Save Passamaquoddy Bay 3-Nation Alliance P.O. Box 43 Eastport, Maine 04631 207-853-4123 www.savepassamaquoddybay.org  For Immediate Release 12/5/05 Contact:     Dr. Suzanne Crawford (Save Passamaquoddy Bay – Robbinston) – 454-2673     Jeanne or Gary Guisinger (Save Passamaquoddy Bay – Perry) – 853-0696 ---------- UMaine Officials Asked to Provide the Public More Truth About LNG UMaine President Robert Kennedy; Head of the Department of Resource Economics and Policy, George Criner; and acting Director of the Margaret Chase Center for Public Policy, Charles Morris, were asked today by Save Passamaquoddy Bay 3-Nation Alliance to provide the public with more information than a late Friday UMaine news release provided about a study done at the University for a prospective LNG developer. "The UMaine news release provided only a tidbit of truth, yet it will become headlines and sound bytes that the public will take for more than it is," said Dr. Suzanne Crawford, a Robbinston resident and retired higher education administrator. "I was surprised that a study paid for by a private client--in this case the LNG developers seeking to locate a terminal operation at Mill Cove in Robbinston--would be released by the University, and I was even more stunned to see a UMaine website listed as the place where the full study paid for by the developer could be seen," said Crawford. "'What a disappointment,' was what I thought after reading the results of the LNG project done by the Margaret Chase Smith Center and the Department of Resource Economics and Policy at the University of Maine. The cover page of the full report states that the research project was funded by a grant from one of the LNG developers. It states that it used data supplied by the developer, and also that it used an analysis model which the federal government acknowledges to be flawed. The results of this research project affects many peoples' lives and livelihoods and the work done by the University is much too superficial and narrowly focused. I, as well as other academics, would expect more substantial and inclusive research results from the Center bearing the name of one of Maine's great heroines." Crawford concluded. While the full UMaine report... <www.umaine.edu/mcsc/Research/EcoDev/Downeast%20LNG.pdf> ...lists multiple areas related to the proposed site which their study did not cover, the news release fails to provide the public with those omissions. The University's news release also fails to inform the public that the researchers used the IMPLAN model in its study--a model criticized nationally for not taking into account the wide range of implications from developments such as LNG. IMPLAN modeling is frequently used by developers working on projects known nationally as LULUs --"locally unwanted land uses," which includes not only LNG facilities, but what the government calls "local disamenities" such as landfills, Superfund sites, nuclear power plants, and large manufacturing facilities. It is these lack of disclosure to the public in the UMaine news release that Save Passamaquoddy Bay 3-Nation Alliance faults. "The study conducted by the Margaret Chase Smith Center for Public Policy (MCSCPP) and the Department of Resource Economics and Policy was paid for by Downeast LNG. The study used the IMPLAN economic model, which even Dr. Daraius Irani (presenter at the Washington County Economic Summit 2005 on his economic study of the Cove Point LNG terminal in Maryland) admitted is flawed, and who stated that IMPLAN is used by those who don't want a more thorough and expensive method of economic investigation," said Robert Godfrey of Save Passamaquoddy Bay - Eastport. "To its credit, the full UMaine report points out that the (comprehensive) impact study conducted by Fairplay for Harpswell on the proposed LNG facility there indicated that there would be a significant negative net economic impact on the community. (Save Passamaquoddy Bay 3-Nation Alliance has commissioned the same firm used by Harpswell to conduct the Whole Bay Study, to determine the comprehensive impacts of proposed LNG facilities around Passamaquoddy Bay). In addition to cautions about tax incentives, educational subsidies, and state revenue sharing, the Yellow Wood report covered areas of negative economic concerns such as property values, negative impacts on commercial fishing and local recreation and tourism. The Yellow Wood report also highlighted key concerns to local marine-based industries, congestion, freedom of access, safety and security issues from periodic tanker traffic, possible loss of access to fishing grounds, and damage to fishing gear," he continued.   "A comprehensive study, like the Yellow Wood approach is something that Downeast LNG developers don't want the public to know. Its why the developer, even after a petition asked for a hearing and vote on the issue after the Whole Bay Study as completed by Yellow Wood, has pushed Robbinston voters to a January 10 vote. The developer only wants the public to have this IMPLAN data, not the whole picture," Godfrey said. "Finally," Godfrey concluded, "the UMaine study indicates that it is not a comprehensive impact study, but that statement did not make the news release. It merely studied the positive impacts of spending money in the area; it didn't cover environmental, social, or cultural impacts. It didn't study the negative impacts that such a facility would have on the area, and therefore is merely an unscholarly, unscientific propaganda tool for Downeast LNG developers Girdis and Wyatt." Richard Barry, Coordinator of Save Passamaquoddy Bay - Robbinston, asks "Did any of these University of Maine staffers actually leave their desks in Orono and come to Robbinston, visit the proposed area, talk with local people, look across the narrow expanse to Canada, or seek to understand the whole picture? A true impact study would have covered all economic issues, plus the many other areas--from traffic and tourism implications to fisheries, homeland security, safety, property values, and a full range of possible health issues. This minimal study the University did in partnership with the developer has given the public a very unrealistic and incomplete view." Members of Save Passamaquoddy Bay object to the UMaine study ignoring the area-wide impact a proposed LNG facility would have on nearby communities. "As a resident of Perry, I am appalled at the inadequacy of this so-called report," said Nancy Asante, member of Save Passamaquoddy Bay - Perry. "It's an insult to the entire community around Passamaquoddy Bay, including our Canadian neighbors. LNG is being shoved into our faces, but no mention is made of any town but Robbinston. The pseudo-science used as a basis for this UMaine report is just one more example of the mentality of the economic hit-men who want to force heavy industry into our area." Finally, the Save Passamaquoddy Bay organization objects to the lack of inclusion the study gives to the Canadian role related to the proposed LNG proposal. Speaking as Save Passamaquoddy Bay - Canada Coordinator, Arthur MacKay, marine biologist and Executive Director of St. Croix Estuary Project said, "As a life-long citizen of the Quoddy Region and a university graduate who thought that professional standards went with my degree, I was astounded to learn that the the University of Maine's Margaret Chase Smith Public Policy Center and the Department of Economics and Policy recently issued an "Economic and Fiscal Impact Assessment" for the LNG facility proposed for Robbinston, Maine. The study was paid for by the proponents Downeast LNG. I have a hard time reconciling this as a grant, frankly, and I'm astounded that a superficial study like this is being published by a well recognized university. It truly looks like the U of M is now shilling for industry." "Had the study restricted itself to an analysis of the impacts on Robbinston only, the outcomes would hardly be surprising and it would not take the University of Maine to determine that new money will benefit the community. Still, the costs and negative concerns should have been considered also. But the study spoke to regional and State impacts as well and failed miserably in weighing the so-called economic gains against the contemporary and long-term losses that will occur in the international Quoddy Region; 75% or more of which is in Canada. Apparently impacts on the Canadian side of the border are of no consideration and international impacts were not mentioned in the statement of 'limitations.' It's my backyard, too, and there are many of us from Canada, the U.S., and the Passamaquoddy Nation who plan to see that our homeland is protected, in spite of pseudo-economic analyses such as this," concluded MacKay.