Posted by: coastlinesproject | September 27, 2012

Huge LNG terminal proposed for Penobscot Bay, 22.7 million gallon tank. Petition included.

 

Press Brief on the LPG Struggle in Penobscot Bay 

Safety and Accountability

 DCP Searsport LLC wants to build a massive LPG facility at the small, multi-purpose

Mack Point port in Searsport, Penobscot Bay, Maine. The facility includes a 22.7 million

gallon LPG tank and approximately 24 acres of related industrial development. The

proposed facility is larger than all other East Coast LPG marine terminals except a

comparable facility in Tampa, Florida, which is surrounded by a 2-mile exclusion zone

and has ample police, fire and medical resources available in the event of a catastrophic

incident.

 Coast Guard review of the proposal confirms that the capability to respond to a LPG

emergency does not exist in the Penobscot Bay region.

 DCP Searsport LLC is a multi-national, limited liability partnership that is a subsidiary of

DCP Midstream Partners, owned, in turn, by Phillips 66 and Spectra Energy. There is

some question as to whether adequate financial accountability exists to ensure full and

timely compensation for emergency response costs, and damages to people and property,

resulting from an incident at their proposed facility or on one of the tankers.

 No one, including the US Coast Guard, disputes that a catastrophic explosion would

devastate the people, economy and environment of Penobscot Bay. Yet DCP has not

conducted a safety assessment.

 LPG is more dangerous than LNG, according to the National Association of State Fire

Marshalls. Federal regulations disqualify Mack Point as an LNG Terminal site because

private homes, restaurants and hotels are just a few hundred feet away – within the hazard

zones for thermal radiation, pool fire, or explosion. Unfortunately, those rules do not

apply to this case even though the National Fire Marshall’s Association determined that

LPG is the more dangerous fuel.

 LPG and liquefied ethylene are more hazardous than LNG because they have (1) higher

specific gravities, (2) a greater tendency to form explosive vapor clouds, (3) lower

minimum ignition energies (MIEs), and (4) higher fundamental burning velocities. Mack

Point is unsafe for a LNG terminal because it is too small.

Read more in Beach wars; 10,000 Years on a Barrier Beach. See Strawberry Hill tab at the top of this page.


Responses

  1. These industrial projects benefit multinational corporations, not the people who live near them. The destruction runs from the gasfields of PA, through pipelines (which, according to Gastem of Canada, all leak) to the beautiful coast of Maine. Don’t allow this to happen. There will be no safe places for people to live. Set up solar panels, wind farms, tidal and wave energy instead and save the earth for the generations to come. If you have children or grandchildren or you care at all, do not allow this project to go ahead.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: