"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 ||
|Letter from Dean (December)|
|Our vision for the future [Editorial] (Dec 12)|
31 December 2006
The Margaret Chase Smith study, paid for by Downeast LNG, is deeply flawed and based on misleading and unsupportable assumptions regarding the proportion of supplies and employment that will be procured within the State of Maine. For example, in Louisiana, where there is a long history of LNG terminal construction and operation (Louisiana imports 230 billion cubic feet of LNG a year), Tulane-Entergy Energy Institute estimated that 63% of the spending needed to expand eight LNG projects would occur in-state. A study of LNG expansion in Maryland, with greater LNG capacity than Maine but far less than Louisiana, determined that only 3% of materials and labor would be procured in state. The Margaret Chase Smith assumes 72% of spending on LNG construction and operations will occur in Maine.
As we have explained previously with respect to the numbers in the Yellow Wood study pertaining to tugboat crews, if one is interested in facts and not inflammatory rumor, one would find that the page from which a portion of our information was derived pertains directly to tugboats, not scuba diving. According to an article appearing in the Boothbay Register on June 10, 2004, the James R. Moran, a new Z-drive tugboat built by Washburn & Doughty, "frequently operates with a crew of three, comprising a captain, deckhand and engineer, assisting as many as 90 of the world's largest LNG tankers at [Dominion Natural Gas LNG terminal]."
WEBMASTER'S COMMENTS: The above references DELNG's December newsletter.
- Louisiana 63% in-state spending. Louisiana has a hugh amount of LNG infrastructure and construction experience.
- Maryland 3% in-state spending. Maryland has more LNG infrastructure and construction experience than Maine.
- Margaret Chase Smith/Downeast LNG "72%" in-state spending. Maine has absolutely no LNG infrastructure, no construction company LNG experience, and yet Girdis claims they'll spend more in-state money on construction than Louisiana and Maryland.
So much for Downeast LNG's & the Margaret Chase Smith Institute's credibility.
The chosen site has only one thing going for it; the town is small and the voters were easily swayed. By contrast, eight other communities along the coast of Maine have rejected the hazards and blight associated with an LNG terminal. (Dec 30)
WEBMASTER'S COMMENTS: One town that has already voted to reject LNG on its doorstep is Perry, yet Quoddy Bay LNG is attempting to put part of its LNG terminal there even though Quoddy Bay LNG President Donald Smith said to the voters that he'd go away if they voted LNG down.
Not withstanding his stated respect for the "Jewish culture, the Muslim people ... or any creed or nation that has a spirituality associated with it," I doubt that either Mr. Bassett or the anonymous former tribal councilor would remain silent were the Jewish state of Israel, or any of the several Muslim states, to undertake actions that would be detrimental to the Passamaquoddy. (Dec 29)
Mr. Girgis said Canadian objections are fuelled by old-fashioned NIMBYism -- the so-called "not in my backyard" reaction that greets many major industrial projects -- and New Brunswick's desire to protect from competition an Irving Oil Ltd. LNG plant being built in Saint John.
WEBMASTER'S COMMENTS: Girdis's statements show that he's willing to say anything to support his project. The Maine and New Brunswick Passamaquoddy Bay population at large, and for appropriate reasons, are opposed to siting heavy industry and especially LNG in Passamaquoddy Bay.
Any LNG terminal project in Passamaquoddy Bay would violate several Society of International Gast Terminal and Tanker Operators (SIGTTO) LNG-industry standards. Long into his local LNG project, Girdis proved his ignorance of those standards by stating that they were laws that didn't apply to LNG terminals incorrect on two points: they're world-class LNG industry standards, not laws, and they apply specifically to LNG terminals. (See the FERC docket filing on the numerous SIGTTO violations that Downeast LNG's siting would commit.)
Downeast LNG's project because of inherent site selection problems will not pass Maine permitting requirements.
Had Girdis done his homework on LNG-industry standards and Maine permitting requirements prior to his project site selection, he'd have realized his eminently poor choice in selecting Passamaquoddy Bay. Girdis must realize that his standing as an international energy consultant may be diminished by his project's ultimate failure, and he's desperately attempting to make it appear that opposition to the project is unfounded. In actuality, Girdis has made a strategic error that cannot be rectified.
A report by the US Congressional Research Service
[PDF file; 108 KB]
Analyses of natural gas market demand and supply conditions seem to be consistent with the EIA [US Dept. of Energy's Energy Information Agency] STEWFO. Aggregate consumption of natural gas over the first seven months of 2006 has declined compared to 2005. U.S. production, as well as imports, have also declined over the same time period, likely in response to the decrease in consumption. On a sectoral level, the decline in consumption has included all consumer groups except electric power generators, whose consumption rose. Storage of natural gas, the factor that balances yearly demand and supply, is at an all time record high level, and is approaching the maximum physical capacity of the system. There does not appear to be any fundamental imbalance between demand and supply in the 2006 natural gas market, making a stable, or even declining, price level likely. [Bold emphasis added.] (Dec 12)
WEBMASTER'S COMMENTS: The Energy Information Agency of the US Department of Energy is indicating lower consumption of natural gas over the past year, and that natural gas storage is at near capacity. Previous reports have indicated that LNG import facilities are at 50% operating capacity. The local LNG projects aren't needed, especially with the new terminals that will be built in Massachusetts.
22 December 2006
[The following link is to a four-page PDF file; 220 KB]
We have continued to meet with government officials in both the U.S. and Canada about our project and as this quote from a recent article in Canada’s Financial Post notes, we have support from the highest levels of our government:
“The dispute has quietly reached the highest political levels with Condoleezza Rice, the U.S. Secretary of State, and Sam Bodman, the Energy Secretary, getting involved. Both Ms. Rice and Mr. Bodman have told Canada it is illegal for it to try to prevent ships from entering a U.S. port. Privately, State Department officials told the Financial Post they believe the issue is all about “domestic politics.” (LNG: The Great Divide, Financial Post, November 18, 2006)
WEBMASTER'S COMMENTS: Downeast LNG President Dean Girdis fails to disclose in his message is that the quoted Financial Post article was written by a paid lobbyist employed by Downeast LNG hardly a credible source of truth and journalism.
See Yellow Wood Associate's response to Downeast LNG's newsletter.
21 December 2006
Controversy over a proposal to build a multimillion-dollar liquefied natural gas facility at Split Rock on tribal land has developed into allegations that the Godfreys have overstepped their bounds by speaking about tribal culture, history and spiritual issues when talking about the impact LNG will have on the reservation.
Under the agreement, SUEZ has agreed to provide training opportunities for both U.S. citizen officers and cadets to obtain the experience and sea time necessary to qualify as LNG officers. In addition, SUEZ pledged its efforts to employ a mix of U.S. trained officers and unlicensed mariners on its existing fleet of chartered LNG vessels as well as those under construction and at the Neptune LNG Deepwater Port project.
19 December 2006
Two of the Canadian projects have received approvals and a third is undergoing environmental assessment. The U.S. projects are about halfway through their exacting approval processes.
At the same time, it is endorsing similar projects in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Quebec. Unless we can find a way of levelling the playing field again, the crucial energy co-operation between Canada the U.S. will be damaged potentially hurting both economies. (Dec 17)
WEBMASTER'S COMMENTS: Roland Priddle, Downeast LNG's hired Canadian lobbyist who wrote the above opinion, wants us all to share his interesting imagination. And now, for the truth:
- The two US projects referred to aren't "halfway through the exacting approval process." In fact, Downeast LNG hasn't even begun the approval process. They've been engaged in the "pre-filing" process, that is informal and assigns no approval decisions by FERC.
- Downeast LNG isn't the leading U.S. project. In fact, it began after Quoddy Bay LNG, and still lags in the process.
- Priddle's comparison of shipping petroleum from Portland, Maine to Canada and the LNG projects in Passamaquoddy Bay is ludicrous. If Maine or the US opposed shipping oil from Portland, the US would simply stop providing the petroleum at that port. The US is supplying the petroleum product to Canada. Canada won't be supplying the LNG to the US.
- Canada isn't objecting to US terminal locations that don't threaten Canadian citizens or Canadian assets. A true "level playing field" would be for the US Government to recognize this threat, and to refuse consideration of such sites. Canada has shown more intelligence in this matter than the US LNG developers and the irresponsible FERC process that even considers such folly.
(AP) BOSTON Governor Romney approves the construction of two liquefied natural gas terminals off the coast of Gloucester, saying the facilities will help meet the region's growing energy demands.
WEBMASTER'S COMMENTS: This represents 1 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day that will be added to the pipeline. Saint John, New Brunswick's Canaport terminal currently under construction will provide an additional 1 billion cubic feet per day (expandible to 2 billion cubic feet per day), beginning around the end of 2008, for a combined total of 2 billion cubic feet per day of additional natural gas. This amounts to 18.7% of the additional predicted natural gas consumption for the entire US in 2030, according to the US Department of Energy's Energy Information Agency.
The Governor's approval clears the way for the U.S. Coast Guard and the Maritime Administration (MARAD) to finalize the processing of the Neptune deepwater port application. Neptune LNG anticipates having a fully operational project, including construction of a pipeline connection to the existing sub-sea pipeline, HubLine(SM), specially designed ships, and the LNG supply to serve customers in Massachusetts and the rest of New England every day, in 2009.
The Neptune port will use specially designed LNG ships equipped to store, transport, and vaporize LNG into natural gas that can be sent to customers using the existing HubLine(SM) sub-sea pipeline. The LNG carriers will be moored at the proposed deepwater port by means of a submerged unloading buoy system consisting of two buoys. An LNG ship will typically be moored for four to eight days while unloading its LNG cargo, depending on market demand. The two separate buoys will ensure that natural gas can be delivered in a continuous flow by having a brief overlap between arriving and departing LNG carriers.
WEBMASTER'S COMMENTS: Downeast LNG's and Quoddy Bay LNG's shore-based technology is the antithesis of Neptune's state-of-the-art and safer offshore LNG technology.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has scheduled hearings for 7 PM January 10 at Smithtown West High School and for the following day at 7 PM at Shoreham-Wading River Middle School. FERC said there will also be hearings in Connecticut. One is scheduled for 7 PM Jan 9 at Mitchell College in New London and the other for 7 PM at the Branford High School in Branford. (Dec 18)
But the company will not move forward with development of the facility until it secures a gas supply source, said Bruce Connery, an El Paso vice president. The planned capacity is in excess of 1 billion cubic feet per day, he said.
WEBMASTER'S COMMENTS: This Mexican LNG import facility will also supply natural gas to the United States, even further obsoleting Downeast LNG & Quoddy Bay LNG.
The Sonora Terminal and Pipeline project will include an LNG receipt, storage, and regasification facility and a natural gas pipeline system that will provide natural gas to Sonora as well as the southwest United States.
While high and volatile natural gas prices have made plenty of energy executives and traders rich in recent years, the trend may not serve the industry's best interests over time, industry officials said.
"In the long run, I think volatility is going to hurt the natural gas business. That's what is freaking everybody out right now,” said Mark Fiedorek, a vice president at Houston-based Duke Energy Gas Transmission, which will be renamed Spectra Energy Corp. next year when it is spun off from parent Duke Energy Corp.
...Schwarznegger indicated he's favorably inclined toward the Billiton plan, which like the Sempra plant would assure that Californians pay high prices for natural gas in perpetuity. The high cost of building both the sending and receiving facilities for LNG, plus the price of the required supertanker fleet, guarantees this. (Dec 18)
During the briefing, Federal Energy Regulatory Commissioner Suedeen Kelly discussed challenges facing industry in coming years as it works to build new terminals, including local opposition. She emphasized that educating communities about the need for the terminals is critical, adding that lot of people simply don't understand the underlying tight supply-demand situation and how precarious it will continue to be if no action is taken. (Dec 18)
WEBMASTER'S COMMENTS: At the same time, the Department of Energy's Energy Information Agency predicts a vast over-abundance of LNG import infrastructure being proposed and permitted.
16 December 2006
"Neither project has any chance of actually succeeding. Both have insurmountable obstacles," wrote Bob Godfrey, spokesman for the Save Passamaquoddy Bay 3-Nation Alliance, in an e-mail sent to the Bangor Daily News this week. The Save Passamaquoddy Bay 3-Nation Alliance is opposed to both LNG projects.
WEBMASTER'S COMMENTS: FERC's "cart-before-the-horse" procedure has allowed Quoddy Bay LNG (QBLNG) to file their formal application, even though QBLNG hasn't answered over a score of questions from FERC related to the required draft Resource Reports. The answers to those questions are critical information that FERC needs in order to make an informed decision on allowing the formal filing to continue.
Here are some of QBLNG's problems:
- QBLNG doesn't have a valid lease agreement for the land it needs for its project, and by all indications is unlikely to get it;
- QBLNG won't be able to pass State of Maine permit requirements;
- QBLNG will violate international environmental treaties;
- QBLNG has serious terminal safety and security problems;
- QBLNG's proposed terminal location violates SIGTTO LNG-industry standards;
- Canada refuses to allow LNG ship transit into Passamaquoddy Bay;
- QBLNG doesn't have "innocent passage" ship transit priviledges;
- QBLNG would have to go through Canadian courts, and then international courts to fight Canada's refusal to allow LNG ship transit a lenghty procedure that would even further moot QBLNG's project;
- QBLNG is a late-comer to the industry;
- LNG infrastructure is being over-built by 400% in the Northeast, so QBLNG is already outmatched and outnumbered by its competition;
- Saint John, New Brunswick's Canaport LNG terminal is currently under construction, and will be in operation in 2008. That project, alone, will be initially supplying 1 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day (expandible to 2 billion cubic feet per day). Along with the offshore terminals in Massachusetts, and other projects already in the permitting process, QBLNG is a waste of effort;
- According to the Department of Energy's Energy Information Agency, the LNG import facilities already being permitted and constructed will more than supply the additional national natural gas demand through the year 2030, again meaning that the QBLNG project is not needed;
- US LNG import facilities have been operating at only 50% capacity, indicating a smaller supply and demand than the industry wants the public to believe, also indicating that QBLNG is not needed;
- Other countries are willing to pay more than the US for LNG, making supply difficult to obtain even resulting in LNG shipments destined for the US to be diverted to other countries;
- QBLNG doesn't have an LNG supply;
- QBLNG doesn't have a natural gas customer, and finding one is improbable. The demand will already be met by the projects that are already way ahead of QBLNG. Even Downeast LNG President Dean Girdis told the public in 2005 that Downeast LNG may never get a customer.
WEBMASTER'S COMMENTS: On the other hand, AES Sparrows Point LNG project director Kent Morton doesn't think it's unfair that their LNG terminal would pose a threat to families and homes from a credible-distance vapor-fire hazard.
...Ms Spector said that in the US, LNG was not being delivered at times when shortages of natural gas shipped by pipeline were sending prices higher; individual cargoes were often transferred to other customers in other countries where prices were higher.
The existing five US LNG receiving terminals were operating at only about 50 per cent capacity, which reflected the market's reluctance to become involved in long-term contracts that were the norm in the Asian LNG market, Ms Spector said.
"I think US customers find that long-term contract arrangements lack flexibility," she said, pointing out that few of the 40-or-so LNG receival terminals being promoted in the US would proceed. (Dec 16)
WEBMASTER'S COMMENTS: JP Morgan's global head of energy strategy, Ms. Spector, reinforces the idea that US LNG infrastructure is being considerably overbuilt, the US demand for natural gas isn't nearly as great as the LNG industry would like the public to believe, and that foreign competition will keep natural gas prices high. This bodes ill for the Downeast LNG and Quoddy Bay LNG projects.
Russian gas monopoly Gazprom, which is extorting equity from Shell, Mitsui and Mitsubishi in the Sakhlin 2 LNG project, is also buying up large parts of the Russian press. (Dec 15)
WEBMASTER'S COMMENTS: The US State Department's recent invitation to Gazprom to own US energy infrastructure is an example of America not thinking about US energy independence, and should have set off all kinds of warning alarms. Gazprom's purchasing Pravda news service and all that that implies related to freedom of the press and truth about natural gas coming out of Russia should ring even more alarm bells.
[N]o one in the West except the environmentalists has noticed that a recent environmental inspection estimated the damage to Sakhalin flora and fauna from Sakhalin Energy's operations at $10 billion. The final amount will be announced by fall 2007. Even Sakhalin Energy representatives have admitted that it will be necessary to restore 529 rivers on the island, to say nothing of the Aniva bay, of pipes laid in wrong places, of extinct fish, of endangered gray whales, etc. I wonder how the British press would react if foreigners swamped even one of their rivers that was a salmon breeding habitat. [Bold emphasis added.] (Dec 15)
WEBMASTER'S COMMENTS: This is an indictment of Royal Dutch Shell, along with Russia's previous willingness to damage indigenous peoples' environment and way of life.
13 December 2006
What's more important jobs or health?
Anyone who has lived near a chemical plant knows the answer. Ask the people who lived near to the Capper Pass smelting plant in Hull, England, if the high-paid jobs that led to all kinds of diseases among the children of the area were worthwhile in the long run. Ask the people of Chernobyl.
12 December 2006
SPB claims that the federal agency has been hiding liquefied natural gas (LNG) hazards from the public for nearly 30 years; has been disseminating misleading LNG safety information to the public, while encouraging LNG developers to do the same; and has been ignoring LNG-industry world standards. (Dec 8)
WEBMASTER'S COMMENTS: It's time FERC's negligence is rectified.
The Maine State Planning Office (SPO) has informed the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) that it is withdrawing as a "cooperating agency" with respect to FERC's environmental review of the Quoddy Bay LNG and Downeast LNG proposals. In April 2006, the state agency had indicated its intention to serve as a cooperating agency. Since cooperating agencies cannot act as intervenors, the SPO will now be able to intervene during the FERC review process. (Dec 8)
During the last few minutes of the regular Perry selectmen's meeting on November 27, a disagreement erupted over the possible negotiation of an agreement on behalf of the Town of Perry among Quoddy Bay LNG, town attorney Eric Stumpfel, and one selectman, Chairman David Turner. Selectwoman Jeanne Guisinger, who is opposed to local LNG development, faced off with Turner, saying, "David, no formal decision has been made by the board to allow you, and only you, to negotiate any deal." (Dec 8)
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has indicated the potential expansions that would be needed with the Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline if the Quoddy Bay LNG or Downeast LNG projects are approved. (Dec 8)
WEBMASTER'S COMMENTS: The pipeline company is required by law to provide pipeline capacity, should any customer need such expansion.
Quoddy Bay LNG is proposing to purchase just over 300 acres of land west of the Old Eastport Road in Perry from the Passamaquoddy Tribe for $1.5 million, or $5,000 an acre. The proposal was discussed at a November 14 meeting of the Sipayik Tribal Council and is expected to be considered by the Passamaquoddy Joint Tribal Council on December 13. (Dec 8)
WEBMASTER'S COMMENTS: This parcel of Tribal land apparently contains at least $25 million worth of aggregate. The Tribe needs the land far more than does Quoddy Bay LNG. Besides, Quoddy Bay LNG would be getting a silk purse for a sow's ear price.
WEBMASTER'S COMMENTS: Unfortunately for Plissey and SCEC, the Quoddy Bay LNG project's economic impact would be mostly negative. The SCEC needs to peruse the Whole Bay Study.
8 December 2006
Although the approach is too late for projects that have already begun a federal review process, a dozen New England congressmen and senators have asked for help from the Department of Energy in coordinating a regional approach to siting liquefied natural gas facilities. Reps. Tom Allen and Mike Michaud have both signed on to this request, which makes sense for future energy projects.
WEBMASTER'S COMMENTS: The Bangor Daily News editorial position that a regional approach is too late for the two Maine LNG projects isn't quite correct. In truth, such regional siting assessment should be made, and would disclose the absolute folly of the ill-fated Downeast LNG and Quoddy Bay LNG site choices.
North Bend - With the hopes of replacing fears and misconceptions with factual information, the Oregon International Port of Coos Bay hosts a live Liquefied Natural Gas demonstration, which shows how the natural gas burns cleaner and faster than other fuels, such as diesel.
"Fear, a lot of times, is based on the unknown. And the more experience you have with something the more you understand it, the better you can deal with it. And, I think this is an opportunity for us to view, firsthand, the characteristics of LNG, and see it up close," said Bishop. (Dec 6)
WEBMASTER'S COMMENTS: Truths about small-volume LNG demonstrations:
- Since LNG burns cleaner and faster than other fuels, burning large volumes of LNG presents a particularly hot and dangerous thermal radiation hazard. Other fuels such as diesel by burning slower, are cooler, and by producing smoke, thermal radiation is blocked by the smoke, producing less of a safety hazard.
- A catastrophic release of LNG can't be understood or experienced by a relatively miniscule-volume LNG demonstration. In fact, small-scale demonstrations can lead to grossly underestimating large-scale LNG-volume hazards on people and assets.
- Small-scale LNG demonstrations merely demonstrate that natural gas is safe to burn in small volumes, such as on your home stove. By inferring that such demonstrations show how safe LNG is in large volumes, those giving the demonstrations are intentionally misleading the public.
LNG developers commonly use tiny-volume LNG "dog and pony shows" to convince communities that LNG is as safe as eating Cheerios or keeping goldfish. FERC enables such misinformation by not requiring LNG developer veracity in communications with the public; and, FERC, itself, disseminates misinformation regarding LNG safety. (See our news releases: "SPB Issues Trio of Condemnations Against FERC.") FERC needs to be reigned in by Congress, and put under responsible control.
The tests were devised to determine the viability of an underwater natural gas pipeline as part of the larger Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline project. A previously suggested route through Glasgow drew the ire of a number of area residents whose property would have been in the path of the line. The new route spans six or seven miles from the proposed liquefied natural gas terminal on the North Spit, through the main body of Coos Bay, to a point on the east side of Coos River. (Dec 5)
6 November 2006
[C]oncerns have been raised about the cost to local communities regarding public safety associated with the LNG facility. Quoddy Bay will pay all the additional costs associated with safety and security. The ERP is the process by which we identify the need for new assets, personnel and infrastructure Quoddy Bay will provide to local communities in order to equip the region to properly handle the project’s operations. [Bold emphasis added.] (Dec issue; PDF, 1.8 MB)
WEBMASTER'S COMMENTS: Quoddy Bay LNG is blowing smoke:
- FERC requires LNG developers to come up with a "Cost Sharing Plan" (but FERC doesn't actually require any set amount of payment ) related to safety and security of the LNG facility, itself; however, the developer isn't required to pay for any safety and secutiry costs outside the facility confines, other than for marine vessels servicing the LNG project. Furthermore, FERC doesn't even address payment for required emergency capabilities outside the project confines that's left entirely to agreement between the developer and the affected communities. Besides, in the above promise, they state they'll only equip the region to handle the PROJECT'S operations;
- Without a written and signed contract, Quoddy Bay LNG's promises are promises without substance. Even if they were to provide a written contract, that's no guarantee that they'll pay what they promised look at the "land lease" they supposedly have with Tribal Government. They've owed the Pleasant Point Passamaquoddy Tribal Government on their lease, now, since 2005 December one full year but haven't paid a cent. Instead, they keep telling Tribal officials that both Tribal governments (Sipayik and Indian Township) need to waive Tribal taxes on the LNG project before they'll pay what they owe on the lease. With Quoddy Bay LNG, even a signed lease agreement apparently isn't enough.
Suez Energy North America Inc., subsidiary of a Paris-based utility giant, has submitted an application to the U.S. Coast Guard to build undersea natural-gas terminals 8 and 10 miles off the coast, as well as a submerged pipeline to carry the fuel to Florida power plants. The network of buoys, anchors, turrets and pipes -- termed a deepwater port -- is intended to allow ships to offload without approaching land, reducing the chance of fuel spills, fires or explosions.
WEBMASTER'S COMMENTS: Yet another offshore terminal!
Unlike Downeast LNG and Quoddy Bay LNG, offshore LNG terminals eliminate risks to land-based civilian populations and assets.
Thanks to the persistence of Clatsop County and the cities of Astoria and Warrenton, the U.S. Coast Guard has agreed to release the Waterway Suitability Assessment, which is the bureaucratic terminology for how the LNG terminal would change life on the lower Columbia River. (Dec 4)
More than 2,000 people have signed a petition opposing the terminal and the pipeline. The Oregon International Port of Coos Bay, the North Bend and Coos Bay city councils and U.S. Rep. Peter DeFazio all are on record opposing the pipeline's routing through any residential areas. (Dec 3)
WEBMASTER'S COMMENTS: The EIA predicts that the US will import 3.9 trillion cubic feet more natural gas per year in 2030 than it did last year. Quoddy Bay LNG's and Downeast LNG's combined proposed natural gas output from imported LNG would be around 2.5 billion cubic feet per day. That's 912.5 billion (.9125 trillion) cubic feet per year. Stated another way, Downeast LNG (DELNG) and Quoddy Bay LNG (QBLNG) combined proposed natural gas production would be roughly equivalent to 23% of the entire country's additional gas consumption in 2030.
Considering the number of LNG import terminals being proposed (around 40, with around 15 of those being offshore), the number of LNG projects that are already farther along in the permitting and construction process, the number that are farther along in obtaining LNG supply, and the ensuing natural gas that they'd produce, the QBLNG and DELNG projects would be overwhelmed by the volume of natural gas output from all the other terminals. Especially since QBLNG and DELNG are so late in the game, they so mis-judged community resistance to their projects, and they picked one of the worst possible locations, the above article is simply more proof that the Downeast LNG and the Quoddy Bay LNG projects aren't needed and can't possibly succeed.
WEBMASTER'S COMMENTS: Canada and the US both need to watch out for Gazprom's coercive tactics that they've already demonstrated to the marketplace. Allowing Gazprom ownership of Canadian and US energy infrastructure is simply asking for trouble.
2 December 2006
The deal, common on major infrastructure construction projects, was reached Friday between Texas-based Excelerate Energy and the state, giving it environmental approval from the state. Excelerate proposes to build its Northeast Gateway terminal 13 miles off Gloucester.
Observers expect a similar agreement to be reached on the Neptune project proposed about 10 miles off Gloucester by the company that owns the Distrigas LNG terminal in Everett. That project is expected to get a final environmental decision from the state in about two weeks, and Romney's final decision is due by Jan. 2. [Bold emphasis added.]
- Offshore siting removes the risks to civilians and civilian assets that land-based LNG terminals pose.
- Offshore LNG receiving terminals can be easily expanded, since there's open space around them.
- Navigation to the terminal is less risky than land-based terminals.
- Security is less of an issue with offshore terminals.
- Offshore submerged-buoy LNG terminals are more economical to build than shore-based terminals.
- Offshore submerged-buoy LNG terminals don't need protected harbors that land-based terminals require.
- Offshore LNG terminals near the natural gas market trump late-comer Maine projects.
Downeast LNG and Quoddy Bay LNG chose the wrong technology, the wrong location, the wrong strategy, and the wrong time for their projects. If they don't toss in their towels today, they'll be tossing in costlier towels tomorrow.
[W]hen it comes to siting new LNG terminals, the tail has been wagging the dog for far too long. Private energy companies pop up out of the blue and propose building a facility in Town X, or off the coast of Town Y. There is no broad overview of regional needs, no survey of the most ideal sites between Canada and Long Island.
While LNG tankers have been delivering their cargo through Boston Harbor to a terminal in Everett for decades, Hull residents are justifiably raising public safety and environment concerns. Yet even more fundamental questions - about how much LNG supply the region will need in the next decades, and the ideal locations for any new terminals - have not been answered to date. [Bold emphasis added.]
Sea Natural Gas Management Corporation (SeaNG) is ... promising that it can deliver natural gas at half the price estimated under the planned US$400 million LNG facility to be built at Port Esquivel in St. Catherine.
FERC commissioners must now vote whether to grant the developer a license for the project, which includes a ship berth and marine unloading facilities capable of accommodating one LNG tanker, two 160,000 cubic meter LNG storage tanks, a 5-mile, 36-inch natural gas sendout pipeline and associated support facilities. (Nov 27)
WEBMASTER'S COMMENTS: Here's another LNG terminal about to receive FERC approval, further nixing the Downeast LNG and Quoddy Bay LNG projects.
NEW ORLEANS -- Nobody sent in any comments against a proposed liquefied natural gas port near the mouth of the Mississippi River, and it is likely to be approved early next year, McMoRan Exploration Co. says.
WEBMASTER'S COMMENTS: Another offshore LNG terminal!
The gift from Northern Star Natural Gas Co. is contingent on the company getting approval to build a proposed liquefied natural gas facility at Bradwood Landing, 38 river miles up from the Columbia River’s mouth.
The project is one of five LNG terminals being considered in Oregon and the furthest along in seeking federal approval. Three other proposed terminals are on the Columbia River and a fifth is in Coos Bay. (Dec 1)
The rules do not approve any specific project, but establish quality standards for port facilities, storage facilities, and pipelines, as well as procedures for the purchase of LNG by utilities. The purpose of the rules, which took effect immediately, is to provide guidelines by which LNG purchasers and providers can plan future imports. (Dec 1)
Opponents of Australian energy firm BHP Billiton's proposal to place a floating liquefied natural gas terminal off the coast of Oxnard received more fodder for their argument last week, as a Malibu newspaper uncovered memos revealing, among other things, that the project may produce far more air pollution than previously estimated. (Nov 30)
WEBMASTER'S COMMENTS: Both Downeast LNG & Quoddy Bay LNG misjudged the strength and resolve of Passamaquoddy Bay community opposition. The vast majority of area residents oppose these projects.
|@||MEMBER OF PROJECT HONEY POT|
Spam Harvester Protection Network
provided by Unspam