Breaking News

It took three months and a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, but Save Passamaquoddy Bay 3-nation alliance (SPB) successfully obtained navigation charts of Passamaquoddy Bay showing the thermal hazard zones that would accompany LNG ships into the bay, should any of the proposed LNG terminals be permitted. The documents had been submitted by Downeast LNG and Quoddy Bay LNG to the US Coast Guard (USCG) for Coast Guard use in determining the suitability of the waterway for LNG ship traffic.

SPB submitted a FOIA request to the Coast Guard for release of the documents on February 7. USCG lawyers finally approved release of the documents three months later. SPB copied the documents on June 4, and has made them available on their website.

The documents consist of nautical charts of the Passamaquoddy Bay area, with transparent color overlays depicting three "Zones of Concern" that equate to Thermal Hazard Zones. Thermal Hazard Zones are areas adjacent to LNG ships' routes in which people, property, and environment could be destroyed or damaged in the event of an LNG release from a ship. Hazards include fire, burns, explosion, cryogenic freezing, and asphyxiation.

Three Zones of Concern -- Thermal Hazard Zones Zone 1 extends to 500 meters (1,640 feet; under a third of a mile) from the ship. Within that zone -- all within the water surrounding the transiting ship -- an LNG pool fire would essentially destroy everyone and everything. LNG vessel crew members, crews of vessels attending to the ship's passage, and emergency response personnel who might be within the zone would be at risk of losing life.

Zone 2 is the area between 500 meters to 1,600 meters (virtually 1 mile) from the ship, and includes all of downtown Eastport, as well as
large areas of residences, businesses, government agencies, and services. The zone would include at least some of those same assets at
Pleasant Point Passamaquoddy Reservation, Campobello Island, and Perry. An LNG pool fire at the ship would likely result in 2nd-degree burns to unprotected skin within 30 seconds. Fire, cryogenic freezing, explosion, and asphyxiation are also hazards within that zone.

Zone 3 extends from 1,600 meters to 3,500 meters (2.17 miles) from the ship. In the event of a catastrophic LNG release, and if there were no initial ignition of the LNG vapors, vapors could drift within this zone, presenting burn, fire, explosion, and asphyxiation hazards.

The three zones encompass virtually all of Eastport; all of Pleasant Point Passamaquoddy Reservation; and large portions of Campobello
Island, Deer Island, Perry, Robbinston, and all of downtown and a major portion of the residential area of St. Andrews.

"It's essential that the public and local governments have this information available to them, since they're the ones the LNG developers are putting at risk," stated Robert Godfrey, webmaster for SPB.

The documents can be downloaded from www.savepassamaquoddybay.org/announcements.html

AUGUSTA, Me. – A group of concerned residents today called on the Maine Board of Environmental Protection to reject an application filed by Downeast LNG to build a liquefied natural gas terminal in Robbinston.

In filing a motion for denial with the board (see attached), the residents say that in its race to capture a portion of the highly competitive natural gas market, Downeast LNG has failed to meet the basic requirements put forth by state regulators. Those thresholds exist to avoid “wasting time and scarce public resources in reviewing applications designed merely to gain speculative marketplace advantage,” the residents note.

The motion was filed by attorneys Ronald Shems, Rebecca Boucher and Ronald Kreisman on behalf of Nulankeyutmonen Nkihtahkomikumon (We Take Care of Our Land); Save Passamaquoddy Bay; Fundy North Fishermen’s Association; and Fundy Weir Fishermen’s Association. The motion would not preclude Downeast LNG from refiling a future application.

Downeast LNG is one of more than 17 U.S. competitors vying for limited development licenses to establish LNG import terminals along the East Coast.

In its filing, the group calls on the Board to reject Downeast LNG’s application based on:

· Downeast LNG’s failure to show that any financial entity has committed to funding the construction, operation or maintenance if the permits were to be obtained;

· The Canadian Government’s recent decision to prohibit LNG tankers from passing through Head Harbour Passage, which would be Downeast LNG’s sole supply route for natural gas;

· The improbability that Downeast LNG’s proposal could be constructed in the time period required by state regulations, which call for permit holders to begin construction within two years and complete it within five years.

“In sum, Downeast LNG has failed to demonstrate that it has met any of these three requirements for BEP to go forward at this time with further application review,” the group says. “While it is up to Downeast LNG to decide whether to participate in the permit race, participation before the BEP must be according to Maine law, and presently it is not.”

A representative of an international group opposed to locating LNG industry in Passamaquoddy Bay has stated that Downeast LNG President Dean Girdis has essentially admitted that his project is “fatally flawed.”

Save Passamaquoddy Bay webmaster Robert Godfrey submitted comments on Sunday night to the FERC Downeast LNG docket regarding statements made by Downeast LNG President Dean Girdis. In a news story that appeared in the March 9 Bangor Daily News, Girdis made statements indicating his ignorance of the LNG industry’s world-recognized safety standards.

With respect to that docket filing, Godfrey said, “It is now unquestionable that when determining their choice for siting their LNG facility, Downeast LNG ignored their industry’s own world standards for safe terminal siting. Had Girdis familiarized himself with and followed those standards, he never would have selected Passamaquoddy Bay. In fact, industry standards preclude the safe siting of any LNG terminal project in Passamaquoddy Bay.”

Godfrey went on to say, “The 2006 March 14 El Paso Corporation LNG terminal incident at Elba Island in Texas, where a passing ship’s wake broke an offloading LNG carrier from its berth, mirrors conditions here in Passamaquoddy Bay. “That’s why,” Godfrey stated, “world-recognized LNG industry standards indicate that shipping channels are inappropriate locations for LNG terminals. It’s time for Downeast LNG to admit their errors and leave.”

The FERC Docket PF06-13 filing, Accession Number 20060319-5007, can be accessed at http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/file_list.asp?accession_num=20060319-5007

Contact:
Robert Godfrey
Save Passamaquoddy Bay 3-Nation Alliance
PO Box 43
Eastport, ME 04631
(207)853-4123
info@savepassamaquoddybay.org

New Orleans, LA - The Gulf Restoration Network, the Louisiana Charter Boat Association and the Sierra Club are eagerly anticipating the Tulane Environmental Law Clinic’s arguments in front of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit challenging the permit for Shell’s liquefied natural gas facility. The unlikely coalition, the “Gumbo Alliance for Safe LNG,” are asking the court to overturn a decision by the U.S. Department of Transportation to permit Shell’s facility in the Gulf of Mexico despite its potentially harmful impacts to critical Louisiana fisheries, including redfish, shrimp, crabs, and other species.

The groups will assert that the National Environmental Policy Act was violated because the agency did not fully examine the cumulative impacts on fisheries from all open-loop LNG facilities proposed for the Gulf. They will also argue that the Deepwater Ports Act was violated because the license did not require the company to use the “best available technology,” because it allowed Shell to use an open-loop system even though it would cause more harm to fisheries and water quality than other available technology.

“The Department of Transportation’s environmental analysis and permit decision fail to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act and the Deepwater Port Act,” said Alex Williamson, the student attorney with the Tulane Environmental Law Clinic, which represents the organizations. “The law is clear—the agency must examine the cumulative impacts to the environment, including fisheries, before issuing a permit.”

“The permitting of Gulf Landing defies common sense,” said Aaron Viles, Campaign Director with the Gulf Restoration Network, “There is complete agreement among fisheries managers that these facilities will destroy marine life, the only question is to what extent. No rational person, aware of the alternative technologies that exist, would designate the open-loop system as the environmentally preferred option – in fact, the federal government’s fish experts, NOAA Fisheries have explicitly stated their preference for a closed-loop system”

ConocoPhillips, Freeport McMoRan, and other energy corporations are also seeking to build LNG facilities in the Gulf of Mexico. However, only terminals proposed for the Gulf of Mexico are seeking to use the destructive open-loop technology.

Charlie Smith, Director of the Louisiana Charter Boat Association, which represents charter boat captains and guides across Southern Louisiana added, “It seems that Big Oil has a different set of standards for the Gulf Coast. We believe that is because Shell and others do not expect Louisiana and other Gulf Coast states to continue to oppose these fish killing machines. Shell’s funding of the America’s Wetland campaign, grants to Police departments, the sponsorship of the Jazz Fest and other "altruistic" moves look good but when you're bringing in $25 million per day it's an insulting pittance. Let’s not forget the damaging role that their oil field canals crisscrossing our wetlands played in the destruction of our critical marsh.”

“This is a classic case of federal scientists, who actually know the resource, being rolled by a bureaucrat in Washington following the directives of the Bush Administration’s energy plan,” said Darryl Malek-Wiley, a Grassroots Organizer with the Sierra Club.

The argument in front of the Fifth Circuit is scheduled second on Wednesday’s docket, which commences at 9am Wednesday, March 8. Each side will receive 20 minutes to make their case.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

600 Camp Street

New Orleans, LA 70130

Aaron Viles

Campaign Director

Gulf Restoration Network

338 Baronne St. Ste. 200

New Orleans, LA 70112

w: 504.525.1528 ext. 207 c:225.615.0346

PLEASE NOTE NEW CELL NUMBER

http://healthygulf.org aaron@healthygulf.org

Tell Shell: Stop the fish-killing machines!

By Elliot Spagat
Associated Press
02/19/2006

ENSENADA, Mexico -- In late 2003, Sempra Energy's bid to build the first liquefied natural gas terminal in western North America was in deep trouble. Plans to import gas from Bolivia sparked a popular uprising that killed dozens of people and toppled the government there.

Today, Sempra is leading the race. It turned to Indonesia for the gas, and is building a $1-billion plant on Mexico's pristine coastline, just 50 miles south of San Diego. The terminal, to be completed in early 2008, will be a key fuel source for California homes and businesses for decades to come.

The decision to build in Mexico is paying off big for Sempra, which owns Southern California's two major gas utilities. Rivals who want to build LNG terminals on California's coast are being stymied by environmental and NIMBY -- "not in my back yard" -- groups. For Sempra, the choice was easy.

"The Mexican government had their arms open, saying, 'Please, anybody who wants to build an LNG plant, come here and apply,"' said Donald Felsinger, chairman and chief executive officer.

Sempra isn't the only company using a cross-border strategy in the energy industry's rush to LNG.

Terminals are being built in Canada to fuel the eastern United States -- one by Anadarko Petroleum Corp. in Point Tupper, Nova Scotia and one by Repsol YPF in Saint John, New Brunswick. Gas from those plants will be sent on a pipeline that connects to the U.S. grid in Calais, Maine.

LNG is supercooled liquefied gas that is shipped from far-flung countries -- Iran, Qatar, Russia and Indonesia are major suppliers -- to coastline terminals, where it is heated, vaporized and fed into a pipeline. Sempra and other companies are convinced that LNG is key to keeping a lid on gas prices in the United States as domestic supplies dwindle.

The rub: Many coastal communities don't want massive fuel tankers hogging their shores. Regulators approved five new LNG terminals in Texas and three in Louisiana, but companies have struggled to find a home outside the Gulf of Mexico, particularly in California and New England.

That's not to say that all Mexicans welcome LNG either. Lobster fishermen and the owner of a neighboring resort say Sempra's hulking plant threatens business. Surfers say a phenomenal surfing spot was destroyed after the San Diego-based company began construction in March.

Environmentalists have waged a spirited -- and so far unsuccessful -- campaign to derail Sempra, regularly blocking traffic at the plant entrance and bringing activists from around the world to rally local opposition. They sued the California Public Utilities Commission in state court last year to force the regulator to reconsider a ruling that cleared the way for Sempra to pipe gas from the plant to the U.S. grid near Tecate, Calif.

Mexican opponents have scored big victories against other companies that planned LNG terminals in nearby cities that, by comparison, made Sempra's location look downright remote. ConocoPhillips Co. dropped plans for a terminal in Rosarito, a spring-break hotspot just 15 miles south of San Diego. Marathon Oil Corp. was forced out in 2004 when municipal authorities seized its beachfront property in the crowded border city of Tijuana.

"They are using Mexico as a dumping ground, as a back door to the United States," said Jose Luis Sanchez, 47, an environmental activist in Tijuana.

Sempra says the plant is good for Mexico, which will split the gas with the United States. "They wanted to make sure that their economy is not stranded, and they've acted," said Darcel Hulse, president of Sempra's LNG unit.

The drone of bulldozers and cement trucks fills the air as some of the plant's 820 construction workers labor on a grated hillside of agave and desert shrub one recent morning. Cranes hover above the concrete foundation of two giant cylindrical tanks that will store the liquid gas.

The plant sits on a 395-acre lot on the northern edge of Ensenada, a port city of 250,000 people. When finished, it will process up to 1 billion cubic feet of gas daily -- equal to about one-sixth of California's consumption -- and there's enough room to more than double capacity to 2.5 billion cubic feet a day.

A tiny fishing village of about a dozen makeshift trailers lies next to the plant. Men fish for lobster, crab and sea cucumber in a stretch of ocean also populated by seals, dolphins and whales. Renato Gonzalez, 32, ekes out a living finding starfish, which are sold to tourists in Tijuana.

"What can we do?" Gonzalez said as he waited for the sunlight to bake dozens of starfish on a wire-mesh table. "It's a very powerful company. We don't have a choice."

Mario Loera, who has fished for lobster for 13 years, said he will move in 2008, when the plant begins operations. "I still have two years to go."

Sempra, which was formed in 1998 in the merger of Southern California Gas Co. and San Diego Gas & Electric Co., has transformed from a stodgy utility to a diversified company that builds pipelines and power plants.

In 2000, the company turned suspicious of forecasts by the U.S. government and industry consultants that domestic natural gas would remain cheap and plentiful.

A company researcher pored over microfiche showing drilling patterns going back to the early 1900s. Employees scoured public records in Texas, New Mexico and Oklahoma. Their conclusion: the United States cannot produce enough gas to feed itself and will turn increasingly to imports, just as it did with oil.

Sempra's dour outlook became the premise for a $2.9-billion investment in LNG. Aside from Mexico, it began building a $950 million terminal near Lake Charles, La., last year and plans to start on a $700 million plant next year in Port Arthur, Texas.

Sempra was sent scrambling in late 2003 when plans collapsed to import the gas to Mexico from Bolivia on a pipeline to Chile's north coast. The project rekindled old animosities from a 19th-century war that left Bolivia landlocked, and violent protests toppled the government.

Things quickly turned in Sempra's favor. It signed a 20-year agreement with BP PLC to import liquefied gas from Indonesia, and defrayed costs by agreeing to rent half the Mexican plant to Royal Dutch Shell Group of Cos.

Environmentalists say their fight to block the Sempra is far from over, but they face a formidable foe.

In 2002, environmentalists sued the U.S. Department of Energy in U.S. federal court to prevent Sempra from sending power to the United States from its new electricity plant in the Mexican border city of Mexicali. Critics said Sempra was exploiting Mexico's looser regulations. Sempra said shutting the power lines would raise prices for U.S. consumers.

The environmentalists sought an injunction to stop the power transfer. Sempra won that round, but the case continues.

Houston, TX-An unlikely assortment of recreational fishermen, commercial fishermen, and environmentalists have joined together to oppose the use of open-loop liquefied natural gas technology at Shell’s Gulf Landing terminal. The proposed system could destroy the equivalent of up to 48% of Texas’ annual redfish catch.

“Shell is dead wrong to think that the people of the Gulf are just going to let the company get away with killing our fish,” said Captain Bill Curry, charter boat captain and owner of a boat that was parked outside One Shell Plaza today, “and we’re here to prove it to them.”

While many Gulf Coast residents are still focused on the aftermath of hurricanes Katrina and Rita, Shell is working to build a fish-killing machine off-shore in the Gulf. The boat procession, designed to draw public attention to Shell’s flawed proposals, made its way through downtown before stopping in front of One Shell Plaza. Signs exclaimed “Tell Shell: Stop the fish-killing machines!” and boats parked in front of the building created an impressive scene.

“From oil spills to wetlands loss – the Gulf has been hammered over the past 6 months. The last thing we need are multiple fish-killing machines jeopardizing our fisheries. The Gulf Restoration Network is proud to be working alongside recreational and commercial fishermen to stop this assault on the Gulf,” explained Aaron Viles, Campaign Director for the Gulf Restoration Network.

Throughout the Gulf, nontraditional allies have unified to oppose open-loop technology. In Louisiana, the Gumbo Alliance for Safe LNG has successfully convinced Governor Blanco to veto any future applications for open-loop terminals. The Gulf Fisheries Alliance in Alabama represents thousands of commercial and recreational fishermen. The groups are focusing on Shell, who already holds a federal permit, to encourage the company to set the proper precedent by building a fish-friendly alternative.

“Mortality of marine species associated with the operations of an open-loop LNG facility are unaccepted in light of the tremendous amount of restrictive measures recreational anglers are subjected to in order to meet conservation goals set for fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico,” explained Tom Hilton, a representative of the national Recreational Fishing Alliance.

Shell intends to use 136 million gallons of Gulf seawater everyday at its terminal off the coast of Cameron Parish in order to regasify imported liquefied natural gas. In the process of sending the water through the heat exchange, chlorine is added, the water is cooled, and everything in it is killed- billions of fish eggs, larvae, and zooplankton. This could negatively affect the health of Gulf fisheries. Alternatives exist, but Shell and other energy corporations have refused to consider their use in the Gulf, despite proposals to utilize these alternatives elsewhere in the country.

Fisheries management agencies in the Gulf, including the National Marine Fisheries Service, oppose the use of open-loop technology. Along with public pressure being created by the organized opposition, there is a lawsuit pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit challenging the Department of Transportation’s decision to permit Shell’s operation of the Gulf Landing terminal.

I know people will read part of this story because of the head lines. I hope you will read all of it and continue to read it until we really know what is happening, what is going to happen, and what the real effects the LNG platforms will have on the ecology and hence the economy along the Gulf Coast of the United States.

Let’s do a little comparison. On March 24 1989 off the coast of Prince William Sound, Alaska the tanker Exxon Valdes struck the Bligh Reef and the worst oil spill in our history contaminated an ecological system and an economy that still shows the effects of that nightmare even today. This spill was crude oil that floated on top of the water and did not readily mix with the water even though some did break up in an emulsified state and stuck to rocks along the shoreline when the tides went out. It created an ecological nightmare and disaster. You can pull up a book full of information on the internet about what is going on even today (2006), dealing with this mess and catastrophe.

With the open loop system that is proposed for the Gulf platforms, and by the way from what we have learned, all the other platforms along the US coast are closed loop, there will be up to 195,000,000 gallons of highly chlorinated, and chilled sea water dumped into the gulf each day. This is almost 200 times the size of the Exxon Valdes and it mixes with water immediately. Who could be allowed to dump this amount of chlorine contaminated substance any where in the US or on our shores. This is every day. That’s 71,175,000,000 gallons a year and there are eight of the platforms due to be constructed in the Gulf of Mexico. In one year, from one platform, that’s more than 70,000 times the spill of the Exxon Valdes and it’s not supposed to make a difference? They are going to dump it into the Gulf Stream, one of the most defined and pronounced natural eco transporters on our planet.

I am not against the use and processing of LNG. I am against any large corporation cutting corners at the expense of the common man and my grand children. They ( being the giant companies that are going to profit from the LNG) can certainly afford to go the cost of closed loop systems because they are making record profits now by tearing a hole in the common man’s wallet at the gas pumps.

If you are a commercial fisherman, a sport fisherman, work somewhere along the Gulf Coast, live along the Gulf Coast, or like to vacation there, you had better become aware of what is quietly being planned that could affect your future. The FishNet Daily News has some concerns about what we have learned in the last 10 days about the LNG program and we were totally unaware of what is being pushed forward. We are going to continue to search out all the information we can and report it in this paper. We hope you continue to read these articles and join the efforts that will ensure that our Gulf Coast and our fisheries remain protected.

Oil and gas companies are planning their next wave of big energy projects. There is renewed interest on importing natural gas from other countries. Since these oil and gas companies plan to use the Gulf as a transfer station for this energy, we must make sure that they do not unnecessarily jeopardize the fishing industry that the Gulf of Mexico is famous for.

In order to transport the natural gas from countries such as Nigeria and Qatar, the natural gas must be super-cooled to -260 degrees Fahrenheit and converted to a liquid form. It is then put on massive ships and sent across the ocean to US consumers. Once the ships get to the Gulf, the liquid natural gas must be reheated to its gas form so that it can be put into our pipelines. This is where the problem starts. Shell Oil and other oil and gas corporations want to use open-loop technology on their transfer stations offshore in the Gulf. These open-loop offshore terminals would severely harm the fish in the Gulf and jeopardize the industry and sport that many of us take part in.

Open-loop LNG terminals would take in up to 195 million gallons of seawater per day to reheat the LNG in a heat transfer. In order for the water to enter the heat exchange system, it would have to be pumped full of chlorine. Once passing through the heat exchange, hundreds of millions of gallons of our Gulf’s seawater would become chilled, chlorinated, lifeless seawater. Everything contained in the water, including fish eggs, larvae, and zooplankton, would be killed. One LNG terminal could kill the equivalent of 48% of Texas’s annual redfish catch!

Other technologies exist that would not use our Gulf’s seawater to warm back up the LNG. These technologies, called closed loop systems, are marginally more expensive, yet Shell Oil and others have shown no interest in using them here in the Gulf. They are proposing to use this fish-friendly technology in other parts of the country such as New England and California.

Shell Oil already has permits to install these fish-killing machines in our Gulf. We must make sure that they know our sport and the livelihood of many cannot be put at risk when there is safer technology available. Our fisheries are already under strain and the last thing they need right now is more. We must tell Shell to stop their flawed proposal of installing fish killing machines, and switch to fish friendly technology.