A Canadian study of the anticipated effects of liquefied natural gas terminals on Passamaquoddy Bay cites risks of navigation in narrow Harbour Head Passage and acknowledges the possibility of easing those risks, although it could spur additional costs.

Long withheld by the Canadian federal government, the study was released on Canada’s Foreign Affairs and International Trade Department Web site on Tuesday.

The 326-page study sparked a bitter debate earlier this year that continues between U.S. and Canadian officials regarding LNG transport vessels in Head Harbour Passage.

Canada commissioned Ottawa-based SENES Consultants Ltd. to carry out the study. Completed several months ago, it was referenced in a Feb. 14 letter to the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, when Canadian Ambassador to the U.S. Michael Wilson said the study had led the Canadian government to conclude that the tankers “present risks to the region of southwest New Brunswick and its inhabitants that the government of Canada cannot accept.”

Two proposals for LNG terminals on the Maine side of the bay are making their way through the U.S. regulatory process. Quoddy Bay LNG is seeking approval for a site in Perry, near Eastport and across from Deer Island, New Brunswick, while Downeast LNG is seeking approval for a terminal in Robbinston, directly across from the seaside resort town of St. Andrews, New Brunswick.

Among the study’s conclusions: The navigation of an LNG tanker “involves a very high level of risk.” Among those risks, the report refers to the possibility of the vessels colliding with whales and disrupting lobster fishing.

“As Head Harbour Passage is narrow, thus the ship has little ability to maneuver, the opportunity to avoid whales by choosing an alternate route is not possible and the dangers of collision may be higher,” the report says.

“It is expected that the risk to recreational and commercial fisheries activities will be low given the open water available along the transport route. Lobster fishing activities would represent the activity with the greatest potential to be disrupted,” the report adds.

However, the study says, “It is possible to adopt an approach that will allow for risk management and for the application of a number of measures to mitigate risk,” although those measures “give rise to additional costs” and “considerable operational limitations.”

Among its safety recommendations, the study lists the use of tugboats and harbor pilots to help navigate the LNG vessels, which both developers said they already planned to use. It also recommends designing vessels specifically for transportation to these particular terminals, and planning transit around the tides, wind and weather, especially to avoid the Old Sow whirlpool.

Downeast LNG and Quoddy Bay LNG developers said Thursday that the report, surprisingly, does not offer particularly strong evidence to discredit the safety of their projects.

Brian Smith, project manager for Quoddy Bay LNG who once openly doubted the study’s existence, said its recommendations confirm his belief that transit can be made safely without significant harm to the environment.

“We agree with this central conclusion of the report: Mitigation strategies can and should be employed to ensure the safety and security of the transit and of the environment,” Smith said. “After years of consultation with FERC, the U.S. Coast Guard and internationally recognized experts, we have proposed strategies to minimize risks.”

Dean Girdis, president of Downeast LNG, said he was pleased that the Canadian government finally released the study. He said he finds nothing in its conclusions that would prohibit the safe transit of LNG ships to and from Downeast LNG’s proposed terminal.

“We welcome the additional information that this report provides, and if those who oppose our project hope to use this report as justification for their position, it falls way, way short of the mark,” Girdis said.

Downeast LNG and Quoddy Bay LNG have produced their own safety studies and submitted them along with permit applications to FERC and various Maine state agencies.

Girdis said the study used an incorrect vessel speed of 14 knots instead of 9 knots in evaluating LNG ship passage through Head Harbour Passage. Quoddy Bay LNG plans to use a speed of 10 knots, Smith said.

For the past seven months, Canadian officials have referred to the study to back their decision to ban tankers that would transport liquefied natural gas to terminals on the U.S. side of Passamaquoddy Bay. This prompted developers for Quoddy Bay LNG in Perry and Downeast LNG in Robbinston, as well as FERC Chairman Joseph Kelliher, to request public release of the study, which outlines navigational, environmental and economic risks associated with LNG terminals on the U.S. side of Passamaquoddy Bay.

On March 9, the U.S. State Department rejected Canada’s assertion that it would not allow LNG tankers through Head Harbour Passage.

Bob Godfrey of Save Passamaquoddy Bay, a group that opposes LNG in Head Harbour Passage, said Thursday it is hypocritical for the developers and the State Department to deny Canada’s authority in this case.

“The U.S. government has the authority itself to stop vessels from coming through that passage. And if the U.S. is an equal sovereign to Canada, which it is, then Canada also has the right to block transit through the passage,” Godfrey said.

The complete study may be found at: www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/world/can-am/can-am/pdf/senesreport-en.pdf.