The following column has been submitted to the Telegraph Journal for publishing.

Janice

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The facts on LNG in Passamaquoddy Bay speak for themselves

by Lesley Pinder, MD

     Last week, this paper printed a letter from Dean Girdis, President of Downeast LNG, the company that wants to build an LNG terminal in Robbinston, Maine directly across the St. Croix estuary from St. Andrews (“Maine LNG won’t hurt economy”). Mr. Girdis was responding to a column written by Janice Harvey, a regular columnist for the Telegraph Journal and my fellow co-chair of Save Passamaquoddy Bay/Canada. On behalf of our organization, representing Canadian citizens opposed to this proposal, I would like to correct several of Mr. Girdis’s self-proclaimed “facts.”

     First, Mr. Girdis says, “our project will have no greater impact on fishing than any other commercial shipping.” In fact, because of US safety and security requirements, LNG tankers are quite different than other ships. They require the use of tractor tugs to bring them through Head Harbour Passage and into the terminals. Thus the footprint on the water will be four or five vessels, not just one. In Saint John, no fishing gear can be within range of those tractor tugs because of the danger of sucking fishing lines into the tug turbines. Thus we expect permanent gear exclusion zones where those tugs will operate.

As for the extent of fishing activity in the area, in a letter to Downeast LNG the US Coast Guard (USCG) Captain of the Port for Northern New England Steve Garrity notes that information on commercial fishing submitted by the company to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commisson (FERC) was obtained “via conversations with local pilots” He instructs the company, “For accuracy, all relevant data and information should be corroborated by regional entities directly involved in commercial fishing such as ... Fundy North Fishermen’s Association.”Mr Girdis has not yet done this.

     In the same submission to FERC, Mr. Girdis writes, “...It is not expected that the USCG moving safety and moored vessel security zones would be treated as absolute exclusion zones that would preclude all other vessel movements...” Captain Garrity responds, “This statement ...appears to imply that ‘special treatment’ may be provided to certain persons or vessels. Such is not the case. The regulations specifically state ‘entry into or movement within these zones is prohibited unless previously authorized by the Captain of the Port.’ Extenuating circumstances would dictate when entry and/or movement are allowed, and each would be case specific.”

     Further, in an e- mail message to Transport Canada, Captain Garrity asks the question, “Would it [Canadian government] support a one-way traffic scheme to include the exclusion of CA [Canadian] fishermen and other mariners?”  Enough said.

     Second, Mr. Girdis contends LNG is not considered a dangerous cargo in the Canada Shipping Act. The International Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG) Code published by the UN’s International Maritime Organization (IMO) lists LNG as a Class 2 (out of 9) dangerous good. This code is part of the 1974 International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (reg 2, part A, chap VII) to which Canada is a signatory. Canada acts on its international obligations by adopting them in domestic law, in this case through the Canada Shipping Act (CSA 2001, art. 29(1) and Schedule 1). Ergo, Canadian law treats LNG as a dangerous good. For the record, the Canada Shipping Act allows the Governor-in-Council to regulate “dangerous goods” by limiting or banning their transport.

     Mr. Girdis claims that hazardous cargoes are now docking at the Bayside Port (in other missives, he and others cite dynamite and ammonium nitrate).  The Bayside Port has informed our group that dynamite has never been received there by ship. Two or three shipments of ammonium nitrate fertilizer destined for St. John River Valley potato fields are received each autumn. According to the IMDG Code, this product is a Class 9 dangerous good, the least hazardous classification. Of the fertilizer the code says: “These mixtures may be subject to self-sustaining decomposition if heated... producing gases which are toxic. None of these mixtures is subject to the explosion hazard.”

     Third, Mr. Girdis claims that LNG facilities are not normally protected by armed escort, and writes, “As Harvey should know, there are no plans for gunboats to be used in Head Harbour Passage.” Again, I quote Captain Garrity in his e-mail to Transport Canada in which he lists areas where agreements with Canada are required:

     “Cooperation in preparing a joint SOP [standard operating procedure], to include: ...agreement on boarding locations (seeking approval from USCG boarding teams to conduct armed security inspections in CA [Canada]; ...agreement to allow...armed USCG pers [personnel] to conduct positive control measures on board in- and out-bound LNG tankers, and to allow armed CG escort vessels to operate and use deadly force in CA waters); ...Agreement on allowing armed USCG pers to operate in CA waters and gaining clarity on the use of force by USCG in CA waters...”.

     So says the US Coast Guard.

     Fourth, Mr. Girdis claims “Head Harbour Passage is an international waterway.” The US Coast Guard disagrees. In the above cited letter to Downeast LNG Captain Garrity writes, “...Head Harbour Passage is Canadian waters and during the majority of the transit route the LNG carriers will be straddling the U.S. Canadian boundary. Only a small portion is actually contained wholly in US waters.”

     In his public statements, Mr. Girdis is attempting to put the best face on his project, and to intimidate its opponents through bombastic, personal slurs. His reliability as a source of information undermines his efforts in this regard. The cited USCG letter consists of four pages of notations of missing or inadequate information submitted to FERC by Downeast LNG. Eight times, the USCG characterizes Downeast statements as “misleading,” “not entirely correct,” “inaccurate,” “not fully accurate,” “somewhat inaccurate”, or they “could be misconstrued,” and “it would be more accurate to say...”. Three times, the USCG “disavows any inference made by this statement.”

     We rest our case.

- 30 -

Dr. Lesley Pinder. MD. lives in St. Andrews and has a family medicine practice in St. Stephen and Deer Island.  She is the co-chair of Save Passamaquoddy Bay/Canada.