Canada’s say in LNG ships’ passage debated in Calais

CALAIS – The question of whether Canada can prevent ships carrying liquefied natural gas from traveling through its waters near Campobello Island left area residents scratching their heads Wednesday night.

And it was clear from U.S. Coast Guard officials that high-ranking federal officials are trying to figure out the answer.

Officials from the U.S. Coast Guard and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, along with state officials, talked about LNG and the waterway during a public meeting Wednesday night.

Opponents of three proposed LNG terminals say Canada can bar the ships from its sovereign waters near Head Harbour. Proponents say the northern neighbor cannot.

The discussion was long on process but short on details since none of the three proposed developers of terminals Down East has filed with any of the federal agencies.

To date three developers are studying Washington County. The first is the Oklahoma-based Quoddy Bay LLC. It hopes to build a terminal at Pleasant Point with tank storage facilities in either Robbinston or Perry.

The second developer is the Washington, D.C.-based Downeast LNG, which hopes to build a facility in Robbinston. The third is the Washington County-based St. Croix Development, formerly BP Consulting, which hopes to build a terminal near Calais.

Although most of the discussion Wednesday night focused on the siting process, at least one individual wanted to know if the Canadian government would have a say in whether the large LNG tankers would be allowed to sail through the Canadian portion of Passamaquoddy Bay.

The bay separates Maine and New Brunswick.

FERC spokesman Robert Cupina said that Canada would be involved in the siting process. “In our process, if there’s a project, we hope and expect that the Canadian officials and counterparts in the [Canadian] Coast Guard would be involved in our process,” he told the audience of about 100. The meeting was held in the gymnasium at the Washington County Community College.

U.S. Coast Guard officials elaborated. “In 1992, the U.S. Department of State interpreted or made a ruling that there may be no suspension of innocent passage through such straits,” said Capt. Alan Moore, USCG retired. “Included in this category are Head Harbour Passage leading through Canadian territorial seas to the United States and the Passamaquoddy Bay. … That’s the United States’ stand on it as done by the State Department.”

Moore said that officials higher up on the decision-making chain were reviewing the matter. “I sat in on a telephone conference call just the other day. This issue is being addressed at a much higher level. State, Energy, Commerce and I’m not sure what other departments are requesting a formal interpretation of this ruling in concert with Canada.”

However, Canadian officials are far more adamant. New Brunswick Premier Bernard Lord in August called upon his federal government to bar LNG ships from Canadian waters, citing historical precedent. Thirty years ago, Lord said, Canada said no to a proposed $600 million oil refinery in Eastport by refusing to allow tankers to pass through its waters. Though the plan by the Pittston Oil Co. dragged on for most of the 1970s, it eventually was scrapped.

Canadian Parliament member Greg Thompson also has asked the prime minister to take a stand against allowing LNG tankers into Canadian waters.

But LNG proponents have rejected the argument and have said that Canada did not have a role in stopping the Pittston project.