|
Proposed LNG terminal in troubled waters Maine fishing town blocks import terminal, giving hope to foes of U.S. projects Gary Park Petroleum News Calgary Correspondent
A tiny fishing community in Maine has stopped a juggernaut, rattling those who see liquefied natural gas as part of the cure for North America’s looming gas supply crunch.
The 3,449 residents of Harpswell voted 56 percent on March 10 to halt plans by ConocoPhillips and TransCanada to build a $350 million LNG terminal to handle 500 million cubic feet per day on the site of an abandoned U.S. Navy fuel depot.
In a heated campaign, marred by violence, the opponents said LNG tanker traffic would ruin a lobster fishery and spoil the town’s character.
Harpswell administrator Kristi Eiane said the community opposition was heightened by post-9/11 security measures, noting that Boston harbor is partially shut down when LNG tankers approach the Everett terminal because of concerns about terrorist attacks.
With feelings running high, Harpswell police received warning calls that bombs had been placed under a bridge, in the town hall and at a school where voting was taking place. Although none were found, about 1,000 eligible voters failed to cast ballots.
With that, ConocoPhillips and TransCanada beat a retreat, meekly extending “heartfelt thanks” to the New England town for its “hospitality” and wishing the residents “success in the future.” Other sites will be studied The two companies say they will now study some 36 other sites along the east coasts of the United States and Canada to see if any are suited to an LNG terminal.
A spokesman for the Fairwinds project said ConocoPhillips and TransCanada thought they had eased the fears of residents, but now believe they were victims of the NIMBY (not-in-my-backyard) syndrome.
Fairwinds had promised to pay the town $9 million a year if the terminal were built, along with offering 1,000 construction jobs and 50 full-time positions.
The setback in Harpswell came just a week after community opposition forced Marathon Oil, as 80 percent operator, to call off plans for a $1.5 billion LNG center near Tijuana, Mexico, and two months after ExxonMobil reconsidered a planned 1 billion cubic foot per day terminal at Mobile Bay, Ala., citing community opposition.
Those setbacks have troubling consequences for an unprecedented array of LNG projects seen as a hedge against rising gas prices.The East Coast, including New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, has 10 projects costing approximately $3.2 billion with capacity of 6.6 billion cubic feet per day; the Gulf Coast has 16 projects carrying a combined price tag of some $8 billion and capacity of 20.3 bcf per day; and the West Coast, including Mexico and the Alaska LNG scheme for Valdez, is sitting on nine proposals costing $4.8 billion and offering capacity of 8.3 bcf per day.
All have start-up dates this decade, but no one seriously thinks the majority will move off the drawing boards because of community and environmental opposition. Six to eight new terminals most likely Fisoye Delano, a senior researcher at the University of Houston’s Institute for Energy, Law and Enterprise told a conference earlier this year that only six to eight terminals will be built this decade based on current supply and demand forecasts — a projection roughly in line with estimates by the U.S. Department of Energy.
Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham said the number of import facilities would likely grow from four to 13. But, despite the removal of some regulatory hurdles by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to stimulate development of LNG terminals, a cloud of security concerns and community resistance hangs over the sector.
A survey of U.S. Congress senior staff last year by Wilson Research Strategies showed 56 percent rated LNG safety and security as a priority concern for Congress.
Fueling those anxieties, a massive explosion two months ago flattened a large part of the Algerian port of Skikda, killing 30 people, injuring 70 and wiping out 25 percent of Algeria’s LNG exports.
Although ruled an accident, the blast provided ammunition to the foes of LNG, despite claims by project backers such as ExxonMobil that their facilities will use much more advanced safety technologies than the Algerian operations.
| 