ROBBINSTON – Opponents of three proposed liquefied natural gas terminals along Passamaquoddy Bay are asking voters in the various communities to wait until an economic and environmental study commissioned by the group is complete before they decide if they want a multimillion-dollar facility in their backyard.

On Saturday, opponent Richard Berry of Robbinston presented Robbinston Town Clerk Pam Reynolds a petition asking for a delay of the vote. More than 70 people signed the petition. The group Save Passamaquoddy Bay is behind the effort.

The opponents plan to raise the $50,000 needed to hire Yellow Wood Associates of Vermont to do the study. The company did a similar study for Harpswell, Berry said. Last year, the Harpswell LNG plan ran out of gas.

“Everyone around this bay is involved with raising funds to support this effort,” Berry said.

Although the petition addresses the proposed Robbinston project specifically, the Save Passamaquoddy Bay group is asking all communities along the coast to wait.

“The study is going to be the whole bay, from Lubec to St. Stephen to Deer Island and so on … so that would take in any and all sites,” Berry said.

Whether voters were for or against a proposed LNG project, the study will offer insight into the economic and environmental impact a terminal would have on the area, opponent Suzanne Crawford of Robbinston said Saturday.

“This is the kind of study that economically should have been done by the state for the bay,” she said. “None was done. … If we’re going to live and be stewards of this land as the [Passamaquoddy tribes] have been for years, then we have to look at it as a whole.”

Berry said the study would take about four months to complete.

Efforts to reach Robbinston First Selectman Tommy Moholland for comment were unsuccessful.

Three developers have proposed separate projects along the coast. The first developer to appear Down East was the Oklahoma-based Quoddy Bay LLC. It hopes to build a terminal on the Pleasant Point reservation at Split Rock with companion storage tanks in either Robbinston or Perry. The tanks would be connected to the terminal by an underground pipe.

The Washington, D.C.-based Downeast LNG appeared next with a plan to build a terminal and storage tank facility in Robbinston.

The third developer is the Washington County-St. Croix Development, formerly BP Developers. The group is looking at a site in Red Beach along the St. Croix River. Red Beach is just south of Calais.

The ultimate decision for a facility now rests with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, although it is believed that local and state officials would have a say.

Downeast LNG spokesman Dean Girdis said he would not favor a delay in the vote because it would cost his company money.

“We want them to vote as soon as possible because we’ve spent more than a half-million dollars in studies,” he said. “We want to know where they stand, because frankly I don’t want to be spending more money in a situation where they are not supportive, and it’s better to know that sooner than later from our perspective.”

Quoddy Bay LLC’s project director Brian Smith took a different view.

“I think it’s a wise decision to delay votes until a lot more information is learned about the general facility,” he said.

The project director said his company already has done a number of environmental and water suitability analyses on the proposed site, but studies were needed on the storage tank facilities.

“Neither us or the residents of any community can be fully informed until all the reports and studies have been done to show the impact of this facility,” he added.

Fred Moore of St. Croix Consulting also said he too supported an independent study. He said he could not comment on what kind of study Yellow Wood Associates would produce.

“I don’t know if they are biased or unbiased one way or the other. I have no idea, but I would support a truly bona fide independent study,” he said.

But the developer warned that a study shouldn’t stop development.

“There are groups out there that do not want development, any development,” he said. “I would have to say we’re relying on process, and FERC will determine whether or not it’s feasible or safe to have these developments irrespective of what an independent study might conclude.”