ROCKLAND, Maine — Rockland City Councilors voiced support Monday night to send a letter of concern to Searsport officials about a proposed liquefied propane tank terminal.
A group of Islesboro residents spoke before the council Monday night, urging them to intervene in the project that is before the Searsport Planning Board. The council agreed to vote on sending the letter when it holds its regular monthly meeting on July 9.
Councilor Eric Hebert said that when Walmart proposed and received approval to construct a supercenter in Thomaston, the Maine Department of Transportation looked at the effect on roads in neighboring communities.
“That was just a retail store. This is much more than that,” Hebert said. “I don’t think it’s unreasonable for us to have a seat at the table.”
Councilor Elizabeth Dickerson also said she would support sending the letter because of the potential effect such a project in Searsport could have on Rockland. She said that exclusion zones set up by the Coast Guard when an LPG tanker uses Penobscot Bay could affect cruise ship and schooner traffic.
Councilor Larry Pritchett said he would like to see any letter to specify what particular effects there would be for Rockland and not a form letter.
He also pointed out that the Coast Guard has already reviewed the project and signed off on it.
“But we haven’t and it’s our harbor,” Dickerson responded.
Kim Tucker of Islesboro told councilors that this project would have an unprecedented regional effect.
“They’ve thrown your dog into the fight,” Tucker said.
The Islesboro residents warned that a fire at the terminal in Searsport or with a tanker in Penobscot Bay would pose a substantial risk beyond Searsport.
Tucker said there would also be tanker trucks carrying the fuel along Route 1. She noted there was a traffic accident on Mount Desert Island recently that involved a bus with a propane tank that resulted in the only highway to the island being closed off for hours.
Rockland is the latest community to enter the controversy over the Searsport project.
Islesboro and Belfast have already sent letters of concerns.
The Camden Select Board has on its Tuesday night agenda a proposal to send a supplemental letter to the Searsport Planning Board to “request that the applicant provide a risk assessment analysis appropriate to the scope of their plans.”
The moonbats couldn’t stop it in the referendum in Searsport so now they are trying to pull this crap..If that fails and it will , lawsuits will start…Death by a thousand cuts…It’s The Maine Way…Which is why Maine will always be a welfare state and playground for rich liberal elites regardless of who is governor or how many signs are put up on 95…
You lose credibility instantly when you use the language of a conservative radio entertainer in your comment. Instantly.
This dirty tank containing the very fossil fuels that we are trying to free ourselves from, will do almost nothing to improve the health of Maine’s economy. This is about big energy trying to jam something down the throat of a small, poor community.
Howie Carr uses the word moonbats often when describing liberals. Howie also speaks ill of the late great Ted Kennedy (the Wizard of Uhs) and remembers Chappaquiddick for the tragedy that it was. I can see why you would find it all “not credible”.
Whatever happened to homerule? Belfast,Rockland and Islesboro need to stay out of Searsports business. I would be more worried about GAC Chemical and its danger zone. I agree that when a major project comes to Maine it gets killed because of all the lawsuites.
Kim Tucker of Islesboro told councilors that this project would have an unprecedented regional effect.
“They’ve thrown your dog into the fight,” Tucker said.
This should read ” Kim Tucker of Massachusetts, is a seasonal Islesboro resident”.
What other lies and half truths are being told by TBNT?
Classic NIMSBY Not in my seasonal back yard.
You just gotta love when a transplant moves in and thinks our world should revolve around them. I say if Kim Tucker doesn’t like Maine that she can move right on back to Mass.
Probably one of the summer complaints that wants Islesboro to be in Knox County. These people have money, earned or inherited, and will push for what they want. No wonder we don’t have any industry to speak of in this country anymore. It’s okay for them to earn money from overseas investments while this country goes down the tube. Maybe they can chip in and have Islesboro towed somewhere else.
Perhaps next to Martha’s Vineyard? Works for me.
Perhaps we should all see how Fort Kent feels about this as well…….
Why don’t we give Maine back to Mass, then they can continue to earn money in that part of Massand they can keep Maine as their vacation spot. Those of us that need to work can go down and try for a job there.
You’re assuming Mass would want us back……..
Can someone explain just what these folks are worried about? Trucks on Rt 1? Commerce? Fear of propane? The connection with Wal-Mart is…? A Wal-Mart means thousands and thousands of very average drivers converging on one spot. A port is serviced by fleets of professional truck drivers (and trains). As far as I can tell, trucks from Searsport would go up Rt 1/1A and west and south via Rt 3 to I-95/295 – nowhere near Rockland. So it seems they are clutching at straws to stop this, but why?
I believe they want to know how large the exclusion zone is when these tankers are approaching, departing, or moored in Searsport. Maybe I’m wrong. I understand that many of these ships are moored as much as 5 miles offshore from the tanks on shore. One exception is Everett, Massachusetts where these ships dock within the city. I have been told the Coast Guard/Homeland Security pretty much closes down the route to all watercraft as these behemoths dock and offload. I wondered why and found this:
“The USA is a major consumer of LNG. The LNG tankers arrive at a few central receiving terminals where the gas is unloaded in liquid form into large onshore storage tanks. The receiving terminals are connected to an extensive pipe distribution system which covers virtually the whole of the USA. Before LNG is fed into the pipe distribution network, it is
heated and converted into gas. This process is referred to as regasification.
Today there is not sufficient receiving and regasification capacity in the USA to meet future needs. Therefore, plans are being drawn up for new receiving and gasification facilities in several places. However, receiving and gasification facilities are huge, costly installations, which tie up large areas of land in the form of safety zones. Moreover, in particular in the USA, there is a great fear that such installations may be potential terror targets. US public opinion is therefore very much against new plants. Consequently, extensive planning and protection of such land-based LNG receiving terminals will be required in the future.
If new LNG receiving terminals could be located offshore, it would be easier to build new plants in the USA. Preferably, the plants should be located far enough from the coast so as not to represent a safety hazard for populated areas on shore.”
http://www.sumobrain.com/patents/wipo/System-method-offshore-offloading-regasification/WO2006088371.html
Safety Hazards??? TELL ME MORE!!! I know this article is about (LNG) Liquified Natural Gas but I understand that the propane will be transported, stored and handled in a similar manner.
Apparently someone other than our local citizens are concerned.
The Searsport receiving terminal will NOT be connected to any extensive pipeline distribution network like the LNG is as stated in this report. The propane will be distributed by tanker trucks.
How many lobstermen, fishermen, pleasure craft and sailing vessels will be unable to go about their business when the exclusion zone is in place when these ships arrive and offload?
I would love to see new jobs in the Searsport area but at what cost?
BTW, I live in Stockton Springs and I guess if the tank or ship blew up I wouldn’t be around to complain about it afterwards anyways.
I can appreciate the concern however, the reality is that it’s only about four to six ships and in listening to the local port operators, there’s no real difference. There might be 15 minutes each way when traffic should get out of the way…just six times a year….an in the winter time when there is very little ship traffic. So put in perpsective, it’s less of an impact than what goes on today. Just sharing what I’ve learned.
LP (Propane) is considerably different to LNG. It is consumed as a gas, but much easier to liquefy and transport than natural gas (which is LNG in use). The ships to transport it are smaller in general, but I suppose there is no guarantee. The plans currently are four to six ships a year. I’ve not heard of it being necessary to “shut down” areas during delivery, but that would be useful to know.
Compare
http://www.masterfile.com/stock-photography/image/625-01250706/Propane-ship-in-port-of-Norfolk-Virginia
and
http://d1dep6bscgu00w.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/SCF-is-widening-bunkering-geography.jpgAn LNG plant is the boondoggle they wanted to build in Eastport. All I can figure out on that one is that someone was getting consulting and management fees (you know, like Bain :-) so it didn’t matter if it made sense as long as they could skim off their millions. There is zero market for imported LNG in the US due to the glut of “fracked” natural gas now.Lots of us on the midcoast heat with propane and probably none with natural gas (it’s delivered by pipeline, so only Bangor and Westbrook use it AFAIK – and then only because large industrial customers make it feasible to run the lines). A more-secure supply of propane will aid Maine users. A rail strike in Canada almost shut off our supply in 2007. http://www.pressherald.com/news/propane-a-suddenly-affordable-alternative-to-oil-heat_2012-03-18.html?pageType=mobile&id=1I suppose this all goes back to whether or not Searsport should be a commercial port. Some people think Maine should be one big private park for them to play in. If only they would pay for that privilege.
When I hear people complain about this LPG tank and the hazards, I always wonder how many people know about the explosive alcohol tank that is inside of Marine Colloids? Why hasn’t there been any news articles on this? If the alcohol tank goes up, you can kiss Main Street, Rockland goodbye. No, I’m not kidding around, not in the least.
If nothing else Mayor Hardon can throw his hat at them.
Bangorian gets it absolutely right when he takes on one of the Kochheads that predictably turned up at this site to gnash their teeth at “people from away” and whine about the “rich liberal elites” supposedly devoting their lives to denying jobs for humble little people like themselves. Ah, if only the world were so simple.
Here are a few facts for the Kochheads to bang their heads on:
Not that it should possibly matter, Moonandstars and MyNameIsTaken, but my understanding is that Kim Tucker’s family has had an association with Islesboro that goes back to the 1700s and that while she has been employed for many years in Florida and elsewhere as a state special AG her year-round home is now on Islesboro. Now what basis do you have for hating her? Because she’s a woman?
Because she’s an uppity professional woman?When the flesh of both Kochheads and members of the rich liberal elite is exposed to the thermal radiation of a burning ocean of spilled liquefied propane even half a mile away, the same thing happens: it burns. When that propane explodes, followers of both Rush and Rachel are blasted off to the proverbial Kingdom Come.
When, at some possible future date, an LPG tanker ship moves up Penobscot Bay from the pilot transfer station off Monhegan Island on the way to Mack Point, the first time it comes so close to shore as to constitute a threat to the safety and welfare of any community is at Rockland. According to the U.S. Coast Guard (Homeland Security) in its quasi-secret waterways safety report last fall on the hazards associated with the proposed LPG tanker traffic, Rockland has the densest population in Penobscot Bay that would be exposed to lethal threat should a tanker catch fire or explode. In other words, if something were to go wrong — and in an age of terrorist expression such a possibility is not beyond contemplating — Rockland would suffer the most casualties.
Much as DCP Midstream and its enablers in the LePage Administration — like veteran chief petroleum and chemical industry lobbyist Patricia Aho, the new head of the Department of Environmental Protection — do their best to cast the proposed propane terminal at Mack Point as strictly a Searsport issue — the reality is that it is a regional one. The Rockland city councilors are to be commended for taking these concerns seriously and joining with their fellow elected municipal representatives in North Haven, Rockport, Camden, Islesboro, Lincolnville, Belfast and Stockton Springs. -Peter Taber Wild Maine Times
“When the flesh of both Kochheads and members of the rich liberal elite is exposed to the thermal radiation of a burning ocean of spilled liquefied propane even half a mile away, the same thing happens: it burns. When that propane explodes, followers of both Rush and Rachel are blasted off to the proverbial Kingdom Come. ”
Overdramatic, don’t you think Suzanne? Kochheads? Why is there such need for name calling and overdramatization. You can make a point without being hysterical.
Wow, that Susanne sure writes some great fiction. Or perhaps it is horror she is trying to portray in her letter. My absolute favorite is the “terrorist expression” part where they turn our bay into ”
thermal radiation of a burning ocean of spilled liquefied propane” . Makes me wonder what would happen if some of the LPG trucks we see on the road were to become a target. Hopefully her next letter will include a paragraph on that also. Great stuff!
Nice to see that the Sorosheads are getting their equal time here representing the so called “voice of reason”.
If Ms.Tucker is indeed a full time Maine resident, perhaps she should obey the local laws and register her vehicles in Maine, pay excise tax to the Town of Islesboro and pay a local garage to do the annual inspection on her vehicle.