Downeast LNG Robbinston Plant

STATUS: In Process

OPPOSITION: Sierra Club; Earth First; Citizens in New Brunswick, Canada

PROSPECTS:  Likely.  Primary permitting well underway - Positive Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Issued by FERC; Letter of Recommendation issued by U.S. Coast Guard, Host Town of Robbinston voted 3:1 in favor of project.

BACKGROUND:  The proposed plant would provide a baseload of 500 mmscfd of natural gas to the New England market. Project is well ahead of other proposed LNG projects in the area.
In October 2007, the U.S. Department of the Interior officially denied Downeast LNG's proposed natural gas pipeline through Moosehorn National Wildlife Refuge. As a result, in July 2008, Downeast LNG withdrew its primary State of Maine permit applications. The company identified a new pipeline route and FERC and USCG have progressed the project through preliminary approvals.  A Draft EIS was issued in May, 2009 and public comments are being reviewed; a Final EIS is scheduled for September, 2009 with FERC Certification anticipated in December, 2009.  The company is also planning to file new Maine state applications later in 2009. 

Comments

[Holly Stamper]

This site is not very user-friendly, as it is impossible to post on the conversational thread one desires. The following concerns the discussion on Jordan Cove Energy Project, and was written by Diane Phillips:

The article above, "Astroturfing on the Anti- LNG Wave" is a poor attempt at investigative reporting. There is no mass conspiracy. When the companies proposing the three LNG terminals in Oregon started announcing their intentions to import LNG into Oregon and begin holding public "open houses", many people in these communities became quite concerned and started talking among themselves and getting educated. In the meantime, groups that had been fighting these LNG proposals in CA and defeating them felt terrible that they had driven the LNG to Oregon in a push to site a terminal on the West Coast by Big Oil and other multi-national energy interests. These locals organized a couple informational meetings in their communities and connected with other concerned groups, including local environmental groups, who by the way are not wealthy, but depend on donations to do their work.

Eventually all these groups - local citizen groups, environmental groups, farmers and fisherman, the Democrats, and affected landowner groups - got together to organize a truly grassroots effort to stop these LNG proposals on the premise that the long term costs to Oregon and her citizens were not worth the short term benefits of a few jobs. While everyone has their own reason for opposing LNG in Oregon, all were united in the fact they were not good proposals. However, contrary to what the above article suggests, many opponents of LNG felt that if good proposals for energy development are brought to Oregon that would have long term sustainable benefits to its citizens, especially when eminent domain is considered, are safe for communities that live near the projects, and don't cause unacceptable harm to the environment that future generations can't live with, they would be behind them 100 percent. Now, if that isn't a grassroots organizing, I don't know what is.

As far as the names mentioned above and some left out, every grassroots or other movement must organize and have leaders. In this case, most leaders in this fight against LNG in Oregon collect no wages for their efforts. Jody McCaffree, Executive Director of Citizens Against LNG (not - Citizens Against Pipelines) is a coast resident who has spent many years of her own time free of charge to educate her community on the LNG issue and worked to make sure there is fair public process, not for her own benefit but because it’s the right thing to do. Others, like some of those mentioned above, are paid low wages by environmental groups like the Sierra Club, Columbia Riverkeeper, and others, though these people could enter the corporate world and with their intelligence get much more compensation than they do at their current jobs. They do it because they care about the environment and the communities they live in and want to give back. Some individuals have law degrees, but are giving their time for free or at little cost because they selflessly care about their communities too. Where does the money come from? Well, donations. They come from every day Oregon citizens and most without a lot to give, including the 400 plus affected landowners whose lands could be subject to eminent domain if these proposals are approved, and others who are looking out not for their financial interests, but for the future of their families (generations they hope to pass their land onto).

So, come on Chamber of Commerce, if you want the communities you live in to support your members and their businesses, then let's work together to find and support projects that truly benefit our communities in the long term. Quit looking out for your own short term self interests and get with the program to make (and keep) Oregon the great state she deserves to be.

[Robert Godfrey]

This project is also Opposed by:

• Government of Canada;
• Province of New Brunswick;
• Town of St. Andrews, NB;
• Nulankeyutomonen Nkihtahkomikumon (We Take Care of Our Land ...
http://www.WeTakeCareOfOurLand.org/
...and
• Save Passamaquoddy Bay 3-Nation Alliance ( http://www.SavePassamaquoddyBay.org/ ).

Since Canada prohibits LNG transits into Passamaquoddy Bay, due to safety and environmental concerns, and since transiting through Canadian waters are essential to receive LNG, this project Prospects are Unlikely or Dead, even if FERC were to issue a permit.

The US Coast Guard Letter of Recommendation (LOR) and Waterway Suitability Report (WSR) require Downeast LNG to obtain Canada's cooperation in providing safe and secure LNG carrier transits in Canadian and US waters on the way to and from port -- something Canada has repeatedly stated (even face-to-face between Prime Minister Stephen Harper and then-President George W. Bush) it will not provide. The US has no authority in Canada, and has no authority over Canada's waters; therefore, the project has no hope for success.

While the US Chamber states the Town of Robbinston voted what seems to be an overwhelming 3:1 in favor of hosting the terminal, readers should know the "3" in that ratio represents a mere 223 voters -- an underwhelming number when compared to the multiple-thousands of citizens in the impacted surrounding international Passamaquoddy Bay communities who oppose this project and who fall within FERC's LNG ship transit Hazard Zones.

The claim, "Project is well ahead of other proposed LNG projects in the area" ignores the reality that Downeast LNG is six years behind now-operating Canaport LNG in nearby Saint John, NB, Canada, and that Canaport -- along with Northeast Gateway (in operation early in 2009) and Neptune LNG (to be in operation near the end of 2009) -- satisfy northern New England's need for incremental LNG. Downeast LNG is merely ahead of Calais LNG, which has not yet entered formal permitting. Both projects have been mooted by the 100-year North American natural gas glut, along with existing and already-permitted natural gas infrastructure.

As of 2009 October 5, Downeast LNG has still not provided FERC with reports that were due on 2009 July 6 for inclusion in the final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). That delinquency has resulted in a now-unknown EIS release date, and in a delayed final FERC decision.

Downeast LNG violates world LNG-industry terminal siting best practices, as published by the Society of International Gas Tanker and Terminal Operators (SIGTTO...
http://www.sigtto.org/ )
The characteristics of Passamaquoddy Bay make it unsuitable for LNG facilities according to the industry's own best practices. (For more, visit LNG Terminal Siting Standards Organization -- http://www.LNGTSS.org/ ).

Downeast LNG could have moved to an industry-compliant site years ago when warned to do so by Canada, but has refused to do so, guaranteeing the project's failure.