Download free Adobe Reader software for PDF files.

Top

30 November 2006

SPB slams FERC — Saint Croix Courier, St. Stephen, NB

Although FERC is an agency within the Department of Energy (DOE), when FERC misbehaves, the only apparent recourse is the courts and Congressional legislation, said Godfrey, and, although it is FERC’s responsibility to be honest and truthful with the public, and to present information in ways that are not deceptive or misleading, FERC has not been abiding by that responsibility.

Godfrey said, “The result has been damage to the credibility of FERC, the FERC permitting process, the DOE, American energy infrastructure, and the US Government. It has generated mistrust among the public, and rightly so.”

SPB is suggesting that it is time for Congress to hold hearings regarding FERC’s violation of the public trust, and to put into place a FERC Commission that includes proactive interests of public safety. “The American public has the right to demand that FERC be held accountable for its misbehavior, and to insist that Congress set right an agency that has gone wrong.” [Bold red emphasis added.] (Nov 28)

Top

27 November 2006

LNG donation in jeopardy — Herald News, Fall River, MA

"According to Fall River, they have not used (the $25,000) yet and, as of right now, it is not a necessity to fight LNG," Turner said. He added that, by taking the money originally appropriated from Fall River, the town will only be spending $5,000 for a $30,000 project. "We are looking for $5,000 more and we can apply it to an integral part of our appeal. ... "No pipeline, no LNG." (Nov 26)

Top

25 November 2006

Save Passamaquoddy Bay flyers distributed — Saint Croix Courier, St. Stephen, NB

ST. ANDREWS — Save Passamaquoddy Bay/Canada have distributed pamphlets to every home in Charlotte County explaining why they are opposed to LNG (liquefied natural gas) and asking residents to help them in their fight. (Nov 21)

Top

20 November 2006

LNG: The Great Divide — National Post, Don Mills, ON

Capt. Peacock, for one, disputes there is widespread opposition, even in tranquil St. Andrews. "The only opposition there is from rich Americans who bought homes there," he says. (Nov 18)

WEBMASTER'S COMMENTS: The National Post article falls flat on its face:

1. The story fails to disclose that Capt. Peacock could reap hundreds of thousands of dollars per year in LNG tanker pilotage fees.
    
2. The waterway suitability issue involves more than just the ability to safely bring in an LNG carrier via computer simulation. The Passamaquoddy Bay LNG projects would violate several Society of International Gas Tanker and Terminal Operators (SIGTTO) best-practices standards, including:
   1. A long and winding channel with several navigational hazards;
   2. Fast currents and great tides, including a significant whirlpool;
   3. LNG piers close to the navigable waterway;
   4. Waterway with pre-existing incompatible uses (fishing, pleasure boating, sailing, whalewatching, etc.);
   5. Navigable fairway and terminals too close to civilians and civilian assets, to whom escaped LNG vapor could do harm;
   6. The several navigational issues magnify probability and results of human error, and
   7. A greater-than-zero probability of a large LNG release, due to the aforementioned problems.
       
3. A "leaky" international border. This border in Quoddy (the Passamaquoddy Bay area) is historically significant as a smuggling center — an activity that continues, even today. Border security is problematic.
    
4. Canada does not require LNG vessel inspection or armed LNG-vessel escort. Since LNG vessels would not enter US waters until nearly at downtown Eastport, vessel inspection, security, and potential impact on US civilians and civilian assets — as well as on Coast Guard personnel and assets that are located there — are an issue.
    
5. The US is not a party to the UN Law of the Sea Convention, and Congress has rejected joining the treaty on numerous occasions, stating that it isn't in the US's best interests. Since treaties require agreement between the affected countries, the US has no "innocent passage" rights under the UN Law of the Sea Convention.
    
6. Around 75% of the Quoddy population is Canadian, and -- contrary to Peacock's statement that there is little Canadian opposition -- Canadian opposition is nearly unanimous. Note that the anti-LNG rally held in St. Andrews, New Brunswick, was attended by 1,200 people. St. Andrews has a population of around 1,600. The number of Robbinston voters who supported the Downeast LNG project was merely 227. That hardly qualifies as an endorsement by the Quoddy community.
    
   The "informational meeting" that Quoddy Bay LNG held on Campobello Island was met with a full house of openly hostile island residents, as reported in the Quoddy Tides Newspaper.
    
7. While many ships have used the approach through Canadian waters into Passamaquoddy Bay, there have been times in history where shipping between Canada and the US at this location was embargoed by the US and Great Britain.
    
8. Although Downeast LNG is talking about 50 LNG ships per year, Quoddy Bay LNG is planning on around 150 ships per year. In total, that would mean that nearly every day there would be an LNG carrier either entering or leaving Passamaquoddy Bay, interrupting other waterway users on a regular basis.
    
9. The "extreme currents" aren't the reason why ships would be required to use Canadian waters to enter Passamaquoddy Bay. There are no other viable deep-draft approaches into the Bay without passing through Canada. The only waterway that enters Passamaquoddy Bay where a vessel can remain wholly in US waters is via Lubec narrows; however, it isn't wide enough, possibly isn't deep enough, and there is a low international bridge in the way.
    
10. LNG doesn't "wean" the US off of foreign energy supplies, since LNG comes from overseas countries -- many of whom would like to see the downfall of the US.
     
11. NIMBYism isn't the primary issue. The issue is "where is the best place to locate LNG terminals?" In the absence of any real US LNG siting policy, FERC's policy is to allow industry developers to propose terminals in just any old place, at all -- including sites that violate SIGTTO LNG-industry standards.
     
    Offshore siting (many miles offshore), using submerged buoy technology, eliminates risks to civilians and civilian assets, reduces security risks, makes terminal expansion easier, and makes terminal construction financially competitive with land-based terminals. The first undersea LNG storage tanks are now being built by a Korean firm, meaning that offshore terminals can offload their cargo, but won't have to immediately inject natural gas into the pipeline, taking advantage of market prices and pipeline capacity and demand.
    
    In addition, the Quoddy-area LNG proposals would result in a net negative economic impact on the area, due to demands on infrastructure, tax realities, and the negative impacts on existing industries, as evidenced by the "Whole Bay Study" — objectively conducted research by a Vermont rural community development company with over 20-years of experience (paid for by Save Passamaquoddy Bay).
     
    Shoreside LNG terminals use outdated technology, have inherent potential problems related to other ships in the waterway, and frequently pose risks to civilians.
     
12. Lastly, the National Post article states, "Both [Secretary of State Condoleezza] Rice and [Department of Energy Secretary] Bodman have told Canada it is illegal for it to try to prevent ships from entering a U.S. port." Interestingly, this webmaster received a return telephone call today from a representative of the US Department of State, who indicated being unaware of any such statement related to Passamaquoddy Bay from Secretary of State Rice, or of the Department of State taking such a position. Perhaps the National Post reference was referring to another US port with different circumstances, such as on the West Coast.
     
    It is most unlikely that the US State Department would take any stand at all regarding these two Quoddy-area projects, especially since they are both unnecessary: even the LNG industry has indicated that LNG import infrastructure — permitted and proposed — in the Northeast is being overbuilt by 400%. These local projects are unneeded.
     
    If Dean Girdis actually wanted a sure way of importing LNG to the US, they'd simply purchase the already-permitted Anadarko LNG project in Nova Scotia. The problem is that there is insufficient LNG supply, and Girdis knows it. He announced in 2005 that Downeast LNG might never find a supply or a customer — and, to paraphrase Girdis — even if Downeast LNG could overcome the 70% probability that his project will fail.
     
    It boils down to this: Girdis (Downeast LNG) and the Smiths (Quoddy Bay LNG) are keeping their projects alive because their venture-capitalist investors are putting money in their pockets for as long as they can keep the projects going. The investors know that their projects are likely to fail, but are gambling that one of their many ventures will succeed. If and when that happens, the investors will make many times over the amount lost on their combined projects. The local in-the-field developers know that they have no chance of success, but want to keep their own income flowing.

At best, the National Post article is an example of irresponsible journalism.

Top

17 November 2006

U.S. LNG imports falling fast, surprising analysts -- 2006 currently trending below 2003, conference to examine why — market Wire / LNG Express

HOUSTON, TX — (MARKET WIRE) — November 13, 2006

Adding current construction and planned expansions at existing terminals, capacity is likely to exceed 23 bcfd by the year 2011, creating possibly a glut of terminal space like what occurred in the 1980s when LNG was expected to fill a large portion U.S. demand. [Bold emphasis added.] (Nov 13)

WEBMASTER'S COMMENTS: Doom and gloom hovers persistently low above Downeast LNG and Quoddy Bay LNG.

Top

11 November 2006

[CAT] Ferry Traffic Risky for Right Whales — Ellsworth American, Ellsworth, ME

[Sierra Club member Mark Dittrick] said the liquid natural gas (LNG) terminals proposed for sites along the Passamaquoddy Bay in Maine and a proposed basalt quarry on the Digby Peninsula of Nova Scotia, if built, would put giant cargo ships in the waters where right whales are known to congregate. (Nov 9)

Top

9 November 2006

Repsol, Irving Oil, raise $715 million for Canadian LNG plant — Bloomberg.com

Repsol is already one of the top suppliers of LNG to the U.S., mainly from Trinidad and Tobago, where it cools the gas into a liquid for shipping in tankers. (Nov 7)

Top

5 November 2006

Calypso LNG [in Florida] proposal moves ahead — Energy Online, Los Altos, CA

Calypso LNG, LLC, wednesday announced that it has received a notification from the United States Coast Guard stating that Calypso's application for a Deepwater Port License [for 10 miles offshore from Port Everglades, Florida] is complete. A statutory review period for approval of the license to build and operate Calypso's proposed offshore liquefied natural gas facility is expected to begin shortly. (Nov 3)

Debate continues over Canadian right to deny LNG ship passage — Quoddy Tides, Eastport, ME

According to Ambra Dickie, spokesman for Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, the Canadian representatives clearly stated that the waters of Passamaquoddy Bay are Canadian internal waters and there is no right of innocent passage for foreign vessels. "Canada maintains the right to regulate the use of these waters," she says. (Oct 27)

WEBMASTER'S COMMENTS: There is no question that Canada will prevent LNG tankers from transiting Head Harbour Passage. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was informed of this some time ago. Canada's Prime Minister Harper announced it in September to Parliament. Even Dean Girdis was told, face-to-face, when he attempted in September to lobby the Canadian Government in Ottawa.

Both local LNG developers claim that they have rights under the UN Law of the Sea Convention that would permit LNG tanker transit into Passamaquoddy Bay. The developers are wrong on several counts :

• The Law of the Sea Convention is a treaty among signatories, and the US has repeatedly refused to sign-on as a member, stating that it is not in the best interests of the United States. Treaties require agreement among all involved parties. US interests cannot require Canada to provide rights to US interests that the US — by refusing to sign the treaty — would not afford to Canada;
• Most of the Bay of Fundy, including Head Harbour Passage, are defined by the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, as internal Canadian waters, giving Canada the right to determine what marine traffic transits through them. The Law of the Sea defines as Canadian internal waters all water to the east of a straight line drawn from the west shore of St. Andrews, NB, to the southwest end of Nova Scotia;
• The Innocent Passage provision of the Law of the Sea would be violated by LNG transit, since such transit would pose hazards to residents of the host coastal state (Canada).

The LNG developers are in the hypocritical, circular-argument position of claiming protection under the Law of the Sea, while at the same time rejecting the Law of the Sea provisions that would prevent their LNG transit. Simply put, they can't have it both ways, and they can't have it, at all.

Downeast LNG and Quoddy Bay LLC/LNG failed to do their required homework before beginning their projects, and the result is that both have failed, needlessly creating division among friends, family, and neighbors. Had Downeast LNG President Dean Girdis and Quoddy Bay LLC President Don Smith done their proper homework, they would have never targeted Passamaquoddy Bay. Unfortunately for all of us living here, we're the ones who are paying for the developers' lack of due diligence.