In a recent BDN OpEd, a small group of liquefied natural gas opponents continued its relentless spinning of misinformation about Downeast LNG and gas markets in New England. The agenda appears to be to use whatever distortions they can to keep jobs and economic development out of Washington County.
Our opponents don’t want LNG, that’s clear. But they are more intent on spreading falsehoods to confuse Mainers than they are on speaking truthfully.
Over the past seven years the list of inaccurate statements made about our project has only grown. Most recently, for example, opponents incorrectly stated that our proposed LNG terminal “would place thousands of Mainers and New Brunswickers in harm’s way” because we refuse “to comply with the U.S. Coast Guard” regulations. This is simply not true.
Our terminal cannot and will not be built unless we comply with Coast Guard regulations. Downeast LNG received Coast Guard approval in January 2009. We received approval because the Coast Guard concluded that our project would be safe.
The same opponents also unfairly suggested that we claim that Native American tribes have no rights in the waterways near our proposed facility. Downeast LNG has never made any such statement. Downeast LNG simply abides by the Maine Indian Land Claims Settlement Act of 1980. We follow and respect Maine and federal law.
Downeast LNG has faced many challenges — developing a LNG terminal requires numerous environmental studies and significant regulatory oversight. We have successfully addressed all of the changing regulatory requirements and numerous permitting delays initiated by federal agencies in Washington. We expect a final decision later this year on our federal application, and we will subsequently file with the state of Maine thereafter.
We face commercial challenges as well. The growth of domestic shale gas production through the use of fracking technology has radically changed the U.S. gas industry. There are still some unknowns about shale gas, such as the potential environmental impact of fracking fluids and perhaps most important, the pending introduction of new fracking regulations.
Since 2008, despite low natural gas prices and the growth of unconventional shale gas in the U.S., total LNG imports into New England and New Brunswick have grown by over 300 mmcfd (million cubic feet per day). Both regions are more dependent on LNG than in the past.
According to the Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board, offshore Nova Scotia gas production — the initial source of gas for the Maritimes & Northeast pipeline — peaked at 601 mmcfd in December 2001 and by November 2011 had fallen to 248 mmcfd, a 59 percent decline. In contrast, for the first nine months of 2011, Canada’s National Energy Board reported LNG imports of 329 mmcfd into New Brunswick, though there were none just three years earlier. LNG imports to New Brunswick offset the decline of Nova Scotia production.
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, LNG imports into the Everett LNG terminal near Boston have remained constant between 2003-2010, averaging 455 mmcfd, though 2010 saw a decline of 9 percent. Concurrently, total gas imports into Maine through the Maritimes pipeline have increased from 290 mmcfd in 2006 to 359 mmcfd in 2010, largely due to the increased availability of imported LNG from New Brunswick.
Despite the abundance of shale gas production in the U.S., New England is more reliant on imported LNG than it was just five years ago. Gas demand continues to grow and gas pipelines from the southern U.S. to New England are near capacity. Building new gas pipelines to transport shale gas faces daunting challenges: lack of rights-of-way due to land development and high construction costs through dense communities. No new pipeline projects have been proposed.
As we have seen, markets can change quickly and substantially over a decade. The U.S. gas market has seen radical change with new domestic supplies and huge price swings. If Downeast LNG is built by 2016, from start to finish it will have taken eleven years — seven years for permits and four years to build. Some markets are very responsive to changing needs such as the Internet, for example. Unfortunately that is not true for U.S. energy infrastructure. When it takes more than a decade to permit and build infrastructure, companies do not build for today’s market but for tomorrow’s.
While our energy future may be full of uncertainties, it is a safe bet that Maine is going to need a lot more natural gas. And there is absolutely no question that the people of Washington County, for whose strong support we are so grateful, can use the jobs and economic activity. And this is why Downeast LNG remains committed to bringing natural gas and important economic benefits to this area.
Dean Girdis is CEO and president of Downeast LNG.



I have been searching for information on CNG/LNG for home use. At my place in Maryland, we have piped-in natural gas which is far less costly than No. 2 fuel oil used at our place in Maine. LP tanks are common for rural homes. Why not CNG? Is this a different critter technologically? I have not been able to find an answer as to why there are only a couple of CNG refill facilities in Maine and certainly no widespread use of it. I am all for saving money and getting off $4.00+/gallon fuel oil, but I have to have some alternative. Why not CNG for us rural folks?
Dean Girdis, how dare you bring anything different to the public than what the NIMBY crowd, led by Robert Godfrey, has already written.
Mr. Girdis’s statements are the classic “pot calling the kettle black.” Save Passamaquoddy Bay does not take a position opposing LNG or related employment — we oppose inappropriate LNG terminal siting in Passamaquoddy Bay. And, as we have pointed out before, even Downeast LNG’s own industry terminal siting best safe practices indicate siting in Passamaquoddy Bay is injudicious. As he disclosed in a Bangor Daily News article near the beginning of his project, Girdis failed to take into consideration his own industry’s best safe practices. He claimed those best practices do not apply to LNG terminals, when in fact they do apply.
Girdis’ statements about the Coast Guard requirements are also misleading:
1) Downeast LNG asserts that Native Tribes have no rights in the waterway. FERC’s 2009 Downeast LNG Draft Environmental Impact Statement has the following to say regarding Downeast LNG’s opinion (last paragraph on page 4-286 to first paragraph page 4-287):
“…Downeast … stated that the Passamaquoddy Tribe does not have sovereignty or any other special fishing or sustenance rights over waters proposed for use by the project….”
2) Coast Guard requirements clearly indicate that LNG transits in the waterway will not be allowed — would be unsafe — without Government of Canada cooperation and coordination for safe and secure transits through Canadian and US waters.
Girdis is also less than honest with his claims regarding natural gas imports via the Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline (M&NE Pipeline). Here are the data for exports to the US via St. Stephen, NB, as provided by the Canadian National Energy Board (NEB) (see http://www.neb-one.gc.ca/CommodityStatistics/GasStatistics.aspx?language=english ), in thousand cubic meters:
2005 — 3 839 399 (3.839 billion cubic meters)
2006 — 3 110 288 (3.110 billion cubic meters)
2007 — 3 477 573 (3.478 billion cubic meters)
2008 — 3 450 235 (3.450 billion cubic meters)
2009 — 2 108 074 (2.108 billion cubic meters)
2010 — 1 491 350 (1.491 billion cubic meters)
2011 — 729 411 (data for Nov & Dec are not yet available)
…Natural gas imports via the M&NE Pipeline have fallen precipitously since 2007.
As to whether or not Maine can access more of the abundant domestic natural gas, Downeast LNG’s own website (http://downeastlng.com/why.php ) states that the M&NE Pipeline can be readily expanded to accommodate market need.
Downeast LNG was an ill-timed and ill-sited project from the start. It has known at least since 2007 that its location was inappropriate, but refused to move to a location where siting safety would not have been an issue and where it would have had no objections from Canada.
If anyone is guilty of killing potential Washington County jobs from that project, it is Downeast LNG for refusing to correct its lack of terminal siting due diligence.
If tanks are a problem, bury the tanks. If it is hazardous to bring tankers into Pass. Bay, site the facility back past Lubec.
Robert Godfrey is typical of the implants that move here expecting things to stay exactly the same as that fateful day when they discovered their “utopia” and wanted a peice of it for their retirement.
(Gas) Here is that word again (No Gas) here is my answer to save the world: National Monorail System what part don’t you get
Please note the the reference to the NEB data is inaccurate. The NEB data link provided by Mr. Godfrey is non-mandatory reporting. The US Department of Energy, Energy Information Agency tracks natural gas imports into Calais, Maine at the linke below.
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/na1277_ycal-nca_2a.htm
With regard to the EIA link posted by Dean, one might ask why he picked 2006 to do the comparison. And, lo and behold, 2006 is the lowest year for the past decade. Of course any comparison would be positive. If one starts with 2005, the trend is negative, and if we look at the entire decade, the trend remains negative.
Ron
The trend is not negative. 2010 imports are higher than every year except 2001 and 2005. I chose 2006 – 2010 for a five year period. The most important issue is the source of gas that is imported – Maine is increasingly importing LNG from Canaport that is being regasified and shipped south.
I suppose whether the trend is increasing or not depends on the data you use and how you determine the trend. If you take the decade, and generate a straight line trendline, the trend is down. If you use a more complex model (e.g. a 3rd order polynomial), the trend is up astronomically.
By the way, with regard to the NEB figures, according to an NEB statistician, those numbers are NOT voluntary, but rather:
The companies that are exporting
at St Stephens are required to send us in a report each month under their blanket
orders. We check the total monthly figure with the pipeline throughput
reports and these figures are within 5% variance each month.
She also did some yearly checks for 2007-2009 and the variances were in the same ballpark.
Did I just read “3rd order polynomial” in the BDN comments section?
What’s next? Long division? :)
Time to reevaluate my meds indeed.
Ron – the figures from NEB are incomplete. If you visit the Spectra website you can see daily volumes throughout Maine – they match the EIA numbers. As well the link below to the FERC website has Maritimes volumes imported from Sable and from LNG into the US. The person whom you spoke to is not a statistician (I just spoke with her) and she noted that she did not have complete information on how the statistics were prepared. LNG imports to Canaport exported to the US would not need an export license since they did not originate in Canada.
Spectra link (look under operationally available capacity – you have to do it on a daily basis)
https://infopost.spectraenergy.com/infopost/default.asp?pipe=MNUS
http://www.ferc.gov/market-oversight/mkt-gas/northeast/ngas-ne-maritimes-flows.pdf
Best regards
Well, this discussion appears to be a classic example of what the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan meant when he said “Everyone… has a right to his own facts.”
Opponents of LNG have much in common with those who fought to shut down Maine Yankee – unbridled stupidity and an addiction to very high energy costs.