A clash of economic values tops the bill at Searsport’s annual town meeting on Saturday. The Waldo County town must decide whether or not to call a time-out on a proposal to build a $40 million liquid propane facility at the port. Caution is warranted. But residents should consider that allowing the project to move forward will not cause the sky to fall.
Opponents of DCP Midstream’s project, which already has won state Department of Environmental Protection approval, have drafted a moratorium ordinance which, if approved at the meeting, would halt construction for about two months. The moratorium is a legal tool municipalities have when an unanticipated proposal comes before them.
The moratorium drafted by the citizen opposition group, Thanks But No Tank, also creates a committee to review the town’s zoning ordinance to address concerns about the tank.
Opponents have raised a number of concerns with the 137-foot-tall, 23-million-gallon tank. They include the potential for a catastrophic fire which could consume much of the town and for the ships delivering the fuel to be targets for terrorists. Those are real concerns, but they must be weighed within the context of the current Mack Point port facility, which includes 16 tanks of about 10 million gallons each of various fuels, including highly volatile gasoline.
The industrial liquids port, which has been operating for more than 50 years, has a good safety record. Since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, security has been further tightened. If the moratorium is approved, the committee that works on ordinance changes may identify more safety improvements that could be made. One logical improvement opponents have suggested is a townwide emergency warning system, should there be a leak or fire at the port facility or at the nearby chemical plant.
Opponents also worry about increased truck traffic the propane facility will generate. There may be little that can be done to mitigate such traffic. The port is busy and will get busier. And that raises a concern that goes beyond Searsport: transportation by ship is the most cost-effective, fuel-efficient mode.
State government for decades has worked to increase maritime transportation through its three ports in Portland, Eastport and Searsport. As a means of limiting carbon pollution and increasing Maine’s role as a business hub, this is wise. Maine also lacks propane storage infrastructure, so a bulk tank that can supply much of Maine is a step toward energy security.
In their efforts to persuade fellow residents to support the moratorium, opponents have made hyperbolic arguments and spun conspiracy theories. Yet their most compelling argument against the project may be the simplest to understand — to tourists driving by along Route 1, the tank could look like Dracula’s tower.
Screening such a large tank may be difficult, if not impossible. And even though other fuel tanks lie less than a quarter mile from Route 1, they’re not visible to drivers.
In the end, any sensible resolution to the conflict is tied to the integrity of the process. Last year in adjacent Frankfort, residents opposing a wind power project won passage of an ordinance that created a committee to adopt rules to protect — ostensibly, anyway — nearby residents. The ordinance appointed only opponents to the committee, and the standards they crafted were impossible for the wind power company to meet, killing the project.
The Searsport process is similar, though just one-third of the committee considering zoning changes will be opponents. The Thanks But No Tank group pledges not to seek a six-month extension of the moratorium. Residents voting at the town meeting can conclude that a two-month delay to review rules is prudent; but if those two months become six or 12 more months, the intent of the committee can and should be challenged.
Where are the hyperbolic arguments from TBNT? Where are the conspiracy theories? Other than the fact that town officials duped citizens of Searsport with a less than truthful ordinance change last March, the conspiracy charges against TNBT seem weak. We could instead talk about the less than truthful things DCP has had to say over this proposed facility. Let’s get all the facts out there………only DCP has anything to hide
I drove through Searsport on Sunday and was greatly distracted by TBNT lining both sides of the road with signs, banners and flags. At first I though they were occupy Searsport! Is there a difference? …I don’t think so!
Searsport IS under occupation–by DCP and the thug squad from the Portland law firm Verrill Dana.
As history has shown, throw enough money and the right rhetoric at something, and the people will eat it up.
We who have unanswered questions about the tank and the implications of sighting such a behemoth in our community, appreciate that a citizen’s group, TBNT, stepped forward on their own, and has taken a lot of criticism for their efforts, to shed daylight on DCP’s proposal. Had town officials, elected and appointed, involved us in the first place, we would not be in this mess now. Where were they when we needed them? Looking at your aerial tank farm photo confirms for me why adding another tank of the scale DCP plans, needs further exploration.
I hope I will not see DCP ads in the BDN in the next few days as the moratorium vote approaches. Were this to happen, it would certainly compromise your editorial stance.
I ask Searsport citizens to support a “YES” vote on Saturday, with me, in order to get a few months, 2, to take a closer look. This is not a lot to ask. I wish the BDN editorial had felt more compelled to support us, Maine citizens, rather than the corporation.
It would appear that the State is supporting the project as well. The benefits appear to outweigh the wishes of the TBNT. The project has been stall for over 6 months already, what will happen after two month, another push to delay the project? This is what they did with Sears Island for nearly 30 years.
Man, I sure do wish the commenters on this page would just do a simple google search. Propane is the most expensive fuel not the cheapest. The “state apparatus” doesn’t always do the best thing for its citizens, (think Fairpoint) especially when they are still contemplating a plan that was imagined of in the last century. This is cashman’s and cole’s wet dream and will do nothing but pollute an area of exquisite beauty. Conoco Phillips can pay people from away six figures to compose lovely rhetoric to convince the weakest of us all.
Occupy? If people who pay taxes in Searsport are not allowed demonstrate on their own streets then I guess the 99% are alive and well here in Maine. Large corporations are soulless blood sucking entities, if you believe they “care’ about the citizens of Searsport, then you are weak in the head.
No, it is not the most expensive. Not by a long shot. My most recent delivery of propane costs me $2.50.9 per gallon. Per unit volume, propane holds about 90K BTU per gallon, while heating oil is about 140K per gallon. Heating oil is averaging $3.86 per gallon. Propane heating is typically slightly more efficient than oil heating; ~90% efficiency as compared to ~85% for oil, which stems largely from the fact that propane burns cleaner than oil. For many, heating with propane is more economical than heating with oil.
Maine Governor Paul Lepage is actively calling for Maine to use more natural gas, as a cheaper alternative to other fuels. LNG, delivered, is now more than four times cheaper than propane. His Energy Office states:
The State of Maine Comprehensive Energy Plan identifies the goals of: (1) promoting natural gas as a “transitional fuel” by expanding the natural gas infrastructure to all sectors in Maine and (2) identifying
development of liquefied natural gas (LNG) where economically, socially and environmentally feasible.
We refer to natural gas as “transitional,” as it will remain and grow as a primary source of fuel in
utility and industrial sectors while we aggressively pursue increased use of energy efficiency and renewable
energy technologies and reduced consumption of foreign sources of oil. {Energy Office website, February
2011, page 13}
‘Transammonia is an international merchandising and trading company that markets, trades, distributes and transports fertilizer materials, liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), petrochemicals (chiefly aromatics) and methanol.’ ‘Sea-3, one of the four parts of the group, is the largest importer and distributor of liquefied propane in the Northeastern
USA…. Sea-3 also supplies propane to the western and central portions of Florida from its import terminal in Tampa.’ {Transammonia website}
Bangor Gas, according to its website, is charging $0.86 cents per therm for natural gas plus $15/month basic charge. Assume that translates into $1.00 per therm (100,000 BTUs) [about $0.250 at the wellhead].* One gallon of propane contains 71,000 BTUs,
so creating one therm requires 1.41 gallons. Propane in Maine costs, per USEIA, at the end of February $3.25, well above its price of $1.50 in 2003. So one therm, generated by propane, costs $4.51. Breaking it down even further, natural gas needs to be
more than $4.51 per therm, with propane at $3.25/gallon, for propane to be a more cost-effective energy solution.
I’m not quite sure what your point is, but if you are comparing natural gas with propane, I certainly agree that natural gas is much more economical. The problem with natural gas, in either gaseous or liquid form, is distribution. Until we develop the infrastructure to distribute natural gas to more households and industry, we will be stuck with today’s sources.
Propane holds just over 90K BTUs per gallon (http://www.energykinetics.com/savingsHeatingFuelComparisons.shtml#comparePropane). My last delivery of three days ago costs me $2.50.9 per gallon. At those numbers, it is certainly competitive with heating oil, and not the most expensive as mccojay originally claimed.
– Why the need for a 22-million-gallon tank. Why not smaller and therefore creating no visual impact?
– With propane costing four times as much as natgas per BTU, won’t users find a way to tap into LNG?
-citizens should require that any product moved more than 10 miles move by rail. Let’s have some of the industries help with our infrastructure and start rebuilding our rail system out Mack Point. Still haven’t gotten my thank you in the mail for buying the new crane…how about you?DCP
did say we’d have cleaner air because less trucking is needed with all
of Maine’s gas stored in one tank, in one place. That will mean a loss
in Maine Trucking jobs.
And reduce the size of the tank. Must be a trade-off between tank size
and number of ships calling Mack Point. No one has ever protested or
written letters of complaint about the current expansion/ activity at
Mack Point. This project is out of scale for our town’s port.
don’t forget propane burns cleaner, is a greener fuel, and you only clen your boiler every three years. thats an additional 300 dollars in saving every three years.
DCP’s Searsport project needs far greater scrutiny. Its primary benefit is to increase the profits of “big oil” regardless of its impact on Main Street. I am sick of corporate greed trumping the common man and common sense. The project as it is currently planned will damage Searsport permanently–for promises of a handful of jobs and uncertain additional tax revenue (which would doubtless be spent protecting ourselves and our town for the “privilege” of DCP’s corporate occupation). Searsport–and our neighboring towns–must insist upon an independent economic impact study; truthful answers (or any answers) to health and safety questions; and a thorough environmental impact study. A YES vote on the moratorium– as recommended by BDN–could set up the mechanisms to provide these.
Soooo … anything good for the energy needs of the US economy is bad and any delay of that is good. Have I got that right?
The DCP project is not good for the energy needs of the US economy. My understanding is that the country is trying to move away from foreign fuels and develop a range of domestic energy sources. We are currently exporting propane and DCP will be bringing it in from overseas and the US has plenty of domestic natural gas, too. Remember that old saw “the trade deficit?”
And this tree-hugger thinks we could do a lot with solar energy in Maine–we have a huge amount of winter sunshine and manufacturing and installing solar would do a lot more for us than DCP, their PR minions and politicians who don’t live here.
Solar, and wind power, could be useful in small scale electrical production and solar is useful for heat on an individual and family scale but I don’t see how it can be transported so there is little likelihood that there will be much money invested in these technologies.
But if no advertisements are allowed … does that prove that the BDN is free of bias?
Nonsense.
My new Chellie Pingree campaign: Thanks But No Tax
Guess Peter Taber isn’t awake yet to write 600 comments.
You would do well to read and reflect on Peter’s comments.
AWESOME COMMENT!!
The Searsport tax rate is the highest in the midcoast. The taxes are the main reason Searsport has not had any growth in the past 40 years. Anything that can help reduce the tax burden and attract other businesses is welcome here.
The downtown has not been repaired and the taxes have remained high through Mack Points largest expansion period, the last 40 years.
Searsport Registered Voters: Approve The Moratorium
VOTE YES! at Town Meeting March 10, 2012
THE ISSUE: DCP-Midstream, a subsidiary of Conoco-Phillips, seeks swift, unchallenged approval to construct a 138-foot tall, 23 million gallon Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) tank here in Searsport, with little or no regard for the massive impact and long-term consequences this project will have on our economy, safety, environment and way of life.
Voting YES to the moratorium will…..
…..establish a nine-member Moratorium Committee to thoroughly and publicly examine Searsport’s current Comprehensive Development Plan, Shoreland Zoning regulations and Land Use and Site Plan Review Ordinances and determine whether (or not) they adequately
protect the town from all manner of abuse, exploitation, degradation and danger that might accompany the development and construction of such liquid fuel terminals.
If the Committee finds that our current ordinances are vague, incomplete or too weak to protect the health, safety and welfare of Searsport and its residents, it can and will make
recommendations for clarifying, modifying and strengthening our ordinances and
emergency management plans. Searsport voters will then have the opportunity to approve the Committee’s recommendations at a future Town Meeting.
*Recommendations made to the town do not delay any projects. Like other recommendations made throughout the year, changes to our ordinances
cannot be made until the town approves them by a vote. Input into our current safety standards and public education/ preparedness are positive steps to take in any community.
Voting YES to the moratorium will…
give Searsport residents two months to study the DCP-Midstream proposal and the impacts it would have on our community, our economy and our environment.
· allow us to find and discuss flaws and weaknesses in our current ordinances/ EMPs.
· enable us to update existing ordinances to better serve and protect OUR interests.
· keep decision-making authority in the of Searsport Residents!
Voting “no” to the moratorium takes local control of this project out of the hands of Searsport residents and puts it squarely into the hands of DCP-Midstream and its
developer.
Moratoriums are practical, legal and worthwhile, and provide a timely, open forum for studying, discussing and evaluating important, sensitive issues. They do not hijack the democratic process; they are an essential part of the democratic process.
“Moratoriums, by their design, are not stoplights. They are yellow lights. They switch a project from green to yellow.”
Searsport Town Manager James Gillway Bangor Daily News, December 4, 2011
wisely said Mr. Gillway hope you will stand by that. And may the state finally step out from behind the curtain and do right by the people of Searsport, by the people of adjoining towns, by the people of Maine and set up a process for proper review of this project. Their failure to do so creates an almost unlimited liability exposure.
The “Searsport Project”…. or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Tank (Bomb)…..looks like “the powers that be” have already rubber stamped it……but there are a lot of unanswered questions: The tank could be half-sized if they dug it in……there is a reported geographical fault line in the area………operation requires the fuel to be stored -40 degrees…..nothing has been stated of the hazardous chemicals in the cooling systems to be used (ammonia?) or redundant back up power system requirements…..will fuel be train transported?…..Homeland Security has made no announcement of a requirement to close the bay during refueling operations….We have learned there is already enough hazardous chemicals in the area to prevent a stray cat population …..only a handful of citizens get to decide if this is a go or no go…..surrounding towns have no say …….and I keep reflecting back on that little fire incident in the tank farm last year…….the on scene commander’s screaming just about melted the speaker on my scanner……
Check out other locations in the US that already have these tanks. Any terrorist attacks? Any spills? Any fires? Probably some jobs though.
actually according to DCP 12 yr round jobs for highly trained LPG technicians.
First fo all, you must all go to the Town Meeting on Saturday March 10th at 9:00 a.m. and “VOTE NO” on the proposed moratorium and “VOTE NO” on any proposed changes to the Site Plan Review as the proposed changes to the Site Plan Review can have serious implications to all future development in Searsport, from residential to commercial development.
Take a look at the real implications of the proposed Moratorium and how it will impact the LPG Project as well as Searsport’s Maritime Future:
First of all the proposed Moratorium’s main focus is on the DCP LPG Project and is designed to stop the project in its tracks. Let’s face it, TBNT has made it very clear that they do not want the tank “period”, hence the slogan “Thanks but NO TANK”. The Moratorium establishes a 9 member Review Committee. 3 of those members are guaranteed to be members of TBNT (no where in the Moratorium does it guarantee a seat on the committee for proponents of the project). 3 other members are to be chosen by the Board of Selectmen (again, no guarantee that any of these 3 positions will be proponents to the project). And the final 3 members are to be chosen randomly (assumingly these names will be picked out of a hat). This Moratorium, as written, has the potential of filling all seats on the Review Committee with TBNT members.
Filling a Committee with a completely biased group without providing the opposing party a fair opportunity to provide equal representation is an unfair and uncontitutional practice of law.
In reference to PIPETOBANGOR’s comments, one statement made was that the “Recommendations made to the town do not delay any projects”.
On the contrary: here’s Section 3 of the proposed Moratorium –
Section 3. Moratorium
The Town of Searsport hereby imposes a moratorium on accepting applications, processing applications that have already been filed, and issuing approvals and permits relative to any aspect of the development of any LPG terminal and/or storage facility within the Town of Searsport during the term of this moratorium, including any extensions thereof. This prohibition applies to applications, reviews, and approvals and permits required under any ordinance of the Town of Searsport, including, but not limited to, Shoreland Zoning Ordinance, Land Use Ordinance, and Site Plan Review Ordinance.
Sounds like a major delay to the project to me.
PIPETOBANGOR also says “Voting YES to the moratorium will…give Searsport residents two months to study the DCP-Midstream proposal and the impacts it would have on our community, our economy and our environment.
Goodness gracious, read all of Section 5 of the Moratorium. This Moratorium has the potential to delay this project until the next Town Meeting, which won’t be until March 2013. That’s an entire year. For TBNT to state that, “they vow to take only 2 months to review the current ordinances”, is completely false. If that were the case they wouldn’t have written all of these potential extensions into their moratorium now would they.
One question for those of you that moved to Searsport from away: Were you really unaware that Searsport was the second largest marine port in the State of Maine? If so, shame on you for not taking a complete tour of Searsport before you moved there, and shame on the realitor who sold you the property for not telling you that there is a port located down there.
To all the natives in Searsport, you need to “VOTE NO” at your town meeting on Saturday March 10th and take control of your town and the towns destiny. When was the last time a tourist drove thru your town and gave you a few hundred bucks to pay your taxes. Even though tourism is good for the economy and for the small businesses that rely on tourism, the fact is that tourism only creates low paying seasonal jobs without all of the benefits. How many tourist based businesses can look you directly in the eye and say that their employees are paid in excess of $12.00 per hour with benefits and work 40 hours per week.
Tourism has its place, however we can’t deny the fact that our economy needs bigger business, not only for the jobs but for the tax relief as well.
AGAIN, GO TO THE TOWN MEETING ON SATURDAY MARCH 10TH AND “VOTE NO” ON THE MORATORIUM. The Town Meeting starts at 9:00 a.m.
There is a better chance of a propane disaster than of the searsport selectmen appointing members of TBNT to the review committee! Come on now, you don’t believe that. If the current board of selectmen were at all interested in halting or slowing down this development, we wouldn’t have had a gag order at last year’s town meeting, we would have at least been able to talk about the tank.
The two seats which we are voting on this very day will be given to two people from a pool of which only one has expressed support for the moratorium. The town government, in case you hadn’t noticed, has been trying to push this thing through without attracting too much attention. There are your tank proponents.
If TBNT represents such an insignificant percentage of the town population, if most of them are from out of town, how could they possibly get all 3 of the seats that will be drawn randomly from a pool of volunteers?
The selectboard gets to extend the moratorium. No one else. The moratorium, written by the same attorney who helped the town with the comprehensive plan, creates the balance of viewpoints and power which characterize a democracy.
If the people of Sears Port don’t want this, then so be it.
Much like Quimby’s park project, if “the people” say no, then leave it alone…!
The only differences between Millinocket & Sears Port are that we have a mountain and a bunch of brain-dead treehuggers from away, while they have the ocean.
Dear Editor..I think your stats on the existing Sprague facility are wrong. Here is the official description of Sprague ”
“One 16-inch pipeline for No. 6 fuel oil extends from
pier to three steel storage tanks in rear, total capacity 330,000 barrels. One
16-inch pipeline for No. 6 fuel oil extends from pier to three steel storage
tanks in rear, total capacity 330,000 barrels. Pipeline is also used for
bunkering vessels; towboats are fueled by tank truck. Two 10-inch pipelines
extend from pier to two caustic-soda storage tanks, total capacity 3,360,0000
gallons.
Steam is furnished to unloading towers via pipeline from boiler house on shore
in rear. Open storage areas located at rearáhave capacity for approximately
60,000 tons of coal and 235,000 tons of other dry-bulk commodities. At time of
survey (2001), plans called for this pier to be used exclusively for handling
liquid-bulk commodities”
The three tanks storing petroleum equate to 13million gallons of oil total or a little over 4 millions gallons each. (42 gallons/barrel)
The DCP tank is more than 5 times bigger than any tank at the facility ( there is a great photo at the Thanks but no Tank” website showing the actual size comparison. It would be one of the largest built structures in Maine, the equivatement of 14 stories high.
Not sure where you got your erroneous 10 million gallon tank size but I see in the very spare on facts and analysis Searsport Corridor report that it refers to 10 million gallons total anual processing of fuel through the facility.
Also dear editor I am stunned by your uninformed dismissal of the safety concerns and pubic safety hazards of this facility..shocked that you would use your editorial position to promote such disinformation and misinformation. I urge you to read the expert statement of MIT engineer Dr. Fay ( you can link to it at the TBT website).
Dear editor. A healthy 4th estate is the very cornerstone of democracy. Please check your facts before printing editorials on such important public policy and public safety hazards.