Does The Bay State Need An LNG Terminal? | Fall River doesn't want one, but how could it impact Mass?
With controversy surrounding the proposed development of a Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) receiving terminal in Fall River, implications for the rest of the state are uncertain.
“It’s a touchy subject and one with many, many layers,” said Robert Mellion, CEO and president of the Fall River Chamber of Commerce and Industry. “Much of the debate is a matter of opinion, but the fact is that Massachusetts has the highest electricity prices in the country besides Alaska and Hawaii.”
As the Fall River community debates the merits, feasibility and safety of the proposed facility, many Massachusetts taxpayers are taking a closer look at what the terminal could mean for them.
The proposal is for a tank to be placed on the Taunton River’s north end, capable of holding 53 million gallons of LNG. In order to properly operate the terminal, there will also be numerous pipelines and a re-gasification facility, not to mention a large ship unloading berth in the middle of Mount Hope Bay. Ships used to deliver the liquefied gas are approximately 1,000 feet long, 150 feet wide and 130 feet tall — and have alarmed residents with the potential for issues surrounding the passage through Rhode Island’s Pell Bridge and Massachusetts’s Mount Hope Bridge.
One expert, however, is skeptical about who will ultimately gain from an LNG terminal. Christian Hosford, an engineer at CHI Engineering Services in Portsmouth, N.H., has worked in the LNG field since the early 1970s. He said that the national economy has seen consistent trends that don’t bode well for the long-term success of an LNG terminal in Fall River.
“In the ‘70s, we saw LNG ports being built everywhere and the price of gas went from over $3 to closer to $2 per gallon,” Hosford said. “But all those terminals closed. And of course, the price of gas went right back up.” According to Mellion, the issue that is much larger than the LNG proposal is the lack of energy policy in our country. “The policy simply cannot be $3 a gallon for gas,” he said, expressing support for a closer look at wind turbine and solar energy technologies — both currently gaining momentum in the Bay State.
Location, Location, Location
Some opponents of the Fall River project take issue with the placement of the proposed facility but insist that they have no issue with LNG, which is largely considered the safest and most environmentally friendly of the fossil fuels available.
“We are not against LNG,” said U.S. Rep. James McGovern (D-MA), who introduced legislation last year that would remove power from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in making decisions about siting LNG facilities. “We are just against LNG in that particular area.”
Mellion explained that despite the local headlines, not everyone in Fall River is against the proposal. There is a formidable group within the community dedicated to sustaining a commerce-driven waterfront.
“There are many people here who don’t want to see that impeded,” Mellion said.
Among industry professionals, the importance of natural gas to the Massachusetts infrastructure is not to be underestimated. According to Marcia Blomberg, a spokesperson for ISO-New England, the company that manages the region’s power grid, “Natural gas generates 42 percent of the electricity produced in the region,” which, she added, is more than nuclear power and coal fire combined. The figure is also considerably higher for New England than the national figure of 23 percent, as outlined by the Institute for Energy Research.
“In general,” Blomberg said, “natural gas is the dominant fuel used to generate electricity in New England.”
Indeed, life without LNG would be grim. It is estimated that most Americans depend on natural gas on a daily basis, and that dependency is only expected to rise. According to the United States Energy Administration, domestic production of natural gas is expected to increase by 13 percent over the next 25 years.
With safety being the primary concern of Fall River residents, materials from Weaver’s Cove Energy, the company behind the Fall River proposal, insist that LNG terminals are nothing to be concerned about. A Weaver’s Cove Energy website claims that “with more than 45,000 tanker voyages undertaken since LNG was first transported by sea, no member of the public has been injured or killed as the result of an incident or accident involving LNG shipping.” However it’s not minor incidents causing the lion’s share of the concern. In the wake of the 9/11 tragedy, LNG facilities were indicated as a major risk for terrorist attack.
The Fall River terminal site is in the same vicinity as several schools, nursing homes, a hospital and hundreds of residences, which is not appropriate, according to McGovern.
“LNG facilities should not be sited in urban areas,” he said. “Period.”
Hosford at CHI Engineering claims that the availability of natural gas is the first step in replacing dependency on the significantly less green diesel fuel, and cutting operating costs for countless companies in New England. He explains that methane is produced at half the cost of diesel fuel.
“There is no other way to produce that kind of savings,” he said.
However, Hosford is reluctant to proclaim that a new and improved LNG port in Fall River will have a positive impact on the citizens of the state. In fact, he added, the trend throughout the past few decades has been that the LNG terminals open and close but the taxpayers pay the price.
“Guess who’s going to pay for Fall River if it isn’t economical in the long run? The citizens of Massachusetts,” he said.
The Weaver’s Cove proposal claims 30 full-time jobs and up to 350 construction jobs will created as a direct result of the proposed facility, but McGovern is not impressed.
“[Those numbers] are minimal, frankly,” he said.
Amanda Roberge is a freelance writer based in Leominster.
WBJ Web Partners
Most Recent
Most Recent
0 Comments