What's the Issue? Hess Corp has proposed a project plan to build an LNG (Liquified Natural Gas) berth in Mount Hope Bay. LNG tankers -- among the largest ships on the sea -- would sail from the Atlantic Ocean, up the East Passage between Newport and Jamestown, to dock at the proposed berth near Spar Island. Liquified natural gas would then be pumped through a large underwater pipeline to a facility on the Taunton River in Somerset, MA.
This proposal would require extensive dredging (removing earth from the bottom of the Bay), permanently destroy critical fish habitat and cost jobs as it disrupts mixed use of the Bay, rendering much of our waterways off-limits to the public.
Now that we've finally begun to restore Mount Hope Bay from decades of abuse from sewage and power plants, Hess wants to take it away from the public and pollute it with a massive LNG platform. We can't let that happen. Based on three basic yet vital facts, Save The Bay opposes the proposed Hess LNG terminal.
FACT #1: The environmental impacts of this project are significant and destructive. Hess/Weaver’s Cove Energy LLC’s proposal states “the key unavoidable impact of the project is the permanent loss of potential winter flounder spawning habitat (as a result of deepening from dredging in the area of the proposed berth).” In fact, required remedy to this destruction – the developer’s restoration and mitigation plan – has no direct bearing on winter flounder.
- Federal law expressly prohibits the destruction of critical fish habitat.
- The National Environmental Policy Act requires that any applicant avoid, minimize and then mitigate environmental impacts, in that hierarchical sequence.
- Hess/Weaver’s Cove falsely claims that these impacts are unavoidable because there is no alternative site.
- Millions of dollars have been invested in cleaning up Mount Hope Bay and protecting winter flounder and other fish habitat. We cannot go backwards.
 More from Jonathan Stone on why Hess LNG is wrong for the Bay.
FACT #2: This project will disrupt recreation, commerce and travel in the Ocean State, jeopardizing Rhode Island’s already struggling economy. The proposal calls for 70 or more LNG vessels entering Narragansett Bay and traveling up the East Passage to Mount Hope Bay each year
(that’s as many as 140 transits per year), creating significant and unpredictable turmoil.
Jonathan Stone explains.
- The Rhode Island Turnpike and Bridge Authority has stated publicly that it intends to close both the Pell and Mount Hope bridges every time a ship passes.
- Coast Guard regulations for vessels similar (though considerably smaller) to the type specified in the Hess/Weaver’s Cove proposal currently require a moving safety exclusion zone 2 miles ahead, 1 mile astern and 1000 yards on either side of the transiting ship.
- Newport County Chamber of Commerce, the Bristol County Chamber and the Rhode Island Marine Trades Association are among many organizations opposed to this project because it will be bad for businesses, boaters and tourists. Read the 2006 Ninigret Partners report on economic impacts.
|
 |
FACT# 3: Alternative LNG terminal facilities serving New England are or soon will be in operation, so there is no compelling need to build.
- This spring, construction was completed of a 1.2 billion cubic feet per day LNG terminal in St. John, New Brunswick. According to the facility operator, this terminal “will provide competitive and stable gas supplies to the northeast of North America.”
- A second terminal, supplying 400 million cubic feet of LNG per day, located off the coast of Gloucester, Mass, will be operational this year.
- A third LNG terminal in Everett, Mass., also serves New England.
- Accordingly, the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources questions the need for Hess's proposed Fall River terminal. Read the DOER letter to FERC.
- Recent discoveries of substantial natural gas reserves in North America have resulted in a significant increase in domestic natural gas production, undermining the case for construction of new LNG import facilities in New England and elsewhere.
- Not even the developers promise this project will create significant jobs or reduce local energy costs. Rather, it is Hess Corp that will be the primary beneficiary of a trade-off that sacrifices a precious natural resource that belongs to all citizens.
More.
WHAT STANDARDS? Hess LNG's plan conflicts with its own industry's LNG Terminal Siting Standards Organization guidelines.
- LNG ports must be located where LNG vapors from a spill or release cannot affect civilians.
- LNG ports must be located where they do not conflict with other waterway uses -- now and into the future. *Conflicts include fishing and recreational boating.
- Long, narrow inland waterways are to be avoided.
- Visit the LNG Terminal Siting Standards Organization site.
These are the facts. The facts argue against LNG in Mount Hope Bay and will sink this ill-conceived, unnecessary and environmentally destructive project. That the facts speak for themselves, however, is not enough.
How can you help stop this project?
The Bay needs a strong voice. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) -- due to come out soon -- will recommend how the FERC commissioners should vote on this project and will spawn a series of public forums.
This is when you will be able to make your voice heard. To prepare: know the facts, spread the word and stay informed. More than anything, don't believe for a minute that this region needs this facility, that it won't threaten our economy or that is is worth giving up the gains we've already worked so hard to achieve.
 |
|
Make it a called third strike. The latest "offshore" option (3) for LNG citing follows the 2006 "small barge" option (2), shot down by the U.S. Coast Guard, and the original 2004 large tanker proposal (1), also shot down by the Coast Guard. |
|
Support our efforts in fighting this.
|
|