Fundy Tides: LNG

Showing posts with label LNG. Show all posts

Friday, May 31, 2013

LNG - St. Andrews-by-the-sea continues to oppose LNG development in Passamaquoddy Bay.

English: The Algonquin hotel, St. Andrews, New Brunswick, Canada. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

May 15, 2013
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary
Federal Regulatory Commission
888 First Street NE Room 1A
Washington, DC 20426

Dear Ms. Bose:
Re: Downcast LNG CP07-52-000. CP07-53-000. CP07-53-001

The Council of the Town of Saint Andrews, New Brunswick would like to submit this letter to reiterate our concerns and opposition to the establishment of a Liquefied Natural Gas plant as proposed by Down East LNG at Robbinston, Maine.

Figure 25 of the Marine Transit Route M50, international breech scenario, clearly
indicates that much of the Town of Saint Andrews would be affected, should a natural
gas spill or fire occur. None of our emergency planning has included such a scenario.
The medical, fire and policing services required to properly address the explosion risk is
beyond Town financial capacities.

Since our last submissions to your agency in 2009, significant financial resources have
been made to our tourism and infrastructure. To accommodate our developing cruise
ship initiatives, $900,000 (CAD) was invested in the Town Market Wharf. We had two
large cruise ships and several smaller ships use the wharf in 2012 and expect that this
initiative will be successful in the continuing years. The exclusion zones and transit
schedules proposed by the LNG traffic would affect our cruise ship plans. The Town
wharf also supports a multimillion dollar aquaculture industry. Again exclusion zones
and transit schedules would impact that industry. Our signature hotel, the Algonquin is
nearing a $30,000,000 renovation in a joint venture by Marriott Hotels, New Castle
Properties and the Province of New Brunswick. The hotel is the cornerstone of Saint
Andrews tourism and is establishing a worldwide marketing program through the
Marriott Hotel Autograph designation. The development of the Downcast LNG is seen
as a significant roadblock to the viability of the Algonquin Hotel initiative and the
negative economic impacts of the LNG terminal to the hotel is seen as dramatic.

It is impossible to market a vacation in an identified risk zone. The Huntsman Marine
Science Centre has just completed a $4,000,000 construction of a world class marine
aquarium. It sits exactly opposite the proposed site for the Downcast Project and in the
high risk international breach scenario. The iinpacts to its viability are as significant as
those of the Algonquin Hotel.

[With] all of the current usage of the bay, it is impossible to add the proposed tanker
traffic and carry on with the vital economic activity of this area. No scheduling can solve
this problem; many users have to use the waterway when the conditions are appropriate
for their needs.

The government of New Brunswick and the State of Maine have worked together on the
"Two Nation Vacation" marketing initiatives in the last several years. This collaboration
works to stimulate tourism on both sides of the border. The Downcast LNG facility is
seen as a threat to this tourism strategy.

We wish to bring these new investments to our tourism and infrastructure facilities to
your attention. The Council of the Town of Saint Andrews continues to strongly oppose
the development of an LNG terminal in Robbinston, Maine. The Downeast LNG project
would put the viability of our tourism and commercial economy at risk.

Stan Choptiany
Mayor, Town of Saint Andrews

Tuesday, November 15, 2011

LNG: Canada Remains Opposed to LNG in Passamaquoddy Bay.

Get the pictures and subscribe at: http://fundytides.blogspot.com

LNG: US Natural Gas Production Obsoletes Proposed Downeast LNG Project

Dean Girdis

2011 Nov 14

The US Energy Information Administration (EIA) announced new information on November 8 that US domestic natural gas production is expected to reach record highs in 2012. Conversely, it also expects liquefied natural gas (LNG) imports to drop from a 2007 high of 770.8 billion cubic feet (bcf) for the entire year (2.111 bcf/day)[1] to an amazing low of only 0.7 bcf/day.[2] And, LNG imports from Trinidad — the US's closest and greatest LNG supplier — have dropped 66%, due to flourishing US natural gas production according to Trinidad and Tobago Energy Minister Kevin Ramnarine on November 13.[3]

"The proposed Downeast LNG project principals have said for over six years that they planned to build an LNG import facility with a daily capacity of 0.5 bcf/day," said Save Passamaquoddy Bay researcher and webmaster Robert Godfrey. "The government indicates that the entire country is destined to import only slightly more LNG than is being proposed by still-unpermitted Downeast LNG. Downeast LNG's proposed project is completely unreasonable and unrealistic from any business or logical perspective. And, the US already has 13 other nearly-idle LNG import terminals — with a total capacity of 18.835 bcf/day — 27 times greater than the entire country will use next year. "What planet are the Downeast LNG principals and investors on?" asked Godfrey. "Downeast LNG has no permit applications with the State of Maine, having withdrawn their state permit applications in 2007 after going all the way through the process, including formal hearings, before determining permitting would be denied. Downeast LNG is over two years late in responding to questions from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), the lead permitting agency. Downeast LNG is also a year late in answering additional FERC questions, and has just notified FERC — on the November 8 date due — that they would be late in answering a third set of questions. The idea of a Downeast LNG terminal in Passamaquoddy Bay is a non-starter.

"The US already has many times more LNG import infrastructure than it can possibly use due to the industry's previous rush to build unneeded terminals. And now, due to the well-documented, decades-long domestic natural gas glut the country is facing, the industry is actually starting a mad rush to export LNG overseas," Godfrey said. "Downeast LNG's bald assertion that their ill-conceived, wrongly-sited proposed project it is still needed staggers the mind. There is plentiful natural gas in the US, the Northeast, New England, and downeast Maine without yet another defunct-before-it's-even-permitted, idle LNG terminal — especially an inappropriately-sited one like Downeast LNG."

On November 8 the US Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources held a hearing on exporting LNG.[4] Representatives from the US Department of Energy, Rice University Institute for Public Policy, and Shell Exploration & Production Company testified that such great quantities of domestic natural gas exist that LNG exports are in the public interest. The Hamilton, Ohio, Director of Underground Utilities testified that the US is in the enviable position of establishing energy independence, and no longer needs to import natural gas. "Regardless of advocating exporting or not," Godfrey said, "the testimony indicates that domestic natural gas is available in massive, decades-long supply, eliminating the need to import LNG."

"What's more," Godfrey continued, "Downeast LNG cannot meet the US Coast Guard's requirements regarding LNG ship safety and security. The Coast Guard has stipulated that Downeast LNG must obtain Government of Canada cooperation and coordination for safe and secure LNG ship transits through both Canadian and US waters.[5] Canada has resolutely and repeatedly indicated it will not do so.[6]

"The Coast Guard also requires Downeast LNG to obtain letters of approval from Native American tribes whose waterway rights would be impacted by Downeast LNG's project. And yet, Downeast LNG has made the offensive, inaccurate claim that Native Americans have no rights in the waterway[7]," Godfrey said.

"It's time Downeast LNG's Dean Girdis and cohorts, and their venture-capital partners, Kestrel Energy Partners and Yorktown Energy Partners, faced reality. Downeast LNG was years-late, inappropriately-sited, and surplus even when first proposed in 2005. It is grossly more so now, with insurmountable obstacles. There is no demonstrable need — in fact, quite the opposite. It's time for Downeast LNG and their venture capitalists to face reality, cease their fruitless delays, stop wasting everyone's time, and go home," Godfrey concluded.

Footnotes:
[1] US Energy Information Administration, http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n9103us2A.htm
[2] Reuters, http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/08/eia-outlook-natgas-idAFN1E7A718R20111108
[3] Bloomberg Businessweek, http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-11-13/trinidad-lng-exports-to-u-s-plunge-on-shale-gas-supply-rise.html
[4] US Senate, http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Hearing&Hearing_ID=45ea3a80-f5d7-bfba-b023-31a9da05de0a
[5] US Coast Guard, http://www.savepassamaquoddybay.org/ferc/elibrary/formal_filing/delng_CP07-52/2009/USCG_LOR-WSR_DeLNG_binder_20090106-4001.pdf (PDF file, 12.5 MB)
[6] Bangor Daily News, http://bangordailynews.com/2010/07/01/news/canada-standing-tough-on-lng-tanker-passage/
[7] FERC, Draft Environmental Impact Statement, 4.8--Socioeconomics, page 4-286 last paragraph to page 4-287 first paragraph, http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/OpenNat.asp?fileID=12019765
-----
Save Passamaquoddy Bay (SPB) is an alliance of citizens from the U.S., the Passamaquoddy Tribe, and Canada, who oppose siting LNG industrial facilities in Passamaquoddy Bay, and who advocate adherence to world-recognized LNG terminal siting best safe practices as published by the Society of International Gas Tanker and Terminal Operators (SIGTTO). SPB advocates creative-economy, tradition-based, and tourism-based economic development for the international Passamaquoddy Bay area.

Robert Godfrey
Save Passamaquoddy Bay 3-nation alliance (US, Passamaquoddy, and Canada)
PO Box 222
Eastport, ME 04631
(207)853-2922 (Old Sow Publishing)
info@SavePassamaquoddyBay.org

Get the pictures and subscribe at: http://fundytides.blogspot.com

Friday, March 11, 2011

LNG - ProLNG Eastport Councilor stalls land protection proposal

COMMENT: Vocal LNG proponent Bob Peacock is still beating the LNG drum long after any hope for LNG in Eastport is gone. And one wonders whether or not there might be a little revenge in his "official" council stand?

Art

*********

Eastport Council wary of negative effects of Kendall Head conservancy plan

By Sharon Kiley Mack, BDN Staff
Posted March 10, 2011, at 5:36 p.m.

EASTPORT, Maine — Concerned that conserving 51 acres of coastal land for recreation and public access will stymie local economic development, Eastport city councilors carefully quizzed Tom Boutureira, executive director of The Downeast Coastal Conservancy, Wednesday night.

Boutureira told the council that DCC, based in Machias, is working with a private seller to buy the tract of land on Kendall Head, a stunningly beautiful property with 360 degree views of Passamaquoddy Bay and Eastport. He stressed that DCC was not asking Eastport for any funding but that it needed a letter of support to seek funding for the purchase from the state’s Land For Maine’s Future program.

He said hiking trails and two small parking areas would be developed, and DCC would work closely with the city on a plan for the property.

“We would create a scenic resource, public access, shore access, protection, management and promotion,” he said. Currently, DCC is responsible for the stewardship of 4000 acres and more than 40 miles of shoreline Down East.

Although the councilors agreed with protecting the property and agreed it would be an amazing resource for the city, they were concerned that Eastport would be losing tax revenue. They were also concerned that DCC would object to aquaculture operations, seaweed harvesting, and the possible passage of liquefied natural gas tankers off the property.

Boutureira said that hunting, fishing, aquaculture and soft recreation, such as hiking or snowshoeing, would be allowed but that DCC would object to seaweed harvesting.

Boutureira said he was aware that some of DCC’s board members had publicly voiced their objections to LNG projects but that the board as a whole had never taken a formal stand on the issue.

Council president Bob Peacock told Boutureira that DCC needed to formalize its opinion before the council could agree to support the proposal. The Eastport City Council supports LNG development because of the jobs it would provide. Peacock said the council could not support a plan that would interfere with job creation.

“There are ramifications to the area and the city,” he said.

An additional concern for councilors was the loss of revenue if the land is owned by a non-profit entity.

Treat Island was used as an example. Eastport received $3,200 annually in taxes from a private owner, but when the island was purchased for conservation by a non-profit, that dropped to $800.

Boutureira said the property is currently in tree growth status, and the city receives only $131.19 a year in taxes. He said DCC would make a donation to the city at that level or greater to offset the loss.

City officials, however, said the loss goes beyond that because a state reimbursement for tree growth property also would be lost.

The council asked Boutureira to come back to its March 15 special council meeting with a definitive answer regarding DCC’s status on taxation and LNG development.

In other business, the council watched a presentation by Jude Valentine of the Tides Institute on the Schoodic Symposium’s selection of five artists as finalists for this year’s granite sculpture projects. Eastport is one of the places Down East that has been selected to receive one of the sculptures. Valentine said no decision has been made about a design, but the sculpture will be placed in Overlook Park and will be part of a sculpture trail along Maine’s Down East coast that is well-traveled by tourists and artists.

The council also heard that the budget process was nearly complete and a draft will be ready soon; Eastport will receive $60,000 in Federal Emergency Management Agency funds for storm damage last December; and an annual audit of the city’s finances is complete and the city is in full compliance with state and federal regulations.

The council also appointed a deputy city clerk and election warden and scheduled public hearings for a zoning ordinance amendment, victualer’s licenses and a liquor license renewal at 6 p.m. April 13.

Get the pictures and subscribe at: http://fundytides.blogspot.com

Sunday, December 5, 2010

BUSINESS: Calais LNG reaches another "Tipping Point"

Get the pictures and subscribe at: http://fundytides.blogspot.com

Cursed by their own rush to push through applications with the Maine Board of Environmental Protection and the FERC, Calais LNG LLC has lost their principal investor Goldman Sachs and the option on the land at Devil's Head where their terminal was to be built. While deadlines have been extended numerous times to accommodate this well-connected company, new deadlines set by both agencies may finally determine the future of this proposed development.

It seems likely that Calais LNG is in a state of chaos since reporters seem unable to make contact with key staff, their website still shows Goldman Sachs as their principal investor and the last update on their home page was January 27, 2010. As one wise investor said, "When the lawns are untended ... beware."

If you are interested in the history up to now, this is available at www.savepassamaquoddybay.org or follow the links below.

Art
*********************************
Calendar > 2010 December
Dec 13 — FERC deadline for Calais LNG to provide a schedule for re-establishing TRI and financial capacity.

Documents > Environment & NEPA-related > Maine Board of Environmental Protection (BEP) > LNG proposal — Calais LNG > Letters > 2010 December
Dec 2
Calais LNG to BEP, admitting the applicant's lack of TRI and financial capacity
Dec 3
Maine State Chamber of Commerce comments on Calais LNG delay
Roosevelt Campobello International Park comments on Calais LNG delay

Maine LNG Terminal Development Failure History> 2005–2010 > City of Calais > Location: Calais Village of Red Beach > Developer: Calais LNG Project Co. > Anti-LNG Organizations: Save Passamaquoddy Bay 3-Nation Alliance > Results
2010 Aug 31 — Calais LNG failed to renew its option to purchase the land required for its proposed terminal by this deadline, losing title, right, or interest (TRI) required for Maine and FERC permitting;however, at the Sep 15 Board of Environmental Protection meeting regarding the project, the company failed to inform the BEP of this lapse.
2010 Nov 17 — Owners of the land required for Calais LNG's terminal notified the BEP that Calais LNG had not renewed its option to purchase upon expiring on Aug 31; meaning, Calais LNG no longer holds the required TRI for state permitting.
2010 Nov 23 — Calais LNG wrote to the BEP that if the BEP were to recommence the permitting process, the applications would be appropriately and summarily dismissed, due to lack of financial capacity and TRI.
2010 Dec 3— FERC wrote to Calais LNG, indicating FERC's awareness of Calais LNG's lack of financial capacity and TRI. FERC demanded Calais LNG provide a schedule by Dec 13 to when the company would secure TRI and financial capacity.

BEP Hearing Schedules > Calais LNG project BEP Hearing Schedule > 2010 July 19–23

[Historical information added]
2010 Jul 13 — Calais LNG notified the BEP that the company's state permits were incomplete,requesting delay of the permit hearings.
2010 Jul 14 — The BEP granted Calais LNG's request to delay the hearings.
2010 Jul 21 — Calais LNG indicated it had lost its financial partner, GS Power Holdings, a subsidy of Goldman Sachs.
2010 Aug 31 — Calais LNG failed to renew its option to purchase the land required for its proposed terminal, losing Title, Right, or Interest (TRI) in the land. TRI is required for Maine (and FERC) permitting.
2010 Nov 17 — Owners of the land required for Calais LNG's terminal notified the Maine Board of Environmental Protection that Calais LNG had not renewed its option to purchase upon expiring on 2010 Aug 31; meaning, Calais LNG no longer holds the required TRI for state permitting.

FERC > FERC LNG Project Review Process > eLibrary Dockets > eLibrary Docket Comment Submissions >Formal Filing Docket Comment Submissions > Calais LNG — CP10-31 & CP10-32 > 2010 > December

> Dec 3
Filed By: Save Passamaquoddy Bay — Requesting FERC dismiss Calais LNG's permits for failing to have the requred TRI and financial capacity. Issued By: FERC OFFICE OF ENERGY PROJECTS — Demanding that by Dec 13, Calais LNG provide a schedule for re-establishing TRI and financial capacity.

LNG Developers > Developer #3: "Calais LNG Project Company LLC"
> Aliases
Updated North East Energy Development (NEED)
> Partners in Calais LNG Project Co. and/or North East Energy Development LLC
Updated partnership information

News Stories & Editorial > Dec 4 [For faster page loading, go to our Latest News page.]
US Natural Gas Production Foils LNG Imports
LNG exports from US a real possibility; hurdles remain (Dec 5)

Media Credit: wikipedia.com

Thursday, May 6, 2010

Feds pull plug on Split Rock LNG pact

Get the pictures and subscribe at: http://fundytides.blogspot.com

4/28/10 | 17 comments
By Bill Trotter
BDN Staff

PLEASANT POINT, Maine — An energy development firm has lost its land lease with a local Indian tribe after the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs canceled the firm’s lease contract, according to officials.

The Vermont Law School’s Environmental and Natural Resources Law Clinic issued a press release Monday afternoon indicating that BIA canceled Quoddy Bay LNG’s contract with the Passamaquoddy Tribe on Friday. The law clinic represents a group of tribal members that is opposed to the firm’s plans to construct a liquefied natural gas terminal on tribal land on Passamaquoddy Bay.

Don Smith, president of Quoddy Bay LNG, said in a telephone interview Tuesday evening that he has received a letter from BIA indicating the agency has canceled his company’s lease with the tribe. He said the reason stated in the letter for the cancellation was that Quoddy Bay had not responded in a timely fashion to a request from BIA for an explanation of why the contract should not be terminated.

“I had thought we had responded to the BIA,” Smith said.

Smith said he plans to contact BIA and ask it to reconsider.

An official with BIA who asked not to be identified confirmed Tuesday that the agency notified Quoddy Bay of the contract cancellation Friday. The official said Quoddy Bay can appeal the decision, but declined to comment further.

In June 2009, the Passamaquoddy Tribe at Pleasant Point sent Smith a letter indicating it had decided to terminate the contract on its own. At the time, Smith said the tribe did not have legal grounds to terminate the contract.

Smith reiterated that point on Tuesday. He said he believes the tribe is legally obligated to honor the contract and that, over the long term, the project is still economically viable.

He said there will continue to be demand in southern New England for natural gas, and that piping it south from Washington County will be more cost-effective than delivering it by other means.

“The financial circumstances of the country have made it impractical to build it now,” Smith said.

He said his firm has spent $17 million on the project so far. When the economy improves, he added, he intends to find a financial partner to help bring the project to fruition.

Smith said that, both for Quoddy Bay and the tribe, it makes more sense financially to leave the project on pause than it does to throw everything out and start all over again at a later date.

Some members of the tribe have been against the project from the beginning. In 2005, months after the contract was approved by BIA, a group of Passamaquoddys who call themselves Nulankeyutmonen Nkitahkomikon unsuccessfully challenged BIA’s approval in federal court. The name of the group translates into “We Take Care of Our Land.”

“[This] victory is on behalf of our descendants because it is what our ancestors expect from us,” Vera Francis, an organizer with the tribal group, said in a prepared release about BIA’s cancellation of the contract. “To value and defend that which has sustained us — Passamaquoddy Bay — is what defines and shapes our future.”

Teresa Clemmer, assistant director of the Vermont law clinic, said in the same release that the tribal group and clinic staffers persevered for five years to have the lease thrown out.

“It’s a great result and a testament to their determination and willingness to hang in there for the long haul,” Clemmer said in the statement.

A phone message left Tuesday for Thomas Lewey, the tribe’s lieutenant governor at Pleasant Point, was not returned. A woman who answered the phone at the tribal offices Tuesday afternoon said Rick Doyle, the tribe’s governor at Pleasant Point, would not be in the office this week.

Quoddy Bay LNG withdrew its applications for state and federal permits in 2008. The projected cost of constructing the facility, which would be used to offload LNG from specially designed tanker ships and to pump the vaporized cargo to the Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline in Baileyville, is believed to be in the range of $500 million.

Three developers have expressed interest in or developed plans for an LNG terminal in eastern Washington County. In addition to Quoddy Bay LNG’s plans, Downeast LNG with an office in Robbinston has received a draft environmental impact study from federal regulators on a plan for a terminal at Mill Cove, and Calais LNG hopes to build a terminal on the St. Croix River in Calais.

Thursday, April 15, 2010

LNG - Mayor John Craig responds to Baldaccii LNG letter - St. Andrews will suffer huge financial loses!

Get the pictures and subscribe at: http://fundytides.blogspot.com

LNG tankers are huge. This photo creation compares an average large tanker with one of the largest freighters ever to enter Passamaquoddy Bay. Using gunboats for enforcement an exclusion zone that can be up to 2 miles is used to ban all activity around the tanker, the cargo, and the terminal. Such exclusion could virtually shut down industries on which St. Andrews depends. See http://www.bayoffundy.ca/LNG/slideshow

Art MacKay

*********************************
http://telegraphjournal.canadaeast.com/city/article/1017947

Mayor objects to Maine LNG terminals
Published Thursday April 15th, 2010

ST. ANDREWS - Maine should treat its neighbour better, St. Andrews Mayor John Craig says in a letter to state Gov. John Baldacci.

Derwin Gowan/Telegraph-Journal

St. Andrews Mayor John Craig says local emergency services don't have the resources to respond to an LNG accident.

The mayor wrote to the governor this week to stress the town's opposition to proposed liquefied natural gas terminals on the Maine side of Passamaquoddy Bay. The tankers supplying the terminals would have to pass through the Canadian waters of Head Harbour Passage - between Deer Island and Campobello Island - placing undue responsibility on local emergency services, Craig said.

"As they have told us, the LNG proponents have no legal responsibility for the supply of emergency services in the event of an accident," the mayor said in the letter.

"The emergency services in this area of New Brunswick have neither the resources nor the training to even begin to respond to an LNG incident. To consider imposing this risk on those who cannot protect themselves is not the right way to be a good neighbour."

Craig wrote the letter as a result of Baldacci's Jan. 29 letter urging the United States Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to expedite the approval process for the Downeast LNG project - one of two remaining proposals for LNG terminals in Washington County, Maine.

To Craig, this breaks a promise by the governor not to intervene in the approval process for the Downeast LNG and Calais LNG proposals.

Craig, running as an independent candidate in the Sept. 27 provincial election, challenges the governor's statement that he speaks on behalf of the people of Maine on the LNG issue.

"There are a lot of people in Maine who are not in favour of it," Craig said in an interview.

"He's broken his word that he would personally stay out of the process," Craig said in the interview. Baldacci "doesn't speak for everyone in Maine," he said.

The FERC appears to be delaying approval of Downeast LNG's application due to concern that the United States Department of Transportation's regulations concerning modelling of LNG spills might no longer be appropriate, Baldacci said in his letter.

The governor demands the same treatment for Downeast LNG as the commission gave to a project in Oregon, issuing a final environmental impact statement despite the modelling concerns.

The proponents continue to push the Maine proposals through the American regulatory process despite the stance by the Canadian government that it will not allow LNG tankers to traverse Head Harbour Passage.

Proponents argue that international shipping has the right of innocent passage through this Canadian passage to reach American shores.

Supporters of the American projects accuse Canada of using environmental concerns to prevent competition to the LNG terminal in Saint John.

Craig, like other opponents on both sides of the border, doesn't buy this.

"This type of development in the proposed locations will have a significant negative impact on the fishery, aquaculture and tourism which are the economic basis for our town," his letter states.

"We are a resort town, not unlike Camden, Rockport or Kennebunkport. The attraction of this town to summer residents and tourists depends on the natural environment and a feeling of safety and security.

"The safety and security of the citizens of Saint Andrews, Charlotte County and the Province of New Brunswick would be placed in a most precarious position with an LNG development so close to the international border."

Downeast LNG would locate its terminal at Robbinston, directly across from St. Andrews. Calais LNG would locate farther upriver across from the Canadian port of Bayside.

Proponents say the projects provide desperately needed work in a poor region of the United States. Opponents say the projects would threaten more economic activity than they would create.

Media Credit: photo creation by Art MacKay from web sources. Base photo is Bangor Daily News.

Canada Remains Firm - Head Harbour Passage is sovereign Canadian waters.

Get the pictures and subscribe at: http://fundytides.blogspot.com

Energy corridors measure doesn't budge Canada on LNG
Maine backers hoped change would soften Canada's position

BY TUX TURKEL

Portland Press Herald

Maine's lifting of a moratorium on energy corridors this week won't change Canada's opposition to liquefied natural gas tankers sailing through New Brunswick waters to proposed terminals in Washington County, the Canadian Prime Minister's office said Wednesday.

"Our position remains the same," said Sara MacIntyre, a spokeswoman for Prime Minister Stephen Harper. "These are sovereign waters."

Ottawa's reaction followed a news release by LNG advocates in Maine noting that the corridor ban had ended and urging Canada to drop its opposition to tanker traffic through Head Harbour Passage, the access route to two proposed terminals in Passamaquoddy Bay. Those projects, in Calais and Robbinston, are seeking state and U.S. permits. But without some compromise by Canada, they cannot be built.

The blunt response suggests that Maine's LNG supporters have made no progress in trying to persuade Canada to soften its longstanding position.

After a year of study and debate, Maine lawmakers adopted a comprehensive law to protect the state's financial and environmental interests, if and when developers build billion-dollar transmission corridors connecting Canada and the Northeast. The state banned those projects after Fort Reliance, the parent company of New Brunswick-based Irving Oil, began studying an energy corridor through Maine. Fort Reliance operates a new LNG terminal in Saint John, New Brunswick.

At the urging of Maine LNG supporters, lawmakers banned new energy corridors from Canada. The idea was to put pressure on the Canadian government, making a link between allowing transmission corridors across Maine and opening up an energy corridor through New Brunswick's waters.

But it doesn't appear that Canada made that connection.

"The press release is nice and we welcome it," said Neal Burnham, a spokesman for the Canadian Consulate in Boston. "But it doesn't change the principles by which we oppose tankers."

Head Harbour Passage is an internal waterway under the control of Canada, Burnham said, subject to international treaties. Canada says it won't allow fuel tankers through the narrow channel because of concerns about the potential impact of a spill or grounding on tourism, fishing and property values. Ottawa took the same stance in 1975, when U.S. developers proposed building the Pittston oil refinery in Eastport.

The issue resurfaced in recent years after LNG developers, unsuccessful in persuading other communities along the Maine coast to host a terminal, arrived in Washington County. High unemployment and energy costs have made some residents and officials there more receptive, and they are disappointed by Canada's latest response.

"It's important for Canada to understand that this is an important issue on our side of the border," said Maine Senate Minority Leader Kevin Raye, R-Perry.

Raye, who grew up in Eastport, said the Canadian government's position amounts to a threatened blockade of U.S. waters. "The U.S. does not accept that erroneous interpretation," he said of Canada's control of water access to the terminal sites.

That view has repeatedly been expressed by the U.S. State Department, according to a letter on the subject last fall to U.S. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine.

All commercial traffic, including LNG tankers, has a "nonsuspendable right of innocent passage into and out of the region through Head Harbour Passage," the State Department said.

The department responded to Collins after she wrote President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, asking them to take up the matter with Harper when he visited Washington in September.

But at least publicly, Canada has rejected the United States' interpretation.

Harper made that clear in January, when dignitaries from both sides of the border dedicated a new bridge connecting Calais and St. Stephen, New Brunswick. In response to a media question, he replied: "Our position is that these are sovereign Canadian waters. We've been opposed to tanker traffic through this passage, and we continue to make representations to the United States government at the highest levels on this."

Diplomacy typically takes place out of public view. But at the Canadian Consulate, Burnham insisted that despite rumors to the contrary, no negotiations are taking place between Washington and Ottawa.

The corridor moratorium was originally promoted by Maine Jobs First, a coalition of business and labor interests that wants to build the LNG terminals. Tony Buxton, a lawyer representing the Calais LNG venture, noted Wednesday that despite the dispute, Canada remains America's largest trading partner and close ally.

"We continue to be optimistic that this matter can be worked out, as other matters have, through diplomacy," he said.

Friday, February 26, 2010

Additional LNG capacity in the Bay of Fundy is not needed

Get the pictures and subscribe at: http://fundytides.blogspot.com

Business at LNG company pumps up — The Boston Herald, Boston, MA
From www.savepassamaquoddybay.org

As Mayor Thomas M. Menino fights to ban future liquefied natural gas shipments from Yemen into Boston Harbor, a rival company is touting its new offshore LNG buoy system as a safer alternative.

…LNG tankers are now steaming in at a regular rate, sometimes two at a time, offloading their dangerous cargo about 10 miles out to sea.

By the end of this month, Excelerate will have unloaded about seven tankers at its offshore site, or about 15 to 20 percent of the gas used by New Englanders during the current season, he said.

Webmaster’s (Bob Godfrey) Comments

Canaport LNG is supplying 20% of the Northeast's natural gas. Distrigas in Everett, Massachusetts is supplying 20%. Northeast Gateway is supplying another 20%. Soon, Suez Energy's Neptune LNG will also be supplying approximately 20% of New England's natural gas. That's 80% of New England's natural gas needs — already met by existing and under-construction projects, not to mention the natural gas arriving by existing pipeline from the Gulf of Mexico.

Ill-sited latecomers Calais LNG and Downeast LNG simply are not needed.

Thursday, October 22, 2009

NOT SO "Innocent Passage"

Get the pictures and subscribe at: http://fundytides.blogspot.com

Our american Friends love to talk about "innocent Passage" and their right to pass through Canada's inland waters at Head Harbour Passage to reach their proposed LNG terminals in Passamaquoddy Bay..

I thought you all might be interested in the good word from the UN. So much for the "innocent" rights of our American friends.

Here it is:

Updated 12 February 2009

Status of the Convention and its implementing Agreements

Link to the Oceans and Law of the Sea: Status of the Convention and the implementing agreements

In its resolutions on oceans and the law of the sea, the General Assembly continuously stresses the importance of increasing the number of States parties to the Convention and the Agreement relating to the implementation of Part XI of the Convention in order to achieve the goal of universal participation. The General Assembly also reiterates its call upon all States that had not done so to become parties to these instruments.

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea was open for signature on 10 December 1982 and entered into force on 16 November 1994. Out of 159 original UNCLOS signatories, 29 have yet to ratify. From among 38 States that did not sign UNCLOS or were not independent States at the time of its opening for signature, 17 have acceded or succeeded to it. Certain coastal States have not yet expressed their consent to be bound by the Convention. These were, as at 30 September 2005: five in the African region (Republic of the Congo, Eritrea, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and Morocco); 10 in Asia (Cambodia, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Israel, Niue, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Turkey and United Arab Emirates), one in North America (United States of America) and six in Latin America and the Caribbean (Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Peru and Venezuela). It appears, however, that in certain States non-parties, internal procedures are under way to enable them to become parties to UNCLOS. Developing landlocked States in Africa and Central Asia should also ratify or accede to UNCLOS, as Part X of UNCLOS dealing with access to and from the sea and freedom of transit provides the basic legal framework for the negotiation of modalities of such access and transit.

The Agreement relating to the implementation of Part XI of the Convention was adopted on 28 July 1994 (General Assembly resolution 48/263) and entered into force on 28 July 1996. The Agreement is to be interpreted and applied together with the Convention as a single instrument, and in the event of any inconsistency between the Agreement and Part XI of the Convention, the provisions of the Agreement shall prevail. After 28 July 1994, any ratification of or accession to the Convention represents consent to be bound by the Agreement as well. Furthermore, no State or entity can establish its consent to be bound by the Agreement unless it has previously established its consent to be bound by the Convention or unless it establishes such consent to be bound by the Agreement and the Convention at the same time.

Not all States parties to the Convention are parties to the Agreement relating to the implementation of Part XI. A number of States which became States parties to the Convention prior to the adoption of the Agreement on Part XI have yet to express their consent to be bound by the Agreement (see the table).These States should take the necessary steps in order to accede to that Agreement and thus to put their participation in the work of the International Seabed Authority on a sound legal footing.

The Agreement for the implementation of the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the conservation and management of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks (the 1995 Agreement on Fish Stocks) was adopted on 4 August 1995 by the United Nations Conference on Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks. Unlike the Agreement relating to the implementation of Part XI of the Convention, there is no direct linkage between the 1995 Agreement on Fish Stocks and the Convention with respect to establishing the consent to be bound.

The Agreement was opened for signature until 4 December 1996 and received a total of 59 signatures. The Agreement entered into force on 11 December 2001, 30 days after the date of deposit of the thirtieth instrument of ratification or accession. Although the Agreement provides, in its article 41, for the possibility of its provisional application, no State or entity has notified the depositary of its wish to do so.

**************************

If you are interested in more on existing recent boundary treaties between Canada and USA as related to the UN and UNCLOs, these might prove to be a fun read. Enjoy!!

Canada

Treaty to submit to binding dispute settlement the delimitation of the maritime boundary in the Gulf of Maine area, 29 March 1979

Special Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America to submit to a Chamber of the International Court of Justice the delimitation of the maritime boundary in the Gulf of Maine area, 29 March 1979

Case concerning Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area (Canada/United States of America) International Court of Justice, 12 October 1984

Friday, October 16, 2009

"Listen up" Governor Baldacii - Passamaquoddy Bay is a coastal estuary.

Seems New England Governors will commit themselves to "safeguard coastal and estuarine lands". If this is the case, why did Governor Baldacii's advisors not tell him that the proposed sites of the LNG terminals in Passamaquoddy Bay are on "coastal and estuarine land". I know this, every citizen of Quoddy knows this, the IJC knows this, the Government of Canada knows this, numerous state and federal agencies know this ... it's no secret. Perhaps you can have it two ways at the same time? Kind of a bipolar government?

My thoughts tonight.

Thanks Vivian

****************************

"A Lasting Legacy", the just-released recommendations of the "Report of the Blue Ribbon Commission on Land Conservation" ordered by the New England Governors Conference (NEGC) and accepted by them at their Sept. 15 meeting in New Brunswick.

The Commission ... recommends five compelling goals for regional collaboration across New England, a set of policy priorities upon which to build a regional conservation strategy. These are:
1. Keep Forests as Forests,
2. Keep Farmlands in Farming,
3. Connect People to the Outdoors,
4. Protect Wildlife Habitat, and
5. Safeguard Coastal and Estuarine Lands.

The full "Report of the NEGC Commission on Land Conservation" (5 MB) can be downloaded from the N.E. Governors' Conference website:
http://www.negc.org/documents/2009/Conservation.pdf

Get the pictures and subscribe at: http://fundytides.blogspot.com
Photo Credit: Art MacKay
Note: Proposed Calais LNG site is up the estuary near Devil's Head

Saturday, October 10, 2009

Product Surge at Canaport LNG causes huge flare and evacuation.

Ahh, just the kind of tension we need down here in Passamaquoddy Bay. Excitement, danger, fear....!!! I actually saw this today on my way to SJ ... impressive to say the least.

Art

*************************

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/new-brunswick/story/2009/10/10/nb-lng-evacuation.html

Flare problems force evacuation of LNG site
Last Updated: Saturday, October 10, 2009 | 8:08 PM AT Comments6Recommend7
CBC News

Saint John fire Chief Rob Simonds says there was a problem with the flaring system. (CBC)Saint John fire Chief Rob Simonds says there was a problem with the flaring system. (CBC) The Canaport liquefied natural gas terminal in east Saint John was evacuated Saturday at about 12:30 p.m. AT.

Emergency crews responded to a report of a fire at the terminal, located on Red Head Road.

Fire Chief Rob Simonds said there was a problem with the flaring system used to burn off secondary gases.

The flame was three times larger than its normal size and was visible from uptown Saint John, Simonds said.

"There was a very large volume of fire coming out of the flaring system, which is an indication that there was a surge of product going through that."

Workers at the scene told CBC News the flare appeared to have gotten out of control and it created a great deal of heat. They were forced off the job for about an hour.

No one was injured.

Some of the workers were ordered out of the Canaport LNG terminal Saturday. (CBC)Some of the workers were ordered out of the Canaport LNG terminal Saturday. (CBC) "The notification thresholds and protocols that have been put in place have worked seamlessly," said Simonds.

Workers cut back the fuel supply to the flare and the plant's warning system alerted emergency responders.

Four fire trucks and several police cars responded to the problem. One fire truck was expected to remain there until the flare tower cooled and ensure none of the sensors that detect emergency situations were damaged, the chief said.

Earlier in the day, hundreds of laid-off tradespeople gathered to protest being replaced by out-of-province workers at the liquefied natural gas terminal project.

Most of the protesters are union members who were laid off after building the first two enormous containment tanks at the Irving-Repsol owned terminal.

Get the pictures and subscribe at: http://fundytides.blogspot.com

Photo Credit: CBC NB

LNG - Governor Baldacci declares Maine's right to transit Candian waters in the Bay of Fundy ... and where else in Canada?

Get the pictures and subscribe at: http://fundytides.blogspot.com

The LNG tanker route at Head Harbour Passage. Brian Flynn photo.

Maine must not cede rights to maritime transit

By John E. Baldacci
Special to the BDN

There is much that binds Maine and New Brunswick together. We have a long and shared history, common borders and many joint economic opportunities. During my term as governor, I have worked hard to increase cross-border cooperation on a number of issues critical to both sides.

And we have made great progress by recognizing that our region is stronger when New England and eastern Canada are able to work together.

But these strong relations do not guarantee that we will agree on all issues.

Right now, Maine and the United States are in a heated dispute with Canada and New Brunswick over shipping in Passamaquoddy Bay, the St. Croix River and through Head Harbor Passage.

Passamaquoddy Bay and the St. Croix River are boundary waters between the United States and Canada.

According to international law, treaties between the U.S. and Canada and current practice, ships headed to port in Maine have as much right to use the passage as ships headed to Canada. The U.S. State Department has taken a strong and consistent position that all vessels enjoy a nonsuspendable right of innocent passage into and out of Passamaquoddy Bay through Head Harbor Passage. This is guaranteed by the International Law of the Sea Convention.

Canada disagrees and has asserted, without evidence, that the river and bay are “internal” Canadian waters, and commerce there can be controlled and regulated by Ottawa.

In the simplest language possible, that’s wrong.

Ships heading for Maine and the United States and Canada have the right to travel up the river, as they do now.

The issue of right of passage has been tied up with two current proposals to develop liquid natural gas terminals in Maine. Canada, which has an LNG terminal of its own, is attempting to block the developments on our side of the border.

While I support the development of LNG facilities in Maine as long as they meet all environmental and safety requirements and have the support of the host communities, the issues along the St. Croix, Head Harbor Passage and Passamaquoddy Bay go much deeper than these two proposed projects.

Today, Canada and New Brunswick have made the decision that it is in their best interest to attempt to block LNG tankers from reaching port in the United States.

Tomorrow, the decision could be made that other types of commercial traffic should be blocked. As Maine works to develop and grow exports, there is great potential for wood pulp, biofuels, wood chips and any number of other products to be shipped down the St. Croix to markets around the world.

Annually, more than 100 deep draft cargo ships visit the ports of Eastport in the U.S. and Bayside in Canada already, and the U.S. Coast Guard uses the waterway to reach the ocean. If Canada’s claim is left unchallenged, that traffic will also be left to the discretion of Ottawa.

Whether a person supports LNG in Calais or Robbinston, this question is much larger.

It is not appropriate for the Canadian government to hold control over commerce in Maine and the United States.

As to the specifics of the LNG proposals, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has a process in place to judge whether the locations are appropriate, and New Brunswick is rightly participating in that process as are supporters and opponents of the developments.

FERC is the best venue for the issue of LNG terminal location to be resolved.

There are legitimate concerns about the projects, and opponents should have the right and the opportunity to be heard. Questions have been raised about the safety of LNG tankers in Head Harbor Passage, Western Passage and Passamaquoddy Bay. According to the United States Coast Guard, which studied the issue, those areas are suitable for tanker traffic. In addition, the communities in Calais and Robbinston have supported the projects.

The proposals deserve a chance to be judged on their merits, not on the disposition of the Canadian government.

I have met with the Obama administration and with the U.S. State Department, and both have reiterated their support for the right of innocent passage through Head Harbor Passage.

Whether LNG terminals are developed in Washington County or not, we cannot cede control of commerce in Maine to another country, no matter how well we are able to cooperate on other issues.

John E. Baldacci is the governor of Maine.

11 comments on this item

On 10/10/09 at 10:12 AM, ElectraGlide wrote: