LNG – it’s a tough question for Maine

Editor’s note: The last of three parts.

Of all the energy issues facing Maine, liquefied natural gas terminals are the most controversial. There are serious questions about environmental impacts on fisheries, safety and the character of the area where any new terminals might be built. On the other hand, increasing gas supplies to New England will allow reduced air pollution by converting dirtier oil and coal burning plants.

Currently, Maine is highly dependent on fossil fuels that cause global warming and air pollution. In addition, the prices of oil and gas have been extremely volatile. We need a strategy to convert as fast as possible to cleaner, renewable resources, but in the short term we will continue to depend on some fossil fuels. Among the choices, gas is by far the cleanest.

There are three companies vying for permits to bring LNG tankers into Passamaquoddy Bay, where they would offload into a new pipe to the Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline that connects Maritime Canada to the Boston market. Two major concerns have been raised about these proposals.

First, Passamaquoddy Bay has extremely high tides that cause strong currents through narrow channels. Cargo ships frequently come into Eastport, Maine and Bayside, New Brunswick; this experience indicates that transit can be made safely. Thirty years ago when the Pittston Oil Co. wanted to bring oil supertankers into Eastport, environmentalists (including the Conservation Law Foundation) opposed the plans because the tankers would have had no tugboat support, had only single hulls, and were carrying oil. We were unwilling to take the risks of a massive oil spill in currents where no containment would be possible.

LNG tankers are different. They have double hulls and double walled tanks – four walls of containment in all – so they are far less likely to spill into the environment. If spilled, LNG will evaporate quickly and cause only very localized damage. It will not stay on the water or coat the land – it will blow away with the wind.

This leads to the second concern: soon after LNG evaporates, it mixes with oxygen in the atmosphere and can burn very fast. The conditions for this are extremely hard to achieve, but if they happened, there could be a massive fire. The LNG industry has an excellent safety record to date, but now we worry not just about accidents but also about terrorists who might deliberately try to create such a fire. People caught within one mile of a tanker fire could be killed or severely burned. That is why adequate safety zones must be enforced around any LNG terminal site. It is understandable why anyone living near a proposed new terminal might be opposed.

New England needs new gas supplies because we have built many new electricity generating plants that burn gas, including five in Maine. They emit little air pollution and contribute far less to global warming than oil and coal plants. In addition, they complement wind and solar power by providing the back-up power needed for renewable sources that, like wind, depend on weather conditions. But in 2004, a shortage of gas on the coldest days put the region on the brink of blackouts. Supplies are predicted to be even tighter this winter. The region needs more gas, and LNG tanker terminals appear to be the only solution.

Some gas will flow from the new LNG terminal being built in Saint John, New Brunswick. This facility will export some of its gas to New England through the M&NE pipeline, but the amount is uncertain and probably will not be sufficient. This will be expensive gas because of the heavy tariffs on that pipeline in Canada.

There are other, competing projects proposed for southern New England. The most competitive are those planned for offshore sites using mooring buoys and underwater pipeline connections. Two developers want to locate about twenty miles east of Boston harbor and another wants to build in the center of Long Island Sound. These projects share similar characteristics of deep water, distance from land-based populations, and proximity to the pipeline infrastructure that serves the Boston and New York markets. They have strong financial backing, but they also have local opponents.

This leaves Maine citizens–especially those near Passamaquoddy Bay – to struggle with the challenging decision of whether they want an LNG terminal in their area, and if so, where the best location would be. When any of these projects in Maine seek permits, the Conservation Law Foundation, as the leading regional proponent of environmental protection and energy planning, will be engaged to assure that environmental quality and resources are protected.

There are other non-environmental elements that Maine should consider part of any permit process. LNG is very big business. Any area that accepts a terminal should consider how much its cooperation as host community should demand local benefits in taxes, lease fees, and energy contracts.

If a new gas-fired electricity plant were built near the Domtar paper mill in Woodland, it could use the waste heat from co-generation and thereby strengthen its own prospects for survival. Other environmentally sound projects such as greenhouses and drying kilns could become economically viable. Maine should not neglect the opportunity to negotiate for environmental protections and economic gains in return for allowing entry for a clean, valuable fuel.

It may turn out that a Massachusetts Bay site is the one that gets built in New England, and that may even be the best alternative. In Maine, we should recognize that there are environmental arguments on both sides of the issue. Cleaner fuels, environmental quality and safety are all important goals.

Rob Gardiner is vice president of the Conservation Law Foundation.