Army Corps hammers another nail in DCP Midstream megatank plan's coffin

Is the Big Tank nightmare over?  

On April 23rd, Jay Clement of the Army Corps of Engineers sent this letter  to DCP Midstream's  Rebecca Malloy, informing them that their Army Corps of Engineers permit for the Searsport LPG Tank is revoked.

This  revocation was at the behest of the beaten energy giant, tails between its legs,  humbled by the fortuitous but potent coming-together of Penobscot Bay-area environmental advocates, local citizenry  of Searsport  the threatened town, and pockets quite as deep as DCP's dotting the slender island that pierces the heart of Penobscot Bay: Islesboro.


Jay wrote: 

"Dear Ms. Malloy:

"This concerns your Department of the Army permit, number NAE-2010-02347, that authorized the placement of fill below the ordinary high water line of an unnamed tributary to Long Cove and in adjacent freshwater wetlands at Searsport, Maine in order to develop a liquid propane storage and off loading facility on Mack Point.

"In a letter dated April 12, 2013, your Maine attorney indicated that you now have no
intention of proceeding with the project and that you wish to have the Corps revoke the permit.

"Furthermore, it is our understanding, based on conversations between your attorney and John Almeida of our Office of Counsel, that you do not wish to avail yourself of the opportunity to request a meeting with the District Engineer or a public hearing before a revocation decision is made.

"Therefore, in response to your request and in accordance with Title 33 CFR Part 325.7, your Department of the Army permit is revoked.

"If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact Jay Clement at 207-623-8367 at our Manchester, Maine Project Office.

Jay Clement 
ACOE

DCP Midstream drops plan for Searsport supertank!

DCP is so....yesterday!
Determined Mainers have prevailed against this well-heeled energy giant, convincing the town of Searsport's planning board that  DCP midstream's proposed supertank would be unsafe for the people and  bad for Penobscot Bay.

READ ALL ABOUT IT

Pen Bay Pilot

Portland Press Herald

Bangor Daily News (archived)

More info  tbnt.org and PBW coverage

DCP Midstream drops plan for Searsport supertank!

DCP is so....yesterday!
Determined Mainers have prevailed against this well-heeled energy giant, convincingt the town of Searsport's planning board that  DCP midstream's proposed supertank would be unsafe for the people and  bad for Penobscot Bay.

READ ALL ABOUT IT

Pen Bay Pilot

Portland Press Herald

Bangor Daily News

More info go to tbnt.org  and penbay.org

Searsport: DCP tank proposal unsafe, too noisy.

From: Waldo Village Soup, Belfast, Maine

Searsport tank deliberations of March 27 - 28  (More delibs  April 3rd and 4th)

Board finds tank proposal unsafe, too noisy

By Tanya Mitchell and Ben Holbrook | Mar 29, 2013ervices

Share

SEARSPORT — In the first night of Planning Board deliberations aimed at deciding whether to deny or approve an application for a 22.7 million gallon liquefied petroleum gas storage tank at Mack Point, the proposed project hit a snag.

Just before the Searsport Planning Board wrapped up its deliberations Wednesday night, March 27, the board took two votes in relation to how the proposal from Colorado-based DCP Midstream fits the town Land Use Ordinance, the board made two unanimous decisions — one stating the buildings and structures proposed for the industrial zone were permitted uses under the ordinance, but that portions of the project proposed for the neighboring commercial district were not.

Thanks But No Tank attorney Steve Hinchman addresses the Searsport Planning Board Wednesday night, March 27. At right is Anglers Restaurant attorney Ed Bearor.

Members of the audience appeared stunned by the finding — Searsport resident David Italiaander was one of them.

"They just voted this down," he said.

But earlier in the deliberations, Searsport Planning Board attorney Kristin Collins said even if the board finds reason to deny the application at any point in the process, the board must still complete the entire deliberation process.

"It could be overturned," said Collins.

Planning Board Member Lee Ann Horowitz expressed concern that the board may not be qualified to make a decision on such an involved proposal that has included briefs and testimony from attorneys for the applicant and project opponents, all of which offer the board very different interpretations of the project as it relates to town ordinances.

"I think this is way out of our league," Horowitz said. Horowitz went on to be the one vote against the motion stating the board has jurisdiction to consider the project.

"This is going to get challenged further," said Planning Board Chairman Bruce Probert.

"You've got to take a stab at it so someone else can tell us we're wrong," said Collins.

After the board votes on the rest of the standards set forth in the town’s land use ordinance, the board will move on to consider the merits of the project based on specifications in the site planning and shoreland zoning ordinances, Probert said. The final decision to either approve or deny the application will be made based on the consideration of those ordinances as well as the 18 performance standards the board must consider as they relate to the proposal, which address every aspect of the project from its impacts on air quality, and preserving and enhancing the landscape to lighting and visual buffering.

The first 90 minutes of the deliberations included oral arguments from interested parties, including James Kilbreth, attorney for DCP Midstream, Steve Hinchman, attorney for the opposition group Thanks But No Tank, Italiaander, who spoke about the market conditions for propane and suggested the project would likely be used as an export facility, and Ed Bearor, attorney for Anglers Restaurant.

March 28 deliberations

The meeting resumed Thursday, March 28, as planning board members resumed assessing whether the proposed LPG tank application meets the standards for the town’s land use ordinance.

Deliberations began with board members assessing whether DCP’s tank application met the standards for minimum lot size for commercial and industrial zones, property set back lines and road frontage. Board members voted 5-0 that those standards were met.

However, board members raised concerns with a number of the other standards including whether the project is in conformity with the town’s comprehensive plan.

Board member Mark Bradstreet questioned whether two votes could be taken on the issue: one vote for whether the project meets the standard for complying with the comprehensive plan in the commercial zone and a separate vote for whether it meets the standard in the industrial zone.

The motion to vote on each zone separately was approved before a motion was made that the application does not meet the standard for the commercial zone. Board members noted the fact that there are industrial uses — administrative office building, access road, fire water tank and pump— sited within the commercial zone.

A motion stating the application did not comply with the town’s comprehensive plan for the commercial zone was approved by a vote of 5-0.

The motion that the project does comply with the town’s comprehensive plan within the industrial zone was approved by a vote of 5-0.

Two issues were raised under performance standards regarding vibration and noise.

Under the land use ordinance, with the exception of vibration occurring during the construction or demolition of a building, the vibration will not be transmitted outside the lot where it originates.

As discussion began regarding whether there would be an issue of vibration being transmitted off of the property, board members questioned how to assess any potential impact. Without a study from the town, board members said they would have to rely on DCP’s application, which states there will be no vibration transmitted outside the lot, in order to rule on whether the application meets the standard.

The board eventually voted 5-0 that the standard was met before tackling the issue of “offensive noise.”

The land use ordinance states that no offensive noise will be transmitted beyond lot lines that would cause an unreasonable disturbance to neighboring residential properties.

That issue of “unreasonable” noise was questioned by board members who asked how to define what “unreasonable” would mean.

Collins explained that unreasonable noise could be considered noise that would result in complaints from neighbors; at which point Bradstreet pointed out that trucks waiting in the queue line at the facility could disturb neighbors.

Board member Brian Callahan made a motion that the application did not meet the noise standard, citing the fact he did not feel there was adequate buffering, especially where trucks would queue up, to mitigate noise.

He suggested the most effective barrier to mitigate noise would be to build a fence similar to the ones used on highways to reduce vehicle noise to nearby neighborhoods. However, Callahan was not in favor of such a fence saying they “look like hell.”

Board member George Kerper and Probert added that there were other noise issues to consider with the project in regards to use of the flare and whether the facility doors would be open in the summer, which could generate additional noise. It was also noted that weather conditions, like wind, could carry noise to nearby residences.

The board eventually passed a motion that the noise standard was not met based on concerns regarding truck noise, the flare, noise from the facility, weather conditions and the fact that a buffer cannot be put across the facility access road to mitigate any noise.

That motion passed by a vote of 5-0.

The final portion of the application the Board found objectionable Thursday was whether the project would result in unsafe or unhealthful conditions. Safety has consistently been an issue raised by board members and the general public throughout the course of the public hearings held in regards to the project.

While Bradstreet acknowledged the application meets the technical standards of the land use ordinance, he said the project is unsafe because it is too close to residences.

Probert agreed and said he was concerned with the blast zone radius if the tank were to ignite and that while the risk was low of a catastrophic event occurring the “consequence is tremendously high.”

Board members approved a motion that the application does not meet the standard for not creating unsafe and unhealthful conditions by a vote of 5-0.

Following the meeting, DCP spokeswoman Roz Elliott said in an email to The Republican Journal said that the company is “disappointed” by the board’s initial rulings, but will wait for the deliberations to conclude.

“We will await the remainder of the deliberations and then evaluate our options,” Elliott said in the email.

Members of the opposition group “Thanks, But No Tank,” were pleased with the outcome of Thursday night’s deliberations stating in a press release “unlike questions of zoning, nothing can be done at any town meeting (or anywhere else) that can change these findings on noise and safe and unhealthful standards. This is all good news, in fact virtually unthinkable at the beginning of the week.”

The planning board deliberations will continue Wednesday, April 3, at 6:30 p.m. at Union Hall in Searsport.

Searsport planning board votes against tank in first decision of long deliberation proces

Posted March 27, 2013, at 10:30 p.m. Bangor Daily News

SEARSPORT, Maine — An audience of about 100 people in Searsport’s Union Hall Wednesday evening listened closely as the town’s planning board began its deliberations on the controversial liquid propane gas project proposed for the Mack Point industrial zone.

DCP's lawyers,  glum for a change.

Flying knitting needles slowed and residents leaned closer to the board members as they voted at about 9 p.m. on the very first motion put forward in regard to the land use ordinance — that the buildings that would be erected in the town’s commercial district are not permitted in the zone for which they are proposed.

And in a unanimous show of hands, the five members of the Searsport Planning Board members voted in favor of that motion.

“They just voted this down,” a stunned David Italiaander, an opponent who has interested party status, whispered after the board made its vote. “They just denied the permit. I could dance, but [the board] said no demonstrations.”

Italiaander’s words, though likely very premature, were echoed by many of the project opponents in the room. Longtime Planning Board Chairman Bruce Probert said after the meeting was adjourned that the board members will “revisit all of it.” After the board members go through and vote on the remainder of the town’s land use ordinances in relation to the propane tank and terminal proposal, they will then go through the site planning and shoreland zoning ordinances. The ultimate decision will be made based on the 18 performance standards laid out in the town ordinance. Those standards touch on air quality, soil erosion, water pollution,exterior lighting and preserving and enhancing the landscape, among other points.

Efforts after the meeting to speak with representatives from DCP Midstream, the company which has proposed building a $40-million, 14-story-tall propane gas terminal and storage tank, were unsuccessful. The project has received permits from agencies including the Maine Department of Environmental Protection, the U.S. Coast Guard and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. It awaits only the decision from the all-volunteer Searsport planning board, whose members have heard hours and hours of testimony and been reading thousands of pages of briefs and written comments in preparation for the deliberations.

Probert said last weekend that the planning board will meet on several more occasions before making a final decision, with the next meeting scheduled for 6:30 p.m. Thursday at Union Hall. He expects the final decision to be made this spring.

“It’s all part of the process,” he said.

Planning Board alternate Lee-Ann Horowitz said at the very beginning of the board’s deliberations that she believes the board is not the right governing body to make a decision. She was the sole member to vote against Searsport having jurisdiction in the matter.

“I think this whole procedure should be dealt with in another venue completely,” she said. “It’s way out of our league.”

Kristin Collins, the planning board’s attorney, said that they had to try.

“We have to take a stab at it, so someone can tell us we’re wrong,” she said.

The first portion of Wednesday night’s meeting was taken up by final arguments from the interested parties, including DCP Midstream; Italiaander; Ed Bearor, the attorney for the owner of Angler’s Restaurant; and Steve Hinchman, attorney for opposition group Thanks But No Tank.

TBNT & IIT file notice of intent to sue Army Corps over its DCP approvals.

SEARSPORT. On Wednesday, March 20th,  Thanks But No Tank (TBNT) and  Islesboro Islands Trust (IIT)  filed a 60-day Notice of Intent to sue the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) for violations of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Clean Water Act (CWA). 

DCP's proposed megatank site: forest in center foreground

These violations occurred when the Corps issued the May 2012 Environmental Assessment (EA) and CWA Section 404 permit for a 22.7 million gallon liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) marine import terminal, storage and distribution facility proposed by DCP Searsport LLC.

The Notice requests that the Corps immediately withdraw the 2012 EA and CWA permit and reassess the project in light of significant new information that has surfaced since the EA was issued.  As explained below, this new information demonstrates several important points, including:

• there is no need for a marine terminal to import foreign LPG;
• more cost-effective and less environmentally damaging practicable alternatives are available to meet Maine’s energy needs; and
• the Corps failed to consider the grave consequences for Penobscot Bay if the Searsport terminal is used to export LPG.

While releasing the Intent to Sue, IIT Executive Director Steve Miller declared: “By constraining the Corps’ EA to support the DCP terminal project and by arbitrarily excluding other viable solutions, the Corps failed its duty to provide federal, state and local decision-makers and the public with the information necessary to properly weigh the potential economic and environmental costs and benefits of the proposed action. Accordingly, the Corps must withdraw the 2012 EA and wholly re-do its analysis.”

Steve Hinchman, project attorney, added, “Recent events and new information demonstrate that the EA is wrong, out-of-date, and unreliable, and must be supplemented…There is no need for a new marine LPG terminal to import foreign LPG into Maine or anywhere on the East Coast.  New information demonstrates that other fuels and energy sources are practicable and reasonable alternatives to increased propane use.”

According to the legal filing, NEPA states that the Corps must withdraw the 2012 EA and initiate a supplemental analysis. Similarly, under the CWA, the Corps must withdraw the 2012 permit to fill wetlands under their jurisdiction and fully evaluate if there are less environmentally damaging alternatives that would supply the Maine energy market and/or to provide new export terminals for domestic LPG.

As Tara Hollander, TBNT Steering Committee, pointed out, “No company–including DCP–is using the marine import facilities that exist today to bring in foreign LPG. In fact, there is a glut of domestic LPG which costs at least a dollar less than imported LPG.”

Further background: The filing submitted by IIT and TBNT’s legal team methodically outlines repeated Corps failures in its review of the DCP terminal project under the required NEPA and CWA statutes:

• The EA fails to take a “hard look” at Maine’s LPG infrastructure, market trends and reasonable alternatives. The Corps failed to consider the current state of Maine’s existing LPG supply chain and infrastructure. And, they illegally excluded from the analysis any consideration of the ongoing and fundamental transformation of the Maine and global LPG and energy markets due to changes in production and supply. NEPA requires a “hard look” when a proposed action will affect the quality of the human environment in a significant manner or to a significant extent.

• The Corps limited the overall project purpose of the EA to the marine import of foreign-sourced LPG. Despite extensive public comment that, because of the ongoing boom in domestic gas production, Maine has no need for a marine LPG import terminal, the Corps applied a presumption to assume–without independent evaluation or verification–that the DCP project was viable and needed in the marketplace. The Corps excluded from review any consideration of non-marine (i.e. rail or truck) terminals, alternative sources of LPG, alternative fuels, such as natural gas and compressed natural gas and alternative energy sources such as biomass and solar.

• The Corps’ permit relied on unsubstantiated emergency response claims and failed to adequately consider potentially devastating human and environmental risks.

• The Corps failed to acknowledge the impacts of the dredging which the proposed LPG facility would require–dredging close to one million cubic yards of sediment from the Mack Point vicinity.

• The EA failed to consider the potential use of the Searsport facility as an LPG export terminal. Under NEPA regulations, the Corps must consider direct, indirect and cumulative effects of a proposed action, including “reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions.”

The entire 60-day Notice of Intent to Sue can be downloaded here.  Additional documents pertaining to the Army Corps of Engineers can be found on our Army Corps Docs page.

February 25, 2013 Public Hearing on DCP Midstream LPG tank plan,

February 25, 2013 Searsport Public Hearing on DCP Midstream LPG tank plan. Audio Recordings (mp3s)
* Introduction 1min 45sec Part 1 Bud Rivers
* Steve Hinchman_v_Bud Rivers_30min25sec
* James Kilbreth_Bud Rivers_11min30sec
Part 2 Neil Frangesh
* Neil_Frangesh_pt1_10min29sec
* Neil_Frangesh_pt2_12min19sec.mp3
* neil_Frangesh_qa1_7min27sec
* Neil_Frangesh_qa2_12min12sec
Part 3 Public Speakers
* Pt3_intro2_amendmt_controlroon_4min17sec
* intro_housekeeping1_4min
* pubspeaker1_ann flack_petition_3min46sec
* pubspeaker2_mark lomond_2min55sec
* pubspeaker3_catherine_robin_3min5sec

* pubspeaker4_ann_dodge_4min28sec 

* pubspeaker5_ben_crimaudo_3min19sec 

* pubspeaker6_jeff_marger_3min28sec 

* pubspeaker7_joanne_moesswilde_1min58 

* pubspeaker8_terry_fischer_6min 

* pubspeaker9_ridgely_fuller_3min16sec
* pubspeaker10_matt_summer_1min51sec
No speaker 11
* pubspeaker12_nancy_galland_6min57

* pubspeaker13_phyllis_coelho_2min57sec 

* pubspeaker14_barbara_andrews_proberg_q_1min3sec 

* pubspeaker15_david_smith_1min58sec 

* pubspeaker16_robert_iserbyt_2min5sec 

* pubspeaker17_lew_macgregor_4min3sec 

* pubspeaker18_jon_olsen_3min33sec 

* pubspeaker19_don_white_3min26sec
* pubspeaker20_ron_huber_3min58sec 

* pubspeaker21_stephanie_staples_2min17sec 

* pubspeaker22_jim_bresman_5min16sec 

* pubspeaker23_joe_slocum_2min43sec 

* pubspeaker24_suzanne_tietcha_2min22sec 

* pubspeaker25_scott_moore_3min25sec
* pubspeaker25_scott_moore_3min25sec
* motion to close mtg_audience_oppo_6min47sec 

* angry end of meeting short version_4min45sec

DCP megatank - AUDIO of final Searsport Planning Board mtg, including anger at cutoff of citizen testimony.

Searsport Maine planning board held its final public hearing on the controversial proposal by DCP Midstream to build and operate a 26 million gallon liquified petroleum gas tank.   Media coverage:    WABI TV   Pen Bay Pilot

AUDIO RECORDINGS OF HEARING (mp3s) 

* Introduction Bruce Probert 1min 45s
* TBNT atty Steve Hinchman questions 
Bud Rivers. 30min 25sec
* DCP atty James Kibreth questions Bud Rivers 11min 30 sec

* Neil Frangesh Part 1 10min 29sec
* Neil Frangesh Part 2 12min 19sec
* Neil Frangesh QA 1. 7min 27sec
* Neil Frangesh QA 2. 12min12sec

Public Comment Section of hearing
* Introduction part1 4min
* Intro Part 2, amendment control room location  4min 17sec
* Ann Flack with Petition 3min 46sec
* Catherine Robin 3min 5sec
* Mark Lomond 2min 55sec
* Ben Crimaudo 3min 15
* Ann Dodge 4min 28sec
* Jeff Marger 3min 28sec
* Joanne Moesswilde 1min 58 sec
* Terry Fischer 6min
* Ridgely Fuller 3min 16sec 
* Matt Summer 1min51sec
* Nancy Galland & q from Probert 6min 57sec
* Phyllis Coelho 2min 57sec
* Barbara Andrews & Probert 1min 3sec

* David Smith 1min 58sec
* Robert Iserbyt 2min 5sec
* Lew McGregor 4min3sec
* Jon Olsen  3min 33sec
* Don White 3min 26 sec
* Ron Huber 3min 58sec
* Stephanie Staples 2min 17sec
* Jim  Bresman 5min 15sec
* Joe Slocum 2min 43sec
* Suzanne Tietcha 2min22sec
* Scott Moore 3min 25sec
* Cathy Goldner (1st try at ending mtg)6min5sec
* Motion to close meeting passes. Citizens respond 6min47sec
* Citizens respond to early cutoff of public comments (short form) 4min 45sec 

More to come!

Searsport Planning Board Feb 11, 2013. Good Harbor presents report on DCP proposal (audios)

Good Harbor explains  2/11/13 why DCP should stay out of Searsport.

Alan Moore USCG,  replies to Good Harbor question

* Introduction 1 Bruce Probert  3min 12 sec
* Introduction 2 IIT 7min
* Introduction 3 Good Harbor  3min

Good Harbor Presentation
* Part 1. 27 minutes
* Part 2 22 minutes
* Part 3 15min

DCP questions Good Harbor 29min
Captain Moore_26min
Dave Gelinas 18 minutes

Separate speakers

* Good Harbor Report Part 1 Frank Gallagher 5min 30sec
* Good Harbor Report Issue 1 Individual vs collective response. 5min30sec

More to come...check back

Good Harbor says DCP stay out of Searsport Harbor

from  Thanks But No Tank, Bangor Daily News' story and other sources

GOOD HARBOR REPORT:  LPG should stay out of Searsport Harbor 
Richard A. Clarke was unable to travel to the Searsport hearing last night. 

The presentation was done by Frank Gallagher and Mike Lucy, co-authors of the All Hazard Risk Assessment for Searsport. Their message that the Board should deny the project, was heard loud and clear by everyone in attendance:  

Frank Gallagher, Good Harbor, presenting.

No strategies for  dire scenarios. If fire or explosion take place at the $40 million, 23-million-gallon tank that DCP Midstream wants to build at Mack Point Industrial Zone,  who would pay for the firefighting equipment and training? How would project neighbors evacuate the blast zone? Who will ensure that verbal agreements are followed through?

Mack Point site too small: T-he site is too small to be safe (and there is no way to make it bigger); the facility is too close to residences, businesses, and Route 1; the community lacks the necessary emergency response capabilities; and the Searsport channel is not deep enough. They went further to discuss how a detailed analysis of plans should not be left after the permit is granted. At that point, as Lucy paraphrased Clarke, “the train has left the station” and can’t be turned back—that is to say too many crucial questions are still unanswered but the project is underway. 

Current LPG markets They also brought to the board’s attention the current markets with LPG imports and exports. Another key point they made is this facility would be denied for an LNG permit by the federal government’s standards and essentially LPG and LNG act in much the same way as flammable materials. As Frank Gallagher put it, the difference is between burning yourself with fire from a match or burning yourself on a hot stove, the result is the same. The big picture question still remains: why would Searsport ever want this facility—knowing the inherent risks involved??

U.S. Coast Guard Captain Moore

USCG Capt Moore

We heard also from U.S. Coast Guard Captain Moore who after making a number of points when questioned by TBNT attorney Steve Hinchman essentially agreed that the Coast Guard’s opinion was the same as Good Harbor’s, that there are too many unanswered questions, the channel needs to be dredged and there are no marine fire tugs that can respond to an emergency.

David Gelinas of the Penobscot Bay Pilots
David Gelinas of the Penobscot Bay Pilots got into the record his statements that some of these ships coming to Searsport would not be carrying full load, either making another stop first before Searsport or coming in without a full cargo. His exercise appeared pointless as pointed out by David Italiaander, there currently are no ships delivering either LPG or LNG coming to the U.S.

Searsport Planning Board:
Some members of the planning board did ask questions. One being what is a “most likely scenario”. The response from the Good Harbor team was a combination of a human error, either someone making a mistake not paying attention to the task at hand, a motor vehicle accident, a piece of machinery that breaks down or a combination of both.

DCP cross examines
The cross examination by DCP’s attorney was, as we have seen before, ineffective. DCP presented a blast analysis, commissioned by Baker Engineering (the Good Harbor subcontractor) in July, 2012 without any support documentation. This was a confounding moment, as suddenly this map appeared on the screen. We will investigate fully and report on this.

Bud Rivers Searsport Safety Chief
Almon Rivers, the safety chief of Searsport took an adversarial position while questioning Good Harbor. His tone left this resident of Searsport with grave concerns if he really has the safety and well-being of Searsport as his primary concern, or if his allegiance is toward proving at any cost that the 22.7 Gallon mega-tank DCP Midstream proposes can be built and operated safely.

Searsport vs DCP. Round 2 of public hearing begins.

Following wednesday's storm-blocked  event, The public hearing on the DCP Midstream gigtank plan for upper Penobscot Bay went forward on Thursday.

The People spoke. The People presented. The Planning Board questioned and discussed. The New York Times was in attendance tonight, complete with photographer  The two were given much juicy background info,  internet links and, naming names.  Bangor Daily News put a story out about the hearing.

Residents of Cape Jellison/Stockton Springs gave presentations, as did realtors about declining sales and home values, Senior Citizens and their concerns, Friends of Sears Island and a loooooong discourse between Buddy Hall's appraiser and DCP's lawyers (Hall is owner of restaurant and motel abutting  DCP's proposed tank site)

One important event was Searsport resident Dave Italiaander's  presentation click here (pdf) showing that the company must be  misrepresenting itself to the people of Maine, because DCP exports LPG gas. It doesn't import it.   According to Italiaander:

"LPG imports are virtually non-existent, except  from Canada. There are no water borne imports. 

"LPG and Propane prices 

are falling. 

"Propane prices are near a 10 year low.

"DCP told their investors that they are going to increase their LPG exports by 200 to 250 thousand barrels a day" Italiaander told the board.

"That is almost 8 million tons of additional exports a year, or 175 large, ocean-­-going LPG Tankers.  Their proposed Searsport mega-tank would hold around 43,000 Metric tons; a large LPG tanker holds around 45,000MT.  DCP needs 5 new terminals the size of this one just to handle their new exports"

Army Corps of Engineers washes hands of responsibility Italiaander said he spoke to the Army Corps of Engineers and to town officials about the project.
"Once this terminal is built" he told the board,  "the Corps would have no jurisdiction nor review if the applicant wanted to export rather than import.  
"Neither would the  Town of Searsport. It seems that it would require no more than a notification to the DEP and Coast Guard."

"I hope that it is now clear," Italiaander told the Searsport Planning Board,  "that it is a virtual impossibility that this is an import terminal and a virtual certainty that it is an export terminal."

This company exports propane, it does not import it."

UPDATES AS REPORTS COME IN

Good Harbor Report on DCP's megatank plan comes out!

NEW! Good Harbor Report on DCP's megatank plan comes out!

Dramatic recent changes in global energy prices buttress environment and safety elements of the  no-build scenario.  MEDIA COVERAGE  Maine Things Considered MPBN  

Key Findings:

·       An independent blast analysis, which found that under a variety of accident scenarios, an explosion or leak at the terminal would cause lethal and devastating impacts to nearby homes and businesses, and to travelers on Route One;  

·       The lack of a cost sharing plan, which would transfer significant project costs from the LPG developer to local communities;

·       Gaps in current regulations, which leave citizens and businesses unprotected; and

·       Insufficient depths in the Searsport harbor and at the existing pier, which will require expensive and environmentally damaging dredging before ocean going LPG ships can safely access the port.

Clarke also cautioned regulators to look carefully at dramatic recent changes in global energy prices, which are leading industry to convert import terminals into export facilities.

Maine Lobsters visit DCP Midstream headquarters in Downtown Denver.

Coloradans spoke out Saturday out in downtown Denver in the plaza before DCP Midstream's 25th floor headquarters in the Republic Plaza skyscraper..  

Listen to a 6 and a half minute recording phoned-in to WRFR community radio during the event 01/12/13  (mp3)

 Click Here for photogalleries of these Lobsters at the DCP HQ and elsewhere in Denver.  beseeching DCP Midstream's new leader Wouter van Kempen to drop the company's  controversial plan to build the east coast's biggest LPG gas tank in this scenic backwater, heart of the Maine lobsterfishing industry

Their crimson colors ("we're steamed!" t'was muttered) stood out nicely from on high. About this issue: here and here  

Activists Form Circle to Create Monster DCP Tank Footprint in Snow

Activists Form Circle to Create 

                    Monster DCP Tank Footprint in Snow

Peter Taber*
Wild Maine Times 1/6/13

SEARSPORT -- Nearly 200 people from as far away as Gorham and Mount Desert Island showed up at Searsport's Mosman Park Saturday afternoon to take part in a regional educational exercise calculated to demonstrate the vast footprint that would be covered by a mammoth refrigerated tank for liquefied propane the Denver firm of DCP Midstream LLC has been openly fighting to build at nearby Mack Point for more than two years.

Speakers at the open air forum  that followed included  two of Belfast's former poet laureates, Elizabeth Garber and Karin Spitfire, who spoke their verse created for this occasion.  


TV News Coverage
Penobscot Bay Watch Ron Huber announced the  recent fall from grace of DCP Midstream's combined CEO, President and Chairman Tom O'Connor and his replacement from within the company ranks as a hopeful sign. He spoke on the rise of  sympathetic opposition to the Megatank plan in DCP's Denver hometown by activists fighting Big Gas 's frack attack on Colorado, and expressed hope the change in DCP leadership would bring a reconsideration of its Searsport Megatank proposal.

Fifth generation Searsporter Harlan McLaughlin held forth on the need to resist, to prevent blots on the landscape and rips in the social fabric.

Singer-songwriters  Emilia Dahlen of Gorham  and George Skala of Stockton Springs and led the gathering in renditions of their creations, respectively, "Circle Round, Circle Round"  and "Stand and Deliver".

Reflecting the regional nature of concern the proposed mega-tank project has aroused,  participants at Saturday's Searsport event came from Belfast, Castine, Freedom, Penobscott, Eddington, Frankfort, Morrill, Lincolnville, Northporth, Stockton Springs, Fryeburg, Swanville, Surrey, Orland, MDI, Deer Isle, Bucksport, Liberty, Searsmont, Camden, Monroe, Brooks, Knox and Waldoboro.

Standing under cold but sunny skies, participants from throughout the Penobscot Bay region and beyond joined hands and spread out evenly for more than 635 feet along the circumference of a circular depression cut the previous day in the snow at the shoreside public park. Their effort was to mark with their combined bodies the full extent of the outer walls of the tank DCP is striving against mounting opposition to erect just to the east at Mack Point near Route 1 homes and businesses and GAC, Inc., the largest chemical plant in Maine.
Were it to be built, the mega-tank would be more than 200 feet in diameter, rise the height of a 14-story building and contain nearly 23 million gallons of propane maintained in its liquefied state only through a large and sophisticated refrigeration plant entirely dependent upon the power grid. It would be part of a terminal complex that would involve clearcutting some 25 acres of woodland and the construction of a mile-long cryogenic pipeline. The mega-tank itself would be the largest such structure in North America and possibly in the world.

"This is not 'just another tank' as the folks at DCP want us to believe," Harlan McLaughlin of Searsport, one of the speakers at Saturday's event, asserted. He pointed out that it would be almost three times higher than the largest conventional petroleum products tank in the tank farm complex at Mack Point and would have more than seven times the capacity. 

He and other participants also expressed fear that if built the mega-tank would be an unsightly blot on the landscape with the potential for catastrophic accident as well as being a particularly vulnerable and tempting target for terrorists. These negative factors combined, they said, would not only threaten the security of area residents but also drive down property values and deal a devastating blow to tourism, which is the economic lifeblood of the region.    

Critics of the project also reject DCP's claim the mammoth tank and associated marine terminal is necessary for Maine's energy independence. They cite the fact that less than one household in 20 uses propane as a primary heating fuel and that number has long been dwindling. Further, they doubt it would be an import facility, as the Denver company fronting for fossil fuel giants Duke Energy and Phillips 66 claims. Rather, they see the $50 million project as much more likely intended for export of the glut of domestic propane that has been realized in the past half dozen years as a result of new fracking and horizontal boring technology. They note that propane is currently selling in Europe for a dollar more a gallon than domestically.

McLaughlin remarked on the reason for the exercise, namely to demonstrate viscerally to all those looking on just how large the mega-tank would be. "There's no other real way to conceive of the hugeness of this monster," he said.

"I'm a hands-on kind of guy," McLaughlin added, gazing across the expanse of snow to distant participants on the other side. "I can read all these figures about this thing being 138 feet high and 202 feet wide but it doesn't really make sense how damn big it is until I can see it all marked out in the real world. That's no doubt why DCP keeps refusing to honor its promise to at least provide us with a 3D scale model. They say that's beyond their capability -- if you can believe that."

"I can't believe that at all," an obviously disgusted Peter Wilkinson of Belfast, one of the event organizers, rejoined. "They gave us a couple of dots on a four-foot projector screen to show us what this behemoth would look like and they said something about needing a lot of computer memory to adequately represent it on a computer. They've consistently under-represented this. Of course they could have done what we did -- anyone could have -- and it cost almost nothing. A pail of wooden stakes, a can of spray paint and a surveyor's tape -- well, I already had that last one. Of course, marking it out in Mosman Park like we did and letting people look at that was the last thing in the world they wanted to do."

Saturday's event was a reprise for Wilkinson and partner Maryjean Crowe, who organized a similar event on 48 hours short notice in Belfast on Nov. 18th that drew some 250 people to form a massive tank-sized circle.

Members of Searsport's board of selectmen, its town manager and state representative and other municipal officials, as well as its planning board, which will resume permit hearings on DCP's application Wednesday, Jan. 16, were provided with written invitations to attend Saturday's educational event. There were no reports that any of them in fact did so

* Ron Huber edited this release by Peter Taber, post publication.
  

Wild Maine Times
Peter Taber, publisher
pipeandtaber@gmail.com
Searsport, Maine 04974
207-930-5753