Save Passamaquoddy Bay

Save Passamaquoddy Bay
3-Nation Alliance

Alliance to Protect the Quoddy Region
from LNG Development

US Flag
Canadian Flag
Passamaquoddy Flag
Scale Baskets for sale
Facebook button

"For much of the state of Maine, the environment is the economy"
                                           — US Senator Susan Collins, 2012 Jun 21


News Articles
Passamaquoddy Bay & LNG

2015 March

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 |

Get Adobe ReaderDownload free Adobe Reader software for PDF files.

2015 Mar

Passamaquoddy Bay

Nova Scotia

New England


British Columbia


Passamaquoddy Bay

New England


Gulf of Mexico

British Columbia



United States


Passamaquoddy Bay

Nova Scotia


New England




British Columbia & Oregon




Passamaquoddy Bay

New Brunswick


Gulf of Mexico

British Columbia



United States


Passamaquoddy Bay



2015 March 31

Passamaquoddy Bay

Downeast liquefied gas project could export to Europe — WLBZ, Bangor, ME

An energy company is looking to export natural gas to Europe from Downeast Maine, changing the scope of a project that has been in the works for over a decade.

[Save Passamaquoddy Bay says] it [would] disrupt ferry service, fishing and tourism that are vital to the existing economy in Washington County.

"Anything you do, if you want to build a hot dog stand you engage people like your community and your neighbors to talk about the project and see if there's any issues," said Girdis. "You have to do stakeholder engagement." [Colored & bold emphasis added.]

Webmaster's comment: Downeast LNG president Dean Girdis has not "engaged" with the Government of Canada and the Passamaquoddy Tribe. They adamantly oppose Downeast LNG's proposal. Besides, "engagement" does not ensure that the neighbors will consent. Convincing Downeast LNG's neighbors that their lives are worth risking so that Downeast LNG's investors can make a pile of money is a poor way to "engage."

Nova Scotia

LNG plans tied to supply (Mar 24) — The Chronicle Herald, Halifax, NS

The fate of four proposed liquefied natural gas projects in the province essentially comes down to the ability to secure supply, says Nova Scotia’s deputy minister of energy.

During his remarks, [Murray Coolican] said his department is doing everything it can to help three proposals for LNG terminals in Guysborough County and one outside Port Hawkesbury succeed, but ultimately “it depends on their ability to access gas from the West Coast, from the United States and the offshore.”

A recent report by Harvard University economist Leonardo Maugeri pegged the proposal in Guysborough County by Pieridae Energy as the most likely in all of Canada to become reality.

Other proposals in the province include Liquefied Natural Gas Ltd.’s Bear Head project outside Port Hawkesbury and Nova Scotia LNG Inc.’s and H-Energy’s projects, both in Guysborough County. [Colored & bold emphasis added.]

New England

The final word on winter in New England’s energy markets, part II: Why this winter was different (Mar 25) — Conservation Law Foundation, Boston, MA

As late as last fall, many observers and traders watching the New England energy markets were predicting a repeat of last year’s very expensive winter, or worse. By January, CLF was able to post an update showing that those predictions weren’t materializing. In fact, the expected energy crisis was fizzling, with much lower wholesale power and natural gas prices than last year and no signs that gas-fired power plants were struggling to get fuel. We laid out a series of market shifts and changes that were making a difference.

As I mentioned in the first part of this series on this winter in New England’s energy markets, February was a major test for New England’s energy system. It was the coldest February in modern times, with bitter cold, record-breaking snowfall, and no “February thaw” whatsoever. Adding to retirements of several major non-gas power plants in 2014, some of New England’s remaining non-gas power plants experienced outages or problems. The whole Northeast was much colder than normal, driving record natural gas demand for heating and electric generation. On February 2, New England set an all-time record for daily gas demand of 4.21 billion cubic feet.

Despite the challenges, the factors we identified in January helped keep prices in check and the lights on for the balance of the winter:

  • Major deliveries of liquefied natural gas to Boston helped ease gas supply concerns and last year’s pattern of speculating traders bidding up daily natural gas prices to astronomical levels on fears of shortages and delivery problems. On the coldest days, as the SNL chart below shows, LNG added as much as 10% to New England’s inbound gas deliveries, much more than last winter. Since 2013, CLF has identified additional LNG deliveries using existing infrastructure as a cost-effective way to help meet the region’s peak winter energy needs. This year confirmed that market-priced LNG can calm the markets, reducing volatility and scarcity concerns. As my colleague Greg Cunningham told the Boston Globe this week, New England’s existing LNG infrastructure could be even more fully utilized in the future; for example, it’s clear that the system would have benefited from additional deliveries in late February. [Colored & bold emphasis added.]
Webmaster's comment: There is plenty of underused LNG infrastructure in four import terminals in New England: Canaport LNG, Everett LNG, Neptune LNG, and Northeast Gateway. Three of those four are new, and have been virtually idle. Downeast LNG would be as unnecessary now as it has always been.


Federal agencies delay LNG’s Port Ambrose application (Mar 25) — Asbury Park Press, Asbury Park, NJ

An application for a deepwater port and gas pipeline off the coast here has been delayed by federal agencies due to an overwhelming amount of public comments.

According to a notice of the time clock suspension of the EIS from the U.S.C.G and the Maritime Administration to the applicant, Liberty Natural Gas, over 10,000 public comments were received.

The EIS was to be finished 21 days from March 16, however the clock has been stopped until federal agencies can process all comments. The suspension is indefinite.

LNG is proposing to built a deepwater port called Port Ambrose in federal waters in the New York Bight to import gas in a liquid state. The location is near the entrance of the New York/New Jersey Harbor, 28 miles east of Monmouth Beach and 18.5 miles southeast of Jones Beach, New York. [Colored & bold emphasis added.]

Algonquin gas pipeline wins feds' OK — The Journal News, White Plains, NY

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued an order Tuesday issuing a certificate for Spectra Energy's Algonquin Incremental Market Project stretching from New York through Connecticut, Rhode Island and Massachusetts.

The expansion will allow an increased flow of natural gas from Ramapo to various cities' delivery points in the Northeast.

Susan Van Dolsen of the group Stop the Algonquin Pipeline Expansion said she was disappointed that FERC would issue the certificate in light of what she said were unanswered questions about the impact of a major pipeline breach near the Indian Point nuclear power plant.

British Columbia

Activists rally along Sea to Sky corridor against Woodfibre LNG proposal — The Globe and Mail, Toronto, ON

Opposition has been growing along the Sea to Sky corridor to a proposed liquefied natural gas plant and a connected pipeline.

The Woodfibre LNG proposal would see a terminal built on an old mill site on Howe Sound. It would be fed by a FortisBC pipeline, expanded and slightly extended on an existing route.

…[N]umerous groups have sprung to life since the project was proposed last year including My Sea to Sky, which now boasts thousands of followers on its Facebook page, and a group of Squamish First Nation women, Skwomesh Action, which organized a rally in Squamish this past Sunday.


2015 March 30

Passamaquoddy Bay

Downeast LNG seeks ok for gas import-export facility on Passamaquoddy Bay — MPBN

Downeast LNG is submitting new environmental reports to a federal agency for review, as part of a plan to build a liquified natural gas import-export terminal on the shores of Passamaquoddy Bay.

Downeast opponents of an LNG terminal say the facility is still unnecessary and is unlikely to ever be built.

[The following first sentence is factually incorrect. —SPB webmaster] Downeast LNG's initial idea for an import-only gas terminal won approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission or FERC, last May, nine years after it was first proposed. The following month the firm announced it would add the export component, as part of a new plan to build a $2 billion facility capable of liquefying two million tons of natural gas a year.

Wyatt says the firm is currently analyzing the air quality numbers for the project. He adds that shifting to an import-export model is not expected to create any additional environmental impacts.

But one longtime opponent of the project takes issue with this view. "To liquefy natural gas requires using some volatile substances like propane," says Robery Godfrey, of the group Save Passamaquoddy Bay. "There would be considerably more dangerous substances on site."

Godfrey says Save Passamaquoddy Bay will continue fighting a project the group believes is poorly located and ultimately unnecessary, especially in light of the huge surge in domestic energy production in the U.S. [Colored & bold emphasis added.]

Webmaster's comment: Downeast LNG did not win FERC approval last May; that is a reporting error. What did happen is FERC issued an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The FERC Commissioners must take a vote on the EIS in order for approval to occur; that has never happened.

2015 Mar 31 Update — MPBN corrected the article, replacing the claim that Downeast LNG "won approval from FERC" with the statement that FERC issued an Environmental Impact Statement.

Downeast LNG to file environmental reports for natural gas terminal (Mar 29) — Bangor Daily News, Bangor, ME

ROBBINSTON, Maine — Downeast LNG, which now is proposing to construct a liquefied natural gas import-export terminal on the western shore of Passamaquoddy Bay, expects to file draft environmental resource reports with federal regulators in the coming weeks.

Robert Wyatt, environment and permits director for Downeast LNG, wrote in an email to the Bangor Daily News on Friday that the addition of export components to the proposed terminal are not expected to pose any significant environmental impacts to the surrounding area. He said the firm expects to file environmental and engineering resources reports in April and May as part of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s pre-filing review of the project.

The Canadian government and the Passamaquoddy Tribe, each of which must support the project in order for it to receive U.S. Coast Guard approval, are opposed to liquefied natural gas shipping activity in Passamaquoddy Bay. The bay is physically split between the U.S. and Canada, and is only accessible by tanker through Canadian territorial waters, Godfrey said.

He also said that, because of the increase in domestic energy production, existing liquefied natural gas import terminals in Massachusetts and New Brunswick are largely idle and underused, indicating that there is no market need for a terminal to be built in Washington County.

“The reality is that there never has been a need for Downeast LNG, and that Downeast LNG cannot comply with multiple Coast Guard requirements,” Godfrey wrote. “There is no viable reason for the proposed Downeast LNG import-export terminal.” [Colored & bold emphasis added.]

New England

Gas pipelines — Misinformation and high costs (Mar 26) — Conservation Law Foundation, Boston, MA

The high cost and pollution from new gas pipelines are no secret. They deliver a clear reminder that investing in new fossil fuels is a bad bet for our energy future – bad for the environment and bad for our pocketbooks.

When costs ballooned for Vermont Gas Systems’ proposed new pipeline, the company failed to tell regulators, or the public, until months later. Vermont Gas is now facing penalties for the failure.

A new gas pipeline is a big energy project. All big energy projects need to demonstrate that they advance the public good. With high costs and misinformation, confidence is sure waning on this project.


Port Ambrose LNG review suspended temporarily — LNG World News

The U.S. Coast Guard and the U.S. Maritime Administration placed a temporary suspension on their review of the proposed Port Ambrose deepwater LNG project.

According to the suspension letter, the suspension will enable the Coast Guard and MARAD to complete their final environmental impact statement and allow Liberty Natural Gas, the developer of the project, to submit financial responsibility data.

Liquefied natural-gas project gets cold shoulder from lawmakers, Christie (Mar 26) — NJ Spotlight, Montclair, NJ

Environmentalists argue that Port Ambrose facility, located 20 miles off Monmouth Beach, would not serve New Jersey

In a small victory for environmentalists, the U.S. Coast Guard and federal Marine Administration have put a hold on a controversial project to build a liquefied natural-gas terminal off the Jersey coast.

The Liberty Natural Gas project generated enormous opposition during hearings on the proposal from conservationists, lawmakers, and Gov. Chris Christie, who vetoed another version of the project four years ago.

In refusing to act on the latest version of the initiative, federal authorities said in a letter issued earlier this month that they still lack information necessary to complete the final environmental impact statement and determine the project’s financial viability.

When and if the environmental impact statement is completed and a final public hearing is held, the governors of both states can veto the project, impose new conditions, or approve the proposal.

Dominion, international partners host official LNG project groundbreaking (Mar 27) —

The event drew criticism from those who oppose the project. At the county commissioners’ meeting the day before the groundbreaking, Tracey Eno, Lusby resident and representative of Calvert Citizens for a Healthy Community, asked why the groundbreaking was not open to the public, and called it a “townbreaking” ceremony.

“The Cove Point fracked gas export plant will harm the environment, bring unprecedented safety risks to local residents, and raise gas prices for all Marylanders. It is disappointing that Governor Hogan is standing today with a company, Virginia-based Dominion, that has repeatedly withheld critical safety information in disregard for the health and well-being of residents in harm’s way of its project,” Tidwell said in the release.

Gulf of Mexico

FERC approves Annova LNG pre-filing request — LNG World News

The U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued a notice approving Annova LNG Brownsville’s request for the initiation of pre-filing environmental review procedures.

Annova LNG and affiliates plans to construct and operate an LNG export terminal on the Brownsville Ship Channel in Cameron County, Texas. The terminal will include six liquefaction trains with a 1.0 mtpa of LNG capacity with a maximum export output of 6.95 mtpa or 0.93 bcf per day.

British Columbia

Howe Sound and fury: Squamish rally against Woodfibre LNG plant — The Tyee, Vancouver, BC

The Tyee's Bob Mackin has closely followed rising tensions in the community of Squamish, B.C. over the proposed Woodfibre LNG plant. Those tensions flared at a Sunday rally on Nexen beach where Squamish Nation organizer Khelsilem Rivers spoke to a crowd of over 100.

Why the Woodfibre LNG terminal in B.C. must be stopped (Mar 26) —

On Monday, the Council of Canadians made a submission to the B.C. Environment Assessment Office calling on the B.C. government to reject the Woodfibre LNG project.

The Squamish Woodfibre LNG plant will be cooled by sea-water from Howe Sound and every hour will discharge 17,000 tonnes of water -- enough to fill seven Olympic-sized swimming pools -- back into the Sound at 10 degrees above that of the intake. Hypochlorite will be added to the discharge to reduce growth of marine fouling organisms such as mollusks and oysters. This mixture will be discharged into Howe Sound 24 hours per day year round. We are concerned about how this will impact the marine ecosystem of Howe Sound. [Colored & bold emphasis added.]

Woodfibre holds public discussion for LNG project (Mar 26) — Coast Reporter, Sechelt, BC

About 50 area residents were on hand to voice their concerns and ask questions about the Woodfibre LNG project at a round table discussion on Gambier Island last Saturday, March 21.

The biggest concern shared by residents at the meeting was the disruption tankers might cause to Howe Sound, what it would mean for ferries in the area, and for small crafts like kayaks and sailboats.

Woodfibre said 17,000 cubic metres of seawater is taken in through a screen that theoretically will keep most marine life out of the system. What does get sucked in, like microbial life, phytoplankton and anything else smaller than half a centimetre, is treated with chlorine.


Jordan Cove LNG project makes no sense [Opinion] (Mar 26) — The Oregonian, Portland, OR

The Jordan Cove pipeline project makes no sense. Our state takes on all the risks while a foreign company profits. The impact on our environment is far too severe to accept in exchange for a handful of jobs in what is clearly a volatile industry.

I understand and support the desire for good construction jobs, but the cost of this project is so high in every way that I must oppose it. The construction jobs would be temporary, and the costs we all would pay would go on forever.

On the environmental side, recent studies on the methane released during the fracking process for natural gas show that the impact on climate change is even more harmful than burning coal -- the fugitive methane studies for shale-fracked natural gas indicate there is no circumstance under which that natural gas is better than coal; the lowest emission level reported (3.6 percent) is above the coal cut-off (2.8 percent).

In addition, the processing plant in Coos Bay that would be built to receive the natural gas from the pipeline and prepare it for shipping would become the largest polluter in our state as soon as it goes into production. This moves the state in entirely the wrong direction.

Gov. Tom McCall once famously said that Oregon should never be "a hungry hussy throwing herself at every stinking smokestack that's offered." I think that clearly applies to pipelines as well. [Colored & bold emphasis added.]


Hawaiian Electric CEO: We will continue to pursue LNG (Mar 26) — Civil Beat, Honolulu, HI

Hawaiian Electric Industries CEO Connie Lau made it clear during her closing speech Thursday at the Maui Energy Conference that the company will continue to pursue liquefied natural gas as a “bridge fuel.”

Lau acknowledged that people may disagree over how Hawaii gets there — and the pace. A temporary shift to LNG is definitely one of the areas in which there’s disagreement, particularly over the necessary infrastructure costs and concerns over the “fracking” process that is used to produce some natural gas.

Webmaster's comment: Hawaii Electric wants to import LNG when Hawaii has all that geothermal potential?

United States

For FERC’s Sake, Regulate — In These Times

The most important government agency you’ve never heard of has never met a fracking lobbyist it didn’t like.

FERC has a longstanding reputation as an industry-friendly agency. As then-Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Joe Lieberman observed in a scathing report after the Enron collapse in 2002, “Oftentimes, FERC seemed to view itself not as a regulator but as a facilitator—not as a market cop, but as a market cheerleader.” As the main government body charged with regulating Enron, FERC exhibited “a shocking absence of regulatory vigilance,” the report concluded, as well as an ironic failure “to meet the demands of the new, market-based system that the agency itself has championed.”

The makeup of today’s FERC suggests little has changed. Two of the five commissioners, Cheryl LaFleur and Philip Moeller, are former energy company executives—at National Grid and Alliant Energy, respectively. Two others, Colette Honorable and Tony Clark, are former heads of state public service commissions, bodies that are notoriously captive to the public utility companies they oversee. (A former head of Florida’s Public Service Commission once described it as “a wholly-owned subsidiary of the state’s biggest power companies.”) The only commissioner without a history of industry connections is Norman Bay, previously director of FERC’s Office of Enforcement and before that, a law professor.

While current FERC Chair Cheryl LaFleur (former acting CEO of National Grid) hasn’t denied the existence of climate change, she has told the energy website E&E News that there’s no good way to measure the environmental effects of greenhouse gases from pipelines or liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminals. EPA spokesperson Monica Lee disagreed, noting the existence of “many well-developed tools for estimating greenhouse gas emissions from projects, which agencies, including FERC, can draw on in considering environmental impacts.”

FERC’s unwillingness to look at climate impacts—despite being required to do so by the National Environmental Policy Act—is what concerns environmental groups who are trying to stem a tide of proposed multi-billion-dollar LNG export facilities to handle all the fracked shale gas. While industry touts natural gas as a clean alternative energy, opponents cite a Department of Energy study that found the climate impact of exporting U.S. natural gas to Asian markets the same as if those markets continue to use coal. A total of 14 proposals for LNG export terminals had been submitted to FERC as of February. Before construction can begin, however, they require FERC’s stamp of approval. So far, FERC has approved four and has yet to deny any.

“Without question, [FERC is] refusing to do any kind of serious analysis on the greenhouse gas implications or the climate implications of these decisions,” says Ted Glick, national campaign coordinator for the Chesapeake Climate Action Network (CCAN). In September, FERC greenlit Dominion Resources’ controversial expansion to its Cove Point LNG export facility on the shores of the Chesapeake Bay in Maryland.

FERC is unusual among regulatory agencies in considering itself a booster of economic growth. The commission’s 2014 strategic plan includes “foster[ing] economic and environmental benefits for the nation through approval of natural gas and hydropower projects.”

Elefant says that FERC tends to assume from the outset that projects are justified. “They presume, ‘Why else would a company pursue a project if they didn’t think they could make money off of it?’ And that is the bottom line,” Elefant tells In These Times. “The presumption is that a pipeline company or a larger company is going to have resources and smart people that are going to get the right results.”

Further evidence of the tight relationship between FERC and the natural gas industry emerged in March when FERC hired Tetra Tech, a member of the gas industry lobbying group Marcellus Shale Coalition, to do the environmental analysis for the proposed PennEast natural gas pipeline. The coalition’s wholesale support of natural gas projects is expressed in a January 2013 letter from Marcellus Shale CEO Kathryn Klaber to U.S. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, which suggests “moving forward with approval of all pending LNG export applications.”

Webmaster's comment: Tetra Tech, using 15 personnel, was also FERC's contractor in preparing the Downeast LNG Environmental Impact Statement — a document that intentionally omitted NEPA-violating conditions.


2015 March 24

Passamaquoddy Bay

Downeast LNG, Inc.; Application for long-term authorization to export liquefied natural gas produced from domestic natural gas resources to Non-Free Trade Agreement countries for a 20-year period (Mar 16) — Department of Energy, Federal Register

FE Docket No. 14–173–LNG
Notice of Application

SUMMARY: …DELNG seeks authorization to export the natural gas as liquefied natural gas (LNG) by vessel from its proposed LNG terminal to be located in Robbinston, Maine, referred to as the Downeast LNG Import-Export Project.

DELNG requests authorization to export LNG to any country with which the United States does not have a free trade agreement (FTA) requiring national treatment for trade in natural gas and with which trade is not prohibited by U.S. law or policy (non- FTA countries). DELNG requests this non-FTA export authorization for a 20- year term to commence on the earlier of the date of first export or eight years from the date the authorization is granted. DELNG requests this authorization both on its own behalf and as agent for other entities who hold title to the LNG at the time of export. The Application was filed under section 3 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA). Additional details can be found in DELNG’s Application, posted on the DOE/FE Web site at: sites/prod/files/2014/10/f18/ 14_173_lng_nfta_talbert.pdf
. [PDF file; 201.35 KB]
Protests, motions to intervene, notices of intervention, and written comments are invited.

DATES: Protests, motions to intervene or notices of intervention, as applicable, requests for additional procedures, and written comments are to be filed using procedures detailed in the Public Comment Procedures section no later than 4:30 p.m., Eastern time, May 15, 2015.

Electronic Filing by email
Regular Mail
U.S. Department of Energy (FE–34),
Office of Oil and Gas Global Security and Supply,
Office of Fossil Energy,
P.O. Box 44375,
Washington, DC 20026–4375. [Colored & bold emphasis added.]

Webmaster's comment: This is not the FERC permit; this is a separate Department of Energy (DOE) requirement for exporting natural gas to nations that are not parties to the Free Trade Agreement. Downeast LNG has already received DOE authorization to export LNG to nations that are parties to the Free Trade Agreement.

Turkey says no to LNG tankers in the Bosporus Strait, cuts off Black Sea shipping — Oil & Gas 360

[This article also appears under the Turkey heading, below.]

Turkey’s decision could cut off Black Sea countries like Ukraine from LNG tankers

Turkey announced that it will not allow the passage of tankers with liquefied natural gas (LNG) across the Bosporus Strait for fuel supplies to Ukraine, Turkish Ambassador to Kiev Yonet Can Tezel said in an interview Friday. The Bosporus Strait is the only waterway connecting the Black Sea to the Sea of Marmara and on to the Mediterranean, meaning no LNG tankers will be able to enter or leave the Black Sea.

The Ambassador said Turkey’s position was based exclusively on the aspect of maritime shipment safety as the passage of tankers with hazardous cargoes posed a threat to residents of Istanbul, which is divided by the Bosporus Strait, reports Russian news agency TASS. [Colored & bold emphasis added.]

Webmaster's comment: Get it, Downeast LNG? The strait's coastal nation (Turkey) prohibits LNG ship transits through the strait for safety reasons — just as Canada prohibits LNG transits through Head Harbour Passage to and from Downeast LNG's proposed terminal.

Nova Scotia

Bear Head LNG receives permit to construct (Mar 13) — Cape Breton Post, Cape Breton, NS

HALIFAX – The Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board today issued Bear Head Liquefied Natural Gas Corp. an updated and amended permit to construct, making the project the first in Eastern Canada to be granted such authorization.

Bear Head LNG has obtained nine of the 10 initial Canadian federal, provincial, and local regulatory approvals needed to construct a liquefied natural gas export facility on the Strait of Canso.

The Bear Head LNG site is located in Point Tupper, Richmond County, half the shipping distance to major European markets, compared to U.S. Gulf Coast ports.

Webmaster's comment: Of curious note is that Bear Head LNG has not received authority from the US to re-export US-source natural gas as LNG to third party nations, although it has applied for that authorization. Where does Bear Head LNG intend to obtain the natural gas it requires to export if denied by the US?


Drilling group unlikely to tap Gulf of Maine for oil and gas (Mar 3) — Portland Press Herald, Portland, ME [Paid subscription]

Some worried that it might try after Gov. LePage joined the coalition, but an assessment finds the geology of the gulf limits its energy-supply potential.

The assessment by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, updated last year, trimmed the already modest estimates in the North Atlantic to levels that virtually eliminate the possibility of oil and gas drilling off New England.

“In plain English, the geology doesn’t support commercial viability,” John Filostrat, a spokesman for the bureau, told the Portland Press Herald. “Based on the assessment of the data we have, there’s no resource potential in the Gulf of Maine.” [Colored & bold emphasis added.]

New England

The final word on Winter in New England’s energy markets, part I: The difference a year makes — Conservation Law Foundation

Despite dire predictions and some of the worst winter weather on record, there wasn’t a crisis. Modest market shifts made a huge difference, driving down prices, assuring the lights stayed on, and calling into question the wisdom of the region making big new bets on gas pipelines and transmission infrastructure.

Natural gas and wholesale power prices were down compared to last year’s prices—way down. Gas from better-utilized pipelines and shipments of liquefied natural gas were amply supplying power plants, even on cold days. Despite higher electric bills, lower oil and gasoline prices were helping many consumers pay less overall for their energy needs than last winter.

Overall, from December 1 to March 20, prices were down 45%. That’s despite the fact that this winter was colder overall than last year, with a temperature in the Boston area about 4°F below historical averages and 1.5°F colder than last year. [Colored & bold emphasis added.]

As New England freezes, natural gas stays cheap (Mar 2) — Rigzone

Twelve months ago, tumultuous weather in the U.S. Northeast caused record natural gas price spikes and forced some power plants to shut for lack of fuel as power producers scrambled to outbid each other for scarce supplies.

This February, the region has shivered through the coldest weather in 81 years, yet gas prices are a fifth lower than a year ago after power generators, learning lessons from last winter, stocked up on extra oil and gas from domestic and overseas sources before the weather turned cold. [Colored & bold emphasis added.]

Pipeline opponents say LNG is underutilized (Mar 23) — The Boston Globe, Boston, MA

Opponents of proposed natural gas pipelines that would crisscross Massachusetts may have a new ally: a multinational importer of liquefied natural gas.

As Governor Charlie Baker tries to organize a summit of New England governors to address regional energy needs — including the hotly contested issue of building natural gas pipelines — Distrigas of Massachusetts LLC says its LNG facility in Everett is more than capable of meeting the rising demand for natural gas. Officials at Distrigas, owned by France’s GDF Suez, question the need for two multibillion-dollar pipeline projects proposed by other energy suppliers and vehemently opposed by neighbors and environmental groups.

Distrigas’s Everett terminal, company officials said, is running at about 50 percent capacity, despite a 60 percent increase in LNG shipments this year.

Some energy suppliers … note security risks associated with LNG shipments into Boston Harbor, where a team of heavily armed security personnel are deployed in boats and along shorelines every time an LNG tanker steams into the harbor. In the past, law enforcement officials have been concerned about potential terrorist attacks.

But Distrigas’s credibility as an additional source of energy grew this winter when increased LNG imports were credited with helping avert natural gas shortages during this winter’s extreme cold and record-breaking snow.

Heading into this winter, generators jacked up electricity prices by as much as 40 percent in anticipation of natural gas shortages, which were passed on to consumers by utilities. But those natural gas shortages and electricity price spikes did not happen this winter, partly due to increased LNG shipments.

Spectra Energy Corp. … has teamed with local utilities Eversource Energy (formerly Nstar and Northeast Utilities) and National Grid to expand the existing Algonquin gas pipeline system in the region. Known as Access Northeast, that project also includes expanding the capacity of the Maritimes & Northeast line, which carries liquefied natural gas from ships anchored off Eastern Canada. The project could cost up to $3 billion. (Customers would pay the costs of pipeline projects through higher rates.) [Colored & bold emphasis added.]

Webmaster's comment: There also are two (~5 years old) underused new offshore LNG import terminals in Massachusetts Bay (Neptune LNG and Northeast Gateway), and an existing shoreside LNG import terminal at Saint John, New Brunswick (Canaport LNG). Neptune LNG service has been suspended for lack of use — no imports in 5 years. Those existing terminals are more than sufficient to meet regional peak natural gas demands.

Old system, new solution?: Liquefied natural gas could be pipeline alternative (Mar 11) — WBUR, National Public Radio, Boston, MA

EVERETT, Mass. — In recent years there has been a revolution in the way New England generates its electricity. Since 2000 the amount produced by burning natural gas has tripled. And today, more than half of our electricity comes from gas imported from outside the region.

But as the use of gas has soared, so too have electric bills here, especially in the dead of winter. That’s when the demand for gas for heating and electricity is highest, creating bottlenecks along interstate pipelines.

The transformation of our electric generating system has ignited a contentious debate over whether additional pipeline capacity is needed.

One possible alternative is natural gas — in a different form. And one alternative to pipelines is located in [Everett upriver from] Boston Harbor along the Mystic River, not far from Logan International Airport.

It’s called the Everett Distrigas LNG terminal, and it’s the oldest terminal of its kind in the United States. For over 40 years ships from foreign countries have been supplying New England with liquefied natural gas.

The Everett LNG tanks contain enough natural gas to heat and light all of Massachusetts for a day, and there are two more LNG terminals, under the sea, 12 miles off the coast of Gloucester Harbor. Built just a few years ago, they’ve gone virtually unused until this winter, when one received a shipment.

…[O]perators of the Maritimes and Northeast Pipeline, which currently brings gas from Canada to the region, recently filed for permission to reverse the flow. That would enable the pipeline to carry cheap shale gas from Pennsylvania, through Massachusetts, back to Canada, and perhaps beyond.

“It’s very funny,” [vice president of operations for GDF Suez Anthony Scaraggi] said. “When you add up all of the capacity they want to bring into New England it’s multiples of the capacity that we actually use in New England. I don’t know how you do that. So that’s classic overbuild.” [Colored & bold emphasis added.]

Webmaster's comment: The Everett terminal site is eminently inappropriate for an LNG terminal, as indicated by the LNG industry, itself; but it's already there. The two offshore terminals near Boston are idle. Canaport LNG in New Brunswick, Canada, has been operating at a mere fraction of capacity. If we are destined to burn natural gas while renewable forms of energy are developed, then why invest even more billions of dollars in new pipelines that would be needed for only around 40 days a year when the necessary natural gas supply infrastructure already exists?


State legislative Dems want Gov. Cuomo to reject Port Ambrose gas project (Mar 23) — NY Daily News, New York, NY

Fifty-two state legislative Democrats have joined the effort to kill a proposed natural gas project off the Long Island coast.

The Dems sent a letter to Cuomo asking that he kill the Port Ambrose project the same way he rejected upstate hydrofracking late last year. They join a host of bipartisan critics of the project, including Senate GOP Leader Dean Skelos and Democratic City Controller Scott Stringer.

Phila. again ponders allure of liquefied natural gas (Mar 22) —, Philadelphia, PA

Despite Philadelphia City Council's "unqualified" rejection nine years ago of a terminal for liquefied natural gas, the city is once again flirting with the money-making allure of LNG.

The most ambitious plan floated publicly is a $2.1 billion proposal to expand the Port Richmond plant's capacity to export LNG to European markets.

"It's not a project we should be considering at all," State Sen. Mike Stack, now the lieutenant governor, said in 2006 after visiting Boston to witness its LNG traffic.

City Council rejected the plan in 2006 by a 12-2 vote in a nonbinding resolution declaring its "unqualified opposition to any project that would create an LNG shipping terminal within the City of Philadelphia."

There is no shortage of complications that could trip up a revived plan to build an export terminal, which would attract substantial activist opposition this time because exports would boost demand for hydraulically fractured shale gas.

An export terminal would need upgraded pipelines to deliver up to 700 million cubic feet of gas a day to the LNG plant. The Tioga Marine Terminal would need to be relocated to accommodate LNG vessels. And the major bridges linking this area with New Jersey might be closed during the departure of LNG vessels. [Colored & bold emphasis added.]

Webmaster's comment: Dollar signs again blind public servants.


American LNG Marketing granted authority for LNG exports to FTA nations — LNG Law Blog

The U.S. Department of Energy has issued an order granting American LNG Marketing authority to export over a 20-year period 3.02 Bcf/year of LNG produced at the proposed Hialeah liquefaction facility in Medley, Fla. American LNG Marketing is authorized to export the LNG to nations having a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with the United States.


House OKs bill to limit Walker’s gas plan (Mar 23) — Fairbanks Daily News, Fairbanks, AK

JUNEAU — In the latest tussle between Gov. Bill Walker and the Republican-led House, the House on Monday night passed a bill directly aimed at halting Walker’s plans to field an alternative to a producer-backed gas line project.

House Bill 132 explicitly prevents the state from fielding its own large-scale pipeline project until either the fulfillment or failure of a state partnership with the North Slope oil producers on a liquefied natural gas export project known as Alaska LNG.

The move is a direct response to Walker’s plans to use Alaska Gasline Development Corporation to explore upsizing the in-state line known as the Alaska Standalone Gas Pipeline, or ASAP. Walker announced the plan amid concerns that Alaska LNG might not be the best deal for Alaskans.

British Columbia & Oregon

Woodfibre LNG Project opposition heats up as FortisBC Inc challenges Squamish permit denial (Mar 23) — Financial Post, Don Mills, ON

B.C. utility provider FortisBC filed a petition March 10 with the province’s Supreme Court against the district of Squamish, after the municipality rejected an application to study the feasibility for a natural gas export pipeline.

“It’s fair to say, from a utility perspective, we have never come up against this type of opposition,” said Trevor Bourdeau, spokesperson for FortisBC, as people have linked some of the developments to the larger debate on climate change.

The permits are necessary for FortisBC to conduct feasibility work on its $520-million Eagle Mountain pipeline for its customer Woodfibre LNG, which is proposing a small liquefied natural gas export project in the area.

Oregon LNG project races B.C. rivals (Mar 8) — The Globe and Mail, Toronto, ON

A liquefied natural gas project in Oregon must find suitable partners as it strives to beat B.C. rivals in the race to be the first large exporter of LNG from the West Coast of North America.

Veresen Inc.’s Jordan Cove LNG venture has a prospective new partner, Energy Fundamentals Group Inc. (EFG), while other investors waiting in the wings include prominent Canadian hedge fund West Face Capital Inc., which has emerged as a surprise participant in the EFG-led consortium that is seeking to buy a minority stake in the project in Coos Bay, Ore.


LNG exports from Canada a distant prospect, analyst says (Mar 3) — CBC News

Energy economist Kenneth Medlock says Canada's projects are too expensive to compete

The ship has already sailed in the global race to export liquefied natural gas to Asia, according to U.S. energy economist Kenneth Medlock — and Canada has missed it.

Medlock was a keynote speaker at the Canadian Energy Research Institute's annual conference on natural gas. This year the conference was called LNG: Canada's Last Window of Opportunity.

"We don't see any LNG exports from Canada until almost 2040," he said in an interview.

The largest issue is cost. Canadian projects are greenfield, meaning they are being built from scratch.

Once [US LNG export] capacity comes online, Medlock expects, Asian LNG prices will drop to the point where Canadian facilities are no longer viable.


Turkey says no to LNG tankers in the Bosporus Strait, cuts off Black Sea shipping — Oil & Gas 360

[This article also appears under the Passamaquoddy Bay heading, above.]

Turkey’s decision could cut off Black Sea countries like Ukraine from LNG tankers

Turkey announced that it will not allow the passage of tankers with liquefied natural gas (LNG) across the Bosporus Strait for fuel supplies to Ukraine, Turkish Ambassador to Kiev Yonet Can Tezel said in an interview Friday. The Bosporus Strait is the only waterway connecting the Black Sea to the Sea of Marmara and on to the Mediterranean, meaning no LNG tankers will be able to enter or leave the Black Sea.

The Ambassador said Turkey’s position was based exclusively on the aspect of maritime shipment safety as the passage of tankers with hazardous cargoes posed a threat to residents of Istanbul, which is divided by the Bosporus Strait, reports Russian news agency TASS. [Colored & bold emphasis added.]

Webmaster's comment: Get it, Downeast LNG? The strait's coastal nation (Turkey) prohibits LNG ship transits through the strait for safety reasons — just as Canada prohibits LNG transits through Head Harbour Passage to and from Downeast LNG's proposed terminal.


2015 March 23

Passamaquoddy Bay

FERC updates on Downeast LNG review process (Mar 16) — LNG World News

FERC informed in a filing that it has started the review of the project on August 11, 2014, when it approved Downeast Liquefaction’s request to use the FERC pre-filing process. The environmental issue identification process is being conducted during this phase of our review. The pre-filing process will end when Downeast Liquefaction formally files its application with the FERC.

New Brunswick

British Merchant LNG tanker diverted towards Canada’s Canaport import terminal (Mar 19) — Customs Today

LONDON: The British Merchant liquefied natural gas (LNG) tanker has been diverted towards Canada’s Canaport import terminal after initially being listed as bound for the UK’s Isle of Grain port, shipping data showed.

The 130,000-cubic-metre-capacity tanker loaded cargo at Trinidad and was initially listed as due to arrive at Isle of Grain on Feb. 25, but is now listed as bound for Canaport, ship-tracking software on Reuters Eikon shows.


Groups urge Gov’s to veto Port Ambrose LNG project (Mar 18) — LNG World News

An advocacy group, Food & Water Watch, sent a letter to Governors Chris Christie and Andrew Cuomo signed by 217 national, state and local organizations, calling on the governors to veto Port Ambrose LNG project.

Upon approval, Port Ambrose would establish the region’s first industrial facility in 14 years, create a navigational hazard near the entrance to the busiest port on the east coast, threaten livelihoods by excluding fisherman from important and traditional fishing grounds, and pose a risk to national-security due to the highly volatile nature of LNG and proximity to the New York Harbor and several international airports, the letter said.

If converted to an export facility, the project’s threats would be compounded by the extent it would drive demand for drilling and fracking for natural gas, stands in the letter. The group warns of fracking downsides as well as the expansion of project’s accompanying pipelines.

New Yorkers urge Cuomo to veto Port Ambrose LNG terminal (Mar 17) — The Indypendent, Brooklyn, NY

Scores of environmental advocates joined with their elected officials outside City Hall on Monday to urge Governor Andrew Cuomo to veto the Port Ambrose natural gas terminal, which would be built almost 20 miles off the coast of Long Island’s South Shore.

The rally was held on the last day for public comments on an environmental impact study released by the Maritime Administration and the U.S. Coast Guard, the federal agencies tasked with accessing how the project might affect surrounding communities. More than 60,000 comments had been submitted by Monday morning. An overwhelming majority of the comments opposed building Port Ambrose and disputed the study’s conclusion that the project would have a minimal impact on the environment.

Long Island resident and activist George Povell said that opposition to Port Ambrose is almost unanimous in the coastal communities closest to the proposed facility. Many of the area’s elected officials, including Senate Republican majority leader Dean Skelos, have vocally opposed the project.

NRDC to Feds: Deny permit for Port Ambrose LNG project. Promote clean energy instead. [Blog] (Mar 17) — Switchboard, Natural Resources Defense Council

The federal government, New York State and New Jersey should reject the Port Ambrose project because the facility could prevent forward movement on what could be New York state's first offshore wind project. Instead, the United States, New York state and the region should be working together to build a clean energy future. In fact, it would be the height of irony--and a damaging energy policy--to privilege the construction of a fossil-fuel import facility over a much-needed and long-overdue renewable offshore wind facility that represents a cleaner, healthier future for our children and future generations of New Yorkers.

Violations settled at Maryland natural gas facility (Mar 19) — EHS Today

Dominion Cove Point will pay a civil penalty to settle allegations that it released ammonia into the air without reporting it.

Dominion Cove Point LNG will pay $365,000 to settle allegations that it released ammonia into the air from its liquefied natural gas distribution facility in Lusby, Md without reporting it.

The EPA cited Dominion for not reporting 27 releases of more than 100 pounds of ammonia from its turbines while generating electricity at the site.

Facilties are required to report any release of more than 100 pounds to the National Response Center, the state emergency response commission and local emergency planning officials, all of which Dominion failed to do. The company also didn’t submit the required follow-up reports to those agencies.

“When manufacturing facilities experience the release of a reportable substance, they must notify emergency responders so nearby communities can be properly protected,” said Shawn M. Garvin, EPA Mid-Atlantic Regional Administrator. [Colored & bold emphasis added.]

Webmaster's comment:Dominion Cove Point LNG has demonstrated that it cannot be trusted to self report, so the EPA fines them and then allows them to continue to self report.

Gulf of Mexico

FERC releases project update for Magnolia LNG terminal and Lake Charles Expansion Project (Mar 19) — LNG Law Blog

FERC has released an update of its review of the proposed Magnolia LNG export terminal at Lake Charles, La. and the proposed Kinder Morgan Lake Charles Expansion pipeline to provide gas service to the Magnolia LNG terminal. FERC is currently preparing a draft environmental impact statement for the projects which will be made available for public comment.

FERC releases project update for Mississippi River LNG project (Mar 19) — LNG Law Blog

FERC has released an update of its review of Louisiana Liquefied Natural Gas Energy’s (LLNGE) proposed Mississippi River LNG export terminal project in Plaquemines Parish, La. LLNGE is currently preparing a second round of draft environmental resource reports for submission to FERC. FERC and stakeholders may submit comments on the reports once submitted, after which LLNGE will file a formal application for the project.

Three more LNG companies seeking a spot inside Port of Brownsville export terminal (Mar 13) — San Antonio Business Journal, San Antonio, TX

Just this week, both Texas LNG and Annova LNG submitted pre-filing letters to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission asking regulators to approve their proposed terminals along the Brownsville Ship Channel.

Campirano told the San Antonio Business Journal that three more companies: Gulf Coast LNG, NextDecade LNG and SEG Sideco LNG are also looking to build facilities in the Port of Brownsville.

One group named " Save RGV from LNG" is opposed to the terminal project citing environmental concerns.

Columbia Gulf files application to provide transportation service to Cameron LNG terminal (Mar 11) — LNG Law Blog

Columbia Gulf Transmission (Gulf) has filed an application with FERC to construct facilities to enable it to provide 800 million standard cubic feet per day of firm natural gas transportation service to the existing Cameron LNG terminal near Hackberry, La. for liquefaction. Gulf requests FERC action on its application to permit it to commence service on or before December 2017.

FERC approves Cameron LNG Pre-Filing request for expansion (Mar 3) — LNG Law Blog

FERC has issued an order approving Cameron LNG’s request to initiate the pre-filing environmental review process for a proposed Expansion Project comprised of two additional liquefaction trains (Trains 4 and 5) and a fifth LNG tank to be located at the Cameron LNG terminal near Hackberry, La. The proposed Expansion Project will increase the LNG production capacity of the terminal by approximately 10 million metric tons per year. Expansion Project operations are anticipated to begin in 2019.

Magnolia LNG receives Coast Guard Waterway Suitability approval (Mar 3) — LNG Law Blog

The U.S. Coast Guard has issued a Letter of Recommendation to FERC recommending that the Calcasieu River Ship Channel, through which Magnolia LNG proposes to transport LNG from its proposed LNG export terminal at Lake Charles, La., be considered suitable for LNG marine traffic as it relates to safety and security.

British Columbia

Anti-LNG rally planned for March 29 (Mar 19) — The Squamish Chief, Squamish, BC

Skwomesh Action organizing anti-LNG rally at Nexen Beach

Williams, from Squamish’s Waiwakum village, is an organizer with the Skwomesh Action group, which is planning an anti-LNG protest in collaboration with the environmentalist group My Sea to Sky at Nexen Beach on March 29.

Skwomesh Action, a group consisting mostly of Squamish Nation women, formed last year in response to the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion Project and has now expanded to take on the proposed Woodfibre LNG facility slated for Howe Sound near Squamish and associated FortisBC natural gas pipeline project.

Head of BG Group's Canadian LNG project leaves, not being replaced (Mar 17) — Reuters Canada

VANCOUVER (Reuters) - The head of BG Group Plc's Canadian unit has left Vancouver to take another role in the company and will not be replaced, the company said on Tuesday, delivering another blow to British Columbia's fledgling liquefied natural gas industry.

Madeline Whitaker, who was appointed president of BG Canada in September 2013 and was overseeing the development of the Prince Rupert LNG project, has taken a new role at company headquarters in Britain, spokesman David Byford told Reuters.

BG Group said late last year that it was slowing work on its Prince Rupert LNG project, delaying a final investment decision to 2017 at the earliest. Malaysia's Petronas in December pushed back a decision on its Pacific NorthWest LNG project to later this year.

Woodfibre LNG worries Squamish First Nation amid Howe Sound revitalization (Mar 13) — CBC News

"We've seen a resurgence of revitalization of Atl'kitsem, known as Howe Sound," — told The Early Edition's Rick Cluff on Friday morning.

"This is considered a celebration of the return of the herring biomass, the whales, the orcas that are in the water as we speak. This hasn't happened for quite some decades due to the cumulative impacts of industrialization in the early days."


Warrenton Planning Commission wades into Oregon LNG project (Mar 20) — The Daily Astorian, Astoria, OR

WARRENTON ­— The Warrenton Planning Commission Thursday night considered a sliver of Oregon LNG’s proposed export terminal: whether traffic conditions the city imposed are still relevant to the liquefied natural gas project.

City planners have recommended approval of Oregon LNG’s request.

Dan Serres, the conservation director for Columbia Riverkeeper, a Hood River-based environmental group, questioned whether Oregon LNG can make the request without authorization from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Oregon LNG and the Army Corps are in federal court over an easement the Corps claims on the Skipanon Peninsula. The firm did get authorization from the state, the Port of Astoria and a private landowner along the peninsula.

Environmentalists, fishermen and many residents have opposed the project as a threat to the Columbia River and a risk to residents in Warrenton and Astoria in the event of an explosion.

Webmaster's comment: The Army Corps of Engineers has an easement needed for the Oregon LNG terminal. The Corps is not relinquishing the easement.

Court asked to intervene over Squamish denial of pipeline drilling permit (Mar 17) — The Tyee, Vancouver, BC

FortisBC Energy wants the B.C. Supreme Court to overturn the district of Squamish's decision to deny a permit needed to conduct test drilling related to the proposed Woodfibre LNG plant.

Squamish district council voted 4-3 on Jan. 20 to deny the company the permit required to assess the feasibility of a trenchless natural gas pipeline across the Squamish River and part of the Skwelwil'em Squamish Estuary Wildlife Management Area.

Article discusses financing issues for Jordan Cove Energy project LNG terminal (Mar 10) — LNG Law Blog

An article in the Globe and Mail discusses financing issues related to the proposed Jordan Cove Energy Project bidirectional LNG terminal at Coos Bay, Ore., and speculates whether the terminal will begin LNG exports sooner than rival projects proposed in British Columbia.


Ottawa grants tax breaks for LNG sector in B.C. (Feb 19) — The Globe and Mail, Toronto, ON

Ottawa has agreed to grant tax relief to proposed B.C. liquefied natural gas terminals, hoping the incentive will help persuade LNG backers to make final investment decisions.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced the federal tax breaks for B.C.’s fledgling LNG sector during a visit to Surrey on Thursday, saying lower taxes on industry players will spur economic activity.

United States

U.S. LNG projects hit by energy price slide (Mar 13) — Reuters

  • Energy Aspects sees 1 U.S. project getting go-ahead in 2015
  • BG Group delayed final decision on Lake Charles until 2016

Sinking oil and gas prices have put the brakes on the development of the U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG) industry, with planned projects being delayed or even scrapped altogether.

A halving of energy prices has dramatically changed the economics of export projects and cut investment plans, however, with only one of dozens of planned projects expected to win a final investment decision this year.

"Global gas prices have fallen so far that the economics for everyone looks difficult," Trevor Sikorski, analyst at UK-based consultancy Energy Aspects said.

Excelerate Energy's Texan liquefied natural gas terminal plan has already been put on hold, while the final investment decision on BG Group's Lake Charles project has been delayed until 2016 from 2015. [Colored & bold emphasis added.]

U.S. advises oil companies how to break the law, approves LNG despite fracking fallacy debate (Jan 2) — Art Berman

In the waning hours of 2014, the U.S. government slipped a few things past us:

  • It advised oil companies how to get around the law prohibiting crude oil export by “self-classifying” crude oil as “not crude oil”, and
  • Approved an LNG export facility despite the Fracking Fallacy debate that suggests that the U.S. may not have enough natural gas to meet our own demand in a few years much less send gas to the rest of the world.

On December 30, 2014, Reuters reported that the U.S. Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security advised oil companies that they could self-classify their light tight oil and condensate as “processed condensate” and legally evade the ban on exporting crude oil. Crude oil export has been illegal since 1975 when President Ford signed the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA). The idea behind the legislation was to keep domestic oil in the U.S. as a strategic buffer against the global oil price fluctuations created by the embargoes of 1967 and 1973.

Also in the last minutes of 2014, FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) approved Cheniere Energy’s request to build its Corpus Christi LNG (liquefied natural gas) Terminal in southern Texas. Other LNG export facilities were previously approved but this is the first green-field facility to be authorized. Its cost will be approximately $12 billion.

The timing of this approval is wrong because of the Fracking Fallacy debate that casts doubt on future supply of natural gas in the United States. The government should postpone decisions on new export licenses until the present debate on supply is resolved or at least better defined than it is today. [Colored & bold emphasis added.]


2015 March 12

Passamaquoddy Bay

Downeast LNG secures DOE FTA export approval — LNG World News

Downeast LNG has won an approval from the the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to export over a 20-year period 168 Bcf/year of LNG from its proposed terminal in Robbinston, Maine, to nations with a Free Trade Agreement (FTA).

Downeast LNG is proposing to construct a bi-directional LNG facility with the capability of liquefying LNG for domestic and export markets.

The project plans to buy gas at Wright, NY, which could be US sourced gas or Canadian gas that is either imported via the Iroquois Pipeline or from Ontario via the TransCanada pipeline and the PNGTS system. [Colored & bold emphasis added.]

DOE approves Downeast LNG exports to FTA nations (Mar 11) — LNG Law Blog

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has issued an order granting Downeast LNG authorization to export over a 20-year period 168 Bcf/year of LNG from its proposed terminal in Robbinston, Maine, to nations with a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with the United States. [Colored & bold emphasis added.]


PIRA: European spot prices continue to slide (Mar 11) — LNG World News

In the U.S., as winter’s chapter approaches its closure, it is increasingly apparent that little has occurred to arrest fears of a structurally oversupplied market. [Colored & bold emphasis added.]


Add our banner to your webpage: Save Passamaquoddy Bay

Read about the effort to Fix FERC: FixFERC

Spam Harvester Protection Network
provided by Unspam