Response to the RI Congressional Delegation’s FERC letter

Posted on 24 August 2010 | Tags:

In an August 12, 2010 letter to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), the Rhode Island Congressional Delegation requests that FERC Commissioners visit Rhode Island and tour the site of our proposed facility. Weaver’s Cove agrees with the Delegation and supports just such a tour. Once Delegation members see and hear the facts, they will learn that our project can and will be implemented safely, and once operational will apply downward pressure on regional energy prices which are currently among the highest in the nation.

Unfortunately, the letter also inaccurately states that Rhode Island’s role in the FERC approval process has been “severely limited.” In a response letter (see below), Weaver’s Cove Chairman Gordon Shearer notes that the concerns of Rhode Island officials, regulators, and citizens have been extensively addressed during the federal review process, and invites FERC Commissioners and the Rhode Island Congressional Delegation for a site visit to ensure an accurate and comprehensive depiction of all aspects of our previously approved land based storage facility and proposed offshore tanker berthing facilities.

–

August 23, 2010

The Honorable Jon Wellinghoff
Chairman
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First Street, NE
Washington, D.C. 20426

Re: Weaver’s Cove Energy, LLC
Offshore Berth Project, Docket No. CPO4-36-005

Dear Chairman Wellinghoff:

I am writing you on behalf of Weaver’s Cove Energy, LLC (“Weaver’s Cove”), the sponsor of the project in the referenced docket. Through an article that appeared in the August 18, 2010 edition of the Providence Journal, Weaver’s Cove became aware of an August 12, 2010 letter sent to you by members of the Rhode Island Congressional Delegation regarding FERC’s National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) review of our project under the Natural Gas Act (“NGA”). It is disappointing that the Rhode Island Congressional Delegation has politicized FERC’s NEPA review by attempting to draw a link between the unrelated Deepwater oil spill tragedy and the review of Weaver’s Cove’s Offshore Berth LNG Project. Such politicization also is inappropriate under the statutes that govern FERC’s review of LNG projects. Nonetheless, Weaver’s Cove is encouraged that the Delegation has reached out to FERC to learn more about FERC’s NEPA review process.

According to the Rhode Island Delegation, “Rhode Island organizations and citizens groups, as well as hundreds of constituents, have voiced their concerns and reservations about the safety and security of such a development.” Weaver’s Cove is not only aware of these concerns, but we have worked diligently to understand and address these concerns within the disciplined confines of FERC’s NGA and NEPA review processes. As a review of the record before the Commission will reveal, thousands of pages of information regarding the project have been filed with FERC and FERC staff is currently reviewing this information. We also note that the U.S. Coast Guard has played a key role in the safety and security review of the project under its own statutory authority.

FERC’s ongoing NGA and NEPA review of our project continues to provide a neutral fact based forum for collecting, reviewing and addressing each and every concern raised by interested parties, including the constituencies cited by the Delegation, and exposes the allegations, any underlying factual evidence and all conclusions reached based on that evidence to public scrutiny. The Delegation suggests that “Rhode Island’s formal role in approving this project has been severely limited,” but the facts in the public record belie this point of view. We are aware of no instance where the facts and concerns raised by Rhode Island regulators, political officials, or the general public were ignored or not weighed against the preponderance of evidence in the public record before FERC or the U.S. Coast Guard.

Weaver’s Cove has long supported and encouraged open dialogue concerning our project. We welcome a tour of the project transit route, as proposed to you by the Rhode Island Delegation. We would be pleased to facilitate the tour so that the site visit is comprehensive and reflects an accurate depiction of the LNG tanker transit route, the proposed location of the offshore berth,and the areas that will be used to interconnect the offshore berth facilities with the land based facilities previously approved by FERC.

Weaver’s Cove suggests that the Coast Guard be advised of the request for a visit and be invited to participate in the tour as the LNG tanker transit route is within the jurisdiction of the Coast Guard, the Coast Guard has assessed the safety and security implications of the LNG tanker transit and the Coast Guard already has found Weaver’s Cove’s proposed LNG tanker transit route to be acceptable.

We look forward to hearing from you or your staff concerning our offer to facilitate and participate in the site tour and discussions with the Delegation.

Sincerely,

Gordon Shearer
Chairman

cc:
Secretary Bose, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Senator Jack Reed
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse
Congressman Patrick Kennedy
Congressman Jim Langevin
US Coast Guard Captain Verne Gifford
Rhode Island State Representative Ray Gallison

Herald News Letter: Weaver’s Cove request was painted unfairly

Posted on 19 August 2010 | Tags:

Fall River Herald News | August 18, 2010

GUEST OPINION: Weaver’s Cove request was painted unfairly

In an Aug. 11, Herald News article, Jamestown State Rep. Deborah Ruggiero characterized Weaver’s Cove Energy’s efforts to review public documents considered and developed by the Jamestown LNG Threat Committee as a form of “corporate intimidation.” This accusation is unfounded, inaccurate and unfair.

Requests for public information are routine when parties want to better understand the workings of federal, state and local government bodies. Our information request was respectfully submitted in full accord with Rhode Island law and is part of a multiyear effort to engage in a factual discussion about our project with Jamestown officials and residents. The role of the Jamestown LNG Threat Committee in this process is well articulated in the committee’s official charter which states: “The Town Council has determined that it is necessary to increase the gathering, management and dissemination of information pertaining to the planned transport of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) through the east passage.”

We agree the facts should be available to the public and elected officials so they can make informed decisions with regards to the project. We remain concerned, however, that many myths surrounding our project are routinely being disseminated.

Far from an attempt to “intimidate” the committee, Weaver’s Cove has requested public documents in order to understand the nature of the questions and concerns raised regarding our project by the citizens of Jamestown. This is a routine part of the permitting process that our company has been engaged in for nearly 10 years. Tens of thousands of pages of information have been placed into the federal permitting record.

We didn’t file our information request without trying other ways to work with the committee. Before the committee’s second meeting, Weaver’s Cove reached out in writing seeking an open dialogue. We heard nothing in reply and then watched the video of the second meeting. The tape was clear and concise: The full committee deemed that a written response to our letter would simply be a “waste of time” and there was no need for Weaver’s Cove to present any information or enter into any dialogue with the committee. We find the committee’s approach to “gathering information” disappointing. With more standard communication paths shut down, our only window into the committee’s work is through video footage of public meetings.

Having watched the tapes, we are not aware of any facts with regards to our project that have been reviewed, assessed and disseminated. The committee has been planning a Sept. 8 gathering where elected officials from surrounding towns have been invited to hear about our project — we have not been offered a role at this meeting. What information, if any, the Jamestown LNG Threat Committee has or is planning to disseminate to these elected officials is a mystery. Is it accurate and balanced? We can’t tell, and that’s why we submitted our public information request.

We hope that the information the committee has gathered will be disseminated prior to September 8th so that we have a chance to prevent any more misinformation from being widely disseminated. Correcting misinformation after it has been issued is always much more challenging than getting the facts right the first time.

For those officials and residents interested in factual information about our project, we encourage you to visit our websites LNGfactcheck.com and weaverscove.com — or review the thousands of pages on file at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (docket CP04-36).

Ted Gehrig
President and Chief Operating Officer Weaver’s Cove Energy

LNG Fact Check Video: Jonathan Stone part II

Posted on 2 August 2010 | Tags: • • • • • •

In part II of our LNG Fact Check Video of Save The Bay Executive Director Jonathan Stone, Weaver’s Cove Energy sets the record straight regarding Mr. Stone’s factually incorrect and highly misleading claims regarding the supposed use of private security forces for LNG transits, bay closures, bridge closures, unannounced LNG ship visits, and the impact of LNG ships on regattas and recreational boating in Narragansett Bay.

LNG Fact Check Video: Jonathan Stone part II:

Sources cited:

View part I of this LNG Fact Check video.

LNG Fact Check Video: Jonathan Stone part I

Posted on 22 July 2010 | Tags: • • • • • • • • • •

Save The Bay Executive Director Jonathan Stone has publicly made a number of factually incorrect and highly misleading statements regarding proposed LNG shipments in Narragansett Bay. This LNG Fact Check Video is the first of a series that documents Mr. Stone’s public statements and sets the record straight regarding the safety, security, environmental impacts, and impacts on other bay users of Weaver’s Cove Energy’s proposed offshore berth in Mount Hope Bay and onshore LNG storage facility in Fall River.

LNG Fact Check Video: Jonathan Stone part I:

Stone video 1

Sources cited:

View part II of this LNG Fact Check video.

Providence Journal Editorial: Bay’s majestic ships

Posted on 20 July 2010 | Tags: • • •

An editorial in today’s Providence Journal notes that large ocean going vessels regularly transit the waters of Narragansett Bay without negatively impacting recreational boaters or hitting area bridges. Proposed LNG shipments into Narragansett and Mt. Hope bays will similarly have minimal impacts on recreational boating and pose no threat to “bridge safety.”

From the “Bay’s majestic ships” editorial:

We were at Fort Adams, in Newport, the other day for a Civil War re-enactment. It was a picture-postcard sunny day, the waters of Narragansett Bay sparkling blue, folks out in their pleasure boats, tourists enjoying cruises.

From under the Newport Bridge appeared one ship towering over the others — a Hoegh Autoliners vessel, heading back to sea after unloading at Quonset Point. Their ships are mighty: 600 to 700 feet long, with 150-158 feet of air draft (the distance from the surface of the water to the highest point) — a bit smaller than LNG tankers, which are 950 feet long, with about 130 feet of air draft.

Yet no one seemed to pay it the slightest heed. Sailboats sailed, yachts tacked, power boats whipped by, people on shore enjoyed the view. Nobody worried about it hitting a bridge. No one complained — if anything, people out and about enjoyed the majestic ship, testimony to at least some economic activity in Rhode Island that makes use of its advantages as the Ocean State.

The scene suggested, once again, the absurdity of claims made by the NIMBY crowd that big ships would ruin the Bay — that the pleasure craft of the rich can’t co-exist with a robust maritime economy.

It would be nice if politicians could show greater spine, and the foes of such economic activity a little more civic-mindedness, in considering using the Narragansett Bay to help create jobs in Rhode Island.

LNG Fact Check Video: Michael Keyworth

Posted on 7 July 2010 | Tags: • • • • • • • • • •

Save The Bay Leadership Council and Rhode Island Marine Trades Association member Michael Keyworth has publicly made a number of false and highly misleading statements regarding proposed LNG shipments in Narragansett Bay.  This LNG Fact Check Video documents Mr. Keyworth’s statements and sets the record straight regarding the safety, security, impacts on other bay users, and economic benefits of Weaver’s Cove Energy’s proposed offshore berth in Mount Hope Bay and onshore LNG storage facility in Fall River.

Keyworth video

Sources cited:

The facts about cruise ships and LNG transits

Posted on 22 June 2010 | Tags: • • • • • •

A number of local organizations including the Newport County Chamber of Commerce, the Preservation Society of Newport, and the Aquidneck Island Planning Commission have made unsubstantiated claims that future LNG transits through Narragansett Bay will scare away cruise ships that increasingly call on Newport Harbor. This quote from a Preservation Society of Newport press release is typical of such claims:

“Cruise ship schedules are often set more than a year in advance,” said Board Vice President and Public Policy Committee Chairman David Leys. “Once they’ve arrived here, interruptions in their time-sensitive operations because of Coast Guard security restrictions could disrupt their entire schedules. Ultimately, the uncertainty may lead cruise ship operators to drop Newport from their itineraries altogether.”

Contrary to this dire prediction, the facts show that cruise ships and LNG tankers regularly share the same waterways with no adverse impacts. Indeed, Boston Harbor receives an LNG shipment approximately once every five days, yet according to a recent Boston Globe article, their Black Falcon Cruise Terminal is booming:

“After several years of falling passenger numbers, Boston’s port posted record numbers of cruise passengers over the past three years, with 2010 shaping up to top the nearly 300,000 people who passed through the port last year. At the same time the midsize port has been growing, many other US cities have seen passenger traffic decline or stagnate.”

In 2009, Boston Harbor received 104 cruise ships calls and 61 LNG shipments. On eleven days, cruise ships and LNG tankers transited the harbor on the same day.

Thanks to the expertise of the U.S. Coast Guard and local pilots, waterways such as Boston Harbor and Narragansett Bay can be managed to ensure the coexistence of cruise ships, LNG shipments, and recreational boating.

Put simply, the facts show that future LNG shipments will have no negative impact on Newport’s important cruise ship industry.

Providence Journal Editorial: Legislature’s LNG circus

Posted on 11 June 2010 | Tags: • • • • •

In a strongly worded “Legislature’s LNG circus” editorial, the Providence Journal points out the lack of facts and logic in the Rhode Island General Assembly’s treatment of proposed LNG shipments into Narragansett Bay:

Logic has not always been the hallmark of any legislature. But the virulence of politicians directed against the Weaver’s Cove project in Fall River, which would bring much-needed private-sector jobs and safe liquefied natural gas to our region, is remarkable. The pols have apparently concluded there are votes to be had whipping up the public’s irrational fears against LNG, and in playing the tried-and-true not-in-my-backyard game . . .

LNG is delivered every day without incident to some of the most crowded cities in the world. It provides customers with a fuel that burns far more cleanly than oil or coal. Our region would benefit from such shipments because it is far from natural-gas sources. LNG is shipped regularly into Everett, Mass., near Boston, under the Tobin Bridge — the same height as the Mount Hope Bridge — and without disrupting the booming cruise-ship trade in Boston.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the U.S. Coast Guard, which are charged with protecting the public and have vastly greater technical knowledge than Rhode Island legislators about shipping and energy, have endorsed the safety and security measures for the Weaver’s Cove offshore-berth proposal.

Yet a state Senate panel packed with NIMBY-minded foes of the project — and headed by one of its most vociferous critics, Charles Levesque (D.-Portsmouth) — recently ended its months-long “study” and recommended (surprise!) that federal regulators reject the idea. Federal regulators, fortunately, will consider the safety and scientific issues surrounding LNG, as this project goes forward, more fairly and seriously than this Senate panel did.

Meanwhile, the legislature passed a farcical bill that probably violates federal laws (sponsored by Douglas Gablinske, D.-Bristol) crafted to make it impossible for LNG tankers to pass under the Mount Hope Bridge. The bill requires a 30-foot clearance between the bridge span and any part of the tanker, though a 1-to-3-foot clearance is standard elsewhere in the world, and considered safe by the Coast Guard.

It might be funny, if not for the time wasted, and the need that southeastern New England has right now for jobs in construction and maritime industries and steady supplies of affordable energy.

Statement of Weaver’s Cove Energy in Response to the Rhode Island General Assembly’s Passage of “Bridge Safety” Legislation

Posted on 10 June 2010 | Tags: • • • •

The “bridge safety” legislation (H-7014B, S-2125A) recently passed by the General Assembly would require any LNG ship to have at least 30′ of clearance under all Rhode Island bridges. This legislation, in fact, has nothing to do with “bridge safety,” but is a blatant attempt to block LNG tanker shipments under the Mt. Hope Bridge to Weaver’s Cove Energy’s proposed facility in Mt. Hope Bay.

In the last 50-plus years, LNG tankers have made over 55,000 voyages and traveled more than 128 million miles without a major incident. LNG has been shipped safely into Tokyo, one of the most densely populated cities in the world, for nearly 40 years. Approximately 400 LNG tankers call on Tokyo Harbor every year without incident.

Closer to home, LNG has been safely shipped through Boston Harbor and under the Tobin Bridge to a terminal in Everett, Massachusetts since 1971. Indeed, the Tobin Bridge has the same vertical clearance as the Mt. Hope Bridge. In 2008, an LNG tanker transited Boston Harbor every five days.

Finally, marine safety and navigation experts from the U.S. Coast Guard and Rhode Island’s licensed ships pilots have both stated that 1’ to 3’ is the accepted international standard for bridge clearance. Nowhere in the world is there any similar requirement for bridge clearance distances, nor is there any rationale for restricting clearance requirements to LNG tankers.

Given the facts it is clear this legislation has nothing to do with “bridge safety.”

Statement of Weaver’s Cove Energy In Response to the Rhode Island State Senate’s LNG Task Force Report

Posted on 4 June 2010 | Tags: •

According to a January 15th statement issued by Chairman Sen. Charles Levesque, the Senate LNG Task Force was established to “carefully examine . . . the proposal’s potential impact upon Rhode Islanders from an economic, environmental and public safety standpoint.” The LNG Task Force report which was issued yesterday contains no examination, let alone a careful examination, of any of these impacts, but merely appears to accept the often unsubstantiated statements and claims of those who appeared before the Task Force. As such it does nothing to inform the public or advance the debate on the merits (or not) of the LNG project. Fortunately, the Federal review process led by the FERC and the Coast Guard, which develops decisions and recommendations based on facts and scientific evidence, will ultimately address all of the important issues raised during the hearings, thus allowing the public a better opportunity to understand the issues and come to their own conclusions.

older posts »

© 2010, LNGFactCheck.com - All rights reserved - Site by InToone Communication