SEARSPORT, Maine — The news was spreading like wildfire early this week on the Facebook pages of groups and people who oppose a massive liquid propane gas project proposed for the Mack Point industrial port in Searsport.
The rumor was that when Mainers heading to the polls in two weeks vote for or against Question 4, the $51.5 million bond request, they’ll really be voting for or against the Searsport facility.
“State and federal regulators are casting a blind eye to the destructive power of the Searsport Megatank proposal. Question 4 lets voters subsidize their own annihilation. If you prefer survival, vote NO on question 4,” stated the Facebook page of “Flower Power,” a coalition of midcoast residents against the propane project.
But the rumor is wrong, according to a Department of Transportation spokesman and the head of the Maine Port Authority.
“They’re very separate — no connection whatsoever,” Ted Talbot of the Maine DOT said Tuesday.
If voters approve the bond request, it will mean that about $41 million will be used for planned road and bridge work in the state. But a smaller amount will be used for infrastructure projects at the ports at Searsport and Eastport, including $3 million for dredging the channel just off Mack Point, which would make the state eligible for $10 million in federal funds.
Earlier this month, David Gelinas, president of the Penobscot Bay & River Pilots Association, said that when the federal channel just off Mack Point was dredged in the early 1960s, a depth of 35 feet at mean low tide was established. Since then, there has been no maintenance dredging to keep it at that depth and the channel has become more shallow and narrow in the meantime. The bond issue would allow the channel to be dredged to a depth of 40 feet at mean low water. A 2004 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers study supported the need to dredge the federal channel, Gelinas said.
“The channel deepening project has been going on since before I started this job, five and a half years ago,” said John Henshaw, the head of the Maine Port Authority. “There wasn’t even an LPG project contemplated then, as far as I know. … Is there a connection? Not at all.”
But he did acknowledge that having a deeper draft in the channel is beneficial to all ships visiting the terminal, including any which would bring liquid propane gas to Searsport.
“If there’s not dredging, it has a potential detrimental effect to shipping generally in Searsport,” Henshaw said.
The bond also would contain $2 million to be used for materials handling equipment for loading and unloading bulk-type goods such as wood pellets and salt, according to the port authority head. The equipment would include a crane attachment and conveyer belts.
“You’d have a hard time keeping liquid propane on a conveyer belt,” Henshaw said.
Efforts by telephone, email and Facebook Tuesday afternoon to speak with someone from the Flower Power coalition or the opposition group Thanks But No Tank about the purported connection between Question 4 and the propane tank project were unsuccessful.
BDN writer Tom Groening contributed to this report.
Sooo, we should believe what the government says?
Attention moonbats: Please adjust your tinfoil hats to ensure you’re receiving the government conspiracy marching orders and talking points from the Supreme Flower.
Seeing as I oppose most bond issues, I welcome the normally big-spending liberals to the Vote No position, even if they have no idea what they’re talking about…
Agreed. Tank yes….Bonds no.
Roads and bridges? We don’t need no stinkin’ roads and bridges!
5 bonus points for reading it with the accent.
How stupid of me. I forgot that the only way to finance roads and bridges was a bond issue.
I was living under the delusion that such things could be included in, what’s it called? Oh, yeah…a BUDGET.
Yea… how is that working out for ya?
Much better than bonding all our expenditures…do you have a habit of spending more than you take in, then relying on other to pay your bills for you?
I realize that’s a silly question to ask a liberal…
A bond is a direct order from the people, it is the “little people” telling leadership what they want done. I realize this is a tough concept for a conservative to understand, but yes the little people have a say too. Look at your lively governor, we voted on bonds, he refused to sell them. He told the people of Maine he doesn’t have to follow their orders. He is wrong and will find out just how wrong when he is up for re-election. Our tax dollars should go to roads and bridges, but when the conservatives tie-up the transportation bill, and a state conservative government doesn’t build them either, a bit more direct action is needed… like a bond.
Sooo, we should believe what the NO TANK people says? The No Tank people have been throwing everything they can against the wall hoping some of it will stick. People need jobs in the Mid-Coast area. Something more then the min. wage summer jobs.
Spreading false rumors is one of the scare tactics used by some of those opposed to any and all increased economic activities at Searsport’s commercial waterfront. The $5 million contained in the $42 million transportation bond has been in the works for years and has absolutely nothing to do with the LP tank. These monies are intended for bulk material (not LP) handling equipment related to the loading and unloading of railcars, trucks and ships and to remove silt from the shipping channel that has become more shallow over the years. The latter aspect is what has been in the planning stages the longest, since dredging projects always take years to develop and become permitted. As such this funding represents a very basic investment in the port and is directly aimed at accommodating Maine’s forest industry, other Maine businesses and shipping lines already making use of the port. Any insinuations to the contrary are entirely off-base, either by design or out of ignorance.
The state of Maine is so incredibly in debt, I can’t imagine why citizens would approve any more! I don’t blame the “no tank” people for their strong opposition. I wonder if an environmental assessment was conducted for dredging off Mack Point? The tank is a bad idea no matter what way you slice it. Especially with the geological instability in our region now (for example, the 4.8 earthquake in Portland area last week, as well as a history of small earthquakes in the MDI region). Our “leaders” in Augusta ought to start piecing together all these points instead of looking at each project individually and by itself. I say no tank, no east/west highway, no bonds. We can’t even maintain the infrastructure that we have now.
Yea, theres a recipe for growth…..
Not everyone believes that to continue to grow, grow, build, build, consume, consume, is the solution. I’m in favor of a return to local, sustainable economies – big corporate industries and greed only keep us common folk enslaved. Not to mention, extract our resources, pollute our air and water, and then leave us with the clean up. No thank you.
1. The State of Maine pays off its bonds early.
2. The tank and the bond have nothing to do with each other, with one exception, noted in the article: Were the tank to become reality, the dredging keeps the channel open.
3. The dredging eventually needs to happen with or without the tank. Harbors are sedimentation basins, in effect.
4. Mack Point needs the dredging to stay functional – same as New Orleans, NY/NJ, Philadelphia, etc. Most wharves on the Portland side of Portland Harbor now can only be used by small craft, because of sedimentation and no dredging.
5. The earthquake was a 4.0. To my knowledge, the coast of Maine has not had a serious earthquake in millennia.
6. MaineDOT cannot do anything without permits from the Army Corps and numerous other agencies.
7. Bond monies have some of the tightest constraints of any of MaineDOT’s fund sources.
The ballot states that:
Do you favor a $51,500,000 bond issue for improvements to highways
and bridges, local roads, airports and port facilities, as well as for
funds for rail access, transit buses and the LifeFlight Foundation,
which will make the State eligible for at least $105,600,000 in federal
and other matching funds?NOTHING in this deceptive and misleading statement reveals that $3 million is to be used for DREDGING at Mack Point or anywhere else, although that is the purpose. Most voters would not think that the phrase “improvements to…port facilities” means dredging a 35′ channel to a 40′ channel. It is extremely improper for the State of Maine not to tell voters that this Bond question includes $3 M for DREDGING. Regardless of your position on the tank, DREDGING has implications for lobstering and other uses of the Bay and many people who oppose dredging may be misled into voting “yes” because of the deceptive way this ballot issue has been sandwiched in and co-mingled with many very needed transportation projects and because of the deceptive descripting “improvements to port facilities.” In many States it would be illegal to put this bond on the ballot without giving proper notice to voters about what they are voting for or against. Not being transparent breeds distrust in the government — and this ballot initiative is fatally flawed in its lack of an honest explanation about what it is for – DREDGING. Concern that this is linked to the tank is increased by the fact that the Representative for Searsport, who is on the Transportation Committee in the House, is also a tank supporter and Searsport’s Town Manager. Adding a dredging project into the Bond is not the issue — the issue is that if DREDGING at Mack Point is a purpose of this Bond – TELL THE VOTERS that that is what they are voting for. Then people can make an informed decision about whether to vote yes on Question 4. If you want Penobscot Bay DREDGED vote yes. If you don’t want it dredged — Vote NO. If you don’t want the tank, vote NO.
How quickly Ms. Ervin’s tune has changed. First, it was categorically because the bond was for the tank specifically, and now it’s because any dredging is bad. Say goodbye to 100 plus ships a year at Searsport if you don’t keep up with maintenance.
Strange tbnt’s spokespeople are lying low. Oh, that explains it. They are lying and low. This proves it.
And who is the infamous FlowerPower who spouts without having to stand up for him or herself?
Good job BDN own exposing these fanatics and their lies.
Dredging of the channel at Searsport has been talked about for years, long before any tank project. Arguing against it because LP tankers might make use of Searsport is like arguing against maintaining the railtrack because it might be used for LP transport or against maintaining Rt1 because LP trucks might use it. Argue against the tank if you must but please don’t confuse it with normal port activities.
Another puff piece from the BDN on behalf of the big corporate enablers at the Maine Department of Transportation and at the Maine Port Authority. I guess Abigail Curtis and her boss, Tom Groening, were in just too much of a hurry to get the official State of Maine “story” out before the public to be bothered to learn why some of us regard the proposed Mack Point dredging scheme as yet another banker-financed and taxpayer-funded boondoggle primarily designed to look after the welfare of a big out-of-state corporation.
In this case, the proposed beneficiary of public largesse is DCP Midstream LP — or is it DCP Searsport LLC? or DCP International LLC? or DCP Midstream Partners LP? Maybe it’s yet another permutation of the DCP corporate onion structure representing the big owners who ultimately exist behind the scenes at Duke Energy and at Phillips 66, two of the largest fossil fuel companies in the world. The convenient legal name of the moment aside, the executives at the DCP Whatever Corp. are doing their best through ring fencing strategy to evade liability should their proposed cryogenic propane megatank at Mack Point have, er, shall we say, an accident.
In this article, MPA chief John Henshaw and DOT chief mouthpiece Ted Talbot have joined Penobscot Bay Pilots Association president David Gelinas in a big fat lie — there’s no other word for it — when they claim there’s no connection between the proposed dredging and DCP’s desire to build a propane marine terminal in Searsport.
Here are the irrefutable facts, either from official sources or from longtime port booster Gelinas himself. You do the math and decide for yourself:
— The present turning area and channel into Mack Point were last fully dredged 48 years ago, to a depth of 35 feet, and have since filled in so that the reliable maximum depth is 32 feet.
— A cryogenic gas tanker ship cited by DCP as “typical” of those that would dock at Mack Point to service the proposed terminal facility draws 40.5 feet when fully loaded.
— DCP officials have stated they intend to bring fully loaded ships, inbound from either Qatar or the North Sea, directly into Mack Point to discharge their full cargoes, approximately 20 million gallons, to a tank designed to hold up to 22.7 million gallons.
— Although three feet has been a minimum standard in the past, ship underwriters and insurers now generally require that minimum under-keel clearance be at least 10 percent of draft, so DCP’s typical tanker ship would require a bit over four feet of clearance.
— Only one of the four berths at Mack Point is dredged even as far down as 40 feet. It takes about 48 hours for a gas tanker ship to discharge its cargo. During that time, the moon doesn’t stop orbiting the planet and the tides don’t cease to ebb and flow.
Here’s another irrefutable fact, transportation bond Question 4 is a dishonest one when you simply consider the sly wording on the ballot: “Do you favor a $51,500,000 bond issue for improvements to highways and bridges, local roads, airports and port facilities, as well as for funds for rail access, transit buses and the LifeFlight Foundation, which will make the State eligible for at least $105,600,000 in federal and other matching funds?” It sounded pretty good to me. Support for repairing crumbling roads and bridges? Support for rail access? Support for emergency air ambulance service? Who could be against that last one, even if it’s for only $300,000 out of that total $51.5 million worth of indebtedness and even if there has to be an at least equal local taxpayer match?
It’s hard to imagine how anyone limited to the 49 words in that artfully written question could possibly be aware that the people of Maine are being asked to put themselves into debt for $3 million so they can leverage at least another $10 million of their own federal tax money, the total $13 million-plus an outright gift so owners of two of the world’s largest energy corporations represented by DCP Whatever can have smooth sailing delivering propane to Maine that, ironically, the people of Maine don’t even need.
And if corporate welfare really gets your goat, consider that the same Question 4 also hides the fact that the proposed new debt load for the people of Maine would rise by yet another $2 million so the Axel-Johnson Group based in Stockholm, Sweden, can afford cargo-handling equipment at Mack Point. Axel-Johnson through its Sprague Energy division represents one of the three corporate entities, all of them foreign, that operate at Mack Point.
Don’t be overly upset. The recipient over the past decade of at least $25 million worth of Maine taxpayer generosity including a $13 million general purpose pier and a $7 million mobile crane that could only be built in Germany, the multi-billion-dollar Axel-Johnson empire has somehow always managed to come through with matching sums to bolster its infrastructure investment at Mack Point. I’d guess they’re good for their $2 million matching share to help pay for their new conveyor belts.
Fussed much? Amazing how the whole world is part of your conspiracy theory. Your lies got called out. Good job BDN.
Trolled much? Is it too daunting for you to debate realities or do you simply prefer name-calling?
No name calling here. That’s your gambit. The reality is tbnt’s lies we’re called out. You look like the one who is being daunted.
“Strange tbnt’s spokespeople are lying low. Oh, that explains it. They are lying and low. This proves it.”
I believe those are your words, Ken. You might be good at rallying a lynch mob but you’d make a sorry logician.
Oh Peter…how you amuse me. None of what you said made any sense. Well maybe in your smoke tinged fog. You and TBNT have clear title to lynch mob and bullies. No one could ever possibly wrestle that from a man who in a letter to editor labelled his neighbors buffoons.
And yes my logic is meek compared to yours. Poor simple me interpreted it this way:
TBNT said the bond was for the tank. Vote against it to stop tank.
DOT and Pilot Captain sat that is wrong.
So….TBNT is either lying, or misinformed. Either way, they are silent.
Thanks for making my day.
Signing off,
A sorry logician who bows to the ultimate bully and mob leader. Love you!
“Corporate enablers at MaineDOT and the Maine Port Authority”
“Abigail Curtis and Tom Groening in too much of a hurry”
“John Henshaw and Ted Talbot have joined David Gelinas in a big, fat, lie”
Is it too daunting for you to debate realities or do you simply prefer name-calling?
I have only referred to what others have obviously done or not done. Challenge that but try not to be so confused you don’t know what name-calling is.
Kind of touchy tonight, aren’t you, Peter? I don’t understand why you don’t consider my post absolutely brilliant – after all, you wrote it.
Exactly!
Your own “facts” would imply that a 40 ft depth is insufficient for LP tankers of 40.5 ft needing 3 ft of additional bottom clearance. Apart from that you glue together a set of unrelated “facts” to concoct a story to suit your own particular purpose. Finally you conveniently ignore that much of the infrastructure at Searsport is state-owned and leased to paying users and that the investments were made to support industries elsewhere in Maine. Take away Searsport, and Maine jobs will disappear, while new ones won’t materialize. It’s all well and good to kick shins, it’s another thing to use your slanted logic to deny others a chance at making a living wage in Maine.
You don’t seem to be able to challenge my facts, only snidely refer to them as if they weren’t true by enclosing the word facts in quotation marks. You also seem to be an unabashed believer in corporate welfare. Okay. It’s a free country (sort of). I’m simply not interested in giving wealthy corporations tens of millions of dollars so, in Searsport’s case, the poor dears can afford to import, or possibly export, vast quantities of a dangerous fossil fuel for which there is no supported additional need in Maine. And, by the way, there’s little evidence much in the way of jobs for local people would be created. There is a good deal more evidence that many existing jobs, to say nothing of a chosen way of life for many, would be destroyed.
Your “facts” don’t add up. In other words the channel won’t be deep enough for the LP tankers you claim to be coming. Besides, do your research and you’ll find that the channel dredging has been talked about for years, so your conclusion that it is a sudden effort to support LP traffic is factually false. The tank may or may not be built but the channel still needs to be dredged. Your insinuation that jobs will be destroyed is, of course, entirely without substantiation.
Is this new, nope, you have to remember Central Maine Power’s plan to build a nuclear power plant on Sears Island circa 1970’s), CMP bought thousands of acres of land for a supposed transmission line, and then, the plan was quickly abandoned when it was found Sears Island is on a earthquake fault. So there is something behind this mega tank proposal besides a mega tank, who’s making money??
If my math is correct 3 Million divided by 51.5 Million equals 1/17. I would not call dredging the overall reason for the bond. Dredging will however allow us to remain connected in the global and national trade. In the Golden Age of Sail, Maine was poised as the first landfall and the last jumping off point of American Commerce. Keep our waterfronts working and our ports open so that once again our Maine captains will be known in ports around the world.