Jim Merryman, Harpswell resident and FFFH co-president who has held a lobstering license since he was eight, says, “Bottom line for this company, it is about making money, and their money will be made on the backs of this community. There are many lobstermen that have expressed their concerns, but I can’t say that we speak for everybody ‘cause we don’t”
     Fairwinds looked at 37 other locations in Maine before selecting Harpswell, which Micciche says has the best access to deep water, and a proximity to existing pipeline in Westbrook, Maine. Deep water is a necessity for the LNG project because super tankers used in refueling such a facility require a minimum depth of 40 feet when fully loaded.
    According to Allen, they want to bring them in every four to nine days, with a 24-hour offloading period. He says, “If they came every four days that would be a tanker in our waters every other day, since they have to go out again.”
     “That is what I would call heavy ship traffic, and that will be devastating to our lobster buoys and to our lobster gear,” says Merryman.
     Proposed on September 18th, 2003, Fairwinds plans to include 800-1,000 foot long tanker ships; two fuel tanks, 120 feet in height by 180 feet in diameter; a docking station; a regasification/vaporization plant; and about 20 miles of pipeline from Harpswell to Westbrook. Approximately eight miles of this pipe will cross the floor of Casco Bay.
     Three Harpswell residents, John Lloyd, Walter Norton, and Diane McIntire—who toured ConocoPhillips’ LNG facility in Nikiski, Alaska—did not like the idea of bringing LNG to their home town, but John Floccher, who is a Harpswell resident and 30-year lobsterman supports Fairwinds. He moved to the town in the early 1970’s, and he remembers that the original Harpswell fuel depot was operating at the time.
     Floccher lives on Orrs Island on the eastern peninsula. Many on that side think Fairwinds will have little or no negative effect on them personally and are therefore supporting this project. But recent visitors from Marblehead, Mass, fishermen Susan and Jay Michaud, told the FFFH that when a pipeline went through their bottom they were forced to spread out and fish areas they had never fished before, which caused some tension in jealously guarded areas.
     “They used to store 42 million gallons of JP5 [aviation turbine fuel] and aviation grade gasoline over there[Harpswell’s defunct fuel depot] above ground in those tanks that used to be there,” Floccher recalls. In reference to LNG he says, “I was a marine engineer years ago, and the technology, as far as safety issues and everything, it’s probably the safest form of fossil fuel in its frozen state that there is.”
     According to Allen, “The comparison between the depot’s previous use and its proposed use is false, in our opinion. Tankers came only three or four times a year. Other smaller supply ships and such came more often. Also, those ships did not require the kind of security that surround LNG tankers. There was also no pipeline across Middle Bay, as is proposed by Fairwinds. Each of the two proposed tanks holds as much as all fourteen of the previous tanks: about one million barrels.”
     Deb Levensailor, spokeswoman for the Friends of Fairwinds (FF), who support the project, says, “It would help provide a good, clean source of energy to all of us, not just our area, but the state of Maine and the northeastern part of the U.S.”
     However, LNG is primarily methane, and the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) says, “As a contributor to climate change, methane is second only to carbon dioxide.”
     Yet, some say LNG is also relatively safe. For example, while gasoline is explosive, toxic, extremely flammable, and easily assessable to the public, LNG is not carcinogenic, toxic, or corrosive. By promoting the use of LNG, Fairwinds seeks to bring an environmentally friendly product to the Harpswell community. “In my heart I think this [Fairwinds] is the best thing for this town,” says Micciche.
    However, there is legal resistance. Attorney Tim Riley of Oxnard Shores, California wrote a letter to Governor John Baldacci pointing out that he is aware of the LNG plan for Harpswell, Maine (www.harpswell.info). In his letter, Riley requests that Baldacci visit his website on the Risks and Danger of LNG.
     On his website, Riley points out, “LNG has tried locating in the city of Oxnard, California, before, so we already know how massive its destruction can be. In 1977, Oxnard opposed an LNG project after the city’s Environmental Impact Report (EIR) showed up to 70,000 casualties resulting from an offshore LNG tanker accident. (www.timrileylaw.com).
     Riley also refers to a disastrous malfunction of the first commercial LNG facility called “The Cleveland Disaster.” In 1944, the facilities’     LNG holding tanks leaked fuel into Cleveland, Ohio where it ignited. The event killed 128 people and extensively damaged the city.
     Natural gas is certainly flammable, and therefore potentially dangerous. A natural gas fire can occur when the fuel is ignited within a five to 15 percent volume mixture with air. While this is a narrow range, it is still a potential risk.
     Yet Levensailor says, “I think it’s a wonderful opportunity for the town of Harpswell, and the revenues gained from that [Fairwinds] would provide great tax relief, which is something that we need.”
     “There is a small group here that is opposed to it, and they are located in Middle Bay, which is the area of the proposed facility,” she adds.
     If the FFFH are small in number, they are firm in their opposition to Fairwinds. They believe their livelihoods and quiet way of life are threatened. “In effect, what’s gonna happen is they’re gonna displace us from that fishing ground, at least where the tanker goes. We’re gonna try to fish where we were as close as we can, but in effect we’re gonna be displaced. They’ll push our gear outta there,” says Allen who is an FFFH member.
    Allen was present when Fairwinds representatives and Harpswell selectmen, Gordon Weil, Jim Knight, and Lee Theberte, announced the LNG project proposal. He says, “My personal response was, ‘Wow! That’s a lot of money.’ ” He adds, “It seemed coincidental to us that the amount they arrived at was just about the entire town budget.”
     Allen points out, “Out of that $8 million, by the way, $1 million of that is supposed to be set aside for the fishermen to offset losses to gear or perhaps even losses to income.” The $1 million is a mitigation fund for the lobstermen; however, Allen says, “The mitigation fund is absolutely unworkable in our point of view. How are we gonna make claims that we lost gear? Who’s gonna verify that? [What’s] the verification system gonna be?
    Allen adds, “Our fear is that the process is flawed. We do not feel that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the DEP (Department of Environmental Protection) are going to be sufficiently motivated to make sure the right thing is done.” According to FFFH, “Fairwinds and its supporters have again and again urged us to stop worrying about impacts to environment, safety, or security. Just give them the lease and the proper regulatory agencies will take care of you.”
    On December 8th, 2003, approximately 180 people attended an FFFH rally to protest the project. Many FFFH core members are lobstermen, and the pipeline for the proposed Fairwinds project is a major concern to them.
     Some Harpswell citizens are concerned that lobsters could be deterred by the pipe. Professor in the School of Marine Sciences at the Darling Marine Center, Dr. Bob Steneck, says, “If the pipeline is resting solidly on the sea floor, and if it extends up more than a foot or so, it will probably be a barrier to crawling lobsters.”
     “If efforts aren’t made to allow them sloped sides to crawl over, then lobster migration—particularly reproductive lobsters—are probably going to be hampered. They’ll funnel [lobsters] into different areas than their normal migration would take them,” adds Steneck.
    Micciche says, “We have something called armor rock that’s piled on it. It gives something on either side for things like lobsters to use to get over the pipe if they had some sort of problem with that.” However, Micciche also says, “There may be places from time to time where there’s exposure on the surface of a couple of inches.” Exactly how many inches of pipe will be exposed is uncertain.
    Merryman, FFFH co-president, has fished the Broad Sound and Middle Bay area for 25 years. He says, “Nobody really knows the effect of this pipeline that will go through some of the finest fishing bottom there is in the whole coast of Maine. It will change the habitat. It will create a fence for the lobsters. They won’t be able to pass, therefore it will change migration routes.”
     When asked about the potential LNG project impact on lobstering, Allen says, “I did an investigative report...I discovered this little port up in Nova Scotia where the Sable Island Project, natural gas project, had brought in a pipeline through a little harbor called Country Harbor. A dozen fishermen fished that harbor and they’d been fishing it for generations. They brought this pipeline five years ago now. They were immediately displaced because they could not catch lobsters in their harbor anymore.”
     “And this is what I think happened in Country Harbor, ...they disturbed such a great amount of silt that it ruined the lobster bottom in that bay,” says Allen.
     Would sediment in the water column effect lobsters? “Well,” says Steneck, “if there’s a lot of sediment, yeah. Unlike crabs, their gills are actually rather exposed to sediment. Lobsters make pits or they make cohesive burrows, but they simply don’t sit half buried in sand or unconsolidated mud because it would clog their gills.”
     Diane Cowan, research scientist and founder of the Lobster Conservancy, says, “If you do construction on the sea floor, you disrupt the sea floor, and anything that’s in the path of the construction is no longer there.”
     Regarding Fairwinds’ response to concerns, Merryman says, “They generally have given us, ‘Don’t worry. Don’t worry about that. We’ll make it right. It’ll be OK.’” So as far as I’m concerned, that’s not a response that’s valid.”
     In the Fairwinds LNG project, Merryman sees a threat to his livelihood. “August, September, October, I fish eighty percent of my traps in the path of this tanker,” he says. In response to the offer of $8 million, Merryman says, “This money will be spent so fast that it really won’t be reflected on anybody’s property taxes, as far as tax relief goes.”
    Fairwinds may have incentives, but for FFFH members and people against the project, the proposed LNG facility would be too close to home for comfort. In fact, it’s predicted that it would be so close to a residential area that people would see the facility’s perimeter fence from their windows when it was erected. “It’s also, as my wife points out, three quarters of a mile from an elementary school where my child goes to school,” says Allen. According to FFFH, “This is the only place we know of where a facility like this has been proposed for a residential area. Other companies, admittedly competitors of ConocoPhillips and TransCanada, say that they looked at this site and thought it was ridiculous to seriously consider it.”
    The properties of LNG raise a controversial issue. Levensailor says, “First of all, as I understand it, LNG does not explode. It can burn, but it does not explode.” There are supporting documents. “Although portions of an LNG vapor cloud may be flammable, the flame speed of an unconfined cloud is slow and it will not explode. In contrast, gasoline and fuel oil are extremely flammable and, in their liquid state, are toxic,” according to El Paso, owners of North America’s largest natural gas pipeline system (www.elpaso.com). The California Energy Commission also stated in a July, 2003 report, “An LNG vapor cloud cannot explode in the open atmosphere, but it could burn (www.energy.ca.gov).” The US Dept. of Energy has recently decided to “greatly expand a LNG safety review that had previously failed to take into account several important studies on the issue,”—this according to the 1/24/04 edition of the Mobile Register.
    “We know during the two-year permitting period they [Fairwinds] will be very strictly regulated,” says Levensailor. But Merryman, who admits that his greatest fear is the unknown aspects of the project, says, “The venture, ConocoPhillips and TransCanada, will not give us any health and safety studies, no environmental impact studies, not until we give them a lease. By then that is too late.”
    The lack of an environmental impact study prior to legal agreement on land use has raised opposition to LNG, not only in Harpswell, but also in Alabama. The state’s governor, Bob Riley, objected to a proposed LNG project, according to a press office article dated January 14, 2004 (www.governorpress.state). ExxonMobile, an energy company, sought to obtain submerged state-owned land in Alabama, but governor Riley disapproved because no independent safety study had been conducted. Concern over the project included the possibility of a large tanker fire. Some scientists predicted that the complete loss of a tanker could produce a fire over a mile wide. FERC (the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) also mentioned that a hull breech alone could produce a fire 470 feet across.
     One thing about the LNG proposal is certain: If the lease passes, Harpswell control over the proposal will not be in town hands. Several state and federal agencies would regulate the LNG project. The Maine Department of Marine Resources (DMR), has met with Fairwinds and discussed related fishing issues and also what might be needed for security. If the lease is voted for, the DMR would be primarily involved with permitting pipeline dredging and dock expansion. David Etnier of the DMR says, “If for any reason it’s not permitted by state and federal agencies, then it can’t go forward, and just because the company has a lease with the town doesn’t mean it can go forward.” In other words, Fairwinds is taking a risk. But so are the people of Harpswell, including lobstermen, if the lease is approved. “They have admitted that there will be long term impacts to our community. Therefore, by proceeding forward with the project knowing that they could do irreversible damage, I think is irresponsible, and I think it’s negligent,” says Merryman.
     Cowan says, “I don’t believe that you can counteract the negative effects of taking away natural habitat. I look at this as taking habitat away from the lobsters and the lobster fishermen and that’s what it is, face value.”
    Allen asks, “Are the lobster fishermen gonna stop fishing? Are they gonna fish fewer traps?” He says, “No. The fishermen are going to push east. They’re gonna push west into grounds that they have not traditionally fished, and they’re gonna be rubbin’ shoulders and elbows with fishermen who have never seen them before. So, I think that it will effect all fishermen in Harpswell.”
     With controversy over the risks of natural gas creating tension between residents, the path ahead for Harpswell is not easy and the process of considering the Fairwinds project will take time. The land lease for the project was finalized at a Harpswell selectmen’s meeting on January 23, 2004. It is now available online for public review (www.fairwindslng.com). A town vote on the lease is scheduled for March 9th. If the lease is approved, permitting will begin, and an environmental impact study is expected during this phase. If the project is completed Micciche says it will be in operation by 2009. .