MA) that is completed and ready for its first LNG cargo, (2) Suez's Neptune (also offshore from Gloucester) that will receive its first cargo near the end of 2009, and (3) Canaport (Saint John, New Brunswick) that is over 60% complete, due for completion near the end of 2008, that will send most of its natural gas to New England.
Quoddy Bay LNG makes a perfect argument against building their own project and any other LNG terminals in Passamaquoddy Bay.
According to Marylee Hanley, spokesperson for Maritimes and Northeast Pipeline, the company has not submitted any revised tariff requests to FERC. [Red and bold emphasis added.] (Mar 28)
Webmaster's Comments: This is the second time that Quoddy Bay LNG has been caught telling a falsehood about Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline (M&NE). The previous time, Quoddy Bay LNG claimed they were in negotiations with M&NE for pipeline capacity. M&NE responded that they had had no communications with any of the Passamaquoddy Bay LNG developers regarding obtaining pipeline capacity.
Webmaster's Comments: Chief Doyle also pointed out that the proposed pipeline would go beneath islands owned by the tribe. Since eminent domain cannot be used against government property, this may require Downeast LNG to come up with yet another a seventh route proposal.
TopOn March 3, Pan EurAsian said US imports of LNG in February were the lowest for any February in the last four years. [Red emphasis added.] (Mar 28)
30 March 2008 |
Webmaster's Comments: A "white paper" is a statement of policy.
28 March 2008 |
Webmaster's Comments: What the article, Verso Paper, and Dean Girdis want the reader to overlook is that demand will already be met by the three already-permitted new LNG facilities: Northeast Energy Bridge off Gloucester, MA, that is ready to accept its first cargo; Canaport in Saint John, NB, that will receive its first cargo around the end of 2008; and Suez LNG terminal off Gloucester, MA, that will receive its first cargo near the end of 2009.
Downeast LNG, Quoddy Bay LNG, and Calais LNG have all been badly beaten in the race to supply LNG to the Northeast so badly beaten that they had lost before they entered the race. In 2005, FERC Chairman Pat Wood stated that only 79 new LNG terminals would be needed, plus expansions. Currently, there are 31 terminals and peak shaving facilities either in operation, under construction or expansion, or permitted. LNG import capability, in operation or about to be, is already way over US market requirements.
And, of course, the proposed projects on Passamaquoddy Bay violate the LNG industry's own terminal siting standards. (See SIGTTO.)
Hess LNG Unit Floats Alternate Plan for Offshore Fall River Berth
Advocates, elected officials and local residents were unimpressed with the new plan.
Webmaster's Comments: Shades of Quoddy Bay LNG's cryogenic Perry-to-Robbinston plan.
Hess Energy fails to understand that even their new proposed berth violates SIGTTO standards for LNG terminal siting.
An authorization shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for certain subsistence uses, and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth. NMFS has defined "negligible impact" in 50 CFR 216.103 as "...an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival."(i) any act that injures or has the significant potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) any act that disturbs or is likely to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of natural behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to a point where such behavioral patterns are abandoned or significantly altered [Level B harassment]. (Mar 27)
Webmaster's Comments: Asia continue to out-bid US LNG buyers.
27 March 2008 |
According to the letter, city officials have estimated that costs associated with growing homeland security requirements increase by $1 million each year. [Red & bold emphasis added.]
Webmaster's Comments: Even though FERC issued a permit for the Weaver's Cove LNG terminal, the Coast Guard has rejected it and now, two offices of Massachusetts' Department of the Environment have rejected it.
This demonstrates that, despite FERC's bluster to the contrary, state authority trumps FERC.
Webmaster's Comments: This is simply more evidence of what's going on with the LNG industry: too much import capacity in North America, higher-paying customers in Asia.
We just knew it would happen, despite the objections from Connecticut and New York state and the U.S. Coast Guard. [Red & bold emphasis added.]
Webmaster's Comments: Like the multiplying brooms in the Sourcer's Apprentice, FERC is approving LNG terminals as fast as it can, regardless of need, safety, or logic.
Most questions, like if the site’s massive electric fans are noisy, won’t be answered until island residents find out for themselves once the site is up and running, Henry said. [Red emphasis added.] (Mar 26)
Webmaster's Comments: After an LNG terminal is constructed is an exceedingly tardy time for the neighboring public to learn about the problems that the terminal will produce.
Webmaster's Comments: Like many other proposed LNG projects in the US and Canada, the project sites on the Columbia River were carelessly selected and cannot pass SIGTTO world-class LNG terminal siting standards.
Opposition groups aim for September ballot in an effort derail LNG development. (Mar 21)
The report predicts that excess pipeline and storage capacity will divert gas from existing pipelines, changing downstream prices, and that LNG imports in the Gulf of Mexico will increase volatility at Henry Hub. [Red emphasis added.] (Mar 26)
Parent page to the above article: PFC Energy Press & News
Webmaster's Comments: Too much LNG import capacity. On the East Coast. Downeast LNG, Quoddy Bay LNG, and Calais LNG are fighting reality, wasting money on surplus projects.
25 March 2008 |
Webmaster's Comments: In addition, since LNG pipeline eminent domain cannot be applied to government property, and since the pipeline would pass beneath the Passamaquoddy Tribe's islands against their will, as expressed in comments to FERC by Pleasant Point Passamaquoddy Tribal Chief Rick Doyle it appears that Downeast LNG's takeaway pipeline route option 6 is impossible, and the project is once again without a viable pipeline.
Webmaster's Comments: There is evidence to the contrary that this terminal will bring natural gas prices down. Additionally, calling natural gas a "clean" fuel is an overstatement.
Webmaster's Comments: FERC Chairman Kelliher made several misstatements in his opinion statement. If FERC is "foremost a safety agency," then why does FERC repeatedly ignore the LNG industry's own terminal siting safety standards that are more conservative than FERC's? (World-class LNG industry SIGTTO terminal siting standards. As SIGTTO states, the LNG industry doesn't want a disaster that would result in the shutdown of the industry resulting in serious harm to US energy security "Site Selection and Design for LNG Ports and Jetties," SIGTTO, 1997, Witherbys Seamanship International.)
Kelliher's also contradicts his predecessor, FERC Chairman Wood, as well as current LNG industry experts who state that LNG import capacity is now many times greater than needed. In fact including Broadwater there are now 31 US LNG terminal and peak-shaving projects that are operating, permitted, or under construction, plus additional terminals in Canada and Mexico that will be providing regasified LNG to the US.
Plus, there is evidence that the availability of more natural gas via LNG will not result in cheaper natural gas prices, due to higher-paying overseas competitors for the gas.
Keliher's statements simply don't stand up to scrutiny.
After more than six months of discussion, the company hasn't gotten the agencies to agree to its offers of money and equipment. [Red emphasis added.] (Mar 21)
20 March 2008 |
Webmaster's Comments: They haven't contracted LNG supplies, because they don't have their permits. On the other hand, Quoddy Bay LNG's Brian Smith wants the world to believe that Quoddy Bay LNG without any kind of permit needs to delay its Maine environmental permitting because it's negotiating with LNG suppliers, and it doesn't yet know the Btu content of its gas supply.
Proposed LNG import terminals can't determine the Btu content of their imported LNG, since LNG suppliers won't deal with LNG terminal speculators especially those who aren't currently operating any LNG terminal anywhere in the world until they obtain the required government permits.
…import capacity will exceed available supply by as much as 4.35 Tcf by 2012. [Red emphasis added.] (Mar 19)
Webmaster's Comments: Industry experts not industry opponents are stating that additional projects, like Downeast LNG, Quoddy Bay LNG, and Calais LNG, are excess baggage.
"This is a very large overbuild," said Terrell Benke, manager of the upstream oil and gas group at PFC Energy and one of the authors of the report. "You've had re-gasification terminals that were built without dedicated supply behind them." [Red and bold emphasis added.] (Mar 19)
Webmaster's Comments: Gov. Rell is correct that there's no need for the Broadwater project. The number of LNG import terminals and peak-shaving facilities in operation, with permits, being expanded, and under construction not including Broadwater number 30, plus Canadian and Mexican terminals that will be sending regasified LNG to the US. US LNG import and regasification capacity is already considerably more than is needed even according to former FERC Chairman Wood, who stated in 2005 that only 79 import terminals would be needed, along with expansions.
Broadwater, just like Downeast LNG, Quoddy Bay LNG, and Calais LNG, are indefensible.
But the state of New York, environmentalists or others could still halt the project.
She added that she was most disturbed by how commissioners "not only dismissed but they mocked state and local concerns." [Red emphasis added.]
Webmaster's Comments: LNG developers like to make statements about how much economic benefit would come to a community from their project; however, they don't mention the true economic costs to their host community's taxpayers.
18 March 2008 |
Webmaster's Comments: All the while Downeast LNG President Dean Girdis has been requesting "fair consideration" of his LNG terminal and pipeline project, he hasn't given fair consideration of Passamaquoddy rights; otherwise, he would have checked into who owned those islands on the St. Croix River before he planned to use them for his personal gain.
14 March 2008 |
…the mayor has long supported moving the LNG terminal offshore to decrease risk. (Mar 13)
7 March 2008 |
Please be advised that according to the Treaty of 1794 between the Passamaquoddy Tribe and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, subsequently re-asserted by the Land Claims Settlement Act of 1980 between the State of Maine and the Passamaquoddy Tribe, all islands "lying and being in Schoodic River (re-named the St. Croix) between the falls at the head of the tide, and the falls below the forks of said river where the north branch and west branch parts" (near Baileyville, Maine), being fifteen in number, containing 100 acres or less ...... The said islands, tracts of lands and privileges to be confirmed by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to the said Indians and their heirs forever." Some of these islands occur in the area of the proposed pipeline placement. The Passamaquoddy Tribe objects to the placement of the pipeline over, on, or under these islands, and demands that an alternative route be found. [Link leads to FERC download page. Subsequent PDF file is 160 KB; red emphasis added.]
Webmaster's Comments: From this filing from Pleasant Point Passamaquoddy Reservation to FERC, it appears that Downeast LNG is once more without a workable pipeline route. It's beyond time for Dean Girdis, Rob Wyatt, and their investors to pack up and go home.
Webmaster's Comments: Read the Minister of the Environment's Environmental Assessment Decision Statement.
"Shell has claimed there is a strong existing demand and market for an LNG facility in the Sound, but now 'seeks expression of interest for Broadwater natural gas sales.' In reality, Shell is seeking to invent a market, rather than respond to one," [Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal] said. [Red emphasis added.]
Webmaster's Comments: "Without incident"? On 2006 March 14, while the LNG tanker Golar Freeze was unloading its cargo while the tractor tugs were IMPROPERLY POSITIONED and the LNG docking pilot on watch on the bridge of the Golar Freeze was ASLEEP a passing freighter's wake caused the Golar Freeze to break its moorings and it's LNG connection. That's called an "incident." (See, "River is no racetrack," Savannah Morning News, 2006 Dec 24.)
At around 1:00 AM in early June of 2006, a sailboat anchored at one of the terminal's slips, remaining unnoticed until sometime after it left at 7:00 AM violating terminal security. That's also called an "incident." (See, "How much Elba security is enough?" Savannah Morning News, 2006 Jun 6)
In December of 2007, a crippled container ship was allowed to dock at the LNG terminal, violating appropriate security practices another "incident." (See, "Disabled ship's 24-hour stay at LNG terminal raises security questions," Savannah Morning News, 2007 Dec 8.)
While no catastrophe occurred, the above three incidents exemplify Elba Island LNG terminal's SIGTTO LNG terminal siting standards violations due to its proximity to the ship transit fairway, to its vulnerability to other ships' wake, to its proximity to civilians, and to its lack of appropriate security procedures. The terminal was constructed prior to establishment of world LNG terminal siting standards; however, that is no excuse to expand the terminal, creating an even greater risk to area residents.
Another large slice of investment in the next five years will be going into deepwater projects involving oil production ships and offshore tanker terminals. [Red emphasis added.]
5 March 2008 |
Webmaster's Comments: Downeast LNG, Quoddy Bay LNG, and Calais LNG Project Co. all terribly miscalculated the odds when they invested in their projects. First, they were too late when they entered the race. Now, even those who've won the race find themselves in difficulty obtaining supply.
The news continues to get worse for Downeast LNG's Dean Girdis and Rob Wyatt; Quoddy Bay LNG's Don and Brian Smith; Calais LNG Project Co.'s Ian Emery, Arthur Gelber, Carl Myers, and James Lewis; and all of their investors.
4 March 2008 |
… and the case against the LNG plant remains compelling. (Mar 3)
The federal Energy Information Administration says the United States can currently process about 5 billion cubic feet of imported LNG a day, which is more than double its current imports. [Bold red emphasis added.] (Mar 2)
Webmaster's Comments: There's a lot of unused capacity already, with more on the way as the permitted LNG import terminals are constructed and go online. Previous FERC chairman Wood predicted that only a few more terminals would be needed. LNG industry experts are saying that LNG projects that aren't already permitted or being constructed will never see the light of day.
LNG speculators can hype all they want, but the realities are that Downeast LNG, Quoddy Bay LNG, and Calais LNG were beaten in the race, even before they arrived Downeast.
Webmaster's Comments: Obtaining the highest global value for Alaska's gas via LNG means shipping it to Asia, not the US West Coast.
Webmaster's Comments: The above item's author, Northernstar Natural Gas senior vice president Joe Desmond, may have over-emphasized the economic benefits of his own project, since there's a good argument that California doesn't need the additional natural gas.
According to NATS, this total represents the lowest February sendout level for the years 2004-2008. (Mar 3)
Webmaster's Comments: This is even more evidence that Downeast LNG, Quoddy Bay LNG, and Calais LNG Project Co. are unnecessary.
Webmaster's Comments: How unsettling should it be to Americans that the US State Department has invited Russia to invest in US energy infrastructure, and that Gazprom has expressed interest in owning US LNG facilities especially considering that Russia has, for a second consecutive winter, either entirely cut off or significantly reduced natural gas supplies to the Ukraine?
Now that Gazprom's president will be Russia's new president, does the State Department actually believe that natural gas won't be used as a political weapon against US interests, once Russia gets a strong foothold here?